MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Evidences for the Resurrection

Related Media

Introduction

For nearly 2000 years there has been the historical phenomena of Christianity. In spite of the fact that the church throughout its early years suffered intense persecution at the hands of both the Jews and the Romans, it flourished. Many of the first missionaries of the Christian faith died a martyr's death because of their belief in Jesus Christ.

Why were these early Christians willing to face death for their belief in Jesus Christ? It was because they were convinced of the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that this proved without a doubt that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the one and only Savior of the world. And, so for them, death was not the end. The resurrection is a historical fact--not just some philosophical ideal or idea.

Historical Background

As a result, the message of the early church was always centered around the historical fact of the resurrection. And this was not just a theological myth which began circulating 20 or 30 years later among the followers of Jesus Christ. It was a message proclaimed immediately beginning with the morning of the third day. It was a message based upon incontrovertible evidence.

Luke 24:9-11; 33-35 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. . . . 33 And they arose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, 34 saying, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon." 35 And they began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 1:21-22 "It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection."

Acts 2:23-24; 31-32 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. . . . 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

Acts 3:14-15 "But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

Acts 10:39-41 "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

Acts 13:29-39 "And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30 "But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.' 34 "And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' 35 "Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'Thou wilt not allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.' 36 "For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. 38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Acts 17:30-31 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. "

Acts 26:22-23 "And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Notice how the book of Acts begins:

Acts 1:1-3 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Without the resurrection it would have ended with verse 1. Death would have been the conclusion. But notice what verses 2 and 3 have to say:

"Convincing proofs" in verse 3 is the Greek tekmerion which is related to the Greek word tekma, meaning "a fixed boundary, goal, end." Tekmerion means "a fixed and sure sign, evidence, or proof." The word was used of demonstrable proof and evidence in contrast to mere philosophical superstition or in contrast to fallible signs. Galen a medical writer of the second century A.D. so used this word. Here Luke, the historical physician, one practiced in gathering evidence, chooses this special word for sure historical proof, the strongest type of legal evidence.

In addition to this Luke adds to this word "many." So Luke tells us that he had carefully examined the evidence. Dr. Luke, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ and who had personally talked to many eye witnesses, tells us there were many demonstrable and incontrovertible proofs, not merely one or two, but many. (Cf. Luke 1:1-2)

From the beginning there have been those who have rejected the resurrection as a hoax, a tale, a lie or fiction. A number of theories have been advance to disprove the resurrection, but all of these have been solidly discredited by one historical scholar after another. So interestingly, not one shred of solid evidence has ever been given to support these claims. Then why do men make these claims? Because they have never examined the evidence, or because of their prejudice, their philosophical bias, and unbelief in the miraculous.

The silence of Christ's enemies and the lack of historical evidence against the resurrection is almost as strong an evidence as the positive evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have in my library a book covering a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew entitled, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?, the Resurrection Debate. The debate was held in Dallas and was judged by a panel of judges organized into two panels of experts in their respective areas of specialty to render a verdict on the subject matter of the debate. One panel consisted of five philosophers who were asked to judge the content of the debate and render a winner. The second panel consisted of five professional debate judges who were asked to judge the argumentation technique of the debaters. All ten participants serve on the faculties of American universities and colleges such as the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Virginia, Western Kentucky University, James Madison University, and George Mason University.

The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique. Note what one judge said:

I am of the position that the affirmative speaker [Habermas] has a very significant burden of proof in order to establish his claims. The various historical sources convinced me to adopt the arguments of the affirmative speaker. Dr. Flew, on the other hand, failed, particularly in the rebuttal period and the head-to-head session, to introduce significant supporters of his position. Dr. Habermas placed a heavy burden on Dr. Flew to refute very specific issues. As the rebuttals progressed, I felt that Dr. Flew tried to skirt the charges (Habermas and Flew, p. xiv).

Another professional debate judge said:

I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Habermas has already won the debate. . . . . By defeating the Hume-inspired skeptical critique on miracles in general offered by Flew and by demonstrating the strength of some of the historical evidence, Habermas does end up providing "highly probably evidence" for the historicity of the resurrection "with no plausible naturalistic evidence against it." Habermas, therefore, in my opinion, wins the debate (Ibid., p. xv).

A Theological
and Philosophical Absurdity

There are always those who say the historical fact of a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is not important. "It is sufficient" they say, "that one believes in a spiritual resurrection," or as . . .

"the late Norman Perrin, a highly esteemed New Testament scholar of the University of Chicago, remarked not too long ago that the really important thing about the resurrection of Jesus is not the historical reality of that event, but the theological truths that it expresses" (William Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Servant Books, p. xiii).

Others have advocated "you do not need to believe in the resurrection. If this stands in the way of your rationale, just accept Jesus as a great leader and as an example of love, kindness and peace."

This kind of thinking is pure non-sense, illogical, and contrary to the facts of the life of Christ.

We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only insofar as its historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. And there is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history (Craig, p. xiii).

If we take away the resurrection, then Jesus Christ was not even a good human leader, but a human monstrosity who was on the level with a man who thinks he is Captain Marvel. Either he was the world's greatest deceiver and deserved to die, or He was who He claimed to be, the God-Man Savior of the world. And it is the resurrection which makes the difference.

It is not my intention to give all the evidence, but to concentrate on some of the more remarkable and important evidences.

The Evidence of the Stone

Matthew 28:1-4 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; 4 and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

Mark 16:1-4 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.

Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

John 20:1-9 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. 4 And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

The Seal on the Stone

The seal set on the stone (Mt. 27:62-66). As claimed by the Pharisees, this was requested of Pilate to guard against any kind of fraud or lies by the disciples of Jesus Christ. In doing this, however, they provided two more excellent evidences for Christ's resurrection. Unwittingly, they prepared an unanswerable refutation to their own claims in their attempt to discredit the account of the resurrection (cf. Mat. 28:11-15).

The seal included two things: (1) a Roman guard, and (2) a seal consisting of a cord set in wax around the stone where it was connected to the tomb.

Matthew 27:65, "You have a guard: go, make it as secure as you know how."

Some have claimed that Pilate was refusing the request for a Roman guard and telling them to use their own temple guard. But the verb used can be an imperative, "take a guard, make it as sure as you know how." It can also mean he was giving them permission to have a Roman guard.

The word "guard" is the Greek word kustodia, from the Latin or Roman custodia. The use of this particular word would indicate a Roman guard and not the Jewish temple guard. This is further verified by the fact they ask Pilate for a guard. If they could have used their own guards why go to Pilate? Also, if only the temple guards were involved, the statements of verse 14 would have been unnecessary. No one would have to talk to the governor nor bribe anyone.

Why was this important? Because the presence of Roman soldiers at the tomb and the Roman seal over the stone door made the possibility of the religious leaders' claims many times more difficult, if not impossible. The likelihood that these timid, fearful Galilean disciples could or would steal the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers is not only ridiculous, but impossible. Even had the soldiers been asleep, think of the noise the disciples would have made trying to removed the huge stone covering the entrance to the tomb!

The Stone Rolled Away

The tombs in Palestine were somewhat like a cave hewn out of the rocky side of a mountain or hill. They consisted of a rectangular opening into a main room or central chamber with a niche carved into the side of one of the inner walls where the body was placed. At one end was a special elevated place for the head.

The opening of the central chamber was covered by a large circular stone or heavy disc of rock set in a slanting groove so that when the stone was released it would roll by its own weight and cover the entrance. Because of its enormous weight (possibly several tons) it would require the combined efforts of several men to move the stone back up the groove and block it. But who would roll away the stone?

  • The enemies would not for it was their purpose to keep His body there and the door sealed (Matt. 27:62-66).
  • If the disciples had done it and had removed the body they did so without the knowledge of the women, for they came expecting to find the body (John 20:1-2). Besides the guards were present.
  • The women themselves would have been unable to remove the stone. As they came to the tomb the morning of the resurrection, they were wondering, who would role away the stone for them (Mark 16:2-8).
  • Matthew 28:2-4 tells us it was an angel of the Lord. This shows divine intention.

It was not rolled away so Christ could leave because he could pass through the walls in His glorified body. By divine purpose it was removed to call attention to the testimony of the empty tomb. The tomb had been opened not to let Jesus out--but to let people in.

Why did people need to get in? Because within the tomb itself lay some astounding evidence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, the witness of the grave cloths.

The Evidence of Empty Tomb

John 20:2-9 And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. 4 And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

Mary's Response

Upon seeing the stone removed, Mary's immediate reaction is that thieves, perhaps the Jews, have taken the body. Without entering as the other women did, she returns to Peter and John. Her conclusion--"they have taken the Lord" (probably referring to the Jews) .

The Response of the Disciples

John arrived first and saw the linen wrappings. The verb used (the Greek blepo) describes the simple exercise of sight, a single look or glance. At just a casual glance what caught John's eye were the undisturbed wrappings, lying in their natural position as when around the body. The word order makes this evident, "lying" is first. Even a casual glance caught this.

Then Peter arrived and, in his impetuous way, entered immediately. The word "Beheld" is theoreo. This word denotes a purposeful and careful look, one which observes details, not just a casual look. What Peter observed were the linen wrappings.

The Evidence
of the Grave Clothes

Peter's Observation

  • Peter observes the linen wrappings lying undisturbed.
  • He noticed the face napkin rolled up separately, as it had been when the body was prepared, suggesting that the head wrapping had partially retained its annular form.

Had a thief stolen the body he would have taken the body--linen wrappings and all.

Had the wrappings been removed from the body they would not have been in an undisturbed fashion. As previously described, there was a place for the body with an elevated ledge for the head. The head was wrapped separately from the body. If someone had removed these from the body, they would not have been lying as originally placed--the napkin separate in the place where the head had been and the other wrappings where the body had been--undisturbed.

Peter continued to ponder in his heart all he had observed.

John's Observations

When John enters the tomb, what he sees brings immediate understanding, intelligent comprehension of the facts. The word for sight in this verse denotes mental perception resulting principally from the vision.

Peter is pondering all he has observed, but not John. Having now seen the witness of the empty tomb, he understands that His Lord has risen from the dead. In verse 9 we are told he understands and believes. Now he understands the Old Testament Scripture and Christ's own words concerning Messiah being cut off, but returning and reigning by means of the resurrection. (Cf. Ps. 16:10; Dan. 2; Dan. 7; Dan. 9:6) Before they had not understood the Scripture or Christ's words. But now sight comes to John (cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-47).

The Evidence
of Christ's Appearances

The personal appearances of Christ following His resurrection are another overwhelming historical proof. The women and the disciples saw, heard, and even touched the Lord. In fact, 500 brethren saw him at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).

Various explanations have been given concerning the resurrection, but none of them honestly and fairly deal with the record and are clearly prejudicial attempts to deny the evidence.

R. T. France in his book, The Evidence for Jesus, writes about the typical theories regarding Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection and the various attempts to get at the so-called real Jesus through the various theories regarding His life, death, and resurrection, whether in magazine articles, books, or television series. He shows how these invariably give prominence to the theories of skeptics and, by and large, do not treat the Gospels as historical evidence. At the end of the book, after discussing both non-Christian and biblical evidence, he made the following statement:

"In the earlier chapters we have noticed the tendency of some recent writers to try to go behind the NT portrait of Jesus, in search of a more `recent' Jesus who even by the time the New Testament documents were written had been largely forgotten and replaced by a semi-mythical figure, the `Christ of faith'. We have seen repeatedly that the evidence on which such reconstructions are based (when they are not mere unsupported speculation) is in fact later in date than the NT writings, and can generally be identified with what by the second century were regarded as heretical movements, deviations from the original Christian message, usually in direction of a faith more appealing to the philosophical or religious climate of the day." (The Evidence for Jesus, R.T. France, The Jesus Library, Michael Green, series editor, pp. 165-166)

The Evidence
of the Transformed Disciples

The disciples had seen their master die. And because of this, they had lost all hope. Christ had told them he would die and be raised. In fact, it was an integral part of His claims. Yet they were down-trodden, utterly disheartened, and meeting in obscure places. But after the resurrection, we find the disciples joyous, fearless, and bearing public testimony. They were even willing to die--and it is not likely they would be willing to die for a lie. (Cf. Schaff, Vol. I, p. 173f.)

Peter who denied the Lord when confronted by a young girl, boldly proclaimed the word at Pentecost in front of the same religious leaders who crucified Christ.

When we consider the transformation of the disciples in connection with the silence of the Jews and their inability to produce the body of Christ or any evidence to the contrary, the events of Pentecost become another proof of Christ's resurrection.

The Evidence of Pentecost
(Acts 2-4)

Only 50 days following the death and resurrection, Peter preached the doctrine of the resurrection and thousands gathered to hear him. But the important point is he was preaching to people who had access to the tomb. The resurrection was not a new fact, and he was preaching its meaning from the Old Testament Scriptures (Ps. 16:8-10).

No one offered him a rebuttal. The Jews were silent--a silence which is as significant as the boldness of the speech of the disciples. Three thousand people who were in a position to know the facts about the resurrection of Christ believed and were saved. (Acts 2:41; 4:2-14).

There are other tremendous evidences for the resurrection of Christ such as:

  • Old Testament prophecy.
  • The prophecies of Christ himself.
  • The existence of the church.
  • The observance of Sunday, the first day of the week.
  • The transformation and witness of Paul

The evidences we've mentioned in this study are more than sufficient to show the validity of the resurrection. To deny it, in view of the evidence, one must not only deny his rational processes, but he must deny Christianity and the Scripture as valid and providing salvation for mankind.

The Doctrinal Significance
of the Resurrection

The theology of the resurrection is vitally important to the Christian for it affects his salvation and his sanctification. In 1 Peter 1:3 Peter points out we are begotten unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. There are several reasons for this.

  • The resurrection authenticates Christ as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4)
  • The resurrection proves the atoning value of Christ's work (Rom. 4:25). "Raised because of" means it proves the sufficiency of His atonement for our justification. The resurrection did not provide our justification, it proved Christ's death was sufficient to bring justification by faith. Therefore, having been justified (as proven by the resurrection) we have peace (Rom. 5:1).
  • The resurrection ensures our salvation (1 Cor. 15:17-19). It provides assurance for the fact of our salvation and affords comfort with regard to our deceased loved ones (I Thess 4:13f ). There is an inscription found in Thessalonica which reads, "After death, no reviving, after the grave no meeting again." The resurrection guarantees such a belief is false.
  • It is the basis of our sanctification (Rom. 6). As Christ was victorious over sin and death, so we may be victorious by our identification with him.
  • Christ's resurrection as the first fruits from the dead is the guarantee of our own resurrection and of the glorified body we will receive at the resurrection of saints (Phil. 3:20-21).

Thus we can see that by the resurrection, man is provided with a living hope because it depends on a living Savior. All other religious leaders are dead, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius. The founders of religious cults are all in their tombs, their bodies rotting in the dust. Their followers have a dead hope, but they also have something else.

Conclusion

In Acts 17:31 we read,

". . . according as He hath appointed a day in which he shall judge the inhabited earth by One whom He hath marked out having provided conviction for all men because he hath raised Him from the grave."

While the resurrection can provide assurance of salvation, a living hope, it also provides assurance of judgment because the resurrection marks Jesus Christ out as God's Son and God's provision of grace for our sin. For those who reject Christ (God's manifested provision for salvation) there is nothing left but to look fearfully for a day of judgment. It assures the unbeliever of a second death just as it assures the believer of resurrection unto life.

The important question is, do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?

God's Solution for Man's Problem

God is perfect holiness (whose holy character we can never attain to by our own works of righteousness) but He is also perfect love and full of grace and mercy. Because of His love, grace and mercy He has not left us without hope and a solution.

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were sinners, Christ died for us."

This is the good news of the Bible, the message of the gospel. It's the message of the gift of God's own Son who became man (the God-man), lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sin, and was raised from the grave proving both the fact He is God's Son and the value of His death for us as our substitute (Rom. 1:4; 4:25).

2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."

The All-Important Question

How then do we receive God's Son that we may have the eternal life God has promised us? What becomes the issue for us today?

John 1:12: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name."

John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Because of what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, the Bible states that "He that has the Son has life." We can receive the Son, Jesus Christ, as our Savior by trusting in the person of Christ and His death for our sins.

This means we must each come to God the same way--as a sinner who recognizes his sinfulness, repudiates any form of human works for salvation, and relies totally on Christ alone by faith alone for our salvation.

Would you trust in Christ today as your personal Savior? Just tell God that you know you need the Savior, Jesus Christ, and that you want to receive His Son by faith.

Related Topics: Easter, Apologetics, Resurrection

The Death of Death

Related Media

Death and the Word of God:
“The Apple and Adam”

I have entitled this message “The Apple and Adam,” but I can just hear someone say: “Don’t you know that it wasn’t an apple that Adam ate?” Well, I want to tell you right now that I do not know at all that it was not an apple Adam ate. Scripture does not say it was an apple—but Scripture also does not say it wasn’t an apple. It was some kind of a fruit tree, and it could have been an apple just as well as it could have been a peach.

But if you are against Adam eating an apple maybe you would like,

“The Avocado and Our Ancestor”
“The Date and Our Dad”
“The Fig and Our Forefather”
“The Grapefruit and Our Grandfather”
“The Peach and Our Parent”
“The Prune and Our Progenitor” or
“The Cherry and the Chief”

There is no indication whatever that this fruit tree ceased to exist after the fall and that it did not perpetuate itself on earth, as was true of the tree of life. Therefore you may make it any fruit you want. The point is that it wasn’t the fruit of the tree that was bad, but Adam and Eve’s disobedience to the known will of God.

The Lord had specifically told them in Genesis 2:16 and 17, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

The Hebrew of “thou shalt surely die” is “dying thou shalt die.” It is a Hebrew idiom that makes the statement very emphatic. Adam understood this else Adam would also have been deceived. Since he was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:14) it follows he did understand. However, he may not have fully understood all of the ramifications of his act of disobedience.

Death was something totally foreign to God’s creation. God is life and He had constructed the world in accordance with His own nature of being. The world that God had made was “very good”—a statement that could not be made when death entered upon the scene. What a change was brought into the world by man eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! God has said, “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” “At the moment in time that you do what I have commanded you not to do, dying you shall die.” Death was the instantaneous result of disobedience.

I. The Immediate Consequence of Death to Adam and Eve

    A. Psychological Anxieties and Fears

What are some of the consequences that came upon the scene as a result of this judgment that immediately fell upon Adam and Eve? Death is a terrible thing, and one of the first results of sin entering into the world and death by sin was that Adam and Eve feared God. The whole gamut of ‘fear’ entered on the scene beginning with Adam and Eve hiding themselves from the presence of the Lord among the trees of the garden (Gen. 3:8).

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden (Genesis 3:8).

Man had known no fear before, but now he was full of fear. He was fearful of his Creator; he feared judgment; the whole area of guilt entered with all of the anxieties of life. All of the problems of hostility, anxiety, fear and perplexity entered immediately when Adam sinned.

    B. Substitutional Sacrifices

Adam and Eve began to realize something of the consequences of sin when God made for them coats of skins. In order for this to be done innocent animals—animals that had done nothing—gave their life in order to provide an acceptable covering for the man and the woman. Adam and Eve saw the first physical death when these innocent animals died to provide for them “coats of skins.”

The consequences of sin coming into the world are not fully understood until one sees the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ as “the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” He died that we might be clothed with His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21).

Here is the sacrifice of the innocent One who knew no sin, did no sin, in Him was no sin, for us who are sinful. He died as our substitute, in order to provide an acceptable covering for us before God. The full consequence of sin entering into the world is understood only in the light of Calvary.

    C. Hostility in the Animal Kingdom

As the curse fell upon mankind and the world, the animal world was also greatly affected. Adam and Eve would realize something of the further consequences of sin in the world as they visualized the hostility in the animal world.

When the animals passed before Adam, he named them all, but at this time there was no hostility at all. The animal kingdom was one big, happy family. No animal was carnivorous. No animal would hurt or kill another animal. Their food was, just as man, the produce of the earth.

Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so (Genesis 1:29-30).

With the fall of man there was a change in the animal world. The whole of creation found itself in the bondage of decay and corruption together with man. Moreover without exception every creature experienced groaning and pain. Their very existence was in jeopardy and survival was a fight. Each animal had its enemies as it sought to exist in a hostile world. Animals were killing and eating other animals. What a contrast with the world as God had made it, and with the state of things as they will yet exist on earth in the millennium.

God says in Isaiah 11:6 and 7:

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

    D. Deterioration and Infirmity in Body

Another way Adam and Eve would have realized the consequences of death in their life was the physical condition of their own bodies. Instantaneously with their sinful act their bodies began to deteriorate. Their teeth developed cavities, they had aches and pains, sickness and infirmities. They were living in a body that was dying and doomed to destruction in the dust.

    E. The Loss of Loved Ones

But Adam and Eve only experienced the full significance of their act when Eve, the mother of all living, held in her arms her own son (Abel) who had been killed by her other son (Cain). The awfulness of death was brought fully home at that time to Adam and Eve.

Death is the great enemy of mankind. Few people even want to talk about it; they do not even want to think about it. They seek to push it out of their mind and keep on living as if it will never happen. Some have even deluded themselves into thinking there is no such thing as death, that death is only an illusion, a lie, that it does not exist. How wrong can you be. If there is no such thing as death, then God lied to Adam right from the beginning. But He did not lie.

Death, and the fear of death, holds many all their life in bondage (Heb. 2:15). Yet the Lord Jesus Christ became a man specifically so that He could die, and “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death” (Heb. 2:14). Death has been conquered by Jesus Christ. Death was swallowed up in victory because the grave could not hold the Lord Jesus. His resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection. Someday death will be completely conquered, yet it is the very last enemy on God’s time schedule to be defeated. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26).

II. The Meaning of Death

Death means “separation” regardless of the type of death involved. Death is never cessation of existence, nor is it cessation of consciousness.

James 2:26 says: “the body without the spirit is dead.” Whenever there is a separation of the spirit of a man from his body, at that moment death takes place. Just as long as the spirit of a man inhabits the body and is not separated from it, there is life.

In Luke 16 we read the account of the rich man who died and went to Hades. There in Hades (i.e. his soul was in Hades and his body was buried in the ground) he was in torment. He realized also that the beggar that sat at his gate and ate the crumbs from his table was in Abraham’s bosom. He could reason and think. He desired water and someone to return back from the dead to warn his brothers of this place. There was full consciousness of being, thinking, feeling, and remembering.

III. The Three Important Types of Death in Scripture

There are three important types of death in the Word of God: spiritual death, physical death and eternal death. Each death is separation, is the result of sin, and has its remedy in Christ.

    A. Spiritual Death

Spiritual death is “separation from God in time.” The moment Adam and Eve sinned they died toward God. Adam and Eve died spiritually right away and this is seen in the fact that they hid themselves from God. They had a nature that was contrary to God’s nature and that nature, now fallen, found no fellowship with God. The life Adam and Eve possessed did not respond to the life possessed and enjoyed by God. God had not died. Man had died spiritually. No longer did he have spiritual life; he was spiritually dead.

Because this was Adam and Eve’s permanent nature as a result of their sin, this nature is passed on to each child born of the seed of man. We are all born spiritually dead toward God. Thus in Ephesians 2:1 we read: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” This is why Scripture says: “There is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:11-12).

The natural man being spiritually dead would never seek after God; he would always seek to hide from His presence. The reason is because he is spiritually dead. The message of the gospel is that God seeks after us and finds us. The Lord Jesus is come “to seek and to save” that which is lost.

God’s work is to undo the work of sin and death, and the remedy for spiritual death is spiritual life. The word “quickened” is an old English word meaning “to make alive.”

Ephesians 2:1, “And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

Ephesians 2:4-6, We who were dead, have been “made alive.” Salvation is the work of God. Only God can give spiritual life in the place of spiritual death.

John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from [out of] death unto [into] life.”

Once we were in the state of death, but by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ we leave that sphere once and for all and we enter into life with God and all that it entails.

Many individuals who have been born once never realize that they are dead toward God. But whether they feel it or not, they are—and God says they are. If you place a weight on a corpse, he does not feel it at all. Thus the unsaved man may not feel separated from God, but he is.

    B. Physical Death

Physical death is the separation of the spirit and/or soul from the body. James 2:26 says, “the body without the spirit is dead.” Whenever the soul leaves the body, physical death ensues.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

Physical death in the world is the result of the sin of one man—Adam. To be “in Adam” is to be under the sentence of death. The genealogy of Adam is given in Genesis 5. “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (v. 1). As we read on in this book we read over and over that short phrase: “And he died.” This is the book of death.

But there is another book. In Matthew 1:1 we read the only other time the same phrase occurs: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” To be “in Christ” is life and peace. As in Adam all die; in Christ all shall be made alive. Listen to these words of Paul: “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). Because Jesus Christ lives, we shall live also (John 14:19). Even though we may die, we await that future day of our resurrection or the complete redemption of our body (Rom. 8:23). God’s remedy for physical death is resurrection.

    C. The Second Death or Eternal Death

This death is spoken of in Revelation 20:12-15, and it refers to “eternal separation from God.” This state is spoken of as that of perishing.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:14-16).

    1. It is spoken of as hell or gehenna. It is a place of torment prepared for the devil and his angels—a lake of fire—where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

    2. It is spoken of as a place of utter darkness (Jude 13).

    3. It is a place where in eternity will be found “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters and all liars, [all of these] shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 22:8).

I have heard men say in a joking way: “Well, if I go to hell, I am surely going to have a lot of company.” Beloved, this is a fallacious statement. It is correct that there will be many there, for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said, “broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” (Matt. 7:13). But Scripture says it is a place of utter darkness, “the blackness of darkness for ever.” Even though it is a lake of fire, it is not something that is light; it is something that is darkness. God is light and His kingdom is a kingdom of light; this is a place of utter darkness. There is no light there.

I do not know whether you have been in total darkness, but if you have, you realize that you can be standing right next to another person and yet there is no help, no feeling between you and them. There is nothing that satisfies you. You are alone! You can be in a crowd, but you are alone! This is the place that is called the second death.

Eternal death is the result of rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, and failing to believe that He is the Savior of the world.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God” (John 3:17-18).

What do you have to do to be lost? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! But you do have to do something to be saved. And the person who is born once, if they do not do anything, will die twice. There is a second death. If we are going to escape this second death we must have a Savior. If there is no second death, there is no need for a Savior. If we are going to escape this second death and dying twice, we are going to have to be born twice—we must be born again (John 3:7). This is the message of the gospel.

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke to those who rejected Him and said: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24).

The issue between life and death is the person of Jesus Christ. What think ye of Him?

The Lord said the Holy Spirit would be sent into the world to “reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me” (John 16:8-9).

There is only one sin that will take a person to a Christless eternity, and that is failure to believe on the Savior of the world. There is salvation in no other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Act 4:12).

The Word says we are to save some “with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23). When we talk about the second death, we certainly are not talking about something that is a wonderful subject—but it is a reality. This is why the Lord Jesus Christ came, “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:15).

Do you know you have eternal life? Do you know that if you should die today you would go to heaven because the blood of Jesus Christ has saved you? Do you know that you have been rescued, redeemed, taken out of the kingdom of darkness and translated into the kingdom of His dear Son?

If you don’t, you’d better, for this is real. These are not my words, but God’s. This is God’s revelation; I am merely the mailman. There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun, and there is only one way unto the Father. Jesus Christ said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Do you know you are saved? If not, why not, and why not settle it right now?

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

“This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:11-12).

The decision is yours. The issue is life and death.

Death and the Work of Christ:
“The Cross and the Christ”

The greatest parade that the world has ever seen is the parade of death. It started with Adam and it has continued from that day to this. The largest cities in the world are not Tokyo or New York but they are the cities of the dead.

In the words of Paul, death has reigned as a king over mankind: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). “By one man’s offence death reigned by one” (Rom. 5:17).

Death reigned as king over the whole human race until Jesus Christ came and conquered death.

I. The Distinction Between Restoration and Resurrection

The very first thing that must be understood is the difference between restorations to life and resurrection. Twice in the Old Testament people were restored to life. Elisha restored to life the Shunammite’s son in 2 Kings 4:32-37. Then after Elisha’s death, a man was restored to life when his body touched the bones of Elisha in 2 Kings 13:20-21. These are the only two occurrences of restorations to life recorded in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament there are three recorded occurrences, and these are but samples of many that occurred in the ministry of Jesus Christ. One was a little girl 12 years old, another was a young man, and the third one recorded was an older man, Lazarus by name. In the first instance death had just occurred; in the second case the funeral procession was in process; in the last situation Lazarus had been dead four days.

In each of these cases the person was restored back to life again, only to die at some other time. Their restoration was to physical life. Not one of these had gone through death into life so that they could not die again. But Jesus Christ did. He was not restored to life. He was resurrected to life. The life He enjoyed as a resurrected being was not a life subject to death. He came out of death into life. Death had no more power over Him.

Thus we read in Romans 6:9, “Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.”

And in 2 Timothy 1:10, “Our Savior Jesus Christ … hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

How did Christ abolish death? He did so by going ‘through death.’

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14-15).

We may diagram it thus:

The only One who ever passed “through death” into eternal life is Jesus Christ. In doing so He conquered death. He has the keys of death. It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus is called “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5).

II. The Deaths Christ Died

We’ve observed that Scripture speaks of three kinds of death: spiritual, physical and eternal. When Christ died, He took care of the problem of death. He dealt with spiritual, physical and eternal death. In order to do so, He died twice; or He experienced two separate and distinct deaths. He experienced physical death, but He also experienced spiritual death.

Because He was an Infinite Being, He went through physical death, and today there is a man with a body in eternity. Physical death is conquered. There is a man in glory who is the guarantee that all believers will also be there someday in the presence of the Father.

But it is also true that because He was an Infinite Being, the Lord Jesus Christ experienced in spiritual death what a finite person would take an infinite number of years to experience. Thus the Lord, by experiencing spiritual death, took care of eternal death for the believers. He tasted death for every man. No man need die eternally. Provision has been made for his salvation. The lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, and the Lord takes no pleasure in man being involved in the condemnation that is due the devil. To stay in the City of Destruction is to perish with the ungodly (cf. Gen. 19:15-26). To remain in the kingdom of darkness is to become involved in the judgment that will be given those who oppose God and His gospel (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7-9). Salvation is available for man; it is not available for the devil or his angels. It is available because of the deaths Christ died.

It is striking that in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:8 and 9 two plurals are used. It says: “He was cut off out of the land of the living [plural]: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death [plural, ‘deaths’].” It is often true that the Hebrew uses abstract qualities in the plural, but it is also true that the Lord Jesus Christ was cut off from the land of the living both Godward and then manward. The living God was separated from the Son in the darkness of the cross; He was cut off for the first and only time in all eternity from the living God. Then He was cut off from those living on earth. This would signify He died twice—and that is exactly what the next phrase says.

In the first death he made His grave with the wicked for He hung between two thieves. His second grave, (that which was physical) was with the rich. He was buried in a rich man’s tomb. Thus the prophet prophetically sees both His grave with the wicked and His grave with the rich in the deaths He died. Only God could write it so exactly.

    A. The Spiritual Death of Christ on the Cross

The Lord Jesus Christ hung on the cross for a total of six hours. It was not by accident that three of those hours were in light and three were in darkness. The darkness was a supernatural darkness. It was not due to an eclipse of the sun because this day was the Passover. It was full moon, and an eclipse of the sun can only take place when it is new moon. The moon was 180 degrees wrong for there to be an eclipse.

It was not dark because of there being storm clouds in the sky, for there was not a cloud in the sky this day. The Prophet wrote of this day: “I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day” (Amos 8:9). God did just that. It was noon when darkness fell over the land. It was a supernatural darkness from the Lord.

During the first three hours the sufferings of Christ on the cross were at the hands of men. During the last three hours, He suffered at the hands of a righteous and holy God.

From 9 a.m. until noon, man was at the cross pouring out his worst—mocking, reviling, deriding—while during the very same time God was offering up for man His very best. From noon until 3 p.m., man was offering up his best—the only sinless one who had ever lived—while at the same time God was pouring out His worst.

During the first three hours our Lord was the “sinless” Son of God (Heb. 7:26); during the last three hours He was “made sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), and He became the accursed thing. Because God cannot look on sin, neither did He allow man to look on the Lord during this time. God, for the only time in eternity past or future, was separated from the Son, and a veil was hung over the light of the sun in order that man might realize the gravity of the moment.

During the first three hours, Calvary was only a hill outside the city of Jerusalem where the Son of Man was crucified; during the final three hours, Calvary became the brazen altar of God where the Son of God was slain for our sins.

During the light, Christ bore the weight of His own body on the cross; during the last three hours He bore the sins of the whole world.

During the period of light at the cross, we see God’s day toward which everything had been moving in time, but we see man’s night in which the blackness of the fallen human heart was manifest toward Christ. During the period of darkness, we see God’s night when His wrath was poured out on His own Son and which was the only time in eternity in which there was separation between the Father and the Son. But during this same period we see man’s day when salvation is now available to sinful man by grace through merely looking by faith to the cross and the work that Christ did in this moment in time.

In the first three hours, Christ bore the fires of man’s wrath against Him. All the torture man could give was poured out. Death by crucifixion was the greatest torture man had ever devised. In the last three hours, the Lord bore the fire of God’s wrath in His very being, manifesting that He was an acceptable sacrifice—truly “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” In these last hours Christ endured all the sufferings of hell.

The fourth cry of the Lord upon the cross, which took place near the close of the final three hours, was: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This forsaking of the Son by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had taken place the moment sin was imputed to Him. God is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). This was the cup of wrath that Christ anguished over in Gethsemane.

The fifth cry on the cross was “I thirst.” Here the fires of God’s wrath were burning within Him.

In the sixth cry on the cross Christ said: “It is finished.” He had completely accomplished redemption. He had “paid in full” the requirement of holiness and righteousness. Nothing more could be done. The Father is satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ for sin.

The seventh cry on the cross finds Christ saying once again “Father.” He is now back in fellowship with the Father. Spiritual death or separation is over. A complete satisfaction spiritually has been made. Christ died for our sins. He bore the wrath due us in His own body on the tree. He tasted death for every man.

Remember that it is the death Christ experienced on the cross of spiritual separation from the Father which provides eternal salvation for us. It is not the physical death of Christ that saves anyone, but His spiritual death. Our message is about a cross—this is what we preach—-not a tomb.

Christ said He had the power to lay down His physical life at any time and to take it up again (John 10:18). Had Christ laid down His life at another time before finishing the work of redemption and propitiation on the cross, not one of us could have been saved. Even after spending three hours on the cross, had He laid down His life, yet no one would have been saved. The physical death is not the important death. Christ had to go through physical death even as He went through the incarnation and birth. Yet He came out of death being raised from the death. Nevertheless the death He endured and tasted that is significant to our salvation is His spiritual death with the Father and the Holy Spirit. His passing through physical death was then only the logical outcome of His being a perfect sacrifice for sin.

Next we want to consider what happened as the Lord passed through physical death and was raised by the power of God.

Let us never forget that Christ “once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18). He bore “our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). “Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh” (1 Pet. 4:1). He hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Christ … “who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). “Christ … hath loved us and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour” (Eph. 5:2).

    B. The Physical Death of Christ on the Cross

Besides the Lord’s death of spiritual separation, there occurred after this experience physical death. The soul and human spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ were separated from His body, and physical death occurred. We want to spend this lesson looking at what occurred when Christ died physically on the cross.

John records: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar; he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost” (John 19:30). Luke adds another significant detail. “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost” (Luke 23:46). The expression, “he gave up the ghost” is an old English way of simply saying, “He expired”; “He gave His last breath.”

Here is a man laying down His own life. No one had ever done this before. Men have no power over their own life, but their times are in the Lord’s hands. However with Christ, He had the authority or right to lay down His own life and to take it up again (John 10:17-18). The fact that Christ did not lay down His life until the sin problem was finished which makes salvation possible for mankind, and makes His death efficacious.

We want to follow first the physical body of Christ after death, and then follow the soul and human spirit of Christ following death.

      1. The physical body of Christ

After the death of Christ on the cross, John gives a detailed description of what happened to the body of Christ,

John 19:31-42 The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath for that Sabbath was a high day, asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; 34 but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. 35 And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

38 And after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. He came therefore, and took away His body. 39 And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

In this account John gives us the evidence for actual death. We may be assured that Jesus Christ physically died for the following reasons.

(1) The appearance (19:30). Christ cried out; it was a cry of relief. He bowed His head and He expired for the last and final time. His actions signify death.

(2) The expert announcement (19:31-33). The very fact that the Lord’s legs were not broken was because legal experts on the subject of death knew He was dead already. They witnessed to this fact by not breaking the Lord’s legs.

(3) The absolute certainty (19:34). Since these soldiers dare not make a mistake, and since it would not hurt a dead body to have a sword thrust into His heart cavity to make certain He was dead, the Roman soldier did just that. Now there can be no question about it. Life as we know it could not function in a body with a gash into the heart sac large enough for a man to thrust his hand.

(4) The visible fact (19:34-35). John himself says that he was a witness to the fact that he saw both blood and water pour forth from the spear wound. Here was the postmortem performed upon the body of Christ. Since the blood had already separated or coagulated into the red clot (“blood”) and the limpid serum (“water”), it proves that Christ had not only died, but He had been dead some time.

(5) The handling of the body (19:38-42). The final proof that Jesus Christ was dead was the handling of His body. Anyone who has handled a corpse knows what I mean. There is no guesswork involved as to whether they are dead or not. There are two valid witnesses in Israel, both members of the Sanhedrin, who handled His body and they can witness to the fact that this man was dead.

Now by the mouth of two or three witnesses, the truth may be established. Here are many witnesses. All who were there at the cross saw how He died. The soldiers witness to His death by not breaking His legs. The crowd again can testify as to the spear piercing His side. The writer of the Gospel is an eyewitness of the blood and water coming from His riven side. Finally, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus are witnesses that they prepared a corpse for burial.

Before the cross, men did whatever they willed to the Son. In fact, Christ had said in the Garden: “When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Whatever man willed he did to the Son of God, but after Christ died, no unbeliever ever touched the body of Christ. Both Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus were believers, and their claiming Christ’s body forced them to expose themselves as His followers. This caused the Lord’s body to be buried in a rich man’s tomb in a garden that was close to Calvary.

With the body in a tomb “that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid” and with a stone rolled over the entrance and sealed with the seal of Rome, let us now follow the story of the soul and human spirit of the Lord.

      2. The soul and human spirit of Christ

It is most unfortunate that otherwise excellent teachers have stated that Christ’s body went into the grave, His soul went to paradise, while His human spirit went into the presence of the Father. In support of this, the passage of Luke 23:46 is given: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost,” or expired.

That Christ had a body, a soul and a human spirit is very factual. He was perfect man, and so likewise all believers will be forever glorified in body, soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23). Furthermore, it is true that the physical body of Christ went into the tomb, but the soul and human spirit are never divided so that one goes one place and the other goes another place. The soul and human spirit are the immaterial part of being. My soul and human spirit are the real me, and they inhabit at this present time my body. The real person of the Lord was His soul and human spirit, and these were commended into the hands of the Father. For what purpose? That the Father might perform His wishes and desires. Here is a committal, not of place, but of purpose—of accomplishment. The Father could do as He saw fit. Redemption was over. The Son knew where He would be and had just mentioned it, namely in paradise (Luke 23:43). But whether He rose again, He committed to the Father to perform even though He had the power to raise Himself from the dead. The Son wanted the Father to vindicate Him by the resurrection from the dead if His work was acceptable to Him. Thus into the Father’s hands He committed His spirit.

        a. Where did Christ go?

This brings us to the question: Where did the soul and human spirit of Christ go at death? The person of Christ was together in one place. He said to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

Did Christ and the thief on the cross go to heaven when they died, or did they go somewhere else? In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand what is spoken about the place of the departed spirits both in the Old Testament and also in the New.

The place where the soul or spirit of man went at death was called by the Hebrews ‘Sheol.’ It meant simply, “the place of the departed spirits.” The Greeks had the word Hades for identically the same concept. Hades was the abode of the dead. Neither the term Sheol nor Hades designated anything concerning the righteousness or unrighteousness of the person involved. All—righteous and unrighteous—went to Sheol or Hades.

We learn further in both the Old and New Testaments that Sheol and Hades were within the earth itself. One passage in both Testaments will suffice. In Numbers 16 we have the rebellion of Korah. Moses said in reference to these who rebelled;

29 “If these men die the death of all men, or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the LORD.”

31 Then it came about as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground that was under them split open; 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah, with their possessions. 33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly (Numbers 16:29-33).

From this it may be seen that Sheol is in the earth. The Lord Himself verified this, and was even more specific. He said: “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). Thus Sheol or Hades is not only a place in the earth, but it is in the heart of it.

From the teaching of the Lord in Luke 16 concerning the rich man and Lazarus (vv. 19-31) we learn that there are two compartments to Hades. There is an upper portion where the righteous go which is a place of bliss, and a lower portion for the unrighteous which is a place of torment. In this place where there is full capacity of personality with intellect, emotion and will, the righteous and unrighteous sections are divided by a great gulf fixed so that none can traverse from one to the other.

With this background we are ready to consider where Christ went when He died. He went to Sheol or Hades which was in the heart of the earth. But He went to the upper portion of this place. It may be called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) because it is a place of endearment and blessing. It was called by Christ, speaking to the thief on the cross, “paradise.” The Lord told this man: “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). This again signifies a place of bliss. Paradise is a word of Persian origin signifying “a royal park or garden.” Paradise, then, is equivalent to Abraham’s bosom or the upper portion of Sheol or Hades.

Now we can understand why Peter said on the day of Pentecost, quoting what David said of the Messiah,

“For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:25-27).

The word hell here is very unfortunate. The Greek word is ‘Hades,’ not ‘gehenna,’ and should be so translated here and many other places in the New Testament. Peter is quoting from Psalm 16 which speaks of the Messiah, and there the Hebrew word is ‘Sheol.’ The soul of Christ did go to Sheol or Hades, but it was not left there.

29 “Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses” (Acts 2:29-32).

This is the reason the Apostles’ Creed says: “He descended into hell.” It also is the word Hades, and very definitely Christ descended into Hades when He died on the cross (cf. Rom. 10:6-7).

        b. What did Christ do?

This brings us to what did Christ do there in Hades? The Lord never went anywhere but that He did something. He had a purpose and a plan, and He accomplished it. We find that there was both a proclamation and a liberation performed by Him. He both spoke a message and did a work.

(1) His words.

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:18-19).

It was by His death He went and proclaimed a message to the spirits who were in prison in the upper portion of Sheol or Hades. This verse has nothing to do with offering salvation a second time to the lost. This verse does not teach this and neither does any other verse in Scripture. The word “preach” means to make a proclamation, to proclaim something. Christ told them that the sacrifice for their sins had been made. He had made it on the cross (cf. Rom. 3:25). All through the Old Testament sins were only “atoned” or covered over temporarily. Now there had been a complete taking away and remission of sins that are past. Even though these in the righteous portion of Sheol were “unjust” and had been once “disobedient” yet they were saved by grace through faith, and Christ’s death had made their salvation complete.

(2) His work.

The passage that tells us about what Christ accomplished when He died and went to Hades is Ephesians 4.

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.” 9 Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. (Ephesians 4:7-10).

Verse 7 states that the church, the body of Christ, has received grace gifts from the head of the church that ascended on high. Verse 8 then states that when Christ ascended, He did two things. First He led captivity captive (we will come back to this in a moment), and second, He gave gifts unto men. These gifts given to the church on earth are enumerated in verse 11 as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors-teachers. Completing the passage we find in verse 9 that before Christ ascended He first descended. Furthermore, His descent was into the lower parts of the earth. It was not into the lowest parts for He did not descend into the lower part of Sheol or Hades, but was in the upper portion. Verse 10 gives the wonderful truth that the Lord’s ascending was not half way from Sheol, but all the way above all heavens. Christ ascended, not just to the earth’s surface after being in the heart of the earth, but He ascended to the highest heaven, even to God’s throne where He sat down. He assumed His original position in the trinity.

With this background, let us consider the phrase, “He led captivity captive.” Literally, “He captivated captivity.” When an Old Testament believer died, he could not go into heaven because the way had not yet been provided. The blood was not on the mercy seat. Christ had to die and be resurrected and He has provided a new and living way whereby we may approach the Father on the basis of the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:19). But more than this, Christ had to be the firstfruits of death. No one could enter in God’s presence through death before the Son did. He is “the forerunner” (Heb. 6:20), and the leader of many others being their Captain (Heb. 2:10).

Thus believers in the Old Testament died in hope of a future day of victory and of resurrection (cf. Heb. 6:2), yet they had to wait in the upper portion of Sheol until the blood was on the mercy seat and until Jesus Christ led the way. The Old Testament believers were held captive then in Sheol, but Christ came and proclaimed that they were able with His resurrection to go free from their prison house, and when Christ rose from the dead He took all those held captive in the upper portion of Sheol to heaven with Him. He captivated captivity.

Thus the Lord’s ministry was not only on earth, but under the earth. With this in mind we can understand what we read in Isaiah 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me … to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” This is exactly what Christ did. He first made the proclamation and then He captivated captivity. When He ascended, He took with Him into God’s presence all of those that were held captive in the upper or righteous portion of Sheol. He emptied it completely of any inhabitant.

But this is just the beginning. Not only did Christ empty the righteous portion of Sheol or Hades, and lead them all to heaven, but He closed down Hades from receiving any more righteous souls when they die. He changed the place where the righteous go at death.

When a righteous person dies, he no longer descends into Hades, but he immediately goes to be with Christ. The moment the believer is absent from the body, he is present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Paul was “in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ; which is far better” (Phil. 1:23). Furthermore, he was one who was caught up into paradise and this was none other than God’s throne or the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:24). Paradise was no longer a place in the heart of the earth, it was up in heaven (cf. Rev. 2:7). Christ had changed its location by His work in death and His work through death.

This is why Christ said: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Not one person will ever be saved and descend into Hades where the gates of Hades will open to receive this person. The Lord will not lose one. Thus through death Christ destroyed both the power and the fear of death.

Thank God for the deaths Christ died. He tasted death for every man. He through death has conquered death, and stands the Victor over death. He is the One who could say: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26). He said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death” (John 8:51). Christ has changed death for every believer.

Death and the Present Session of Christ:
“The Bier and the Believer”

If the Lord tarries, each of us will someday come face-to-face with death. For each couple, one will be buried, the other will bury, one of us will be in the casket, the other will stand beside the bier. At that time all the emotions of the human heart will be strained and stretched to the fullest capacity until it would seem that the heart would break. As a couple should be prepared for marriage before the wedding, so should we also be prepared, as much as is humanly possible, for separation before it occurs.

Albert Kennedy Rowswell’s poem, “Should You Go First” seeks to express this anticipated separation.

Should you go first, and I remain
To walk the road alone,
I’ll live in memory’s garden, dear,
With the happy days we’ve known.
In spring, I’ll wait for the roses red,
In summer, lilacs blue;
In autumn, when the brown leaves fall,
I’ll catch a breath of you.

Should you go first, and I remain
For battles to be fought,
Each thing you’ve touched along the way
Will be a hallowed spot.
I’ll hear your voice, I’ll see your smile
Though blindly I may grope;
The memory of your loving hand
Will buoy me on with hope.

Should you go first, and I remain
To finish with the scroll?
No dark shadows shall creep in
To make this life seem droll.
We’ve known so much of happiness,
We’ve had our cup of joy;
The memory is one gift of God
That death cannot destroy.

Should you go first, and I remain,
One thing I’d have you know,
Walk slowly down the path of death,
For soon, I’ll follow you.
I’ll want to know each step you take,
That I may walk the same,
For some day, down that lonely road,
You’ll hear me call your name.

Some unknown author, realizing that the true Spirit-filled believer has much more to look forward to, rewrote the last stanza to read:

Should you go first, and I remain,
One thing for sure we know;
We’ll meet again in that bright land
Beyond the golden shore;
God’s great salvation we’ve received
Through Jesus’ matchless Name,
And there in Heaven united be,
We’ll never part again!

I would like to have us realize what Jesus Christ has done to death. He has changed death for every believer. He has done so for three reasons. First of all death is completely changed for the believer because Jesus Christ conquered death.

I. Jesus Christ Conquered Death

From Adam until Christ came and died, death reigned as a king over mankind (cf. Rom. 5:14, 21). In all of this time only two escaped dying—Enoch and Elijah—yet for all who died, they were held captive by this reigning monarch we call death.

When Jesus Christ went to the cross, He did a perfect work in reference to death. His death was to ultimately be “the death of death.”

First of all by partaking of the death of separation from God, He tasted death for every man. No man need taste the fires of hell. The lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). Second, Christ went through death in order to be the victor over death.

While everyone else was a slave to death, He conquered death so that death was subject to Him and not He to it. Death is now the Lord Jesus Christ’s servant, and He is its Master and Lord. This was not always true. This is why we read in Hebrews 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14-15).

A few comments on this passage are pertinent. The only way that God the Son could die would be to assume the nature of man. God cannot die, but someone who is both God and man could die. But being both God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ could not only die, He could conquer death and so become its new master. The old master and lord of death was the devil. This is why we see in the Old Testament that the devil had the power of death in his possession, and would oftentimes use it as he did in Job, chapters 1 and 2. In this passage, the only reason that Satan did not employ it in reference to Job himself was because the Lord had, in his case, specifically restricted him. However it was Satan who was responsible for the death of Job’s servants who were tending his oxen and asses, the servants tending his sheep, the servants tending his camels, and all of his ten children.

Satan’s power of death over all mankind is illustrated by Pharaoh’s rulership over the children of Israel in Egypt. Even though the Israelites were God’s children, they were under the domain and power of Pharaoh. Pharaoh had and exercised at times death over his subjects, and did so in order to keep them in fear and in bondage. Though Pharaoh had the power of death over the Lord’s people as well as his own, he did not exercise it to annihilate the Israelites because he wanted them as his slaves to do his work. Dead slaves would profit his kingdom nothing. Yet Pharaoh’s power of death kept the Israelites in a state of fear and bondage.

However, with the death of the lamb at Passover and the blood applied to the dwellings of the Israelites, everything changed. No longer were the Israelites under the bondage of Pharaoh, and no longer were they to be in fear of death. Now the Lord was the one they were to fear, not Pharaoh (cf. Matt. 10:28). Just so this is exactly what happened when Jesus Christ died. He took death out of the hands of Satan for the saved, and death is controlled today by nail-scarred hands.

So we read in Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” The word “hell” here is Hades, and the best manuscripts read death first followed by Hades: “I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

When a person has keys he has authority over what the keys fit. Whoever dies and whoever enters heaven and Hades is in the Lord’s power. He has the keys and He has not delegated this authority to Peter, or to anyone else. It is not Peter who stands at the gate of heaven to decide who enters therein, but the Lord.

In order to complete the picture, it is necessary to realize that Satan still has the power of death at this present time over those who are in his kingdom. While the child of God has been rescued out of the kingdom of darkness and from the power of the prince of this world (Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13), this is not true for unbelievers. They still are in the bondage of Satan.

When Paul commanded that the Corinthians excommunicate the person who had sinned from fellowship with all believers, he said this: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:4-5). Here is the truth that Satan has the power of death in his kingdom. In this case the believer, who is saved, by the power of God is put back into the sphere of Satan, and outside the ministry and the prayers of the church, outside the high priestly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ at the Father’s throne, outside the ministry of the angels who minister to those who are heirs of salvation. He is placed in this sphere so that Satan may operate and even physically destroy his life. This is the sin unto death which only a believer can commit.

II. Jesus Christ Causes Death

Death has been completely changed for the believer, not only because Jesus Christ conquered death, but because now, in the life of the believer, Jesus Christ is the cause of death. You may ask: “How can this be such a wonderful truth?” First let us see that it is true in Scripture, and then contemplate why it is so very precious.

This truth that the Lord Jesus is responsible for the death of believers is verified not only by His having the keys of death but also by what we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:14. We read in verse 13 that we are not to sorrow for those who have fallen asleep in Christ as others do which have no hope, “for if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” The phrase that is so important is “sleep in Jesus.”

The Revised Version margin reads: “through Jesus” and does so because this is the literal rendering of the phrase in the Greek. Paul knew the preposition for “in” and he could have certainly used it here if that was what he intended, but he did not. He plainly said these who are believers “sleep through Jesus.” This signifies causative action. Jesus is the one responsible that they fell asleep before He returned. He is, moreover, not just indirectly responsible, but directly responsible for their death.

This is the way all of the early Greek writers understood the phrase, and they certainly knew their language. Later in church history men wanted to find some other way of rendering this Greek construction, because to understand it as “through Jesus” made Jesus Christ responsible for the believer’s death. Yet it is a parallelism: “God will bring with Him—those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.”

What men have failed to realize is that if Jesus Christ is not responsible for the believer’s death, then there is only one other who can be, and that is the devil himself. While the devil was responsible for causing death at one time, this is no longer so for the Lord’s child. By the authority of the Word of God, any believer who dies, regardless of how he dies, dies because “Jesus” took him home to be with Him.

This precious truth should give us a whole new understanding of death for the child of God. Satan is not responsible for the death of believers. Fate is not the cause for a person dying. “Jesus” is.

The very fact that Paul here uses the human name for the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, is significant. “Jesus” is used by itself very sparingly in the epistles, and I feel it should also be used, accordingly, very sparingly in our speech. Paul uses it only a total of twelve times; seven times it is used in Hebrews; and six times in the book of Revelation, making a grand total of twenty-five times in all the Word of God.

“Jesus” is the Lord’s human name. It signifies the Lord as one who can “be touched with the feelings of our infirmities.” Here is the one who wept over the death of someone He loved dearly. He knows what we experience because He also experienced the same. We are not to sorrow as others who have no hope, but we still do sorrow—and He knows and cares.

The sting of death will someday be completely removed. If someone tells you that the believer should have complete victory over the death of a loved one because it no longer bears any sting, he is out of touch with reality, and also he does not know the Scriptures. The Word says the sting is removed only when death is swallowed up in victory through resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:54). Then we at that time will be able to say: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (15:55). Until that time death has a sting and the grave is victorious for a season.

We still sorrow, and we should. God does not want us to repress that sorrow. But we should not sorrow for believers as others who have no hope.

III. Jesus Christ Consecrated Death

This brings us to our third consideration. Jesus Christ has changed the entire content of death. Even though it is still appointed unto men once to die, yet death is no longer the same thing for believers. The Lord changed its nature by His resurrection and ascension.

He said, “Because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19). The Lord stands as the firstfruits of the coming harvest of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23). Jesus Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection. Furthermore, it is the guarantee of our acceptance before the Father for all eternity. Jesus Christ “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The Lord, through suffering and death, is doing a work of “bringing many sons unto glory” (Heb. 2:10). He is the Captain of our salvation; He is our forerunner, and the guarantee that someday we will also be bodily in the presence of the Father just as Jesus Christ Himself is now (Heb. 6:19-20).

Not only did Christ change death for the Old Testament believers by leading captivity captive to heaven when He ascended, but He has changed death for all believers today who die. We need never fear death as an experience. Paul was one who was caught up into paradise to the very throne of God (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). There he “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (12:4b). After this Paul faced death at Rome and he actually preferred death if this was the Lord’s will. For him death was to gain, not lose (Phil. 1:21). His own personal desire was “to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better” (1:23). To remain behind was what was hard.

Now the only way that there could be blessing in death for Paul and for any believer was that the soul went immediately to be with the Lord. New Testament Scriptures speak about a person who is a believer and has died as sleeping, but it is never the soul that sleeps. Sleep is only used of the body. The analogy is that just as the body sleeps, it pictures but a temporary situation. Soon there will be an awakening, and the mind and body will again function as one. This is a picture of the believer whose body sleeps but his soul is with the Lord. Later the Lord unites both together at the rapture, and the believer will be body, soul and spirit before the Lord.

13 “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:13-18).

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23).

The Son prayed to the Father in John 17, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me …” (v. 24). This has been answered in part, and today the souls of all the righteous are with the Lord. Moreover, whenever a believer dies now, he goes immediately to be with the Lord. Paul said,

“Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight—we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-8).

Paul was confident about this; it was a settled issue for him and he knew for all believers at Corinth. For all believers he says, we are well pleased, we take pleasure in rather our being away from home out of the body and to be at home with the Lord.

Conclusion

Our Savior Jesus Christ has “abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10). He has destroyed death. Jesus Christ’s resurrection was the death of death. “How is this possible,” you say, “when men still die?” Here is how.

When Adam sinned in the garden, spiritual death was immediate. Physical death came later as a consequence of that act. Just so when Christ died on the cross, the provision for eternal life was immediately available. Physical life or resurrection life followed later in God’s program as a result.

John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish [should never experience eternal death], but have everlasting life.” When I believed, I had at that moment everlasting life. Everlasting life does not begin at my death, but when I received Jesus Christ.

“He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13).

Death at that moment was abolished. I will never be separated from God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit. Even though I may go through a state of physical death, there is no separation from the Lord.

“For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39).

Where there is no separation from the Lord, there is no spiritual death. I have life, then, and immortality right now through believing the gospel concerning Jesus Christ, and someday I will have also incorruption.

“… in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:52-53).

The believer, then, may die physically, but there is no spiritual death. The believer is at no time separated from the Lord, even at the instance of physical death. The person who suffers at the time of death is never the believer who dies, for he goes immediately to be with the Lord. Those who suffer are the ones who are left behind. As the Lord has dealt with spiritual death and abolished it by offering life and immortality to all who will believe the gospel, so the Lord will someday abolish physical death. It is, however, the last enemy that shall be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).

After this comes eternal death which is called in Scripture, the second death. We have seen that God has a remedy for spiritual death. It is to believe the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. We have seen that God has a remedy for physical death. It is resurrection by Jesus Christ that will take place in God’s future program. Now what is the remedy for the second death? When and how is it destroyed?

Beloved, it is not destroyed—ever. There is no remedy for eternal death once it is entered into. There is no escape from this torment that was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 6:2; Rev. 14:10-11; 20:10; Isa. 66:24). It is everlasting, never-ending punishment which was never meant for man, but which he receives when he fails to flee to the only person in all the world who can save a sinner from destruction. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. If He is rejected, there is no other (cf. Acts 4:12).

Jesus Christ, through His death, has provided escape from eternal death, but once eternal death is entered, there is no escape. It is a place where “the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” It is spoken of as a place of “everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2), and stands in contrast to “everlasting life.” As the one is eternal, so is the other.

Since there is no escape, this is why Paul wrote: “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). There is no salvation, no escape, in that day. Our Lord said: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: But strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

The broad way ends in “destruction.” The narrow way ends in “life.” Each man chooses which way he will go—the way of the Lord or the way of the multitude. The one starts out broad, but it ends at a point—destruction.

The other starts out narrow—Christ is the only way unto the Father (John 14:6)—but it ends in life.

What way are you going?

Death and the Ministry of the Holy Spirit:
“Dying Grace and the Believer”

Dwight L. Moody was once asked if he had dying grace. His reply was “No, I don’t. The Lord has not called me to die. When He does, He will give me dying grace.” His point was this: the Lord does not give grace until we need it. When He calls upon us to go through an experience, He then gives us grace equal for the occasion.

A few hours before D. L. Moody’s home-going, he awakened from sleep and said: “Earth recedes, Heaven opens before me. If this is death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go!”

His son who was standing by his bedside said: “No, no, father, you are dreaming.”

“No!” said Mr. Moody, “I am not dreaming: I have been within the gates: I have seen the children’s faces.” A short time elapsed and then, following what seemed to the family to be the death struggle he spoke again: “This is my triumph; this my coronation day! It is glorious!”

Dying grace is a term or expression that we use to express what happens just before a believer dies. It may be a longer or a shorter period of time, but it refers to that peace and elation which is experienced just before death. It may be something experienced when the person himself knows nothing about his home-going, but the Lord did. It may be when death is certain, as in the case of dying with cancer, that dying grace is extended to the believer over a long period of time. Even though there may be great pain and suffering, yet in the midst God gives rest and peace. Thus the believer is enabled to have a wonderful testimony and perhaps the most productive period of witnessing of God’s power in all his life.

In this lesson we want to look at this dying grace, and see what is involved.

I. Dying Grace: The Ministry of the Holy Spirit

We who are saved so often take all of the blessings we receive from the Lord for granted. This is very unfortunate and inconsiderate.

David said:

“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits” (Ps. 103:2).

“Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to usward; they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered” (Ps. 40:5).

“How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Ps. 139:17-18).

Here is just one of those great blessings: when we die, we receive from the Lord dying grace.

In order to see what dying grace is, we need to begin at the beginning. When we trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, we were given eternal life. It is God’s gift to all those who believe on His Son (John 3:14-16; 1 John 5:11-12). God’s word says: “Whosoever believeth in him [His Son] should not perish, but have eternal life.” We are part of the whosoevers. We have believed; we cannot perish; we have eternal life.

What is so wonderful is that we are not promised eternal life at some future date, but we have it right now in time. It is not a case that we may not make it; it is a situation where we already have it. Moreover it is impossible to have eternal life and then suddenly not have it. If such could happen then we never had eternal life, because you cannot have life that never ends and then suddenly have it end. This is a contradiction. It is an impossibility. But God says we who are the “whosoevers” have it.

Because every believer has eternal life, and has it in time in a human body, he has life that never ends. There is a sense, then, where the believer will never die. In fact the Lord Himself said: “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11:26). How is this possible?

Death in Scripture speaks of separation. But the believer will never be separated from the Lord. Therefore the believer will never die.

No one ever died in the presence of the Lord Jesus because He is the Lord of life. No one could die in His presence. His very presence is life (cf. 1 John 5:11-12). Thus the believer may change his abode from earth to heaven, but he will never die because he will never be separated from Him. Paul said: “I stand persuaded that death shall [not] be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:39).

As we have seen, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6-8). Since we live with Him here and go on living with Him there, we never die. We are continually in His presence.

Now it is the work of the Holy Spirit to take the Word of God and lead the believer into its full blessings. It is the Spirit that “searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God … [and] we have received … the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” (1 Cor. 2:12).

What the eye has never seen, what the ear has never heard, what has never been understood in the experiences of man, God reveals them to us through the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9-10). This is very true at the time of death. As the believer approaches death, the Holy Spirit within shows him something of the glories of the other side. In seeing what is ahead, he desires to depart and be with Christ which is exceedingly the better thing. This is dying grace. It is the desire to go on living on the other side in the Lord’s presence.

Some may say: “Well, I am certainly not looking forward to dying this year.” This is good I am glad you are not. We have many things we want to do. We have families to raise, and work for the Lord that is unfinished. It is right that we have things to live for, and that we are not ready to leave. The point we need to remember is that we will not be given grace to die until and unless it is our time to depart and be with Christ.

Some of us may wish the Lord would come for us, or that He would call us home. We desire this not really because we love Him, or love His appearing, but we would just like to escape the pressures and trials here below. This is a most unfortunate state. It means that we have not been appropriating His grace for the situations we are in. God is able to make all grace abound both in life and in death. For some of us, we would much more appreciate the Lord giving us dying grace and taking us home, than what He is doing. His will for us is to appropriate living grace and be more than conquerors right here on earth in time. Whatever may be our need for grace, let us appropriate it.

II. Dying Grace: The Actual Experience

There is a great contrast that is seen between the death of a believer and the death of an unbeliever. This is something that is not seen so much today because of all of the modern drugs that are given people. So often today the individual who is dying is so drugged that the difference between the death of a person who is a believer, and the death of a person who is an unbeliever is not distinctly seen. But this was not true in previous generations.

I want to give you death-bed statements made by both unbelievers and believers. Remember in listening to these that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34).

    A. Unbelievers

These receive no dying grace. They have no grace because they have spurned the grace of God which is found only in Jesus Christ (cf. Tit. 2:11). You will notice that sometimes these are just words and phrases, and not complete sentences.

Talleyrand Perigord: “I am suffering the pangs of the damned.”

Merabeau: “Give me laudanum that I may not think of eternity.”

Francis Newport: “Oh, that I was to lie upon the fire that never is quenched a thousand years, to purchase the favor of God and be reunited to Him again! But it is a fruitless wish. Millions of millions of years will bring me no nearer to the end of torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity! Forever and forever! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell!”

Thomas Hobbs (a skeptic): “If I had the whole world, I would give it to live one day. I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at. About to take a leap into the dark!”

Thomas Paine (a noted American infidel and author): “I would give worlds if I had them, that ‘The Age of Reason’ had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? But there is no God! But if there should be, what will become of me hereafter? Stay with me, for God’s sake! Send even a child to stay with me, for it is hell to be alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one.”

Francis Voltaire (the noted French infidel): He was one of the most fertile and talented writers and strove to retard and demolish Christianity. His cry in health concerning Christ was, “Curse the wretch!” He said once, “In twenty years, Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear.” Some years after his death, his very printing press was employed in printing New Testaments.

The Christian physician who attended Voltaire during the last illness, has left a testimony concerning the departure of this poor lost soul. He wrote to a friend as follows:

“When I compare the death of a righteous man, which is like the close of a beautiful day, with that of Voltaire, I see the difference between bright, serene weather and a black thunderstorm. It was my lot that this man should die under my hands. Often did I tell him the truth. ‘Yes, my friend,’ he would often say to me, ‘you are the only one who has given me good advice. Had I but followed it I would not be in the horrible condition in which I now am. I have swallowed nothing but smoke. I have intoxicated myself with the incense that turned my head. You can do nothing for me. Send me a mad doctor! Have compassion on me—I am mad!’”

The physician goes on to say:

“I cannot think of it without shuddering. As soon as he saw that all the means he had employed to increase his strength had just the opposite effect, death was constantly before his eyes. From this moment, madness took possession of his soul. He expired under the torments of the furies.”

At another time his doctor quoted Voltaire as saying:

“I am abandoned by God and man! I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months’ life. Then I shall go to hell; and you will go with me. O Christ! O Jesus Christ!”

Charles IX: This cruel wretch, urged on by his inhumane mother, gave the order for the massacre of the Huguenots in which 15,000 souls were slaughtered in Paris alone, and 100,000 in other sections of France, for no other reason than that they owned Christ, and not the Pope, as their master. The guilty King died bathed in blood bursting from his own veins. To his physicians he said in his last hours: “Asleep or awake, I see the mangled forms of the Huguenots passing before me. They drip with blood. They point at their open wounds. Oh! that I had spared at least the little infants at the breast! What blood! I know not where I am. How will all this end? What shall I do? I am lost forever! I know it. Oh, I have done wrong. God pardon me!”

David Strauss: Outstanding representative of German rationalism, after spending years of his life trying to dispense with God: “My philosophy leaves me utterly forlorn! I feel like one caught in the merciless jaws of an automatic machine, not knowing at what time one of its great hammers may crush me!”

Sir Thomas Scott: “Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty.”

M. P. Rich (an atheist): “I would rather lie on a stove and broil for a million years than go into eternity with eternal horrors that hang over my soul! I have given my immortality for gold; and its weight sinks me into an endless, hopeless, helpless hell.”

    B. Believers

Here is the contrast. Here are believers who have accepted the grace of God for salvation and have received all of the immediate benefits as well as all of the myriad of subsequent ones. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). God has given us all things, and one of His provisions to us is dying grace.

Jordan Antie: “The chariot has come, and I am ready to step in.”

Margaret Prior: “Eternity rolls up before me like a sea of glory.”

Martha McCrackin: “How bright the room! How full of angels!”

Dr. Cullen: “I wish I had the power of writing; I would describe how pleasant it is to die.”

B. S. Bangs: “The sun is setting: mine is rising. I go from this bed to a crown. Farewell.”

John Arthur Lyth: “Can this be death? Why, it is better than living! Tell them I die happy in Jesus.”

Trotter: “I am in perfect peace, resting alone on the blood of Christ. I find this amply sufficient with which to enter the presence of God.”

Mrs. Mary Frances: “Oh, that I could tell you what joy I possess! I am full of rapture. The Lord doth shine with such power upon my soul. He is come! He is come!”

Philip Heck: “How beautiful! The opening heavens around me shine!”

Sir David Brewster (inventor of the kaleidoscope): “I will see Jesus: I shall see Him as He is. I have had the light for many years. Oh, how bright it is! I feel so safe and satisfied!”

Charles Wesley (author of over 4,000 published hymns): “I shall be satisfied with Thy likeness. Satisfied!”

John Wesley: “The best of all, is, God is with us.”

Abbott: “Glory to God! I see heaven sweetly opened before me.”

Augustus Toplady (author of “Rock of Ages”): “The consolations of God to such an unworthy wretch are so abundant that He leaves me nothing to pray for but a continuance of them. I enjoy heaven already in my soul.”

John Quincy Adams: When John Quincy Adams was eighty years of age a friend said to him, “Well, how is John Quincy Adams?” “Thank you,” he said, “John Quincy Adams is quite well. But the house where he lives is becoming dilapidated. It is tottering. Time and the seasons have nearly destroyed it, and it is becoming quite uninhabitable. I shall have to move out soon. But John Quincy Adams is quite well, thank you.”

At death he said: “This is the last of earth. I am content.”

Mrs. Catharine Booth (wife of the general of the Salvation Army): “The waters are rising, but so am I. I am not going under, but over. Do not be concerned about dying; go on living well, the dying will be right.”

Elizabeth B. Browning: an English poetess who had said: “We want the touch of Christ’s hand upon our literature.” At death’s door, she said: “It is beautiful!”

John Bunyan (author of “Pilgrim’s Progress”): “Weep not for me, but for yourselves. I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, through the mediation of His blessed Son, receive me, though a sinner, where I hope we shall meet to sing the new song, and remain everlastingly happy, world without end.”

John Calvin (the French Protestant Reformer at Geneva): “Thou, Lord, bruisest me, but I am abundantly satisfied, since it is from Thy hand.”

Adoniram Judson (American missionary to Burma). He wrote: “Come, Holy Spirit, Dove Divine,” and other hymns. He died at sea and his body was committed to the great deep. He said: “I go with the gladness of a boy bounding away from school. I feel so strong in Christ.”

A. J. Gordon: As he lay in the chamber in West Brookline Street, Boston, looked up and with one radiant burst of joy cried: “Victory! Victory!” and so he went home.

Dr. William Anderson (of Dallas, Texas): He seemed better though still very ill. His mother was sitting in the room with him. He gently called to her, “Come over here a minute.” As she approached his bed he said, “I want to tell you something. I am going to beat you to heaven.” And with a smile he shut his eyes and was gone.

Dr. Sewall (an old Methodist): When dying he shouted aloud the praises of God. His friends said, “Dr. Sewall, do not exert yourself; whisper, doctor, whisper.” “Let angels whisper,” said he, “but the soul cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ, a soul redeemed from death and hell, just on the threshold of eternal glory—oh, if I had a voice that would reach from pole to pole, I would proclaim it to all the world: Victory! Victory! through the blood of the Lamb!”

From Spurgeon’s sermons: A Welsh lady, when she lay dying, was visited by her minister. He said to her, “Sister, are you sinking?” She answered him not a word, but looked at him with incredulous eye. He repeated the question, “Sister, are you sinking?” She looked at him again, as if she could not believe he would ask such a question. At last, rising a little in her bed, she said, “Sinking! Sinking! Did you ever know a sinner to sink through a Rock? If I had been standing on the sand, I might sink; but, thank God, I am on the Rock of Ages, and there is no sinking there.”

Samuel Rutherford: When he was dying said: “I am in the happiest pass to which man ever came. Christ is mine, and I am His; and there is nothing now between me and resurrection, except—Paradise.”

A Moslem said: “What did you do to our daughter?” This Moslem woman’s child had died at sixteen years of age. “We did nothing,” answered the missionary. “Oh, yes, you did,” persisted the mother. “She died smiling. Our people do not die like that.” The girl had found Christ and believed on Him a few months before. Fear of death had gone. Hope, giving birth to joy, had replaced it.

Tom Roth was a member for a number of years of Reinhardt Bible Church in Dallas, Texas. My wife and I knew him and his family well. He died after an extended illness with cancer, having moved to Orange, California. The following letter was written by him three days before his death to Lowell Wendt, Pastor at Reinhardt.

Dear Brother Lowell:

Greetings in our Savior’s Name! Thank you for your fine letter received yesterday. Since I am not sure you have the most recent information concerning me, the gist of the matter is that the doctor concedes my condition very grave, and humanly speaking, he does not consider recovery possible. For that reason we have made arrangements for a funeral service to be held here at Orange Villa Bible Church with Dr. Feinberg and Dr. Bach as speakers. My main desire is that the service be a triumphant one, with hymns that will bring honor and praise to our wonderful Lord. We are asking the pastor to announce that no flowers be given, that those who would like to make a spiritual investment to the Lord donate money to the local building fund.

Therefore, we are asking any of our friends at Reinhardt who are like-minded, should give their money gift to the missionary program of Reinhardt Bible Church.

You will be notified as to my GLORY GRADUATION which seems to be immanent. See you up there one day!

Sincerely, your brother in Christ, Tom

What is heaven like? I do not know, and, furthermore, I do not care. The New Testament in speaking of the death of saints not once mentions the thought of their going to heaven. It only speaks of their going to be with a person. Where that person is, is incidental.

“Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:13).

“Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23).

“Absent from the body, present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).

“The time of my departure is at hand … There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6, 8).

The reference here to those “that love His appearing” is not a reference in context to the Lord’s second coming, but to the believer being welcomed home by the Lord Jesus Christ at the time of death (cf. Acts 7:56).

Not one of us knows when we will be called upon to depart to be with Christ by death rather than by the rapture. It could be this year, yet “our times are in His hands.” It is our business to occupy until He comes. If He does call us to Himself, He will give us dying grace.

There may be someone reading this who is not ready to die. If you are not ready to die, you are not prepared to live. The Lord Jesus Christ came that men might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10). The grace of God is extended to you today in the person of Jesus Christ.

Related Topics: Hamartiology (Sin), Soteriology (Salvation), Resurrection

The Empty God

Related Media

A Biblical and Theological
Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis

Introduction

An increasingly prevalent teaching in evangelical circles, particularly in charismatic circles, is the doctrine of Kenosis. This false teaching is drawn from impure wells, it is dangerous because of the other false doctrines it leads to, and it flies in the face of the heart of Christian teaching. What is it? The doctrine teaches that the Messiah, in order to assume the form of a servant and become incarnate (into human flesh), had to give up some, several, or even all the powers and attributes of God and "live as a mere man." The advocates of this heresy, in an effort to assume an orthodox posture, try to say that the Son somehow "remains God," though He has given up all parts of that being. This teaching, which denies so much of the heart of the orthodox faith, comes from the misinterpretation and misconstruction of one Greek word.

This word, and the doctrine it describes, refer to the deep, mysterious, but vitally important passage of Philippians 2:5-8, and especially in verse 7, where it says Christ "made himself of no reputation," or "emptied himself." The word in the original is ekenosen, from the root word kenoo, which can mean "to empty." The other references to the word are Romans 4:14, where the meaning is "made void," 1 Corinthians 1:17, where it means "of none effect," 1 Corinthians 9:15, where it means "make void," and 2 Corinthians 9:3, where it means "to be in vain." These references all refer to abstract principles, such as faith, preaching, or boasting--none of them refer to a person, or even to an object. Therefore, the use of the word as it is used in Philippians 2:7 is unique. The question, which shall be repeated later is "of what did Christ empty Himself?" The teachers of Kenosis say that what Christ did was to "empty Himself of all power."

The doctrinal area in which we are dealing is not academic, it involves the very heart and center of our faith. It is also not just a matter for scholars, but is for all of us. Kenotic teaching has become prominent in charismatic circles, and is the basis for much of what they promulgate. Indeed, much of the weird theology that surrounds the so-called "faith" movement is based on a Kenotic understanding of the incarnation, combined with a new-age-like leap of logic that says that since Jesus left His powers and attributes behind and lived as a mere man, we born-again believers are ". . . just as much an Incarnation of God as Jesus was" (Kenneth Copeland)

In another leap of logic, these teachers move then to the Mormon-like doctrine of apotheosis (we are little Gods). This trend so concerned Walter Martin that the last thing he wrote before going home to be with the Lord was a contribution to a book refuting these theological trends among TV evangelists.1 This paper on Kenosis is not a detailed analysis, but is instead an expanded outline with footnotes, covering these major areas:

  • The Doctrine of Kenosis This part of the paper includes reference material that traces this view to the 19th-century German liberal theologians that first promulgated the Kenotic teaching, and compares it with modern Kenotic teaching.
  • The orthodox position on Christ's humiliation. Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.
  • A Critical Refutation of the Kenosis doctrine.
  • An alternative method of handling the "problem verses" without deviating from orthodox Christology.

    I. The Doctrine of Kenosis

      A. Classic Kenotic Teaching

        (1) "About the middle of the nineteenth century a new form of Christology made its appearance in the Kenotic theories."2 This is how Berkhof introduces the subject. He then delineates three forms of Kenotic teaching--the first, and least offensive, seems to fit the general view: "Thomasius distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God . . . and His relative attributes, which are not essential to the Godhead, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; and maintains that the Logos while retaining His divine self-consciousness, laid the latter aside, in order to take unto Himself veritable human nature."3

        (2) "The essence of the original kenotic view is stated clearly by J. M. Creed. 'The Divine Logos by His Incarnation divested Himself of His divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, so that in His incarnate life the divine Person is revealed and solely revealed through a human consciousness.'"4

        (3) Charles Hodge classes this view under Modern Forms of the Doctrine [Christology], and includes it under a class of doctrines called Theistical Christology taught by various German theological liberals of that era.5 One form of the view is as follows. "...that the Eternal Logos, by a process of self-limitation, divested Himself of all his divine attributes. He ceased to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He reduced Himself, so to speak, to the dimensions of a man."6

      B. Comparison with the view of Kenneth Copeland (as a representative of the "Faith Message" school of thought).

This seems to be the general view of the entire "faith message" school of thought, and it is becoming prominent in other charismatic circles as well.

        (1) "Jesus hadn't come to earth as God; He'd come as a man. He'd laid aside His divine power and had taken on the form of a human being--with all its limitations."7

        (2) "They [orthodox Christians] mistakenly believe that Jesus was able to work wonders, to perform miracles, and to live above sin because He had divine power that we don't have...They don't realize that when Jesus came to earth, He voluntarily gave up that advantage [deity] living His life here not as God, but as a man. He had no innate supernatural powers. He had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by the Holy Spirit... He ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Spirit."8

      C. General Comment

The writer of this paper has encountered this teaching in other theological circles, and in at least one other prominent tele-evangelist who is not from the "faith message" camp.

    II. A Positive Affirmation, from Scripture, of the Orthodox Position on Christ's Humiliation in Relation to Philippians 2:5-11.

Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.

      A. The self-emptying of Christ was mainly an emptying of the external trappings and Glory of Deity.

The context of Phil. 2:5-11 is that Christ emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. Indeed, the overall issue, from 2:1 through the end of verse 15, is on various forms of outward expression, Christ being the example for the life of the saints in Philippi.

        (1) Paul was stressing to the Philippians that they should be self-sacrificing, and should not have personal glory in mind as they live their life. Then, he used the Incarnation as an example. (2:1-5)

        (2) Christ, says Paul, was in the form (morphe, an outward expression of an inward reality) of God, and did not consider this Glory, this expression of equality with the Father something to be grasped, or held on to (see John 17:1-5, 24).

        (3) Most modern translations say in verse 7 "emptied Himself", but the King James and the New King James read, "made Himself of no reputation." About this difference, one evangelical scholar wrote "The A.V., while not an exact translation, goes far to express the act of the Lord."9 ( In this quote, A.V. stands for Authorized Version, or King James). Then it says, "taking the form of a servant." As we have been talking about outward expressions, vainglory, outward form, etc., and as that is the subject from here through verse 15, the plain sense of scripture here is that Christ's self-emptying was of the outward glory and majesty of Godhood, and that He accomplished that action by taking the form of a servant. This, of course, is what Paul is asking the Philippians to do. Context is vital here--Paul is not telling the Philippians to lay aside, discard, or disregard their natural abilities and talents, (attributes and powers), he is telling them to submit them to the will of God and the good of the whole church.

          a. Possibly because of the negative theological background for it, B.B. Warfield went so far as to call the literal translation of kenoo as "emptied Himself" a "mistranslation."10

          b. "Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word (John 1.1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead."11

          c. "He emptied, stripped Himself if the insignia of Majesty"12 (Emphasis added)

          d. "When occasion demanded, He exercised His divine attributes."13

        (4) Verses 8-11 continue the thought--Christ is "...found in appearance as a man...", and continued His voluntary humiliation through to the Cross, then is exalted by the Father (as He discussed with the Father in John 17).

        (5) Other Scriptural references that establish the same principal:

          a. John 1:1-14. After laying out His perfections, [(1) "The Word was God"--Deity; (2) "He was in the beginning with God," Eternity; (3) "All things were made through Him..." Creator; (4) "In Him was life..." Self Existence;] John says "and the Word became flesh." It is not that God the Son gave up anything, but that He added something--He took humanity to Himself.

          b. 2 Cor 8:9 "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." He gave up the external glories of His riches, but did He really give up ownership? No--in His earthly ministry, He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, and exercised dominion over natural phenomena, disease and demonic forces, and even demonstrated His possession of the power of life and death. His poverty did not consist as much in what He gave up (for He still retained title to it) as in what He took on--our nature.

          c. 2 Cor 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." In His act of atonement, did He give up His own essential Holiness? No, again, it was not that He gave up anything, it was that He added something--He took our sins upon Himself.

      B. Do the Scriptures bear out that He possessed the attributes and powers of deity while on earth?

The first, and most obvious reference is His personal conversation with the Father in John 17--He asks (in a "man to man, equal to equal" way) for the return of His Glory. He never mentions the return of His power or attributes--because He still retained them!

        (1) Omniscience--John 11:11-14 ("...when Jesus was fifty miles away...")14 John 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. As for the instances when He seems to be claiming ignorance, they have to do with Him speaking from His humanity, and taking our place, and involve a complete understanding of the orthodox teaching concerning the relationship between the Divine and Human in Christ, which will be discussed in section IV.

        (2) Omnipotence: (demonstrated most vividly in the power over life and death) John 10:17-18, 5:21-23, Luke 7:14, John 11:43-44, Mat 28:18-20, John 18:5-6.

        (3) Omnipresence: Matt 18:20, John 1:48 (Ps 139, Gen 16:13), John 3:13 (MAJ . . . Text)

        (4) Providence: Heb 1:1-3--Note that "upholding all things" was predicated of Him in the context of His earthly ministry of declaring God's truth, and before His atonement, resurrection, and exaltation. Col. 1:17--"In Him all things consist [hold together]" The universe is upheld by His word of power--He holds it together--that is an essential part of who He is. There is no intimation anywhere in scripture that He gave up this function upon Incarnation.

        (5) Sovereignty: Mk 2:28, Mat 11:27, John 17:2. John 3:35

      C. Having looked at the issue piecemeal, we can now conclude it with the powerful testimony of the book of Colossians.

        (1) Paul says that in Christ ". . .are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (2:3) and ". . . Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (2:8-9, emphasis added)

        (2) The argument might be (and has been) made that those verses apply to Christ in His exaltation, and not in His humiliation. First, that logic leans to the Gnostic idea of "progression," that the Logos after His exaltation was materially and essentially different (and improved) as a person from what He was during His humiliation. This is the very idea that Paul was fighting in the book of Colossians! The clincher, however, lies in the earlier verses in chapter 1: ". . . It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself...through the blood of His cross." (1:19-20) All the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily during His earthly ministry!

    III. A Critical Refutation, from Scripture and from Evangelical Scholars,of the things implied and taught by the Kenosis Doctrine.

The theologians who crafted Kenotic doctrine were trying to deal with two problems. The first problem was in how to deal with those texts of scripture (as used by the cults) which seem to indicate that Christ was less than fully God, yet do justice to the obvious Biblical teaching that He was "Very God of Very God." The second problem was posed by their understanding that He lived His life in submission to the will of the Father, and largely as a man with a full indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They could not reconcile that in their minds with His full deity. The problem with these teachers was that they were theological liberals--they did not accept the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible. Because of this, they crafted an erroneous philosophical theological answer, and ignored the fact that the problems were already solved by scripture, and had been fully worked out by the teachers and leaders of the early church during the period from A.D. 250-451. In their effort to improve on the Council of Chalcedon, they created many more problems than those they sought to solve--and did not really solve what they had originally perceived to be problems in the orthodox faith.

      A. The philosophical and theological bases for the Doctrine of Kenosis are highly suspect.

The thought process began with an incorrect concept of God as the Absolute and Almighty God.

        (1) Thomasius of Erlangen, one of the first and leading proponents, ". . . distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God," and taught that omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence ". . . are not essential to the Godhead..."15

This is patently ridiculous, and there is absolutely no Biblical basis for classing the three "omni" attributes as non-essential for Deity. Philosophical theologians may find a way to make this add up, but in the words of one of this century's great Bible teachers, ". . .There is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all."16 It is impossible to conceive of any being worthy of the title of I AM who does not possess the essential attributes continually posited to God by the Bible. The Bible never mentions God as anything but absolute. The three attributes in question, absolute Knowledge, Potency, and Presence, are foundational to who Jehovah is. The sarcastic charges made by Jehovah against false "gods" usually center in their ignorance, impotence, and immobility (Deut 4:28, Is 45:20, Jer. 10:5, 15). In comparison to idols, Jeremiah says "He who is the Portion of Jacob is not like these, for He is the Maker of all things...the LORD Almighty is His name." (10:16) Indeed, if one reads the awesome passages like Is 40, Job 38:1-42:6, Ps 90, Rom 11:33-36, etc., as well as the countless other verses and passages that extol and marvel at the greatness of the Almighty Jehovah, there can be no other conclusion but that God is Absolute. There is no Biblical way that the Son could give up his divine knowledge, potency, and presence, and remain "in essence" God. The distinction is strictly one of human philosophy. Concerning Kenosis, Charles Hodge, the leading American evangelical scholar of the last century, wrote

"The theory in question is inconsistent with the clear doctrine both of revealed and natural religion concerning the nature of God. He is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable. any theory, therefore, which assumes that God lays aside His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, and becomes as feeble, ignorant, and circumscribed as an infant, contradicts the first principle of all religion..."17

It must be pointed out here that Hodge fully accepted the doctrine of the incarnation, that God came in the flesh, as an infant and a man. However, he saw it in the light of historic Christology, as discussed in section IV, that while all of that was true, Christ was not confined to that form of a servant, and was not limited by it, except that He willingly gave up the exercise of His Glory, and sometimes chose not to use His other powers, though He retained them fully.

Berkhof shines more light on the philosophical antecedents of Kenosis when he writes: "The theory is based on the pantheistic conception that God and man are not so absolutely different but that the one can be transformed into the other. The Hegelian idea of becoming is applied to God, and the absolute line of demarcation is obliterated."18 The theologians who concocted this heresy were German scholars steeped in the insidious philosophy of Hegel, the forerunner of both communism and fascism.

      B. The vital doctrine of Immutability is completely destroyed by Kenotic teaching.

(Cf. Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8)

        (1) Biblically, there was no essential change of the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity in His Incarnation, because He did not lose the essential attributes of deity, He took on human flesh and a human nature. In His own essence, He did not change (Heb 13:8).

        (2) Beyond its effect on the immutability of the Son, it would destroy the integrity of the Triune God if He ceased to be fully and totally the Absolute God during His Incarnation, . "It means a virtual destruction of the Trinity, and therefore takes away our very God. The humanized Son, self-emptied of His divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinitarian life."19

      C. If the God-Man who died on the cross was not both fully God and fully Man, then the integrity of the atonement is destroyed.

The Blood that redeemed the Church was the "Blood of God." Acts 20:28 If He was any less than God, then His blood sacrifice was not infinitely powerful and able to redeem all who believe in every age.

    IV. An alternative method of handling the "problem verses" without deviating from orthodox Christology.

There are three Biblical concepts which are at the heart of this method: (A) Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ. (B) Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute, and (C) Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery"--the fact that there are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.

      A. Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

The Trinitarian Controversy (A.D. 320-381) led directly into a great controversy over the Nature of Christ's Person. Understanding the doctrinal dimensions of this fight, and understanding the conclusions reached by the church are vital to understanding how to combat the cults in this area, since the cults of today are merely the heresies of yesterday refried. During this period of Church History, there were many evil things done in the name of one doctrine or another, yet miraculously, truth triumphed.

        (1) As the early church wrestled with understanding the Biblical teaching about Christ, there were three views that became most prominent. I will try to illustrate these views by assigning different ways of writing the term , "God-Man" to each view.

          a. The Monophysites taught that Christ was the God-man, that is, He was not fully God and Fully man, but a third entity which was a fusion of the two natures (The Kenotic teaching is closest to this among the early heresies.) This heresy was basically a leftover of the Origenistic tendencies of Arianism, and grew strongest in the areas that had been strongest for the Arian view. The battle cry of this party was that Mary was the Theotokos, or Mother of God. The Monophysites carried this erroneous teaching (which survived, though without the Christological conclusions attached) to extremes, and made of Christ a new category of being, with one nature, will, and personality, each a fusion of God and Man.20

          b. The Nestorians taught that Christ was the God, Man with two natures so separate as to be a split personality. This teaching developed because of the objections of the church and theological school of Antioch to the growing cult of Mary among monophysite believers.21

          c. The orthodox view, which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and which has been accepted and proven to be fully Biblical by evangelical Christians since the Reformation, was that Christ was the God-Man, fully God and fully Man, one person with two unmixed natures.22

        (1) The important key concept in the orthodox doctrine is whatever Christ did, He did as a whole person. For instance, when His human body was beaten, tortured, and died, He suffered as a whole person, so that though God cannot be killed, it can be said that God Died for Our Sins.23

        (2) Because of the Truth of the two natures, we can Biblically say:24

          a. Christ is infinite OR Christ is finite. He existed from all eternity OR He was born in Bethlehem

          b. He was omniscient OR He was limited in knowledge

          c. He is David's Lord YET David's son

          d. He is the Ancient of Days YET He was born as an infant

          e. He is God over all YET He is the son of Mary

          f. He upholds all things YET He is weary with His journey

          g. Without Him was nothing made that was made YET He can do nothing without the Father

          h. His natural form is the form of God YET He takes on Him the form of a servant

          i. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, YET He increases in stature

          j. He Knows the Father perfectly YET He increases in wisdom

          k. In His own name, he gives a new and more perfect law and proclaims Himself Lord of the Sabbath and greater than the temple, YET He is born under the law and is subject to the law

          l. He is the Prince of Peace YET His souls is troubled

          m. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, YET He goes to death at the order of a Roman governor

          n. He is with us always unto the end of the world, YET The disciples saw Him being received into heaven out of their sight.

      B. Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute.

Why was is necessary for the Redeemer to be the God-Man? Why is the doctrine of the two natures of Christ so important? The answers lie in God's law of the goel, or Kinsman-Redeemer, (Lev 25) illustrated beautifully by the historical story of Ruth. Scofield summarizes the principle concisely in his note on Is 59:20.25

        (1) The kinsman redemption was of persons, and an inheritance (Lev 25:48, 25:25; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:7, 11, 14.).

        (2) The Redeemer must be a kinsman (Lev 25:48-49; Ruth 3:12-13; Gal 4:4, Heb 2:14-15).

        (3) The Redeemer must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-6; Jer. 50:34; John 10:11, 18).

        (4) Redemption is effected by the goel (Kinsman-Redeemer) paying the just demand in full (Lev 25:27; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13).

        (5) Therefore, what we see as Christ's humiliation was done as our goel, our redeemer, our substitute. When He was living, acting, speaking, suffering, denying full knowledge of events, claiming total dependence on the Spirit, etc. as a man, he was doing these things out of His human nature, and in our place. Yet, because He was also God, He could pay the whole price--he lived, acted, spoke, and suffered as no other man ever had or ever could.

      C. Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery."

There are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.

        (1) God is unsearchable (Eccl. 3:11, Is 40:28, Rom 11:33-36, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)

        (2) There are many mysteries in the gospel (1 Tim 3:16, Eph 5:25, 1 Cor 15:51)

        (3) Christ Himself is a mystery (Rom 16:25, 1 Cor 2:7, Eph 1:9, 3:4, 3:9, Col. 1:27)

      D. The three core concepts related above should help us understand how Christ lived His life on earth.

He lived in appearance as a man (Isaiah 53:3, Phil. 2:8), and submitted His will to the Father, and lived His life as a man anointed by the Spirit (Luke 4:16-21). Yet, He retained all His powers, and demonstrated His abilities often as a vindication of His messiahship and proof of His authority (Mk 2:1-12). In the mysterious verse John 5:17, ". . . My Father has been working until now, and I have been working," we are given a clue that He did many of His works "in His own right," though they were always in accordance with the will of the Father. On one occasion, He even lifted the veil of His flesh, took off His servant nature, so His three closest disciples could see Him as He really was (Mat 17:2). On another occasion, He "lifted the hem of His veil a bit"--when they came to arrest Him, He said "I AM," and they all fell down (John 18:4-6).

If we were to make an illustration of Jesus as if He were a policeman going under cover in a bad neighborhood, the Kenosis doctrine has the policeman leaving his weapons at home, along with his badge and other symbols of authority. He can call on headquarters for help, but he himself is helpless and defenseless. The orthodox teaching has the policeman himself as a "lethal weapon", he is a martial arts expert who can kill with a blow--he is skilled on the level that he can reach within a man's chest and pull out his still-beating heart--he can defeat multiple opponents. He can leave His I.D. , badge, uniform, etc., behind just like cop number one, but he cannot cease to be the walking weapon that he is. He looks normal, he appears as helpless as the first policeman, but he has the ability within himself to defend himself. He might choose to call for help; he might even choose to allow himself to be shackled, hurt or killed for the good of the mission--but he has the ability within himself to defeat his enemies. Raise that illustration, and the powers of the second policeman to infinity, and the illustration shows the difference in the two doctrines.

One of the beauties and glorious mysteries of the cross is that He who hung there was at that moment sustaining the universe--the very breath of the Roman soldiers was in His grip. He could have destroyed the Roman empire with a wink, with a thought, but He voluntarily restrained His great power, submitted to the plan He and the Father had agreed to before the world was made, and laid down His life. The entire Trinity was involved here--The Father pouring out His wrath , the Son Propitiating the wrath (Rom 1:18, 3:25-2, 5:8-11), and the Spirit involved in a way the Bible does not specify (Heb 9:14). This is a great mystery, but it cannot be solved by reducing the Son to something not quite God.

      E. It is from applying the core concepts above that we can construct meaningful and orthodox answers to the questions of those who refuse to believe in the God of the Bible.

The answer is not to deviate from Truth ourselves through less-than-precise theology--it is to present the whole Truth unvarnished and uncut.

J.I. Packer, the dean of living evangelical theologians, completely rejects the doctrine of Kenosis, as illustrated in his book Knowing God. He says plainly, "The Kenosis theory will not stand."26 I encourage the reader, to see what this Christian leader says about the subject. I hope that my study will be of help, and if you have been infected with this false doctrine I pray you will seriously consider modifying your views in this vital area.


1 Walter Martin's last published writing was a refutation of apotheosis in the book The Agony of Deceit , (Moody Press, 1990). Included in that same book is an article by Dr. Rod Rosenbladt entitled Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am?, which refutes, among other things, the teaching of Kenosis.

2 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940) pg 327.

3 Ibid.

4 Ralph P. Martin, Kenosis, The New Bible Dictionary (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), pg 6.89

5 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. II/III, (Reprint by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) pp 428-440.

6 Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am? The Agony of Deceit, (Moody Press, 1990) pp 114-115.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 W. E. Vine, (Edited by F. F. Bruce) Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981) N. T. Vol. 2, pg 25.

10 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

11 C. I. Scofied, The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford University Press, 1917), pg 1258.

12 Lightfoot, cited by Scofield, ibid.

13 Moorehead, cited by Scofield, ibid.

14 Scofield, op. cit. pg 1145.

15 Berkhof, op. cit. 327.

16 A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Baker Book House, 1975) pg 29.

17 Hodge, op cit, pg 439.

18 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

19 Ibid. 329

20 Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) p705-783.

21 Ibid

22 Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp 195-203.

23 Hodge, op. cit.

24 Boettner, op. cit. 197.

25 Scofield, op. cit. pg 765.

26 J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (InterVarsity Press, 1973) pg. 52.

Related Topics: Christology, Theology Proper (God)

The Atonement of Christ

Related Media

At the very heart of the Christian system lies the all-important doctrine of the Atonement. The Apostle Paul, himself an advocate of “sound doctrine,” in a condensed statement of what the Christian Church believes, said,

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (I Corinthians 15:3, 4).

Though the Gospel according to Paul included a sinless and a bodily-resurrected Christ, he gives first place to the fundamental fact that “Christ died for our sins.” In spite of the fact that some religious leaders object vigorously to the Doctrine of the Atonement, that the Death of Jesus Christ was sacrificial and necessary for man’s redemption, we proceed on a sound biblical basis to pursue this great subject.

The word “atonement” in the Authorized Version of the Bible is an Old Testament term. It appears only once in the New Testament (Romans 5:11) where it is translated “reconciliation” in the Revised Version. It is not entirely fanciful to suggest the idea of at-one-ment because the word atonement is used to refer to the atoning death of Christ through which the sinner is reconciled to God, restored to His favor.

To atone for means to make amends. In the Bible atonement is associated with man’s sin. God commanded Israel to set aside one day each year, the tenth day of the seventh month, which He called “the day of atonement” (Leviticus 16:29-30; 23:27-28). The people were to bring a sin offering, an innocent animal sacrifice “whose blood was brought in to make atonement” (Leviticus 16:27). God had said, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11) “. . . and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22).

In this study we will give thought to the biblical teaching how the death of Christ and the shedding of His blood atones for man’s sin.

Upon entering into a consideration of this majestic theme, it may be well to remind ourselves that the Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary is a historical fact. Some books of fiction about the Death of Christ have come into my hands. They have a tendency to leave the mind in the dangerous state of dreamy unreality and poetic imagination. But “sound doctrine” deals with facts and not fiction. In the New Testament alone, we find almost two hundred references to Christ’s Death. Though many theologians have differed on the meaning of the Cross, the fact of our Lord’s Death has been accepted in the history of the Church. Some theologians are frank to accept the fact of Christ’s Death, and just as frank to say that they have no rationale, no theory, no doctrine of the Atonement.

We believe that men are regenerated, redeemed, reconciled to God, justified, forgiven, adopted, not by the Doctrine of the Atonement, but by the Atonement itself, by the sacrificial and substitutional death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We cannot hope to treat thoroughly so great a subject in this brief study, but simply to state the basic elements of the Atonement so that believers may have a firm foundation for their faith.

The Erroneous
Theories of the Atonement

All of the great Doctrines of the Bible have been challenged by the enemies of Historic Christianity. A distinguished University Professor wrote a book entitled, The Human Life of Jesus, in which he flatly denies what the Bible teaches about the Atonement. He writes, “I venture to suggest, in disagreement with the interpretation commonly followed, that Jesus could not have meant that sin, however grave, is pardoned in those who believe in Him.” He continues by stating that Jesus looked upon His crucifixion as merely “a dramatic symbol of sacrifice,” and that “the idea of vicarious repentance had not figured in His teaching.” He admits that “the kingdom of heaven is to be bought at a price, but each of us must pay the price himself.” These ideas are merely human and have no Scriptural support whatever.

Another religious leader, famous for his outspoken repudiation of the Historic Christian view of the Atonement, writes, “A father who had to be reconciled to his children, whose wrath had to be appeased or whose forgiveness could be purchased, is not the Father of Jesus Christ. . . . Certain widely used hymns still perpetuate the theory that God pardons sinners because Christ purchased that pardon by His obedience and suffering. But a forgiveness that is paid for is not forgiveness.”

To the natural man such a view is accepted as reasonable. But having his understanding darkened, the natural man does not comprehend God’s view of the Atonement. These erroneous theories on the subject now under consideration are simply a restatement of older ideas.

The most widely believed of the erroneous theories of the Atonement is “the moral influence theory” which was popularized by Henry van Dyke and others. It looks upon the Death of Christ as a dramatic display designed to impress men with a sense of God’s love, and to produce in men a moral impression. It rules out the biblical idea of vicarious sufferings and substitution, and looks upon the Atonement as a mere influence which persuades men to do right. Christ’s work on the Cross is explained to be that of a martyr for a righteous cause, and it is held up as the finest example of self-sacrifice. Christ is merely our example and not our Saviour since His death was not an expiation. There is no need of a sacrifice for sin since the loving God Who dwells in Heaven will not be severe with His creatures here below. The moral influence theory holds that God is the Father of all men, and that He does not hold man accountable for sin.

Let us beware of such a distorted view of Atonement which shuts out the biblical Doctrine of Regeneration and Redemption as well as other characteristic doctrines of Christianity. No amount of feeling caused by thinking upon the sufferings of Christ can enable a guilty sinner to forsake sin and return to God. A debt must be paid for sin, and Christ has paid that debt on the Cross of Calvary.

Dr. Loraine Boettner has said that “the advocates of the moral influence theory are never tired of ridiculing the idea that God must be propitiated. They give no hint of the Scripture doctrine of the subjective effects of sin on the human heart by which it is alienated from God and unable to respond to any appeal of right motives however powerful. They see no impassable gulf between the holy God and sinful man, and consequently, they see no reason why satisfaction should be made to divine justice.”

Another popular theory of the Atonement is known as “the governmental theory.” It was developed by a famous jurist named Hugo Grotius shortly after the turn of the seventeenth century. The governmental theory is approached purely from a legal aspect, and the famous jurist’s legal approach appealed to many. The essence of this theory is that God’s law and government must be upheld. It acknowledges that man is a sinner, but that the loving God who dwells above does not wish to punish sinners, though He cannot allow the dignity and high standard of His law to suffer.

Now there is an element of truth in this theory, namely, that the law is holy, and sin shall not be allowed to go unpunished, and that an “orderly government of the universe can continue only as men do have respect for law.” But according to Grotius, the only reason that Christ died was to show the antagonism of God’s law to sin, and that the punishment which Christ suffered was merely to impress others with the importance of keeping the law. In the final analysis, Christ was punished for sin merely to keep up appearances, to maintain the standard of the law and an orderly form of government.

The weakness of the governmental theory is in the fact that sinners are not made to see and feel how awful sin is in God’s sight, and that Christ, in His Death, had the sinner’s guilt imputed unto Him. God is represented as punishing an innocent and just person merely to make an impression upon others. This theory would have us believe that “the cross is but a symbol, designed to teach, by way of example, God’s hatred for sin.” This makes the sufferings of our Lord to have a general and impersonal relation to sinners, and that all which Christ purchased was a pardon which is offered indifferently to all men. But the governmental theory is disproved and discredited by the plain teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.

The Explanation of the Atonement

In attempting an explanation of the Atonement, it is important that we know something of what motivated the death of Christ. The idea that our Lord died a helpless martyr is nowhere taught in the Bible. Those who have no understanding or appreciation of Jesus Christ’s work for us, lack understanding also on the subject of the nature and effect of sin in all men. Many Scriptures teach clearly that the Atonement of Christ is an expiation of human sin, so that sin is that which made the Atonement necessary. Christ became incarnate in order that He should die for human sin. Whether or not the Son of God would have become Incarnate if man had not sinned, we do not know, nor do we intend to speculate. It is sufficient for us to know that it was sin which made the Cross a must in the experience of the Son of God.

Notwithstanding the false teaching of Christian Science, the existence of sin in the world is an undeniable fact. The Bible reveals and emphasizes sin’s true nature and penalty. Ever since the transgression of Adam, the whole human race has groaned under the awful weight and bitter penalty of sin. The experiences of daily life testify that there is something wrong with man. Now God is not to be blamed for the terrible evil in the world. He simply made man a free agent, and man has abused his privileges.

When Griffith Roberts was Dean of Bangor, he said, “It was better for Adam that his hands were free to take the forbidden fruit, than that he should have been compelled to go about all the days of his life with his hands tied behind his back.” Freedom is one of God’s great blessings to man, and sin entered into the world when man abused his privilege of freedom.

The problem of evil has engaged the attention of thinking people for a long time. With every war, famine, epidemic of disease, great loss of life, has come the question, “If there is a God of love and mercy, why does He allow so much human suffering?” Let us have no hard thoughts about God in connection with the problem of sin and its accompanying sorrow and suffering. In Holy Scripture Satan is shown to be the cause of evil and its continuance in the earth. The warfare against evil is not with flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against the spirit hosts of wickedness in the spirit world (Ephesians 6:12). The morals and moral judgments of us humans show that man is under the control of an evil power.

All sin is the result of Satan’s evil plan and purpose to get men to live and act independently of God. The Devil sinned from the beginning (I John 3:8), and since he is the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:3-4), he has held the world system in control. All who disobey God are said to be the children of disobedience in whom Satan works (Ephesians 2:2). Satan is the greatest hindrance in the church, attacking the servant of the Lord (I Thessalonians 2:17-18), and limiting the effectiveness of the Word of God (Mark 4:15). Believers are warned to resist the Devil (James 4:7), and to exercise great care and caution lest they fall into reproach and the snare of the evil one (I Timothy 3:6). The Devil controlled Cain when he murdered his brother Abel (I John 3:12); he tempted David to sin in numbering the children of Israel (I Chronicles 21:1); he fired the passion of Judas Iscariot when he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (John 13:2, 27); he blinded the mind of Peter to the necessity of the atoning Death of Christ (Matthew 16:22-23); he sought to shake Paul’s faith by inflicting bodily suffering upon the great Apostle (II Corinthians 12:17). These are but a few examples which show the immense burden of sin and suffering caused by the Devil.

The question of sin and its awful effects compels our thinking if we are to possess an adequate understanding of the Atonement. God has decreed from the beginning that death must follow sin, not only physical death which is the separation of the soul from the body, but also spiritual death, or the eternal separation of the whole man from God (Geneses 2:16-17; cf. Romans 6:23). Since all men have sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12), it follows that all must die because the righteousness of God demands that sin’s penalty be paid. Sin is offensive to the holiness of God, so much so, that it excites His holy wrath. Where there is sin, the wrath of God can never be turned away. Several passages of Scripture tell us of God’s wrath:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36). For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

. . . because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6).

The wrath of God is nothing like the uncontrolled passion in men, but rather His holy and just indignation against sin.

Because of two great facts, the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man, Atonement is made an absolute necessity if sinners are to be pardoned and brought to God. When we have the true conception of the holiness of God, we will have the true conception of sin, and when we have the correct view of sin, we will have an adequate view of the Atonement. The only reason that men are offended at the preaching of the Cross is because they have no adequate sense of sin and the holiness of our Lord. When a man refuses to face sin, he will find it easy to dispense with what the Bible teaches about the Atoning Death of Christ.

In defining sin, the Westminster Confession says that “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” This is perhaps the best known of man’s definitions of sin. The Bible says that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23), that is, whatever a man does or thinks which is not an act or a thought proceeding from faith in God and guided by God, is sin. The sin may be committed in ignorance, but it is no less a sin. Sin committed in ignorance may not receive as great a punishment as sin committed willfully and deliberately, nevertheless all sin is punishable and must be punished.

We learn from the Bible that a man may sin in several ways. Let us look at some of them: A man may sin in his thoughts, for “the thought of foolishness is sin” (Proverbs 24:9).

An high look and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin (Proverbs 21:4).

A man’s desires, known only to God and himself, may be sinful, for Jesus said, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28).

When a man has been taught to do good, and he refuses to obey, he sins, for “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). But the sin that is greater than all sins is the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit is come, “He will reprove the world of sin . . . Of Sin, because they believe not on Me” (John 16:8-9).

The love and mercy of God are infinite and matchless, still the penalty for sin must be paid. Thus it was, in the eternal past, before the foundation of the world, that God determined and planned that atonement should be provided for His fallen creatures who would be deceived by Satan. If no plan of atonement had been proposed and perpetuated by the Godhead, all would be hopeless for mankind. And so, in the counsels of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was decreed that One should come and offer Himself as a Divine Substitute in the sinner’s place. This necessitated the Substitute taking upon Himself a human body. The eternal Son of God was that Substitute. And so “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John l:14). “God was manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:16). “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19).

While the work of Atonement, which includes the bearing of sin, is the work of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (I John 3:16; 4:10; Hebrews 9:14), nevertheless it was the Son who left Heaven’s glory, and “took upon Himself the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross” (Philippians 2:5-8). There is no explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact that the eternal Son of God, without spot or blemish, Who knew no sin and did not sin, was made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21). As His Blood was shed upon the Cross, a merciful and loving God was able to cleanse and pardon guilty sinners, because the Divine Substitute took upon Himself the penalty for sin. God hates and punishes sin, but He loves the sinner, and in order to redeem those whom He loved, “the LORD laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). There is no satisfactory explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact that Christ came into this world in order that He should die in the sinner’s place. He said,

The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

He foretold His death and fully explained its object. It was an essential part of the Divine plan to justify condemned sinners. Christ was “delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Indeed this is the heart of the New Testament.

The Extent of the Atonement

The provision of the Atonement for sin is for all men everywhere. The doctrine of Election has been misunderstood by some to mean that Christ died for a few elect people who had been given to Him by the Father and who were therefore chosen in eternity past to be His people. It is quite true that the Atonement, having been planned and worked out by God Himself, is His own personal property, and that He is absolutely sovereign in the use He chooses to make of it. Furthermore, we recognize that through the Atonement the way is now open for God to forgive and redeem as many as He chooses to call to Himself. It is His divine prerogative to save few, many, or all of the human race as He deems best. God alone is the Savior of men, and we acknowledge also from the Scripture, and from what we have seen in the world, that He does not save all. But, as relates to the extent of the Atonement, it is incorrect to say that Christ died only for those whom God saw fit to save.

I will go on record as one who affirms belief in the absolute sovereignty of God, and that nothing does or can occur except by His will. But belief in the sovereignty of God does not suggest that God acts arbitrarily without good reasons, reasons so good and so weighty, that He could in no case act otherwise than He does. Any view of divine sovereignty that implies arbitrariness on the part of the divine will, is not only contrary to Scripture but is revolting to reason. In His sovereignty God claims the right to dispose of His creatures as He will, but it is unthinkable and unscriptural, to say the least, that divine sovereignty arbitrarily condemns some men and in hard despotism sends them into the lake of fire.

I believe also in God’s foreknowledge, that is, that future events are foreknown to God, and that history will follow that foreknown course of future events. Since God’s foreknowledge is perfect, He knows the destiny of every person from eternity. But this does not in any wise rule out the biblical truth of free agency in man. Foreknowledge is not merely an arbitrary God saying: “I know what I will do.” To be sure He does know what He will do, but in the matter of an individual’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, it is only fair to add that God knows what that individual will do.

Calvin used the truth of God’s perfect foreknowledge to set forth the mistaken idea of limited Atonement. He said that “God would have been inconsistent in sending Christ to die for those He positively foreknow would be lost.” After Calvin’s death, other men wrote on his ideas. One writer, in attempting to illustrate the above quotation from Calvin says, “Even a man does not expect what he knows will not be accomplished. If he knows, for instance, that out of a group of thirty persons who might be invited to a banquet a certain twenty will accept and ten will not, then, even though he may still make his invitation broad enough to include the thirty, he expects only the twenty, and his work of preparation is done only on their behalf. They do not deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all men, for what is that but to attribute folly to Him whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly.”

But did the writer use a sound illustration ? I don’t think so! When God invites all men to be saved, the preparation is the same whether few, many, or all accept. The Atonement was just as necessary for one sinner as it was for one million sinners. If only ten percent of the human race accepts Jesus Christ as Saviour, He did not die in vain. There could be no waste. The number who receive or reject Christ has nothing to do with the preparation of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Belief in God’s foreknowledge in no wise demands belief in His arbitrary condemnation of certain of His creatures. Such is an extreme view on limited atonement.

Another view that sets forth a way of salvation through Christ is Universalism. An extreme view on unlimited atonement is offered by Universalism, which holds that Christ died for all men and that eventually all men will be saved, if not in this life, then through a future probation. This view has made a strong and successful appeal to the feelings of many, and it is a belief almost as old as Christianity. Universalism says, “We believe that there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.” In other words, Universalism teaches the universal fatherhood of God, and the final harmony of all souls with God.

One variety of Universalism holds that this has been made possible through the Death of Christ, and their followers quote I Corinthians 15:22 for their proof text “. . . For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” But they misinterpret the text. The entire fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians has to do with the resurrection of the body, and it is by the power of the living Christ that the bodies of all men will be raised, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. And if the Universalist insists upon using the statement, “in Christ shall all be made alive,” to mean spiritual life, then he has no right to insist that all will receive spiritual life apart from being “in Christ.” If a man is not “in Christ,” he must be “in Adam,” and only those who are “in Christ” are in the place of life. This leaves all outside who are anti-Christ and who, because of pride, selfishness, lust and indifference have refused to accept Christ.

Or, let us look at the verse from another viewpoint. The whole context is addressed to believers, and all believers who fall asleep in Christ are in Adam from the standpoint of the physical, or else they would not have died. After one becomes a Christian he does not escape physical death which God pronounced upon Adam when he sinned and fell. In the body we are in the man Adam by whom comes death, but by being in Christ by grace, we are assured of the resurrection from that death. In the first case it is by necessity of nature--it is heredity, in the other it is by our own free choice--it is personal.

That there is a sound biblical view on the extent of the Atonement between these two extreme views seems very clear. The teaching of Scripture regarding the satisfaction and propitiation made through the Death of the Son of God means that He died for all. The provision of the Atonement is for all.

He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2: 2).

The message of the Gospel is that Christ died for all.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all . . . (I Timothy 2:5-6).

The Atonement is unlimited in scope, available for all. The love of God displayed in Christ on the Cross at Calvary reached out to the whole world, and when God gave His only begotten Son, it was “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s desire is to save all men.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (I Timothy 2:3-4).

Since God’s will and wish is that all men be saved, He has made ample provision for the salvation of all.

The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (II Peter 3:9).

A well-known passage in Ezekiel 18:32 says,

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Here the Lord pleads with men to turn to Him for life. We know that many did not turn, His pleading having gone unheeded. What mockery this language of God would be if they could not turn!

That the Atonement is universal in its offer and provision is clear from the following Scriptures,

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men (Titus 2:11).

Again we must accept this statement on its face value and concede that the grace of God has brought salvation within the reach of all men. The Apostle John sounds the same note when he says,

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world (I John 4:14).

The writer to the Hebrews says,

We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man (Hebrews 2:9).

Scriptures could be multiplied that show the universality of the provision of the Atonement, but these will suffice to make it clear “that He (Christ) died for all (II Corinthians 5:15).

The opportunity of being born again, of beginning again in this life, is given to all men, for when Christ died as our substitute, universal Atonement was provided. The risen Christ said to His disciples,

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

The Gospel call to the entire world is a sincere one. Our Lord had a wider outlook than Judaism. It is true that He was sent especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, nevertheless He most certainly taught His disciples that they were to be witnesses unto Him “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8), and He was not sending them on a fool’s errand.

The Atonement is sufficient for all men, but it is efficient only for those who believe! The effectiveness of the Atonement in any one’s life is conditioned by faith. When one refuses to believe, his unbelief does not suggest a non-existence of the provision of salvation. God provided for the salvation of all men entirely apart from, and independent of, faith. Christ died for all men whether all men believe it or not. There is universal provision in the universal offer, and the fault is man’s if it be not universal in point of effect.

The Effects of the Atonement

We are to look now at some of the effects of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ as it regards God, and then as it regards man.

SATISFACTION

As it regards God, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected satisfaction. Before the sinner could enter into God’s holy presence, God had to be satisfied, not arbitrarily, but because His holiness and righteousness demands satisfaction where sin enters in. The doctrine of the vicarious death of Jesus Christ as satisfying the law and justice of God, in the place of guilty and condemned sinners, cannot be overlooked. When one begins to compare the value of the sufferings and death of the Son of God as it pertains to God, and then as it pertains to those who are saved by it, he feels almost at a loss to do so. Yet it is almost unthinkable that the Atonement could mean as much to the sinner as it does to God. The satisfaction that the sinner receives from Christ’s death is meager compared with the satisfaction received by the Father.

The moral law which God gave in the beginning expressed fully the very nature of His being. One look at the law which is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12) showed man what the nature of God was like. When man violated the holy law of God, he sinned, thereby contradicting that nature. As a holy God, He hates sin, else He would not be holy. As a just God, He not only rewards righteousness, but punishes sin. The death of Christ provided the adequate punishment for sin which was necessary to satisfy the law and justice of God. Since all sin is primarily against God, He alone needed to be satisfied with the work of the Cross. And He was.

“How could the vicarious suffering and death of Christ make full satisfaction to the Justice of God?” We welcomed this question from a thinking young man. In a commercial or pecuniary debt, it is not so important who pays, but what is paid. If the debt is a matter of dollars and cents, it matters little, or not at all, who pays it. But Christ in His sufferings and death was not paying a commercial debt. He was paying a penal debt. No finite, fallen creature, an offender against God could ever pay in time or eternity the obligation which he owes. The truth abides that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die,” and since all have sinned, no sin-laden human being could pay the price for a fellow-being to the satisfaction of God. When a sinner bears his own penalty, he is lost forever. On the other hand, when a sinner accepts Jesus Christ as His Sin-Bearer, he is saved forever. The difference lies in the fact that God was behind the Atonement.

The penalty for sin must be paid by one who is holy if the justice of God is to be satisfied. In any study of the Atonement, the sinlessly perfect and holy character of Jesus Christ is a truth of the first magnitude. The secret of God’s satisfaction lies in the character of the One Who paid the debt for sinners. God was satisfied with the work of the Cross because the One Who died at Calvary was His own beloved Son, described in the following Scriptures as the One Who “did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth” (I Peter 2:22), who was “without sin,” inherited or personal (Hebrews 4:15), and Who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Hebrews 7:26). Paul testified that He “knew no sin” (II Corinthians 5:21), while John declared that “in Him is no sin” (I John 3:5). Jesus was tempted, but in His essential nature He was God, and God cannot sin. Therefore, as the perfect God-Man, the blood He shed has abiding efficacy, and it satisfies the righteous demands of the holiness and justice of God. Indeed God is satisfied!

PROPITIATION

The value of Christ’s death as a vindication of God’s righteousness is indicated by the word propitiation. Here we enter upon an intricate aspect of the doctrine of the Atonement. The word “propitiation” appears in the English Bible three times. The Apostle John uses it twice in his First Epistle. Speaking of Jesus Christ, he writes,

He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).

And again,

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10).

The Greek word here is “hilasmos,” and means “that which propitiates.” It signifies expiation. Numbers 5:8 speaks of “the ram of atonement” (propitiation), and again in Psalm 130:4, “There is forgiveness (propitiation) with Thee.” Here is the sole ground upon which God shows mercy to guilty sinners. Christ alone, through the shedding of His Blood in His sacrificial and substitutionary Death on the Cross, is the Propitiation, that which expiates or propitiates. He extinguishes the guilt of the sinner by suffering the penalty for sin. Notice that it does not say that His death was the propitiation, but that He himself is the Propitiation. It is the Person of our Lord which gives efficacy to His atoning work.

In Romans 3:25 the Apostle Paul speaks of Christ,

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forebearance of God.

Here the Greek word is not “hilasmos,” meaning “that which propitiates,” but “hilasterion,” which means, “the place of propitiation.” The word “hilasterion” is used in Hebrews 9:5, where we read: “And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat (hilasterion, or the place of propitiation).”

“Propitiation” means “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5, and we must go back to the Old Testament to see what the mercy seat was typically to the Israelite. The mercy seat was the golden lid or the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled the sacrificial blood of an innocent victim to atone for the broken Law. The tables of stone on which were written the holy Law were kept in the Ark. The sprinkled blood covered the broken Law and made possible a meeting place between God and the sinner (Exodus 25:21-22; Leviticus 16:2, 13-14). The mercy seat was made of pure gold (Exodus 25:17), and covered the whole Ark.

Jesus Christ, the pure Son of God, is the sinner’s Mercy Seat, and His Blood covers all our sin. According to Scripture, therefore, the mercy seat in the Tabernacle was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord fulfilled the type and symbol perfectly. After His death and burial He arose from the grave, ascended into Heaven, and on the ground of His shed Blood made possible a meeting place where the sinner could come to God.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Hebrews 9:12).

Christ Himself is the Mercy Seat sprinkled with His own precious Blood.

In our Lord’s propitiatory work there is no thought of God placating Himself or of appeasing His own anger. God’s feeling toward mankind has never changed. There never was a time in man’s history when God did not love him. God always has desired to bless man with salvation and its accompanying peace and joy, but the sin of man placed an obstacle in God’s way, separating the sinner from Himself. It is true that God hates sin and will always hate sin. The Death of Jesus Christ did in no wise change God’s view of sin.

The Death of Christ was a purely legal operation. The Judge took upon Himself the penalty so that the judgment seat becomes the mercy seat. The prayer of the publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13), is literally, “God be propitious to me a sinner.” This passage is sometimes misunderstood and misused. This man stood on Old Testament ground before the Death of Christ, and he was actually asking God to offer that one Sacrifice for sin which would put that sin away and thus provide a ground upon which a holy and righteous God could bless him with salvation. Remember, he was not asking God to be generous or lenient with him. He was merely asking God to be propitious, and in making such a request he was justified.

Now we can see plainly that such a prayer need not be uttered today. God has been propitious in Christ. The eternal Son became our Mercy Seat, and to ask God to do what He already has done would be rejecting the Death of Christ. God cannot be lenient with sin, and sinners need not beg mercy from God. God was merciful when He provided for man the Saviour, and man is saved when he believes in and receives the Lord Jesus Christ. God has paid the penalty for sin, and on that basis His mercy is extended to you today.

For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon Thee (Psalm 86:5).

. . . With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption (Psalm 130:7).

SUBSTITUTION

In its effect toward mankind, the Death of Christ is looked upon as a substitution. Though we have never found the words substitute or substitution in the Bible, the idea of substitution is clearly seen in the work of Christ upon the Cross. The word substitution does not represent all that our Lord accomplished in His Death, but it does indicate that Jesus Christ, as the sinner’s Substitute, bore the awful judgments of God against sin.

We often hear the work of the Cross referred to as the vicarious sufferings and death of the Saviour. The word vicar refers to an agent or deputy who has been authorized to act in the place of another. Fallen man stands before God owing an obligation which he cannot pay in time or eternity. He needs an authorized substitute to stand in his place and represent him. The Lord Jesus Christ is that Substitute so that we are benefited by His death in a unique way. The death of the sinless One was substituted for the death of sinners. Stephen died as a martyr for the truth, but in no way does his death benefit us.

The substitutionary aspect of the Atonement was clearly anticipated in the Old Testament. When God chose the harmless, gentle lamb as the principal animal for the sacrifice, He was teaching His people that they were forgiven and spared only because another who was innocent took their place and died in their stead. Furthermore, every sacrificial offering in Old Testament times was an execution of the sentence of the Law upon a substitute for the guilty one, and every such offering pointed forward to the substitutionary death of Christ. We see the type in the case of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13). It was a test of Abraham’s faith. God had told him to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Abraham did as he was told, bound Isaac on the altar and made ready to slay him. God spoke to him and stayed his action. Then Abraham saw in a thicket nearby a ram, which God Himself had provided. Then we are told that “Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of Isaac” (Genesis 22:13).

Notice the words “in the stead of.” The substitute sacrifice that saved Isaac from death is a beautiful foreshadowment of Christ being substituted in death in the stead of the sinner. It illustrates the substitutional element in the redemptive work of Christ. The prophet Isaiah wrote,

Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all ( Isaiah 53:4-6).

The New Testament abounds in passages which show that the Lord Jesus Christ took the place of guilty sinners in His death. The following statements which were uttered by our Lord teach us that He anticipated dying as the sinner’s substitute. He said,

The Son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

. . . I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15).

. . . The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

This is my body which is given for you . . . This cup is the new testament in my Blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19-20).

In almost all of his writings, the Apostle Paul taught that Christ’s Death was substitutional. He wrote,

God . . . hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).

Jesus Christ . . . gave Himself for our sins . . . (Galatians 1:3-4).

. . . The Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us . . . (Galatians 3:13).

. . . Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us . . . ( Ephesians 5:2).

. . . Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25).

The Apostle Peter said that He (Jesus) “bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (I Peter 2:24); and that “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God” (I Peter 3:18). The legitimate use of these and numerous other passages imply an actual substitution.

RECONCILIATION

The Death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected reconciliation. The word “reconciliation” can be defined as “that effect of the Death of Christ upon the believing sinner which, through divine power, works in him a thorough change toward God from enmity and aversion to love and trust.” There was never a need for reconciliation before the fall of man, but when the disaster occurred in the Garden of Eden, discord crept in where harmony should have reigned. Man lost his heavenly citizenship and was made to be an alien. Adam’s sin had separated him and his God (Isaiah 59:2), and what was true of Adam, has in essence become true of all his posterity, so that man needed to be reconciled to God. Keep in mind the fact that the need for reconciliation is on the sinner’s part. Man became an enemy of God; God never became the enemy of man. Man ceased loving God; God never ceased loving man. Now reconciliation can never result until the existing enmity is removed, and since there is no enmity in the heart of God it must be removed from the heart of man. How is such an act accomplished?

Here we are to see the love of God at work. While God loathes man’s sin, His great heart of love yearns for the sinner and moves toward him in an endeavor to effect a reconciliation. Right here we can see a marked difference between human and Divine love. Human love is expressed in Romans 5:7 where we read, “For a good man some would even dare to die.” Human love scarcely ever takes action unless it finds something in its object to compel it to do so. But the love of God is distinct and different from any other kind of love, for “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), so that, “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of His Son” (Romans 5:10).

At the Cross man proved to be the enemy of God by his fiendish exhibition of human hatred against God’s Holy Son. Yet it was in that very act that Divine love was moving toward its object, for there “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself . . .” (II Corinthians 5:19). When Christ died, God’s attitude toward sin had been dealt with to His satisfaction so that man can be reconciled to Him. When Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, He brought to an end the estrangement between God and man. You say, “There are still many enemies of God.” You speak the truth. But God has done His part. Now man must repent and turn to God. To refuse to do so is to reject that reconciliation which was made in Christ. God in Christ comes to man, pleads with him to return, offers to forgive him and to put away all his sins if he will but trust Him. And when the sinner receives Jesus Christ as his Saviour, he too will say with Paul,

. . . We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement (reconciliation) (Romans 5:11).

Have you received the reconciling work of Christ which He effected by His Death?

In Colossians 1:20 and 21, we read,

And having made peace through the Blood of His Cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled.

In these verses we see a two-fold aspect of reconciliation. Verse 20 tells us that God will reconcile “all things” to Himself, whether those “things” are in earth or in heaven. We are reminded that the whole creation has been affected by sin. God had said, “cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and “we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22). The reconciliation of “all things” in Colossians 1:20 is the removal of the curse from the earth and the heavens. The cursed earth is the cause of the suffering, sorrow, catastrophes and death which come every day to the peoples of the earth. Indeed the earth needs to be purified. Yes, and the heavens also! Sin began in Heaven, when Lucifer, the son of the morning, rebelled and sought to exalt himself above the throne of God (Isaiah 14:12-15). Reconciliation to God of all things in earth and Heaven has been provided for in the shed Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:22).

But verse twenty-one of Colossians, chapter one speaks of the reconciliation of all believers to God, “And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled. The reconciliation of “all things” in verse twenty-one is future. Here we see the glorious work of Christ in behalf of sinners which becomes effective the moment one believes. The believer rejoices that he has been brought back into favor with God and fully restored. We who are Christians were alienated from God and enemies in our minds. We chose our own way which was opposed to God’s, but now through the payment of the penalty by Christ, we have been reconciled to God, “in the body of His flesh through death” (Colossians 1:22). And because we are reconciled to God, personal relations have been settled. In a former lesson in this series on Justification we saw how judicial relations between God and man are settled. Here we learn that reconciliation turns the heart of the criminal toward the Judge in love.

Another aspect of the ministry of reconciliation is taught in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Let us read the following verses with care,

For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and, hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His Flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:14-16).

It seems quite clear that the “enmity” spoken of here is not between a holy God and sinful man, but between Jew and Gentile. Under the law it was entirely out of order for a Jew even to eat with a Gentile. The enmity between the two is common knowledge, and it can easily be traced in history. Actually “the middle wall of partition” was the Law by which the Jew was bound.

When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, he expressed the Jewish view on this matter (Acts 10:28), and afterward his brethren took him to task for eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3). In the temple of old there was a wall, separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, and upon which was written, “Let no Gentile, let no man of the nations, go beyond this wall on pain of death.” In Herod’s temple the dividing line was a stone wall about five feet high, and this wall became the “enmity,” the cause of bitter feeling between the Jew and the Gentile. But early in our Lord’s public ministry He spoke to the woman of Samaria, and this in turn resulted in the evangelization of a Gentile city (John 4:1-39). He went into Galilee to bring light to the Gentiles who were in darkness (Matthew 4:12-16), and thus fulfilled the prophecy according to Isaiah (Isaiah 9:2). When He cleansed the temple (Mark 11:15-17), the Lord Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 when God said, “Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

Then He went to the Cross, and, once for all, broke down the wall in His Death when He died for both Jew and Gentile. He did not attempt to improve upon either, but He made possible any number of either becoming “one new man,” reconciling them to each other, and then reconciling both to God “in one body.” How wonderful it all is! Redeemed Jews and Gentiles united through faith in our Lord’s Blood now make one new man. How far reaching are the effects of His Atonement!

REDEMPTION

In our consideration of the effects of our Lord’s Death upon the Cross, no single term in itself as mentioned above could represent His entire saving work. That work is far too extensive to be contemplated in any single phase of it. The theme is so vast that a few ideas could never indicate its fullness. And yet, perhaps no word has been used more to represent the saving work of Christ than the word redemption. But we must guard against confining ourselves to this or any other single term lest we restrict the work of the Cross.

Redemption means to buy back something that had been temporarily forfeited. Dr. L. S. Chafer says,

Redemption is an act of God by which He himself pays as a ransom the price of human sin which the outraged holiness and government of God requires. Redemption undertakes the solution of the problem of sin, as reconciliation undertakes the solution of the problem of the sinner, and propitiation undertakes the problem of an offended God. All are infinitely important and all are requisite to the analysis of the whole doctrine of Christ’s finished work, a work finished to the point of divine perfection. Though parts of one complete whole, these great themes should never be treated as synonyms.

The biblical idea of redemption means to redeem a thing that is rightfully one’s own, but for a time is in the possession of another whose price must be legally met. Like every phase of the great doctrine of salvation, redemption is entirely the work of God Himself. When any man is redeemed, God Himself does it.

The biblical idea of redemption is not confined to the teaching of the New Testament but is found throughout the whole Word of God. Someone once said that the whole Bible is redempto-centric. We will have little difficulty in tracing the doctrine of redemption in the Bible if we keep in mind that the terms ransom and redemption are practically the same in meaning. Wherever you have redemption it is implied that a ransom price has been paid.

The Old Testament doctrine of redemption expresses the thought of setting free by payment of a ransom price. The thing redeemed might be a person or an inheritance. If a man became burdened with debt, and after mortgaging his entire property he still could not satisfy the claims of his creditors, he might mortgage himself, his own strength and ability. Actually he would become a kind of slave to his creditor. But, says God,

After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him (Leviticus 25:48).

Notice that the redemption must be accomplished by a relative, the next of kin, which idea has lead to the meaning of the title Kinsman-Redeemer. Boaz became Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 4:4-6), a beautiful type of our Lord Jesus Christ Who came from Heaven to earth that He might be a perfect Kinsman-Redeemer for us. Not only must the kinsman be the next of kin, but he must be able also to pay the price of redemption. Whatever the price, it must be paid by the redeemer (Leviticus 25:27). Christ alone could pay the price of the sinner’s redemption, and this He did. “Christ hath redeemed us” (Galatians 3:13) with His own “precious Blood” (I Peter 1:18-19).

In the New Testament, three different Greek words are used to translate redemption, and without an understanding of these words the distinctions which they teach are lost to the reader of the English text:

(1) Agorazo, which means to purchase in the market.

(2) Exagorazo, which means to purchase out of the market.

(3) Lutroo, which means to loosen and set free.

The scene is that of a slave market, and the sinner is pictured as being in slavery, a bond-slave to sin, or as Paul says “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14). He is dominated by Satan (Ephesians 2:2), condemned (John 3:18), sentenced to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). The Son of God became our Kinsman-Redeemer when “He also Himself likewise took part of the same (flesh and blood)” (Hebrews 2:14), took the place of the sinner-slave, was made a curse for us, and shed His Blood as the ransom-price of our redemption (Matthew 20:28). When He made the purchase in the market, He paid for every sinner-slave who was in bondage to sin, so that redemption was provided for all. (See I Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; and II Peter 2:1). This is agorazo, the purchasing in the market.

But redemption is more than merely paying the price. After our Kinsman-Redeemer paid for us in the market, then He took us out of the market. He has taken us out of the market so that we shall never again be for sale or exposed to the lot of a slave. Of course He takes out of the market only those who will go with Him, and when the sinner is willing to trust his Redeemer Who paid the ransom price, he is assured of deliverance from the hopelessly enslaved condition of bondage to sin. This goes beyond agorazo, the mere payment of the requisite price in the slave market. It takes us out of the market. This is exagorazo, the purchasing out of the market. It is used at least four times in the New Testament, twice with reference to the redemption of Jewish believers from the curse of the broken Law (Galatians 3:13; 4:4-5).

The third Greek word used to translate redemption is Lutroo, and it indicates that the redeemed one is “loosened” or “set free.” This word directs our thinking to the actual liberation. The disciples, on the way to Emmaus, said, “We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed (lutroo) Israel” (Luke 24:21), referring, of course, to the deliverance of the Jews from Roman tyranny. The corresponding noun appears in the following two passages where the same subject is in view. Zacharias said, “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed (wrought redemption for) His People” (Luke 1:68). Anna “Spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). This is redemption in its fullest meaning, for Jesus Christ did not pay the ransom in order that the sinner’s bondage should be merely transferred from one master to another. It is as Dr. L. S. Chafer has said, “He has purchased with the object in view that the ransomed one may be free. Christ will not hold unwilling slaves in bondage.”

And yet redemption does include a sort of new slavery, for the believer is redeemed, not only “out of” the market of sin, but “unto” God. Our redemption song is,

. . . Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood . . . (Revelation 5:9).

Notice that we are redeemed “to God.” Now we know that this can mean the future redemption of the body and its ascension into God’s presence. But can it not refer also to the believer’s present separation unto the Lord? Do we not, in a voluntary sense, become bond slaves of Jesus Christ? The Apostle Paul referred to himself as “a servant (bondman) of Jesus Christ . . . separated unto the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). Paul was redeemed, not only from his former manner of life, a slave unto sin, but he was redeemed unto God, voluntarily becoming Jesus Christ’s bondman.

This truth is typically set forth in the Old Testament. The seventh year in Israel’s national life was a year of release for the poor and of the Hebrew servant. Read Exodus 21:1-6 and Deuteronomy 15:16-17. If a slave served his master for six years God said that “in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). But he was not forced to go. If the slave loved his new master, he could voluntarily remain as a slave. The voluntary relationship was sealed by the master piercing the slave’s ear through with an aul. Now the Christian has been set free by the Redeemer, but he has the choice to yield himself to the One who has redeemed him. Our Lord Jesus is the perfect example of a voluntary servant, the description of which is found in Psalm 40,

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened . . . Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God . . . (Psalm 40:6-8).

This Old Testament portion is quoted in Hebrews 10:7, and it speaks of our Lord as the yielded Servant Who is in every respect the perfect fulfillment of the type. As the yielded Servant, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), that He might redeem us from sin’s awful slavery and death. Now His desire is that we voluntarily yield ourselves to Him.

In the believer’s redemption there is a three-fold experience, one of which is already past, the second being in the present, the third being yet future.

(1) Our Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself to redeem us from the penalty of sin.

. . . we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7). (See also Colossians 1:14.)

Notice the words “we have redemption.” This is not something that we are seeking after, nor that which we hope to receive, but it is our present possession--“we have redemption.” Because all who were under the law failed to keep God’s Law, they were under its curse,

For as many as are the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Galatians 3:l0).

If any man hoped to be redeemed by the Law, he must be a doer of all that the Law involves, for “He is debtor to the whole law” (Galatians 5:3).

Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:10).

Now we have not kept the whole Law, and we know it. But our blessed Redeemer fulfilled its every righteous demand, and then suffered and died upon the Cross bearing our curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:33, Galatians 3:13). All who seek shelter under His shed Blood are redeemed from the guilt and penalty of sin. Every believer is “justified (declared righteous) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). We may not always feel saved, but “we have redemption.” Some would tell us that we are fallen from grace, but “we have redemption.” The Devil would lead us to believe a lie, but “we have redemption.” The redemption that is in Christ Jesus has settled the sin question, so that we have been delivered from the wrath and righteous judgment of a holy God. Redemption from sin’s penalty is the believer’s present possession.

(2) Look now at the second aspect of redemption. The work of the Cross consists of far more than deliverance from the penalty of sin, for it is set forth clearly in the Scriptures that the Death of our Lord makes possible also deliverance from the power of sin as well. The Apostle Paul wrote,

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works (Titus 2:11-14).

We stress repeatedly the fact that salvation is not of works, for no works of ours could avail for our redemption. In other words, we are not redeemed by our being good or trying to do good, but redemption by the Blood of Jesus Christ does provide for the Christian’s deliverance from the power of sin. We cannot be content to know that we have been delivered from Hell. Christ died to deliver us from things that are unholy. We are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). This is the practical aspect of our redemption, deliverance from the power of evil in this life.

Two verses of Scripture come to mind, both from the pen of the Apostle Paul, and both introduced by the words, “This is a faithful saying.” The first says that it is a faithful saying, “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (I Timothy 1:15). The second tells us that it is a faithful saying, “that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8). We have been redeemed from sin’s penalty; we are being delivered daily from sin’s power. May we ever walk close to “Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood” (Revelation 1:5).

(3) The third aspect of redemption looks ahead into the future, extending to the deliverance of the body as well as the soul and spirit. Both body and soul are under the sentence of death, and both need to be redeemed. Writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul said,

. . . after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:13, 14).

This passage informs us that God has a purchased possession yet to be redeemed, so that we are “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23). For that day we are waiting, watching for the coming of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,

Who shall change our vile body (or, the body of our humiliation), that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself (Philippians 3:20, 21).

In our present physical weakness and infirmity we are looking ahead to the redemption of our bodies, when “we shall be changed” (I Corinthians 15:52), and “ye shall be like Him” (I John 3:2). Oh, glorious redemption! Oh, wonderful Redeemer!

Related Topics: Christology, Atonement

The Ascension of Jesus Christ

Related Media

Seeing the Lord High and Exalted
(Isaiah 6)

I would like to introduce this study on the ascension of Christ with a brief look at Isaiah 6. This passage gives us a vision of the incomparable majesty of God, and in the process sets forth a number of contrasts between:

  • The human and the divine
  • The temporal and the eternal
  • The earthly and the heavenly

Isaiah 6:1-13 In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” 4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. 5 Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7 And he touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” 8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” 9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ 10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” 11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people, And the land is utterly desolate, 12 “The LORD has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. 13 “Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.”

Isaiah’s vision, with its contrasts, is both timely and vital for believers of any age and time--but especially in times like these when our nation is literally on the skids spiritually, morally, and politically. The passage consists of REVELATION from God followed by a RESPONSE with specific RESULTS in the life of Isaiah.

God’s revelation always demands a response consistent with His revelation. Isaiah 6 contains a:

  • VISION--God’s REVELATION of Himself to Isaiah,
  • VERDICT--Isaiah’s RESPONSE by way of a confession of his and his people’s sinfulness, and
  • VOCATION--the RESULT, Isaiah’s commissioning and commitment of His life to the purpose of God.

In verse 1 the Hebrew text literally reads, “in the death year of King Uzziah.” This is emphatic and shortened for emphasis and effect. We would normally expect something like, “and it came to pass” as in Isaiah 7:1. The important point is that this vision of the heavenly king, the sovereign of the universe, came in the same year of this earthly king’s death.

This is important to note because it dramatically ties the vision to a critical moment in the spiritual and political history of the nation. Under King Uzziah Judah had experienced prosperous times. This King had extended the country’s boundaries to is ancient limits. Commerce and agriculture flourished, and the two nations, (Judah and Israel) were at peace. But more importantly, King Uzziah had established spiritual renewal. He had removed much of the idolatry and established spiritual reforms. He had sought to bring the people back to the Word of God.

But without King Uzziah’s leadership (which sought to bring the people back to God and His Word) these conditions would fast erode for there were already signs of spiritual lethargy and mere externalism in their religious life. Judah’s prosperity had degenerated into softness, luxurious living, and complacency toward God and their calling as a priesthood nation. Worship had been maintained with external regularity and religious precision--but they were keeping their hearts far from God. So, with King Uzziah’s death, apostasy could very well increase fast . As Isaiah considered the death of Uzziah, he must have thought that things could really go to the dogs.

Moreover, Assyria, a cruel, ruthless, and hungry tyrant, was increasing in power like a huge beast ready to pounce on all the nations of Palestine. So, it was a critical time, a time that not only involved the death of a godly king, but a time that foresaw the death of a nation as it turned not only away from the Lord but to the idolatrous influences from the East.

As we think about our own country today and see what is happening on every front, it is frightening, discouraging, and frustrating. We see the influx of the New Age movement and the tremendous rise of all the cults; the unisex issue; the abortion problem; the drug problem; the gay movement that has become politically powerful; the multi-billion dollar rock music industry with its blatant attacks on Jesus Christ and its emphasis on rebellion, violence, hedonism, and sex. We see the violence in our streets, especially on the rise among our young teens; the corruption in business and politics; an almost complete loss of moral values; the divorce rate and the break up of the home including abuse of women and children; and the failure of the church to make a significant difference.

But in the midst of the problems of Isaiah’s day, he was given a vision, one that we need perhaps more than Isaiah did. So note what we read next.

“I saw the Lord sitting . . .” Literally the text reads, “I saw also . . .” or “and then I saw the Lord.” In other words, against the backdrop of the problems of his day, Isaiah also saw the LORD. He saw the Lord “sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted” or “seated on a throne, high and exalted” (NIV). In other words, regardless of what was happening in the nation and on this earth, God was on the throne carrying out His purposes.

Psalm 103:19 The LORD has established His throne in the heavens; And His sovereignty rules over all. (NASB)

This revelation of the Lord turns our attention from the HUMAN and the EARTHLY to the DIVINE and the HEAVENLY--from the CHAOTIC and DEGENERATE to the PEACEFUL and HOLY. This passage gives us heaven’s perspective and the effect this should have on us as the people of God whom God has left here to represent Him. Let us gaze into heaven through the lens of Scripture to see our ascended and seated Lord, high and lifted up. And also, let us begin to see (1) what this means to us by way of blessings and privileges and (2) what effect this should have on us as the people of God.

In view of the phrase, “lofty and exalted” in Isaiah 6:1, let’s note the same phrase in Isaiah 52:13.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted.

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a prophecy of the suffering Servant of the Lord who must die for our sin, but at the very beginning of this passage, it anticipates His victory and exaltation or ascension.

The ascension of the Savior is a very important event which accomplished some wonderful and awesome things in the plan of God.

On Easter we commemorate the resurrection of Christ--one of the four greatest events in human history since the creation of man. The others include:

    1. The first great event, and one anticipated since the fall of man, is the incarnation--the moment in time when God descended to earth in the person of His Son to become true, yet sinless humanity.

    2. The second great event is the cross when the God-Man Savior died for our sins--the innocent bearing the penalty of the guilty.

    3. The third great event is the resurrection, when Jesus Christ was raised from death by the glory of the Father.

    4. “In our culture, as in most cultures around the world, the ultimate symbol of foreboding and despair is the grave . . . Yet the Bible shows us a grave--and empty grave--which is the picture of ultimate hope” (Donald K. Campbell, Seminary Easter Card, 1988).

But why was Christ raised from the grave? (1) To prove who He was--the eternal Son of God, and (2) to confirm the value of His death. But there is another important reason for the resurrection, (3) that Jesus Christ might, as the glorified and victorious Savior, ascend into the very presence of God, thus, opening the way for others to follow.

Many studies of the life of Christ trace His life and ministry beginning at Bethlehem and ending with the ascension. But Christ’s life existed from all eternity and continues into the eternal future. The ascension is the connecting link, the link between the past ministry of Christ and His future ministry.

“The ascension is not only a great FACT of the New Testament, but a greater FACTOR in the life of Christ and Christians, and no complete view of Jesus Christ is possible unless the ascension and its consequences are included” (ISBE, Griffith Thomas, Vol. 1, p. 263).

When you think of Christ, how do you think of Him? As the babe lying in the manger? Do you think of Him in terms of His ministry on earth and His mighty words and works? Or perhaps you think of Him as the one who died and rose again. There are many ways we may (and should) think about Jesus Christ and that we do so is tremendously important to the issues of life . . . assuming we come up with the right verdict.

In view of the Easter season and in view of the moral decay of our nation, I’d like to invite you to think especially of Jesus Christ as one who ascended into heaven. We want to be able to answer our Lord’s very provocative question, “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?” In other words, what does the ascension mean to us? What differences should it make in our belief and behavior?

We need to answer this question because it is tremendously important (1) to the impact of Christ on our daily lives, (2) to our courage and the enjoyment of our salvation in Christ, and (3) for our effectiveness in the mission of the Great Commission to which Christ has called each of us.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT, LIKE ISAIAH, WE SEE JESUS EXALTED OR HIGH AND LIFTED UP REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING ON EARTH.

The ascension, as one of the important truths of the Bible, occupies a large portion in the Word of God. Our study will demonstrate just why this is so, but let’s look at two passages that demonstrate our need to know and personally relate our lives to Jesus Christ--not only as the one who died and rose from the grave, but also as the ascended Lord.

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Paul is saying that we know him no longer as just a man, indeed He is the God-Man, but he is also saying that we know Him no longer as the one who came to earth in the flesh. We must know Him now as the ascended, exalted, glorified Savior.

By the word “ascension” we mean the removal of Jesus Christ from this earth into a different place and sphere which we call heaven. A place seen by Isaiah as high and exalted, a place of sovereign control and authority. It is a removal, a change of position and locale which is of the utmost importance both to God and to man.

The ascension completes the resurrection. Without the resurrection Christ’s death would be meaningless as far as the great issues of life are concerned. And without the ascension, the resurrection would also be incomplete and meaningless. We would have a resurrected person, but not one who was now at God’s right hand in the place of authority.

Please note the progression:

  • First there is Christ’s descent to earth--God becoming man, the incarnation.
  • This is followed by Christ’s death and resurrection as the God-Man Savior.
  • But for God’s purposes to be fulfilled and our need supplied, there must also be Christ’s ascent into heaven as the God-Man Savior and King of His people.

“The ascension is the important link between His work on earth and His work in heaven which begins with the ascension” (Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 224).

It is important to remember that the New Testament was written by men who were thoroughly convinced that Jesus was at the right hand of the Father, and that through the ministry of the Holy Spirit they were in union with this ascended Lord and were, by His commission and through His ascended authority and power, left here to continue the work which He began.

In relation to the ascension, the Lord said, “I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me.” The ascension means the Lord’s physical removal from His people on earth and from this present state of affairs, “but the spiritual value of the Ascension lies not in Christ’s physical remoteness, but in His spiritual nearness. He is free from earthly limitations, and His life above is the promise and guarantee” (Thomas, p. 265) not only life and life eternal, but it is also the proof of our purpose and the promise of capacity for ministry as His people.

Jesus said, “Because I live you shall live also.” But in the total context of the New Testament, this refers not only to the resurrection but to His continued life as the ascended and seated Lord of the church and the universe.

The Christ of the Gospels is the Christ of the past, the eternal past and the historic past, “but the full New Testament picture of Christ is that of a living Christ , the Christ of heaven, the Christ of experience, the Christ of the present and the future” (Griffith Thomas, p. 263).

We must not miss the connection between Isaiah’s VISION and his VOCATION. It had the right impact on the prophet’s life. The Gospel ends with the promise of Christ’s authority as the ascended Lord, the gift of the Spirit, and the Great Commission (God’s calling on our lives). It did not end with the promise of peace and prosperity, which is so often the emphasis in our culture. It ended with the fact and picture of an ascended, sovereign LORD who has commissioned us to live for Him.

If we are to endure and carry on in this sin-ridden world, running the race God has laid out before us, we need to see Jesus Christ. We must fix our gaze on Him, but how are we to do that?

The Record of the Ascension:
Its Confirmation and Significance

Prophets Anticipated the Ascension

It is important to realize the ascension of Christ has always been a part of the overall plan of God. The idea of the ascension was not some last minute idea thought up by hapless and hopeless disciples.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted.

Belief in the ascension and its accomplishments has it source in the expectations and promises of Old Testament prophecy.

Psalm 16:8-11 I have set the LORD continually before me; Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwell securely. 10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. 11 Thou wilt make known to me the path of life; In Thy presence is fulness of joy; In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever. (emphasis mine)

This prophecy traces Christ from the cross through resurrection back into His glory at God’s right hand through the ascension (cf. Acts 2:24-36).

Psalm 110:1-5 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” . . .. 5 The Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.

Also compare:

Matthew 22:41-44 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet”’?

Christ used this Old Testament passage which anticipated the ascension of David’s son to God’s right hand to demonstrate just who Messiah was and what this should mean to mankind. Messiah would be David’s son but also David’s Lord--one who shared God’s throne as God Himself. The ascension is alluded to in the words “at my right hand.” This shows us an understanding of what the ascension means and teaches us about Jesus Christ is vital for right thinking and response to the person of Christ. (Cf. Psalm 68:18; Eph. 4:8ff; Isa 52:13).

The Lord’s ascension was anticipated in the Old Testament and viewed as essential to a proper understanding of just who Messiah is and of His ministry to men.

Christ Anticipated the Ascension

The ascension was no surprise to the Lord. From the very beginning of His ministry, the Lord was not only aware that He had come to die for our sin, but anticipated both the resurrection and the ascension. Both were foretold in the Old Testament and Christ knew that like His death, the resurrection and ascension were essential for fulfilling God’s purposes and solving man’s dilemma. There must be both the DESCENT from heaven and the ASCENT back into heaven.

There are some fifteen or more passages where the Lord speaks of the ascension or alludes to it in one way or another. That is not without significance. In each of the passages the Lord used the ascension much like the fact of the resurrection. He used it to authenticate His person and to give reasons for what He could and would do for man, and why the person and work of Christ demands a verdict--the verdict of faith and commitment.

The ascension is a vital link in the entire chain of events, all of which are essential. It is the link between His past finished work and His present and future work. It demonstrates Jesus Christ to be the final solution for man’s need of prophet, priest, and king (Cf. John 3:13; John 6:62; John 13:1; John 14:1-2; Luke 20:41-44).

New Testament Believers Witnessed the Ascension

    The Time of the Ascension

There are some who contend that Christ ascended into heaven prior to the event recorded in Acts 1. A number of expositors teach that Christ ascended to heaven on the day of His resurrection based on the implications of John 20:17 and Hebrews 9:6-20. Let me suggest several reasons why this is unlikely:

(1) In Hebrews 9:11-12 the statement, “through His own blood” (or in the KJV, “with His blood”) has been taken to mean Christ took His actual blood into heaven. They say in John 20:17, Christ was telling Mary not to touch Him because this had not yet been done. But the Greek text here uses a construction which means “through the agency of” or “by means of.” It simply means that Christ was able to enter heaven once and for all by means of (or through) His death on the cross.

(2) The Lord did not actually say in John 20:17 He would ascend immediately, or at a time prior to the record in Luke 24 and Acts 1. “I ascend” is a prediction and illustrates what grammarians call a “futuristic use of the present tense.” This is a well established use in the New Testament (cf. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light of Historical Research, Broadman Press, p. 880).

(3) The only biblical record we have of His ascension is the one recorded 40 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:9-11; Luke 24:50-53). Many able scholars have concluded that it is improbable that Christ ascended in a formal way to heaven until the event of Acts 1.

But that He did ascend and that we have the record is enormously instructive.

This record is a confirmation of the fact of the ascension by those who had access to this information and who very carefully examined the facts (Luke 1:3) And the record of the ascension is such that it gives us important information about its nature and meaning.

    The Nature of the Ascension

For the purposes of our study, we are going to focus our attention on the account in Acts 1:6-11.

Acts 1:6-11 And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. “ 9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

First, we want to note the context in which the ascension occurs. This passage shows us there was concern and longing for the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, and so there was the question about when. This would mean the reign of righteousness with Jesus Christ on the throne, and an end to the times of the Gentiles and the turmoil we now know in the world.

The Lord tells the disciples this was all in the Father’s sovereign plan and timing (vs. 7). In the meantime, they had the responsibility of representing the Lord to the world, a responsibility for which they would be adequately supplied by the power of the Holy Spirit once He had come to indwell the church, the body of Christ (vs. 8).

Christ’s ascension is immediately followed by the promise of the Holy Spirit and instructions regarding the purpose and mission of the church. The ascension is designed to provide an incentive to faith, courage, and a motivation to ministry.

Immediately after this commission in verse 8, the ascension occurred. The Lord was lifted up by a cloud of glory out of their sight and taken into heaven. He was ascending to the right hand of the Father from whence He would send the Holy Spirit to empower them for ministry. There also He would sit to represent them providing access into God’s presence.

Let’s note the words used for Christ’s departure and what they teach us.

Verse 9a tells us “He was lifted up.” This is the passive form of the Greek epairo and means “to lift up” as in the hoisting of a sail (Acts 27:40). This stresses that the ascension is upward and shows the Father was taking His Son up into heaven. The ascension was an act of exaltation and an affirmation of Christ’s person.

Verse 9b tells us “a cloud received Him out of their sight.” The Greek word “received” is hupolambano, “to take or bear up by supporting from beneath.” Literally the cloud “took under him.” He appeared to be supported by the cloud.

It appears that once Christ was in the atmospheric heaven, He was received by a cloud. Though we are not told so, this may have been like the cloud connected with the transfiguration, and which descended on the tabernacle in the wilderness and filled Solomon’s temple. Many believe it was the shekinah cloud, a symbol of the glory of God. In other words, it was a supernatural cloud, a symbol of the glorification of the Son. He was resuming His preincarnate glory--the glory He had before the incarnation.

Verse 10 describes the ascent by the words, “while He was departing.” “Departing” is the Greek poreuomai. This was a common word that meant to “go on a journey.” This suggests to us the ascension was a journey, not merely a disappearance. The Son of Man who was the Son of God was passing through the heavens into the heaven of heavens, into the very presence of God to appear there for us (cf. Heb. 4:14; 7:20; 9:24).

Verse 11 describes the ascent by the words, “This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven.” “Taken up” is the Greek analambano, “to receive up.” This is probably best understood as culminative or climatic and describes His reception into heaven. It describes the final results of the ascension and declares the fact of Christ’s arrival in heaven. By the testimony of two angels from heaven we are told He had reached His destination.

Everywhere we turn in the New Testament we find the Lord Jesus declared to be in heaven at the right hand of the Father in the PLACE OF GLORY, POWER, AUTHORITY, AND PROVISION FOR US.

    The Response of the Disciples

What happened next is also important. We find the disciples almost trance-like and bewildered, staring after the Lord into the sky. The Greek text indicates they continued to stare or gaze up into heaven. Partly, I am sure because they were amazed and perplexed, but partly because they didn’t want to see Him go. Perhaps also they were waiting to see if He would soon return.

Suddenly, two men in white clothing, angels, messengers from God, appear beside them and address the disciples first with a question and then with a statement of promise.

The Question: “Why do you stand looking into the sky?”

I believe this question shows us how the ascension should and should not affect us. It may have been a gentle rebuke, but I think it is clear that the angels were calling the disciples’ attention to several important principles:

  • We should not be bewildered by the ascension nor stand transfixed or immobile just looking into the heavens. They (and we) should have expected it based on the Old Testament and Christ’s own predictions. SEEING THE LORD AS ASCENDED SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT EFFECT ON US.
  • We must know and believe that the ascension and session of the Lord is an important and necessary part in the plan of God for the church and for the world. We must trust in God’s plan. The Lord must be absent from us for a time.
  • The Lord’s departure means Christ’s exalted position in heaven and the promise of His return. But it also means that we have important matters to attend to as His people whom He has left here to represent Him.

The question posed by the angels implies “do you not understand what all this means to you?” It means Christ is exalted, but it also means the promise of His abiding presence with each believer in a very new and special way. It also means His sure return as King of Kings. The promise of His return means the establishment of His kingdom and His sure reward for faithful service with all the glories of the future.

    The Reasons for Witnessing the Ascension

No one saw the Lord rise from the dead, but He was seen ascending into heaven by the disciples.

Men saw the results of resurrection--the living, glorified and resurrected Christ. But the act was not seen, only the results. To confirm the resurrection it was not necessary that men see him rise out of the grave. Knowing He was surely dead, men only needed to see clear evidences for the resurrection such as the empty tomb, the grave clothes as they were lying in the tomb, and the risen Christ who appeared over and over again.

By contrast, the disciples saw Christ ascend into heaven--they saw the act of ascension, but not the result--Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God. This they could not see except by prophetic vision (e.g., Stephen in Acts 7:55-56, John in the book of Revelation, or Paul on the Damascus road).

The act of ascension was necessary to confirm the result--Christ seated. One of the great doctrines of the epistles is Christ seated in heaven, exalted at God’s right hand and the historic act confirms that for us.

The Lord Jesus physically disappeared from off the face of the earth. Where did He go? Where was He? The ascension with the eye witness account of the disciples provides us with the answer and verifies this great doctrine of Scripture.

Christ’s ascension (the act seen) is the proof of the result (Christ seated as the victorious and exalted Savior).

What difference does all this make to us, to the church in the world? What are the consequences of the ascension? The consequences are so tremendous that the ascended and seated Lord becomes one of the great themes of the New Testament. Everywhere we turn we find references of the ascended and seated Christ, and this has all kinds of implications on the individual and corporate life of the church of Jesus

The Results of the Ascension:
Its Consequences

Culminations of the Ascension--what it ended

(1) It ended Christ’s humiliation and self-limitation (John 6:62; Phil. 2:5-11).

Even during Christ’s appearances in His post-resurrection ministry, to some extent, He limited the manifestation of His glory. But through the ascension, though still possessing a glorified human body, the Lord assumed all of His former glory and authority.

(2) It ended His public ministry of words and works (John 17:4-11).

The ascension concluded His prophetic ministry and miracles accomplished by His bodily presence on earth (Walvoord, p. 224). His prophetic ministry and miracles would continue for a while, but only through the lives and ministry of the Apostles.

(3) It ended His redemptive work (Heb. 1:3; 10:12).

The ascension declared His work on the cross was finished. It demonstrated that there was nothing more that could be done for our sin and that He and He alone had accomplished our redemption (Note Heb. 9:11-12).

(4) It ended the Old Testament Covenant and declares the New Covenant to be better and in force (Heb. 8:7-13; 9:11-15, 23-10:1).

The ascension declared that the old Mosaic Covenant was no longer valid, that it was only a temporary covenant until Messiah-Savior could come.

Affirmations of the Ascension--what it says and teaches us about the Lord.

    It Affirmed Christ’s Identification

It Affirmed Christ as the God-Man (John 6:62). In John 6 we have the great discourse on Christ as the Bread of Life. Because of His unique person, He is able to give eternal life. This is true because He is not mere man, but the God-Man, the one who came down from heaven. This was difficult to grasp and some grumbled over it. So what did the Lord do? He spoke of His ascension as proof of His origin. The ascension, like the resurrection, would prove His divine origin and that He had been sent of God to solve man’s sin problem.

    It Affirmed Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King

(1) As Prophet

In John 3:2, the words “a teacher come from God” set the stage for this encounter. First, it shows his inadequate understanding of the person of Jesus. Christ sought to eliminate an incomplete grasp of His person because this is essential to faith and salvation. A teacher is a communicator of truth and Christ will show Nicodemus why He is able, above all teachers, to reveal God’s truth.

In John 3:13 our Lord shows Nicodemus He has the right and ability to explain and reveal heavenly truth because He is the true prophet, the one who came from heaven and who, following His finished work on the cross, would return--the proof that He had truly come from God. Note Peter’s grasp of this in Acts 3:19-26. (Cf. also John 3:13; 16:7, compare with 12f; 6:14)

As the great prophet and revealer of truth, He would continue this ministry through the apostles via the Holy Spirit (John 16:7, 12f).

(2) As Priest

Jesus’ ascension and return to the Father would demonstrate that He had successfully, as our great and righteous High Priest, offered the one sacrifice that effectively deals with man’s sin and provides justification--righteousness with God. (Cf. Heb. 8:1-2; 9:11-12; John 16:10)

In John 13:1-3 the ascension is mentioned twice because it is on the basis of His work as Priest (Christ in the presence of the Father) that He would be able to continue His ministry as our High Priest and provide continual cleansing. On the basis of His confidence in the ascension, He performed an act which symbolized His continuing ministry of cleansing us as our advocate in heaven at God’s right hand (John 13:4f, cf. 1 John 2:1-2).

(3) As King

In answer to who He was, Christ again made reference to His ascended and exalted position at God’s right hand, only now in connection with His second coming from that ascended and exalted position as King of kings. (Cf. Matt. 26:64.)

    It Affirmed Christ’s Exaltation

As with the vision of Isaiah, it declared the Lord Jesus, the God-Man Savior, as high and lifted up. This included the following:

  • His Glorification (John 17:5; Acts 7:55; Rev. 1:12-16) It meant a return to His pre-incarnate glory, but it also constituted a glorification of His humanity where He is the Forerunner of all believers who will follow.
  • His Session (Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; 1 Pet. 3:22) It declared that He was in heaven, at God’s right hand, the place of the highest honor and authority. It means the possession of the throne of God without dispossession of the father. It means all glory, authority and power is shared by the father with the Son.
  • His Intercession and Protection over His own (John 17:11f; Rom. 8:32f; Heb. 4:14-16) It affirms His continuing ministry for us at God’s right hand: kept by His presence with the Father and His work as High Priest. In this regard, it declares we have an advocate with the Father and a compassionate High Priest, one who cares for us with the greatest compassion and who both intercedes for us when we sin and prays for us in our need.
  • His Provision for spiritual power (John 14:25-26; 16:7-10: Luke 24:49f; Acts. 1:8-11) It provided the means of His gift of the Comforter. Without the ascension, there would be none of the ministries of the Holy Spirit as we know it today: no indwelling, no baptism into Christ, and no filling. This would mean the absence of power over sin and power for witnessing. We would be a helpless people.
  • His Distribution (Eph. 4:7-11) It affirmed His right to give gifts to His church.
  • His Preparation (John 14:3,4) It affirms His promise to prepare a home for His bride. When we lose a loved one who knows the Lord, one of the great comforts is the fact that our loved one has actually gone home and that we will someday be joining them.
  • Commission (Matt. 28:19f; Luke 24:44f; John 12:32; 14:12; 17:11-23; Mark 16:19-20). By His commission I am referring to His earthly ministry and that He intends to continue this through the church. Continue it through you and me as we make ourselves available to Him as the risen and ascended Lord through the Holy Spirit His gift for ministry. As with Isaiah, this vision of Christ and its consequences to us, should mean “here am I Lord, send me; do with me according to your purpose.”
    It Affirms the Need of Celebration

It affirms our need to celebrate and respond in the worship of the Savior. Remember, worship is not just something we do in some special place. Worship may, as with Israel, be merely external and religious formalism. (Cf. Luke 24:51-53; Col. 3:1)

True worship involves something we are, a people who count on the worth of God for the totality of our lives. Worship includes hearing God’s Word, confessing our sin, prayer, praise, singing and making melody in our hearts, but all of this can be mere religiosity.

What we must see is that true worship means we think, respond and act on the fact of our ascended Lord with obedience, with commitment, and availability to the plan of God for our lives.

    It Affords Us With Motivation and Courage

The ascension provides every reason why we should endure and be bold in service for the Lord knowing that our labor is never in vain in the Lord. (Cf. Mat. 28:19; Heb. 12:1,2).

    It Affirms His Inauguration as King

The ascension anticipates the establishment of His kingdom and the fact that we will have the privilege of reigning with Him in the millennium and the eternal kingdom of the new heavens and earth. (Cf. John 14:28; 16:16; Acts. 1:11; Ps. 110:1; Heb. 1:13; Rev. 5:1-11.)

    It Demands a Response

Because of what the ascension means, it demands a response from us to the person and work of Christ. (John 6:62) Failing to assimilate the truth of Christ as the Bread of Life, as the source of our spiritual nourishment and life through feeding on Him by faith and study, the Lord challenged His audience (and challenges us) with these words: “What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?”

Related Topics: Easter, Ascension

The Anointing at Bethany

Related Media

Introduction and Background

Palm Sunday is the day we traditionally remember the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem--the Sunday before His passion and resurrection. The triumphal entry was a formal presentation of Jesus as Israel’s King. Relentlessly the events of the Savior’s life had moved toward His death on the cross. Following Peter’s confession of Christ as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus “began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.” As He left Galilee for the final time to go up to Jerusalem, Luke tells us, “And it came about, when the days were approaching for His ascension, that He resolutely set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). He was committed to the cross.

However, a number of events occurred the week before which were preparatory for the momentous event of Christ’s death for us on the cross. Jesus reached Bethany (only two miles from Jerusalem) six days before the Passover (John 12:1). Each morning He would journey to Jerusalem and then return in the evening to Bethany. He did this all week until His arrest.

Let’s briefly review the events of this week.

Sunday: This was a day of Messianic Presentation, the day of Christ’s entry when, in accord with Old Testament prophecy, He openly declared Himself as the Son of David, the King, but not the regal King the Jews were looking for or wanted. He came as a lowly and suffering King riding of the foal of a ass as foretold by the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 9:9).

Monday: This was a day of Messianic Power. Two things occurred that demonstrated His authority and power as King. In one He cursed a fig tree and in the other He cleansed the temple for a second time.

As the Lord made the two-mile journey, He cursed a fig tree that was full of leaves. It gave the appearance of fruitfulness, but it was barren of figs and basically useless. The fig tree served as an emblem of the Jewish nation and this act of cursing the tree served as a symbol of Christ’s rejection of barren Israel. It was a fit emblem of religious hypocrisy where external semblance is a delusion and a sham, a fit picture of the nation with all her ostentatiousness, yet lacking in real spiritual fruit. (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, Pentecost, p. 378).

On this day “the Lord then proceeded to the city and entered the temple. Some three years before He had cleansed the temple (John 2:13-16) from its corruption because of Annas’s bazaar. That corruption had now returned and the temple again was a place of merchandise” (Pentecost, p. 378). So again, Jesus drove out the money changers. In this act the Lord was demonstrating His authority over the temple and the religious life of the nation.

Tuesday: This was a day of Messianic Polemic, a day of challenge and controversy from the religious crowds who reacted to His authority. On this day He taught in parables, He solemnly denounced the religious leaders as blind guides and hypocrites. After leaving that afternoon, Christ sat on the Mount of Olives and gave the Olivet Discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and end time events. On this day also, the rulers were plotting His death.

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday: These were days of Messianic Preparation. Our Lord’s public ministry was over and He was further preparing His disciples for His death and for carrying on in His absence.

  • Wednesday was probably a day of rest in Bethany.
  • Thursday He sent two disciples into the city to prepare for the Passover.
  • Friday at sunset He ate the Passover with His disciples, instituted the Lord’s supper, washed the disciples feet, gave the upper room discourses of John 13 and 14, gave the discourses on the way to Gethsemene, John 15-16, prayed the high priestly prayer of John 17, and agonized in the Garden. Later that evening, He would be betrayed with a kiss, apprehended, tried before the Jews and the Romans, before Annas, Caiaphas, before Pilate, Herod, and the before Pilate again. He was then condemned and crucified.

But before all these events began, an event occurs that sets the stage for what was to follow. It is an event that has a great lesson for us by way of our insight and response to the Savior. I am speaking of the anointing of Jesus by Mary in the house of Simon the leper. This act of Mary’s is recorded for us in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; and John 12:2-9.

Scriptural Passages

Matthew 26:6-13 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it upon His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? 9 “For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. 11 “For the poor you have with you always; but you do not always have Me. 12 “For when she poured this perfume upon My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. 13 “Truly I say to you, wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done shall also be spoken of in memory of her.” (NASB)

Mark 14:3-9 And while He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 “For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me. 8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 “And truly I say to you, wherever the Gospel is preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of in memory of her.”

John 12:2-9 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. 7 Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 “For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.” The great multitude therefore of the Jews learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. (NASB)

The Insight and Response of Mary

The unnamed woman is identified for us in John 12 as Mary. She was the sister of Martha and the woman who sat at His feet to hear the Word (Lk. 10:38f).

The anointing of the Jesus brings out an important contrast, a contrast of the insight and devotion of Mary, and the indifference and deadened responses of the disciples.

The “alabaster vial” refers to a cruise or flask made of white, semi-transparent stone which was used as a container for precious perfumes and ointments. It was full of “very costly perfume of pure nard.” This was a highly perfumed ointment used for (1) cosmetic use for hot climates, (2) for anointing the dead for burial, (3) for ritual uses for anointing priests and kings, and (4) was considered a wonderful gift for a king because of its value.

“Nard,” which defines the kind of ointment in the vial, was a plant found in the Himalayan Mountains. It was hard to get and very expensive. According to verse 5, it was worth 300 denarii and the daily wage of the average working man was only one denarii. What she poured on the Lord Jesus was worth an entire year’s wages!

We read that “she broke the vial.” This may refer to the small neck of the vial which she broke that she might pour it freely. “The breaking of the flask was perhaps an expression of the whole-heartedness of her devotion. Having served its purpose, it would never be used again” (Cranfield, p. 415). She then “poured it over His head.” John 12 adds that she anointed His feet and wiped His feet with her hair.”

Her actions obviously demonstrated her deep devotion and love for the Savior, but it also demonstrated her keen insight into His true identity and purpose. This is made clear by Christ’s own interpretation of her actions. What did she understand that the others had been insensitive and blind to?

This act revealed she knew Christ as:

    1. King: Such an extravagant gift was only lavished on a king. This was very appropriate in view of the fact that on the next day He would proclaim Himself the King of Israel through his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

    2. Priest: John 12:3 and Mark 14:8 define this as an anointing. As priests were anointed, this is in keeping with the fact that Christ was a Royal Priest and was about to make atonement for His people.

    3. The Savior Who Must Die: As He had told the disciples that He must die, so He must have also told her. While they were unable to grasp this, Mary did. She undoubtedly recognized her sin and need of a suffering Savior and did this as an act of faith and devotion. She understood the reason for His death (her sin), and the significance of His death (her salvation).

John 12:3b tells us “and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.” As a result of her insight and actions, the fragrance of Christ’s person filled the house. This did not call attention to Mary or religion, but to the Savior as the King-Priest who must die for the sin of the world.

The Insensitivity and
Reactions of the Disciples

Mark 14:4-5 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her.

John 12:4-6 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.

All three of the Gospel accounts begin the next section with the word “but.” What follows stands in contrast and demonstrates the typical attitude of the mere religious or of those who lack Mary’s insight into the person and work of the Lord Jesus or who have failed to truly listen to the Savior’s Word. Is there not an important message here for each of us?

When we compare all three accounts, we find that all the disciples were indignant over this act of Mary and saw it as wasteful, but Judas, the betrayer, treasurer for the group, and thief, was their spokesman.

Summary of Contrasts

First Contrast:

  • Mary turned all attention upon the Lord and His person. She gave witness to truth about the person and work Jesus Christ.
  • Judas and the disciples turned the issue away from Christ and on the poor. Though important, this was not the primary issue or responsibility.

Second Contrast:

  • Mary was motivated by devotion and sacrificed for the Savior. This was produced by spiritual insight because she had ears to hear.
  • Judas and the disciples were motivated by greed and jealousy caused by their callousness toward His Word.

Third Contrast:

  • Mary was quietly pointing people to the Savior. She was occupied with Him. Though the text does not say so, we can be sure she was not filled with evil thoughts of jealousy, resentment, or bitterness. There was surely sadness, but also spiritual joy.
  • The disciples, on the other hand, had their eyes on others, and were all filled with resentment which erupted in ugliness to Mary. The result was, they scolded her (vs. 5). The word here, embrimaomai, was used of a snorting horse. Men often snort at a person’s devotion to the Lord and often, as here, they do it in the name of religion or some humanitarian cause.

Devotion to a hobby or a sport is seen as merely enthusiasm, but devotion to the Savior is viewed as fanaticism. Why? Because that kind of devotion manifests the lack of devotion of others toward God and spiritual priorities. The plain truth is that such devotion is terribly convicting. True devotion and proper evaluation of the Lord, who is Himself the manifestation of light, often brings out the hatred and true condition of the heart such as a heart of unbelief, or hardness, or one lacking in commitment.

Scripture teaches us “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2Tim. 3:12). When believers make a stand for Christ in such a way that it manifest the sweet aroma of His person and work, it becomes a threat to Satan’s kingdom and these believers often become the immediate object of Satan’s attack (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14-17 with 4:6-18).

Mary’s understanding of Christ’s person and work, along with her trust in Christ, became the force behind her act of devotion and testimony to the Savior. She was trusting Christ for her life--for her significance and her security.

On the other hand, in the lives of the disciples, dependence on the world and its riches, and occupation with the temporal and the transient promoted two things: (1) it promoted a failure to truly listen intently to the Savior’s Word, and (2) it occasioned the murmuring against Mary, and (3) Christ’s betrayal. This very act of devotion and the consequent rebuke by the Lord, occasioned the treachery and betrayal of Judas (vs. 10).

Christ’s Rebuke of the Disciples

Mark 14:6-7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 “For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.

John 12:7-8 Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 “For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.”

“Let her alone.” This was a sharp rebuke. It is an aorist imperative of command and gives this a note of urgency.

“Why do you bother her?” This phrase challenged their motives. The Savior quickly saw below the surface of their reactions. It was not really concern for the poor. It was their own jealousy and greed. Their overt actions manifested their hidden agendas.

He then declared the nature of her actions, “She has done a good deed to Me,” and explained why her actions were good.

Christ addresses their concern over the poor

The “Me” at the end of verse 7 is emphatic. “But Me, you do not always have.” This strongly attests to the uniqueness of His person and what was about to happen. He was the unique Son of God who was about to die for our sin, be raised, and ascend into heaven, leaving His disciples to proclaim the Gospel message. He was anticipating His resurrection and victory from the grave.

This also shows the spiritual always takes precedence over the social. Social work and reform may alleviate certain forms of suffering and injustices, but they are only temporary and can never cure the torment of men’s souls nor bring them into an eternal relationship with the living God. Social reform, as here, can and is often used as a substitute for faith in the Savior. It is often made the issue while faith in Christ as a suffering Savior for our sin is ignored or rejected.

Social work and reform are temporal concerns that can never lasts due to the condition of fallen man. Without Christ societies always degenerate and eventually experience greater and greater social turmoil.

Social concerns for the needy are important and need to be the concerns of the church as expressions of the love of Christ for the hurts of humanity. The church has often failed to reach out to the orphan and widow and the down trodden. But to turn the Gospel of the Savior into just a social Gospel is to pervert the message of the cross. We need to reach out to the needs of people, but ultimately, if we do not lead them to Christ as the one who died for their sin, we have not ministered to their greatest need.

Christ explains her actions

Mark 14:8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.

Literally, “what she had, she did.”

  • Mary took advantage of the opportunity to serve the Savior.
  • She did according to her capacity and ability.
  • Again, she did what she did, out of insight and devotion.

God does not give us all the same ability and capacity, nor does He give us all the same degree of wealth and health. But we all have at least one spiritual gift. We all have talents, and resources, and opportunities to express our love, gratitude, and devotion to the Lord Jesus.

God never holds us responsible for what we do not have. The issue and need is (1) to spend time getting to know the Savior so our hearts can be filled with Him and His love, and then (2) out of our fellowship with Him, to take what we have and make it available to manifest the sweet aroma of Christ.

Christ then explained “she has anointed my body before hand for burial.” She had evidently grasped what the others had not.

Mary Rewarded for her Sacrifice

Mark 14:9 “And truly I say to you, wherever the Gospel is preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of in memory of her.” (NASB)

Conclusion

The account of these incidences of that evening identify several types of people. As we look at these, see if you can identify what category (or categories) you may fit into.

The Mary Category

Luke 10:39 tells us why Mary was able to have such devotion and insight. She did that which was primary. “And she had a sister called Mary, who moreover was listening to the Lord’s word, seated at His feet.”

The Disciples Category

These men were close physically, had seen the Lord’s miracles, and heard His teaching. Though they had seen and heard the works and words of Jesus, they had failed to really sit with open ears and open hearts at the feet of Jesus. Why? Perhaps because they were so occupied with the physical kingdom and were seeking things like position and praise for themselves (cf. Mk. 6:52; 8:17-18; Lk. 22:24f).

The Martha Category

Luke 10:38-42 also describes Martha for us.

“Now as they were traveling along, He entered a certain village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who moreover was listening to the Lord’s word, seated at His feet. 40 But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him, and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; 42 but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. “

Martha, it appears, was seeking to find her significance and meet her inner needs through her service (or her works). In doing so she was distracted from Christ and she was failing to trust Him for her inner life. The result--Martha was full of frustration, bitterness, and complaining.

The Multitude Category

These were the sensation seekers. They didn’t come to Christ to know Him or because they were seeking truth. They were there to seek Lazarus (a miracle and proof of the Savior’s person and power) but they were blind to the person and work of the Savior.

There are others like Simon the leper whom the Lord healed and who opened his home up to the Christ. There was Lazarus whom the Lord brought back from the dead and who was a living testimony of Christ as the resurrection and the life. There were also the chief priests who, being full of jealousy, wanted to kill Lazarus. And there was Judas who was full of greed and betrayed the Lord.

Into which category do we fit? Are we like Mary, Martha, the disciples, Judas, or the multitudes?

Two very important lessons come out of this passage.

(1) We can be close to the Word physically, involved in religious activity and works, and still be far, far away spiritually. We can be in the church, but lost. We can be in the Word, but indifferent and closed.

(2) We are and do according to what we think and believe. People act out of their true beliefs which are often subconscious. We often hold contradictory beliefs, but one set of those beliefs will dominate the other.

  • If I believe that Christ’s person and work is the foundation of my security, significance, and abundance of life, I will act sacrificially and with love to Christ and others.
  • On the other hand (even though I believe in Christ) if subconsciously or consciously I am trusting in other things for my happiness or security like money, position, praise, power, or success, and believe I need to depend on my strategies to protect those things, I will act in selfish and unloving ways toward the Lord and toward those I see as a threat to my needs and wants.

May we each examine ourselves in view of the principles and the truth of the insight and ministry of Mary.

Related Topics: Christology, Easter

Why Respond to Gail Riplinger?

Related Media

Over the past few months I have been amazed at what has transpired with reference to Mrs. Gail Riplinger and her 1993 book, New Age Bible Versions. Ever since I “debated” Mrs. Riplinger in November of 1993 on two, one-half-hour long radio programs, I have been inundated with requests from churches, Christian bookstores, and individuals all across the United States, all seeking the same thing: information on New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV).

It is important to emphasize right from the start that I have no personal animosity toward Mrs. Gail Riplinger. I have only spoken with the lady by phone while on KRDS radio in Phoenix in late 1993. Other than sending her a letter and some materials from our ministry, this is the extent of my personal contact with her. I am sure Mrs. Riplinger believes she is doing the right thing in writing NABV. She most probably believes everything she says to be absolutely true. She may well be sincere in her desire to warn the Church about false beliefs. But, sadly, she is also sincerely, and almost completely, wrong.

NABV has disturbed the peace of many churches in the United States and abroad. The allegations the book makes against Christian men of many denominational backgrounds are serious indeed. The back of the book contains this paragraph:

Each page opens a door exposing new version editors--in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy--in mental institutions, seance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials--and most shocking of all--denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak.

The following information demonstrates beyond question that Mrs. Riplinger’s information is fatally flawed and utterly untrustworthy. And yet many people are accepting her statements at face value. Critical thinking seems to be “old fashioned” among many Christians today.

This booklet is made up of articles, faxes, and letters that I have written over the past few months since my debate with Mrs. Riplinger in late 1993. It is in no way an exhaustive response to the 690 pages of NABV. There simply is no need to take the time to do a page-by-page rebuttal of this book. Why? Because once it is demonstrated that there is a consistent pattern of simple error that flows throughout NABV, we might as well move on and give our time to more important pursuits.

The first article presented contains the story of my radio “debate” with Mrs. Riplinger. It includes the notes I wrote in preparation for the program, as well as a recounting of the program itself. I have gone through the notes and added charts and further explanations so as to make the material more appropriate for the published domain. The next section includes the body of a fax I sent to the producers of a television program in Florida, written in response to the comments made by Mrs. Riplinger on the Action 60s program. This material is followed by responses to various radio appearances by Mrs. Riplinger.

It is truly my hope that many in the body of Christ will be helped by the following information. The KJV Only controversy is, in reality, a non-issue when compared with the serious challenges that face the Christian Church today. That so much time and effort has to be put into debunking the wild allegations of such individuals as Gail Riplinger is more of an indication of how easily American Christianity is distracted from its true purpose than anything else.

Guess What
Happened on the Way Home . . .

One of our faithful volunteers called one afternoon to let me know about “some lady” who would be on a local radio talk program presenting the KJV Only viewpoint. I was just heading out, so I turned on the radio on the way home. I was utterly amazed at what I heard. Not only was the information I heard badly flawed, but no one was calling in to respond to her position. Everyone was simply buying into it. By the time I arrived home it was impossible to call into the program, but I did wish to speak to the host of the program to see if there would be any possibility of providing a response to what had been said.

This led to two, half-hour programs on a Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon. The host informed me that his guest, Gail Riplinger, author of the book New Age Bible Versions, would not debate anyone who had not read her book. Hence, I needed to read her nearly 700 page book prior to doing any programs. As I knew that this teaching had destroyed many churches in the past, I set aside a number of projects and dove into the book in the days immediately prior to the programs.

Below I provide the text of the notes I took with me into the radio studio the first afternoon. Upon completing these notes, I shall review Mrs. Riplinger’s response from the radio program.

The issues raised by Gail Riplinger are very important, if only for the fact that in this book professing Christian men who lived godly lives are attacked mercilessly and are associated with men who were anything but godly or concerned about Christian truth. Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such an action. Since we have in this book serious allegations of downright Satanic actions on the part of Christian leaders, I feel Mrs. Riplinger should be held to the highest standards of scholarly acumen and accuracy.

Gail Riplinger claims that her book “objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement’s One World Religion.” However, an even semi-unbiased review of Mrs. Riplinger’s book reveals that this book is neither methodical, nor objective, in any way, shape or form.

Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just non-Christians, but as anti-Christians who are opposed to God’s work in this world and who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Riplinger’s unique view of the world and theology is, in fact, a New Ager in sheep’s clothing. A quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion--Lucifer worship. She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a “scandalous and sacrilegious” belief that “will stun and shock the reader” (NABV, p. 231). Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger’s position. In light of this, I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail’s book.

I note in passing that this book centers on the two most popular conservative Bible translations, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Very little is said about blatantly liberal translations such as the New Revised Standard Version or the New English Bible, most probably because these translations have had little impact upon the conservative Christian community, comparatively speaking. I would join Gail in critiquing these translations, not as part of some New Age conspiracy, but as less than accurate translations of the Bible. But Gail barely mentions these versions; her target is plainly the NIV and the NASB.

As an apologist working on the front lines in dealing with the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and in debating Roman Catholic apologists all across the United States, I have only once or twice encountered a work that contained more misrepresentation of historical facts, of cited sources of documentation, and of the writings of those who are being reviewed. New Age Bible Versions shows not the slightest concern for accurately representing its opposition. Context is a term that is utterly lost in the maze of disconnected, disjointed citations thrown at the reader on almost every page. Utterly illogical argumentation carries the day in Gail’s attempt to find a New Age conspiracy behind every bush. Even the deity of Christ is undermined so as to maintain the supposed inerrancy of a translation, that being the KJV (see below). And worst of all, Gail Riplinger attacks the memories and characters of good men of God, such as Edwin Palmer, without once differentiating between the beliefs and actions of such men and the likes of New Age wackos and Satanists. She misrepresents their writings and words over and over and over again. Accurate representation of others is one thing that is utterly lacking in New Age Bible Versions.

Those are some pretty harsh words, but the documentation of these statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions, and then take the time to find such books as Barker’s The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Palmer’s The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, and John Kohlenberger’s Words About the Word, and examine the references provided at the end of the book. The number of complete mis-citations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statements. Given the small amount of time we have today, I will only be able to provide a few examples, but I could literally expand the list indefinitely.

First, one simply cannot believe the “facts” that are presented in this book, for quite often, they are not facts at all. There are dozens and dozens of charts throughout the book, allegedly comparing the KJV with the supposed “New Versions,” which she calls “mutant versions” (p. 129). Yet, over and over again these charts are simply wrong. On page 22 we are told that the “New Versions” delete the call to take up the cross, when they do not. We are told that while the KJV tells us to bless our enemies, the new versions tell us to call our enemies bastards, which, of course, they do not.

At times the facts are 180 degrees opposite of what is claimed by Gail Riplinger. For example, on page 99 we read, “All new versions, based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three words in Revelation 14:1.” She then quotes the passage from the NIV, which reads, “...the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” The phrase “his name and” is not found in the KJV. She continues on page 100, “Will the unwary, reading Revelation 14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking of ‘his name’ on their forehead before they receive his Father’s name?” Such sounds truly ominous, until one discovers that in point of fact it is the Textus Receptus, the Greek Text of the New Testament utilized by the KJV translators, that alone does not contain the disputed phrase, “his name.” The Majority Text contains it, as do all the Greek texts. We have here merely a mistake on the part, most probably, of Desiderius Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest who collated what became the Textus Receptus. He had major problems in producing the text of Revelation and merely skipped over the phrase referring to the Lamb’s name. Sadly, someone reading New Age Bible Versions could be led to attack the NIV on the basis of a basic mistake.

The modern versions are unashamedly misrepresented in place after place by the convenient use of punctuation. While attempting to argue that new versions teach us to believe in monism through the use of the term “one,” the NASB is cited as follows, “True knowledge according to the image of the One...” on page 92. The reference given is Colossians 3:10, which reads in full from the NASB: “And have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.”

The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter “s.” Riplinger writes, “Watch out for the letter ‘s’--sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added ‘s’ here is the hiss of the serpent.” Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well! Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV’s use of the term “sober” over other translations, possibly missing the “hiss” of that “s” on “sober.” I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the “Five Points” of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger’s use of “acrostic algebra” on page 149. Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the anti-Christ two decades ago, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word “sin” when the Authorized Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into “acrostic algebra,” she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger’s position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions.

SIDEBAR:

Gail Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra!

  • Step 1: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
  • Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
  • Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X
  • Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X
  • Step 5: SIN = X

“Acrostic algebra reveals the ashy residue on which the NIV and NASV rest. When you shake down the ‘Lite’ (NASV) and the...(NIV), you find some heresies which are common to both (like their common letters ‘N’ and ‘V’, as shown in Step 2)”

END SIDEBAR

Double standards are rampant throughout the book. Shortly after attacking all modern versions for daring to use the term “one” in their translations, she fails to attack the KJV for using it in her own citation of it on page 93. When the modern versions do not follow the KJV in rendering the Greek term Artemido" as Diana, she accuses them of being ignorant of classical mythology on page 127; but when they recognize similar gods in Old Testament passages, she accuses them of rejecting the one true God in favor of false gods.

And in what would probably be one of the most amusing examples of double standards, if it were not so sad, Gail Riplinger attacks all who are Reformed, or “Calvinists,” in many places, as I shall discuss and refute later. But in the process she seems to be blissfully unaware of the simple fact that amongst the KJV translators you have the likes of Doctor John Rainolds, a Puritan! And surely Mrs. Riplinger must be aware of the theological beliefs of the Puritans! They were Reformed men, Calvinists, who strongly believed in God’s sovereignty and the deadness of man in sin. If Edwin Palmer’s Calvinistic beliefs make the NIV one of Satan’s tricks, what about the KJV?

It seems that as long as someone had anything at all to do with the production of the NIV, it is fair game to not only impugn their character, but to misrepresent their words. For example, on page 89 of New Age Bible Versions, we read the following, “Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism preside.” The reference given is to Walker’s article, again in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, specifically pages 101-102. Yet, one will search in vain throughout the article for the slightest reference to a rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament in favor of anything else at all. The citation simply has nothing to do with the allegation that is made.

On page 165 we have another personal attack upon an NIV translator, Herbert Wolf, for his defense of the very logical, scholarly translation of the Hebrew “zedekah” in poetic contexts by the term “prosperity.” Ignoring the very solid, reasonable defense given by Wolf, Riplinger chooses instead to play games with the man’s name, writing, “Perhaps the armour and breastplate of ‘righteousness does not fit’ Mr. Wolf and his pack because they are puffed up and paunchy, because they have devoured souls (Ezekiel 22:25).” She goes on to say, “Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that ‘gain is godliness’ are ‘destitute of the truth.’ Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the ‘New’ Christianity and the New Age.” Of course, anyone can see that Wolf said nothing at all about equating prosperity and spirituality; this is mere fantasy on Riplinger’s part. Yet the book is filled from cover to cover with such misrepresentation and wild imagination.

Mrs. Riplinger moves on to attack another NIV translator, Richard Longenecker. On page 345, after saying that the NIV “joins the cults,” she massacres a quote from Longenecker, again from the book, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. She introduces Longenecker’s quotation as follows: “To Longnecker (sic), Jesus was ‘chosen’ to receive the title ‘Son of God’ because he earned it through ‘obedience.’ He says, that Jesus, [then quoting] ...exemplified in his life an unparalleled obedience...[H]e has the greatest right to the title...God’s son par excellence.” A quick glance at page 125 of the original source reveals yet once again that Gail Riplinger has misrepresented yet another Christian scholar. Longenecker says nothing of the kind, and in fact gives a very solid, orthodox, Biblically based discussion of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. In light of this it is amazing to read again on page 345 that Riplinger says, “Both Longnecker (sic) and Carlson (sic) are expressing a view similar to that held by the early Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchists or Ebionites.” Not only is this utterly untrue of what Longenecker said in the cited passage, but it is equally untrue of the other person she mentions, D. A. Carson. Neither are adoptionists.

Now, it is possible that all these misrepresentations are due to horrifically poor research on Gail Riplinger’s part. For example, she misspells the names of both Longenecker and Carson on page 345, even though ostensibly quoting from their books while accusing them of being cultists. On the previous page she misspells the term “Mormon” as well; indeed, every time it appears in the book it is spelled incorrectly. Possibly she simply read other people’s books and then got all her bad information from those secondary sources. Who knows? All I know is that the book is one long misrepresentation from the preface to the index.

Edwin Palmer wrote an article comparing the KJV and the NIV that appears in the book, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. On page 153 he addresses 1 Peter 2:9 which, in the KJV refers to a “peculiar people.” He wrote, “Today that means ‘odd people.’ It should be, ‘a people belonging to God.’ (NIV).” Edwin Palmer believed strongly that God’s people are a special people, a people chosen by God Himself and set apart by their holiness. Yet on page 170, Gail Riplinger, under the title “The Country Club or the Cross,” writes, “A lifestyle driven by verses not vogue, will brand one as ‘peculiar’ (NERD, in the vernacular). Unwilling to bear ‘his reproach,’ the NIV’s Edwin Palmer pushes the ‘peculiar people’ of Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9 into the closet--already crowded with the ‘righteous’ and ‘the perfect.’ Palmer writes, ‘...a peculiar people. Today that means odd. It should be...’” She goes on to say, “It meant odd when Peter and Paul wrote it and when Moses wrote it 4000 years earlier.” In reality, the term has nothing at all to do with “odd” or “peculiar” as we use it today. In point of fact, the Greek term found in 1 Peter 2:9 is also found in Ephesians 1:14, where the KJV translates it as “possession”! That Riplinger can say that a Christian minister was unwilling to bear the reproach of Christ for more accurately understanding the Greek term peripoihvsi" than she does is absolutely amazing.

It is Palmer himself, the editor of the NIV Study Bible until his death in 1980, who comes in for the most obvious personal attack on the part of Riplinger. I can see no other conclusions, having examined Riplinger’s attacks upon Palmer, than either she is grossly dishonest in her methods or is completely ignorant of the writings of Edwin Palmer and what he actually believed. I can see no other possibilities. For example, on page 344 she attempts to parallel Palmer’s quotation, “The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son” with a quotation from Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. Of course, Palmer, in the context in which he was speaking, was exactly right, since he was speaking of the internal operations of the Trinity. Young, on the other hand, was denying the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth. One might conjecture that Riplinger has never read either Palmer’s statements, or those of Brigham Young, and hence did not know that she was mixing contexts so badly. In either case, her point is utterly false.

The same is to be said of her citation of Palmer’s words with regards to the deity of Christ. On page 2 she quotes Palmer in the following form: “[F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.” This is taken as sure evidence of Palmer’s supposed heresy. Yet, is this accurate? No, yet once again context has been thrown out the window. Palmer is actually talking about the rendering of John 1:18 in the NIV. His words are, “John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few and clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus ‘Son.’ “ My what a difference context makes! And Palmer is exactly right. There are less than ten places in all the New Testament that could possibly apply the term Qeov" to Jesus Christ; if that is not “few” then what is?

In passing, I wish to note that Riplinger even misleads her readers regarding the deity of Christ in an effort to maintain the accuracy of the KJV. I am referring to two important passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The NIV translates Titus 2:13, “While we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” and 2 Peter 1:1 says, “To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” In both cases the KJV interrupts the proper translation, splitting up the terms “God” and “Savior,” resulting in the phraseology, “our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ,” as if two persons, God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Savior, are being referred to, when this is not the case. Now, on page 370, with reference to Titus 2:13, Riplinger says, “All Greek texts have the wording of the KJV, ‘God and our Savior Jesus Christ.’ None render it as the new versions do.” And on page 371 she wrote, “2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 are called hendiadies, from the Greek hen dia dyoin, ‘one by two.’ Grammatically it is the ‘expression of an idea by two nouns connected by and, instead of by a noun and an adjunct. It would be like introducing one’s spouse as ‘my wife and best friend.’ ‘“In reality, the reason that the NIV and NASB (and I might add the NKJV) and others accurately translate these passages as “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” is due to what is known as Granville Sharp’s Rule. Without going into detail, the KJV translators were not aware of this grammatical feature of koine Greek, and hence did not translate these passages accurately. The Jehovah’s Witnesses mistranslate these passages purposefully, of course, for obvious reasons. Now, if I were looking for conspiracies, I’d have to identify Gail as a secret Jehovah’s Witness trying to infiltrate the Church. Of course, I know that is not the case and would never make such an argument, yet this is the kind of argument presented throughout her book.

On at least three different occasions our author attacks Palmer’s belief in the sovereignty of God in saving mankind. Twice she mis-cites his words, first on page 2, then again in the exact same form on page 231. Here is her quote from the very beginning of her book on page 2: “The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying: ‘This [his NIV] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior.’ “ Now, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Palmer. Men must be made new creatures by the Holy Spirit of God before they can have true, saving faith. Romans 8:5-9 teaches this with glaring clarity in any translation. And it was, in fact, this belief in salvation by grace--free, unmerited grace--that spawned the Reformation itself. It is Gail Riplinger who here denies the Protestant heritage. But even in doing this she misrepresents Palmer yet once again! Riplinger says that Palmer is talking about the NIV. He is not! The NIV is nowhere mentioned on page 83 of the book being cited. Hence, her whole point is based upon the insertion of the little phrase “his NIV” where it does not belong! Anyone who would read Palmer’s work would shake their head in disbelief at the complete misuse of his words by Riplinger.

Gail’s Pelagianism comes out in yet another misrepresentation of Palmer on page 90. She writes, “His denial of free will is seen in his NIV. He says his change in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 ‘suggests the opposite’ of the KJV.” When you look up the reference, you read the following, “1 Thessalonians 1:4: ‘your election of God.’ In the days of the KJV this was a way of saying ‘your election by God.’ As it is today, the KJV suggests the opposite of what the Greek really says. NIV has ‘he has chosen you.’ “Notice that Palmer says nothing like what Riplinger says; and, Palmer happens to be 100% right, as anyone who has examined the passage well knows.

This topic was so important for Riplinger that she addressed it a third time on page 231. Here she says that the same quotation given above is so “scandalous and sacrilegious” that it will “stun and shock the reader.” One has to wonder what Gail would say about the following quotation from Martin Luther:

“If any man ascribe ought of his salvation, even the least part, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and has not learned Jesus Christ.”

But beyond this, it is obvious that Gail attacks Palmer’s theology, and by extension, the theology of the Protestant Reformation, on the basis of ignorance of its tenets. She asks, “If he denies faith and each individual’s responsibility to accept Jesus as his Savior, what does he offer in its place?” Possibly if Gail would read Dr. Palmer’s book she would discover what he was really saying? I’d be glad to send her a copy of Dr. Palmer’s works, or other books such as R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God or J.I. Packer’s Sovereignty and Evangelism, or my own Gods Sovereign Grace, if she would like to discover what it is that was taught by the Reformers.

SIDEBAR

Bold Misrepresentation
Example #1

For some, as long as you are reviewing the words of “the enemy,” you can twist, distort, and misrepresent all you jolly well want. And that’s what Gail Riplinger does to men like Edwin Palmer.

On the KRDS radio program, Gail Riplinger repeated her charge that Edwin Palmer denied the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. While I tried to correct her, I get the feeling that she will continue to tell people this falsehood. She claims to have read his book. Here’s the passage she quotes. Note what Palmer is actually taking about:

There is among the three Persons of the Trinity a definite relationship and order. Because the three Persons are equally God, it must not be thought that they are all the same. Each one has distinctive properties and relationships to the others. Between the first and second Persons, for example, there is the relationship of Father and Son. From all eternity the Father begat the Son. The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son, only the Father did.

The context is very plain: he is speaking here of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, and in so doing presents the orthodox, historical, Biblical understanding of the relationship of the Father and the Son. Gail is utterly ignoring context to cite this passage in the way she does. What makes the whole situation worse is that if she has really read this book (I personally doubt that she has), she would have read the following from the same work, page 65:

I. The Incarnation

The Holy Spirit was needed at the very start of Jesus’ human life, at his incarnation. By the word incarnation we mean that act by which the Second Person of the Trinity, remaining God, “became flesh and lived for a while among us” (John 1:14). This was an act effected by the Holy Spirit....The Holy Spirit is the cause of the conception of Jesus. He is the one, and not the Father nor the Son, let alone Joseph, who planted the seed of life in a mysterious way in Mary’s womb.

END SIDEBAR

So ended the notes that I brought with me to the radio station. I was able to cover about 25% of the preceding material in the brief time allotted. The vast majority of the information regarding the gross misrepresentation found in Mrs. Riplinger’s book could not be covered on the program. Instead, I had a grand total of five minutes to make comments, and then the rest of the first program, approximately 20 minutes, was dedicated to give and take between Gail and myself. She did not attempt to respond to the documentation of errors on her part that made up my opening statements. I began by asking about the “acrostic algebra” that I mentioned above. I had never heard of “acrostic algebra,” so I asked Gail what it was, and why it was that while she consistently used the abbreviation NASB throughout the book, to make her “algebra” work she switched to the abbreviation NASV. Her response was tremendously revealing. She first indicated that “the Lord gave that to me one night.” Hence, “acrostic algebra” is a revelation given by God to Gail Riplinger. Obviously, then, the validity of such an argument cannot possibly be evaluated. When asked about the switch from the NASB to the NASV, we were told that “the Lord calls it the NASV.”

Mrs. Riplinger then went on to say that the new versions allow for sin because they do not use the term “fornication.” In the process she mentioned that Dr. Virginia Mollencott was on the NIV Translation Committee, and that she was a lesbian, and that her beliefs are found right in the NIV. I had never heard of such a charge, so the next morning I called the International Bible Society and inquired about this. I discovered that while Virginia Mollencott has indeed confessed to be a lesbian, Mrs. Riplinger again was busy taking things out of context. First, Mollencott was not a translator, but a stylist, and that for a massive five months. When she took stands contrary to Biblical standards, she was removed from the project.

Mrs. Riplinger then launched into her attack and misrepresentation of Dr. Edwin Palmer, quoting the passage about faith, and then the passage about the Holy Spirit not begetting the Son. When asked about the context of the statement about the Holy Spirit in Palmer’s book, she could not provide an answer. She seemed very confused about the internal operations of the Trinity and could not refute the fact that she was mixing contexts by comparing Palmer’s statement with that of Brigham Young. Instead, she dodged the question and alleged that the NIV “takes out” the phrase “only begotten Son.” I explained that she was in error regarding the meaning of monogenh", and explained the actual meaning of the term. I then addressed her allegations regarding John 1:18, and at that point the 30 minute program ended.

The next day the program began with a brief discussion (3 minutes each) on the subject of Greek manuscripts. While I was explaining the format of modern critical texts, Mrs. Riplinger began to laugh and giggle, why, I can’t imagine. Then the phone calls began. The first caller, Judy, launched into an attack upon me, scolding me for supposedly having attacked Mrs. Riplinger personally (something I had carefully avoided the evening before). She was an obvious “ringer,” as she had clearly prepared her comments and had contacted Mrs. Riplinger and possibly others involved with the radio program. She was given a tremendous amount of time to “preach.” This led to a discussion of Erasmus and his rejection of the Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7-8. At this point I asked Gail, “Does 1 John 5:7-8 appear in the Majority Text?” She absolutely refused to answer the question (the passage does not appear in the Majority Text).

The rest of the program was taken up with Gail’s assertion that when the Bible speaks of God’s Word it is actually speaking of the King James Version. She even went so far as to assert that when the Psalmist said, “Thy word have I hid in my heart,” that he was talking about the KJV, because “you can’t hide Greek in your heart.” And all who would study Greek were likened to those Greeks “who seek after wisdom” as Paul said.

It is truly amazing how this kind of material can infiltrate churches. It just seems that Christians in this nation feel that there is some fundamental conflict between logical, rational thinking, and the Christian faith. There isn’t. God is true, and His Word is true, and none of this is contradictory to faith. Faith and reason walk hand in hand...to a point. As Pascal said, “Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that.”

I Saw It On TV, So It MUST Be True....

In February of 1994 Gail Riplinger appeared on the Action 60s television broadcast, which originated in Florida. She made a number of comments that cry out for correction.

First, Mrs. Riplinger observed that her students who used Bibles other than the KJV had emotional and spiritual problems. Personally, I have met people who used the KJV who had emotional and spiritual problems. Does this reflect upon the translation? I think not. I believe it has much more to do with whether someone is actively reading whatever translation they are using and applying God’s truth to their lives.

Mrs. Riplinger recounted her desire to show a young lady a verse from the Psalms about keeping her mind stayed on Christ. She is actually referring to Isaiah 26:3, which in the KJV reads, “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.” She indicates that the phrase “on thee” to use her words “had been taken out” of the NASB, and she is correct that the NASB does not translate the Hebrew in the exact same way as the KJV, for it reads, “The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in Thee.” However, both the NASB and KJV translations are perfectly acceptable. Nothing has been “taken out” at all. Mrs. Riplinger is not able to read either Greek or Hebrew, and hence could not verify the accuracy of the NASB translation.

She next claimed that the name “Lucifer” had been “removed” from Isaiah 14, and that the NIV was attempting to make Isaiah 14 refer to Jesus Christ. One can certainly see why people would be upset about something like this! The problem is that Mrs. Riplinger is seemingly not aware of the fact that the Hebrew term used here, llyh, does mean “shining one” or “morning star.” The standard lexicon in the field, Brown Driver and Briggs, states,

llyh n.m. appell. shining one, epith of king of Babylon, rjvA@B llyh !ymVm Tlpn &ya Is 14:12 how art thou fallen, shining one, son of dawn! i.e. star of the morning.

Just because the NIV does not follow Jerome, who introduced the term “Lucifer” into the text at this point, does not mean that the NIV is attempting to identify Jesus with Lucifer. Indeed, most scholars believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, and is used of the Lord in Luke to refer to Satan.

I next note that Mrs. Riplinger, in citing 1 John 2:22, demonstrated one of the inconsistencies of her position. She accurately cited the passage as saying, “Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.” Yet, if you will look at her book, New Age Bible Versions, on page 318 she asserts that the use of the phrase “the Christ” is somehow related to New Age mysticism. If this is so, doesn’t 1 John 2:22 count as well? The fact is that the charts you will find on pages 318 through 319 demonstrate a translational error not in the NASB or NIV, but in the KJV, for in every instance but one listed by Mrs. Riplinger, the word “Christ” (Gr: Cristov") in these passages has the definite article, and hence is properly translated “the Christ.” The only exception is 2 Corinthians 13:3, and here many modern translations, such as the NIV and the RSV, do not say “the Christ” at all!

This kind of error is found throughout Mrs. Riplinger’s work. One may well ask, how can someone with the degrees and training listed on the back of Mrs. Riplinger’s book make errors such as this? The answer is to be found in the fact that Mrs. Riplinger is not a Biblical scholar. Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing, are all in one area: interior design. Mrs. Riplinger did indeed teach at Kent State, but she did so in the Home Economics department, teaching classes in interior design. This is why she can produce charts like those on pages 318-319: she is unable to verify her assertions by reference to the original sources, in this case, the Greek New Testament. Unfortunately, Mrs. Riplinger has never, to my knowledge, indicated to any host who was interviewing her that her degrees are not in any way relevant to the assertions she makes regarding the Biblical text. This does not mean that Mrs. Riplingers statements are to be dismissed simply because she is untrained in the field. However, it does speak to why she can make the elementary errors that she does throughout her book.

Mrs. Riplinger went on to assert that the NIV is “missing” 64,000 words. Again, no words are “missing.” Mrs. Riplinger assumes the KJV to be the standard, and then accuses all other versions of “error” on the basis of her standard, the KJV. One could easily take the NIV as one’s standard and say “The KJV has 64,000 added words!” Would one wish to allege additions to the Word of God by the KJV on such a basis? Hardly! And yet this is the logic of Mrs. Riplinger’s statements.

Gail then says that the differences between the modern texts and the KJV are very relevant to doctrine. This is simply not the case. I believe any person knowledgeable in the area, and even semi-unbiased, will agree with the following statement: A person properly exegeting the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text or the Nestle-Aland 26th Edition will derive the exact same doctrinal beliefs from any of these texts. There is simply no “conspiracy” on the part of such translations as the NIV or NASB to “hide” the deity of Christ or any other important doctrine of the faith.

Mrs. Riplinger cites Galatians 4:7 as an example of a doctrinally relevant “change.” The KJV reads, “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” The NIV reads, “So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.” The phrase “through Christ” is not found in many of the most ancient witnesses to the text. The proper question then is, “What did Paul write?” Mrs. Riplinger seemingly wishes people to think, given her comments about a Hindu, that the “new versions” deny the centrality of Christ in the role of salvation. Such is obviously untrue. Note Romans 5:1, 11, in the NIV: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ....Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” If the NIV wishes to hide the role of Christ, why include these passages? The answer is simple: there is no hidden agenda in the NIV to make it possible for people to be right with God outside of Jesus Christ. The issue is completely textual: the evidence suggests that Paul did not originally write “through Christ” at Galatians 4:7, and hence the modern Greek texts place this reading in the textual apparatus at the bottom of the page (one would think if they were trying to “hide” something they would not tell you about the variant reading at all).

SIDEBAR

Bold Misrepresentation
Example #2

In attempting to turn Edwin Palmer into a heretic, Mrs. Riplinger attempts to bring his belief in the deity of Christ into question. Here are her words:

Under the century old spell of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, NIV editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion:

[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God.

Palmer should qualify his statement noting, “In the new versions, there are few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God.” (p. 305)

Mrs. Riplinger should qualify her statement in light of what Dr. Palmer actually said:

“John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few and clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus ‘Son.’ “ (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143).

Gail claims to have read Palmer’s books. If she has, then she must know Palmer’s strong defense of the deity of Christ. Why then attempt to make her readers think evil of Palmer? It’s easy: guilt by association. If she can make those involved with the “modern versions” look bad, she has won half the battle. This is what motivates her attack upon Westcott and Hort as well. Since the majority of her readers will never take the time to actually read the references she gives, they will be left with an untrue impression of the men who are behind the modern versions which, of course, she is attempting to prove are Satanically inspired and designed to lead everyone into Lucifer worship.

END SIDEBAR

This kind of argument, based as it is upon differing texts underlying the English translations, can be used against the KJV just as easily. Note 1 John 3:1 in the NASB:

See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

But compare the KJV:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

The phrase “and such we are” is missing from the KJV, though its textual basis in the Greek manuscripts is overwhelming. If I were to argue as Mrs. Riplinger, I could say, “See, the KJV is trying to deny that we are in reality the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. This is a New Age conspiracy to prepare us for the Anti-Christ.” But such would be silly, of course. In point of fact, the reason for the difference has nothing to do with conspiracies. It has to do with copying Greek by hand, and the errors we make when we do this. Quite simply, the phrase was dropped from the manuscripts of the Byzantine textual tradition because of something known as “homoiteleuton,” i.e., “similar endings.” You don’t even need to be able to read Greek to see how it happened. I reproduce here the Greek text of the passage:

i[dete potaphVn ajgavphn devdwken hJmi'n oJ pathvr i{na tekvna qeou' klhqw'men: kaiV ejsmevn.

The phrase that is missing in the KJV comes from the last two words above, kaiV ejsmevn, which is translated, “and we are.” Now you will note that the word that immediately precedes this in the Greek ends with the same three letters as the missing phrase, men. As we so often do, a scribe long ago, upon writing the word translated “we might be called,” the Greek term klhqw'men, when looking back at the original, skipped to the next occurrence of the last three letters he had just written, and in the process dropped the phrase kaiV ejsmevn. No great conspiracies, just human error. Just as it would be wrong to charge the KJV translators with heresy for their translation of this passage, so Mrs. Riplinger is in error in her comments about Galatians 4:7.

Next Mrs. Riplinger accuses the NIV of “taking out” 13 words from 1 John 4:3, going so far as to say that the NIV translators are “denying that Jesus is the Christ.” The KJV reads,

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The NIV reads,

but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

One can readily see that the only thing “missing” is the phrase “Christ has come in the flesh,” and again, this is because the phrase is disputed and is placed in the textual apparatus of the Greek text utilized by the NIV translators. While a good case can be made for the insertion of the phrase (I personally would favor retaining it), the reasoning for not including it is plain: the phrase appears immediately before verse 3 in verse 2. Hence in the process of copying the text a scribe could have easily repeated the phrase, coming as it did right after the name of Jesus. However one views this, the point is that the NIV immediately before 1 John 4:3 contained the very words Mrs. Riplinger thinks they are trying to hide! Note the NIV’s translation of 1 John 4:2:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

If the NIV were trying to “hide” something, why not delete this reference, too? The answer again is plain: no one is trying to hide anything. No conspiracies, though one is forced to ask why Mrs. Riplinger fails to bring this vital point to the attention of the audience! Surely Mrs. Riplinger owes the NIV translators a great apology for this kind of wild accusation.

SIDEBAR

Pelagius Lives Again

There seems to be a strong element of anti-Reformed or anti-Calvinistic feeling among adherents to the KJV Only position, and Mrs. Riplinger is no exception to the rule. Her book is sprinkled with attacks aimed at those who are Reformed, though it is painfully obvious that her knowledge of the Reformed position is very, very shallow. We have noted that she identifies the “Five Points of Calvinism” as a “Satanic pentagram” (p. 231), and in the midst of using purposefully insulting and misleading language (“Palmer and his cronies,” “He admits his purposeful switch saying...”, “Palmer’s elite ‘Elect’ and damned ‘depraved’ classes”) she provides us with the following paragraph:

Palmer’s chapter on the ‘Elect’ elite is reflected in his translation of 1 Thessalonians 1:4, “he has chosen you.” He admits his change “suggests the opposite of” the KJV’s “your election of God.” In his system, God elects a few ‘winners’. In Christianity, God calls all sinners, but few elect to respond. Palmer denies that man should respond, and like psychologist B.F. Skinner, author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Palmer believes, “Man is entirely passive.” He points to his alteration of John 1:13 asserting that it ‘proves’ man has no free will.

1) Anyone even slightly familiar with Reformed beliefs knows that the use of the term “elite” is utterly ridiculous. 2) The translation of the Greek at 1 Thessalonians 1:4, uJpoV qeou' thV n ejkloghV n uJmw'n, as “he has chosen you,” while dynamic, is certainly acceptable and completely accurate, both contextually as well as in the entire spectrum of Paul’s theology. 3) What Palmer actually said is that the KJV’s rendering suggests the opposite of what the Greek indicates, and he is correct yet once again. 4) In “his system,” which is called historic Reformed belief, the same beliefs that ushered in the Reformation, God elects sinners unto Himself in mercy, not “a few winners.” 5) The connection of Palmer’s statement that man is passive (because man is dead in sin: Ephesians 2:1-4) with B.F. Skinner is simply absurd. 6) Palmer nowhere says he “altered” John 1:13, because, of course, he didn’t.

END SIDEBAR

Mrs. Riplinger then said that in the new versions the “Father” is there but the Lord Jesus Christ is “gone.” Anyone with a “new version” in their hands can see that this is utterly false. Mrs. Riplinger gives a couple of examples to substantiate her point, but seemingly forgets the many, many places where both the Father and the Son are clearly presented in any translation. Her first example was Ephesians 3:14, which in the KJV reads, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But the NIV and NASB say, “For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father.” Mrs. Riplinger takes this as some indication of heresy on the part of the modern versions, but, again, it goes to the text used in these translations. The phrase “of our Lord Jesus Christ” is not found in P46 (one of the earliest papyri copies of the Pauline letters), a* A B C P 0150 6 33 81 365 1175 1573 1739 1962 2127, some lectionaries, 596, manuscripts of the Vulgate, four early translations into other languages, and by ten of the early Fathers who cite this passage. That is a very impressive listing of evidence against the originality of the phrase. But this passage gives us an excellent opportunity of examining Mrs. Riplinger’s arguments for consistency. She wishes us to believe that the “modern versions” are purposefully attempting to make this acceptable to a Hindu or a Muslim. It should follow, then, that we should not be able to find the phrase “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” in the modern versions, correct? And yet, just a quick glance at the very book from which she draws her example, Ephesians, tells us a different story. Here I quote from the NASB:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3)

And what of Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3)

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying (2 Corinthians 11:31)

We again see that Mrs. Riplinger’s conspiracy theories fall apart under the most basic examination. There is no denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, nor the uniqueness of the Christian gospel, by the modern versions Mrs. Riplinger attacks. And given her claim to have spent six years exhaustively collating these versions, what excuse can she offer for not taking note of these passages that utterly destroy her arguments?

At this point Mrs. Riplinger engaged the topic of the deity of Christ. It is just here that I have trouble with the KJV Only people in a way unlike any other, for I am actively involved in witnessing to those who deny the deity of Christ on a regular basis. It is a simple fact, known to any person who is active in evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, that the NIV is the single strongest translation with reference to the classical passages that demonstrate the deity of Christ. I would include in the list of these passages the following: John 1:1, 1:18, 8:58, 10:30, and 20:28; Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:16-17, 2:9, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. It should hardly go without saying that if there is a bias against the deity of Christ, these passages should show it. In some modern translations we do find problems here (such as the NRSV). But Mrs. Riplinger has two main targets in her campaign, the NIV and the NASB, and both outperform the KJV in these passages! Note especially the inferior translations of the KJV at Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1:

Romans 9:5:

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (NIV)

Titus 2:13:

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV)

while we wait for the blessed hope-- the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2 Peter 1:1:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (KJV)

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

You will note how very clear the translation of Romans 9:5 is in the NIV over against the rather ambiguous translation of the KJV; and in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the KJV mistranslates what is known as a “Granville Sharp Construction.” The KJV translators can hardly be blamed for this, since the construction was not identified until the late eighteenth century. If I were into conspiracies, as Mrs. Riplinger is, I might be tempted to make much of these passages, but such is neither logical nor right.

As those who watched the program will recall, Gail never mentioned these passages. She never brings up any facts that would be contrary to her position. Instead, she focused upon the textual variant at 1 Timothy 3:16, where the KJV reads,

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The NIV reads,

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

We have already seen that the charge that the NIV or NASB are hiding the deity of Christ is absurd. Why, then, do they not have “God” here? Again, it is due to the

Many ancient witnesses read “He who” rather than “God.” How could the two terms get mixed up? Rather easily, since in the uncial (all capitals) texts of the New Testament, this passage would have looked like this:

THSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONOSEFANERWQHENSARKI

....when it was reading “He who” and this when it was reading “God”:

THSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONQSEFANERWQHENSARKI

The only difference is between OS and QS. One can easily see where the problem arose. Now, personally, I prefer the reading “God,” and can argue for it on textual grounds. But the point is that there again is no “conspiracy,” no attempt to do away with the deity of Christ. Indeed, the NIV indicates the reading “God” in its textual footnotes. Why do this if you are trying to hide something?

Gail continued her attack upon the modern translations by citing Ephesians 3:9, which in the KJV contains the phrase “by Jesus Christ.” The modern translations do not have this phrase, again due to the fact that the phrase is missing from nearly every early witness we have, including P46 a A B C D* G P 33 81 365 1175 1739 2464 2495 and most early translations. Again, we must ask Mrs. Riplinger: Are not additions just as important as deletions? Are we to allow indiscriminate additions to the Word? And does she really believe that the modern translations deny that all things were created by Christ Jesus? If she does, she needs to read John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 in the NIV or NASB.

On the same program Mrs. Riplinger asserted that “99 44/100” of all Greek manuscripts agree with one another. Surely she must be aware that this is not a word-for-word agreement. No two handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament agree with each other 100% of the time. Due to the fact that handwriting introduces common errors into the text, we will find spelling errors or missing words due to simple copyist error in every manuscript. A more accurate statement would be that the majority of Greek manuscripts come from what is called the Byzantine manuscript tradition, and that this tradition differs in some respects from other manuscript traditions represented by smaller numbers of manuscripts, such as the Western or the Alexandrian. These issues lead us into the discussion of textual criticism. The reader will find a large number of works, representing an entire spectrum of viewpoints, available in the library or bookstore. We would recommend the following works for the person who wishes to read a number of different perspectives:

The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger (Oxford, 1968)

The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland (Eerdmans, 1987).

These two works, aside from proving that textual critics are lousy at thinking up original titles for their works, would represent the “main stream” perspective on textual criticism today. Their viewpoint would be specifically rejected by KJV Only advocates. However, anyone wishing to truly understand the thinking behind the textual choices of such modern versions as the NASB or NIV must deal with these works. However, both are rather technical. Thankfully, there is a simplified text that presents the same perspective:

Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture by J. Harold Greenlee (Eerdmans, 1985)

Greenlee’s work is best for those who wish a shorter, less complex introduction to the practice of textual criticism.

The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering (Thomas Nelson, 1980).

This work is cited often and favorably by Mrs. Riplinger in her book, though I find some inconsistency in this, as Pickering would not defend the Textus Receptus as inspired. Be that as it may, this book attempts to provide a completely different alternative to the textual methodology that lies behind the modern Greek texts such as the Nestle-Aland 26th or the UBS 4th. Most scholars have rejected Pickering’s theories, mainly because of the fact that he utilizes a tremendous amount of statistical mathematics. Why is this a problem? Basically, human beings living in a difficult world copying manuscripts under difficult circumstances tend to defy the precise categories of complex statistical analysis. Furthermore, history plays a large role in the transmission of the New Testament text, and Pickering’s theories cannot give the proper place to the realities of the historical situation.

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry Sturz (Thomas Nelson, 1984).

The late Dr. Sturz provided an important book, in my opinion, that has been, by and large, ignored by most. He walks a mediating line between the extreme seen in those who utterly ignore the manuscripts of the Byzantine family, and those who present a defense of the “Majority Text” who end up minimizing the importance of the other families, simply due to their smaller numbers. Sturz argues that the Byzantine text type needs to be given equal weight with the other families.

Finally, I wish to address very briefly Mrs. Riplinger’s confident statements about Westcott and Hort. A few points. 1) Modern Greek texts are not mere copies of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881. Modern scholars have recognized various errors in the work of Westcott and Hort, and have modified their views accordingly. 2) Mrs. Riplinger never once mentions the fact that many of her confident statements about Westcott and Hort being “spiritualists” are based upon pure speculation on her part. Note reference 128 on pages 676-677. Here Mrs. Riplinger admits that in point of fact, she is not referring in her statements to B.F. Westcott, the textual critic, but to W.W. Westcott, a London mortician! She asserts that B.F. Westcott was in fact W.W. Westcott, and that based upon the statement of B.F. Westcott’s son that his father wrote his “B’s” like “W’s”! Note the final statement she made: “The connection between B.F. Westcott and the activities attributed to the possible allonym W.W. Westcott are speculation on my part.” Did Mrs. Riplinger ever note this on Action 60s? Did she ever say “Now, what I’m saying about Westcott and Hort is in fact merely speculation on my part”? No, she made her assertions directly and without qualification. What is more amazing is the fact that the very sources Mrs. Riplinger cites indicate that B.F. Westcott was born in January of 1825; W.W. Westcott was born in December of 1848. B.F. Westcott died in July of 1901; W.W. Westcott died in June of 1925. Indeed, the book Mrs. Riplinger cites most often about B.F. Westcott, The Life of Westcott, was published 22 years before W.W. Westcott died! Furthermore, W.W. Westcott published his work, Sepher Yetzirah, the Book of Formation in 1911, a full decade after B.F. Westcott was dead! How she can maintain that B.F. Westcott is actually W.W. Westcott, I have no idea.

SIDEBAR

Beware the Sleight of Hand!

KJV Only advocates love to fill books with charts of how things have been “removed” from the Bible, all the time alleging that some terrible sinister plot it afoot to hide this doctrine or that. Mrs. Riplinger gives us a great example of this on page 109 of NABV:

The title ‘the Virgin’ has been applied to the goddesses of the Canaanites (Astarte and Ashtoreth), the Babylonians (Rhea or Semiramis), the Egyptians (Isis), the Hindus (Isi, Kanyabava, Trigana), the Romans (mother of Romulus and Remus), and the Greco-Roman goddesses Ceres, Hestis, Vesta, Diana, Artemis, Demeter, and Cybele. For this reason, new versions omit Luke 1:28, a phrase which speaks of Mary’s unique position.

We are then given the following chart:

      NIV, NASB, et al

       

      KJV

      OMIT

      Luke 1:28

      blessed art thou among women

Note that Mrs. Riplinger claims that the reason the phrase “blessed art thou among women” is specifically because the new versions are trying to push pagan goddesses upon the Christian Church. Is this the case? Only if the new version editors are really witless! Look at Luke 1:42 as found in the NIV:

In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!”

How did THAT get there? Here in all manuscripts, and all modern versions, we find the very phrase in question, “Blessed are you among women.” If the modern versions were trying to degrade Mary’s unique position, why not delete this reference, too? Because there is no such conspiracy, and because decisions about the text are based upon the evidence provided by the manuscripts, not upon conspiracies. Why would the phrase be inserted at a later date at Luke 1:28? Because of its presence at Luke 1:42. In both situations Mary is being greeted, first by the angel and then by Elizabeth. It seemed natural to a scribe long ago to have the words of Elizabeth come from the mouth of the angel as well.

This kind of misrepresentation of the Biblical text is common place in KJV Only writings. Beware the sleight of hand!

END SIDEBAR

Furthermore, Mrs. Riplinger likes to utilize “equivocation” in her arguments; that is, she likes to take one term and use it in a way that suites her position, even if that usage is utterly out of context. For example, she cites Arthur Westcott, B.F. Westcott’s son, as indicating that his father was a “Spiritualist.” Mrs. Riplinger quickly defines “spiritualist” as one who has contact with the dead, that is, a necromancer, and on this basis pronounces B.F. Westcott’s activities to be an abomination before God. And yet, the honest person must ask, “Did Arthur Westcott actually say that his father was a necromancer?” And the answer, of course, is “no.” Here is what Arthur Westcott actually said:

In spite of what he called his “Puritanic temperament,” Westcott always delighted in congenial society. He was essentially affectionate and enthusiastic in any cause which invited co-operation and served some useful purpose. He devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the “Ghostlie Guild,” and the other the “Choral Society.” The “Ghostlie Guild,” which numbered among its members A. Barry, E.W. Benson, H. Bradshaw, the Hon. A. Gordon, F.J.A. Hort, H. Luard, and C.B. Scott, was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effects. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response. Outsiders, failing to appreciate the fact that these investigations were in earnest and only seeking the truth, called them the “Cock and Bull Club.”

Arthur Westcott then provides the concluding section of the “Ghostlie Circular” written up by his father, which explains that the society is interested in determining whether supernatural events are indeed taking place or not. The document concludes,

The first object, then, will be the accumulation of an available body of facts: the use to be made of them must be a subject for future consideration; but, in any case, the mere collection of trustworthy information will be of value. And it is manifest that great help in the inquiry may be derived from accounts of circumstances which have been at any time considered “supernatural,” and afterwards proved to be due to delusions of the mind or senses, or to natural causes (such, for instance, as the operation of those strange and subtle forces which have been discovered and imperfectly investigated in recent times); and, in fact, generally, from any particulars which may throw light indirectly, by analogy or otherwise, on the subjects with which the present investigation is more expressly concerned.

If the preceding does not strike one as the words of a full-blown “spiritualist” seeking to get others interested in contacting the dead, you should hardly be surprised. Obviously, Westcott’s interest was that of a Cambridge scholar, and one might well criticize him more for being a naturalist than for being a New Ager.

The above paragraph is followed by the comment made by Arthur Westcott that is cited by Gail Riplinger. Here are his words:

What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Abridged Edition (London: 1905) p. 76).

It’s hard to understand how someone can take this and say that Arthur Westcott called his father a “spiritualist,” let alone how one can then jump from this use of the term “Spiritualism” to “necromancy,” but this is indeed what Gail Riplinger has done. She asserts that the New Agers themselves trace the channeling movement back to Westcott and Hort. While one might well question the integrity of quoting New Agers for historical facts, I find it fascinating that a quick trip to the library lends no support for Gail’s theories. For example, The Encyclopedia of Parapsychology and Psychical Research by Arthur and Joyce Berger (Paragon House: New York) contains no references to either B.F. Westcott or F.J.A. Hort, though it has extensive information on topics relating to the occult, channeling, etc. How could they have missed the “fathers” of the channeling movement? The Encyclopedia of the Unexplained (edited by Richard Cavendish, McGraw-Hill) manages to discuss the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (a topic Riplinger mentions a number of times in NABV) with no mention of B.F. Westcott or F.J.A. Hort, either, though it speaks often of W.W. Westcott, the London mortician that Gail attempts to turn into B.F. Westcott. Again the “fathers” of the modern channeling movement are left out of this entire work. How can this be? Possibly the same strange reason explains why Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience manages to miss Westcott and Hort as well? Indeed, the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, in two volumes, described as “A Compendium of Information on the Occult Sciences, Magic, Demonology, Superstitions, Spiritism, Mysticism, Metaphysics, Psychical Science, and Parasychology,” while giving full information on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (volume 1, pages 677 through 678) and on W.W. Westcott (volume 2, page 1803) somehow manages to avoid mentioning the “fathers” of the channeling movement, Westcott and Hort! Hopefully the reader will forgive the slight amount of sarcasm, but the wild claims of Mrs. Riplinger make it difficult to resist responding in such a manner.

Gail Riplinger appeared with Dr. Joe Chambers on June 4, 1994 on a radio program in Charlotte, North Carolina. Again Mrs. Riplinger allowed the interviewer to make reference to her academic credentials without once mentioning the fact that her field of study is not at all related to the Bible, history, or any type of linguistic or textual study. Again Mrs. Riplinger brought up Virginia Mollencott, but then, when a caller brought up the charge of homosexuality that history places against King James I of England, she was vociferous in her defense of King James. The interviewer rightly pointed out that James had nothing to do with the translation itself: of course, Virginia Mollencott’s unannounced lesbianism had no impact upon the NIV, either, though Mrs. Riplinger would inconsistently deny this.

A caller challenged Mrs. Riplinger’s statement that all the modern translations deny the deity of Christ at Philippians 2:5-11, the famous Carmen Christi. It was truly amazing to listen to both the host and Mrs. Riplinger attempt, in vain, to argue that the KJV’s translation affirms the deity of Christ while the NIV and NKJV deny it. Note the passages for yourself:

Phil 2:5-6 (NKJV) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Phil 2:5-6 (NIV) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

It was painfully clear that neither Mrs. Riplinger, nor the interviewer, were familiar with the many discussions of this passage. Having utilized this text in sharing Christ with many Jehovah’s Witnesses, I am quite familiar with the superiority of the rendering of the NIV at this point. The ambiguous translation of the KJV is a stumbling block in sharing with the JW’s; the NIV is crystal clear. Mrs. Riplinger completely misunderstood both the underlying Greek text as well as the NIV translation. It was truly a shame, for anyone believing Mrs. Riplinger is thereby deprived of one of the clearest, best translations of the passage, and is in fact led astray as to the true meaning of the apostle at this point. This is not the only place where, in the mad drive to make the KJV “inspired,” Mrs. Riplinger and her fellow agitators actually end up undermining the very belief she is attempting to uphold. Another clear example of this is seen in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (already mentioned)

A number of people who have attempted to get Mrs. Riplinger to “debate” them have reported that she is declining these offers. However, she did a program with Al Kresta on WMUZ early in 1994, and Mr. Kresta did a fine job in asking her direct questions (every single one of which she managed to avoid answering). When my name was mentioned, Mrs. Riplinger rather angrily informed the audience that I am “rude and crude” and that I am a “heretic.”

NABV does not seem to be going away too quickly, despite its being denounced by many. Even those who originally showed some support for the book have backed away from it, with the notable exceptions of such scholarly sources as Texe Marrs and Jack Chick. Dave Hunt, himself an advocate of the KJV, has written a strong review of the book in his newsletter, The Berean Call (May, 1994). In the article we find such statements as,

If New Age Bible Versions (NABV) had both accomplished its goal and fulfilled it in the way the author stated, NABV would be of great value to the church. The book, however, not only misses the author’s professed marks, it seriously undermines her credibility and brings her integrity into question.

We’ve received a half dozen evaluations of NABV from individuals whose research we respect. Their work, much of it checked against the difficult-to-obtain sources quoted by Riplinger, has complemented our own scrutiny of Riplinger’s book.

Those who have a preference for the KJV, as we do, will find no encouragement in Riplinger’s endeavor. Her writing is driven by a misleading style and loaded with contrived “evidence.” She starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the book.

That is, of course, exactly what I said in my opening remarks on the KRDS radio program in November of 1993. Anyone taking even the slightest time to review this book is forced to the same conclusion. Hunt echoes my own sentiments when he writes,

Time and space will not allow for more than a sampling of the hundreds of mistakes in Riplinger’s 690-page book. Most of the errors can be chalked up to incompetence, but there are far too many that seem to be designed to convince the reader of the author’s viewpoint regardless of how lacking the proof might be, or of even how much evidence exists to the contrary.

And yet Mrs. Riplinger’s book continues to sell. One of our volunteers sent us a copy of an advertisement that appeared in Practical Homeschooling (Vol. 2, No. 1). One part of the add reads,

*The result of former university professor G. A. Riplinger’s six-year collation of new Bible versions and their underlying Greek editions.

We have noted that Mrs. Riplinger does not seem to want people to know she is a woman (we have yet to see her identify herself in advertising situations as Gail Riplinger: it is always “G.A. Riplinger.”) But beyond this, there is the continued attempt to foster the appearance of scholarship on her part. She is very careful not to say anything that is absolutely untrue about her credentials. She is indeed a former university professor. However, as I noted above, her expertise is in interior design, not history or Biblical studies. She is unable to read Hebrew or Greek, and hence the claim that she has “collated” the “Greek editions” is almost laughable.

With reference to her use of “G.A. Riplinger,” the January/February 1994 The End Times and Victorious Living newsletter contains an article by Gail about why she wrote NABV. Keeping in mind her claim that God “gave” her “acrostic algebra,” note her own words:

Daily during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources--much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary.

The significance of this statement should not be overlooked. When I first began studying NABV, I was continually faced with making a decision about Mrs. Riplinger. In the light of the fact that she misrepresents the facts literally hundreds of times, utilizing grossly dishonest methods of research and citation, what am I to think of her? Is she purposefully dishonest, or merely so tremendously deceived that she is willing to lay aside honesty so as to obtain a “higher” goal (the ends justifying the means)? I came to the conclusion early on that most probably Mrs. Riplinger is so convinced of the “conspiracy” theories she presents that this drives her to the lengths of dishonest reporting that we have documented in this response. The preceding quotation only verifies this conclusion. Mrs. Riplinger, seemingly, cannot accept correction, since God, in her opinion, is the author of her book, and she is merely the secretary. This makes the book revelatory in nature, and hence uncorrectable. Things like acrostic algebra may be silly, but when you think God gave it to you, you don’t see it in the same way as others who would critically examine your statements.

SIDEBAR

On page 22 of NABV, Mrs. Riplinger attempts to contrast the KJV with “New Version/New Christianity.” In this chart she alleges that while the KJV calls believers to “take up the cross” the new versions “OMIT” this call. When I posted this material on a national computer echo dedicated to the discussion of the KJV Only controversy, a defender of Mrs. Riplinger’s attempted to support her statement. This led to my writing the following information:

KJV

NIV

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Many believers are troubled by charts such as the one above. At first glance, it would appear that the NIV is somehow “deleting” or “removing” the phrase “take up the cross” from Mark 10:21. But is this the case? Is there reason for not including the phrase in Mark 10:21? And is there some bias against the call to take up the cross in the modern translations, as some KJV Only advocates would have us to believe?

We begin by pointing out that the NIV and other modern translations do not include this phrase because the Greek texts they utilized in their work do not contain the words “take up the cross.” The text utilized by the NIV translation committee was the Nestle-Aland text. It is the judgment of the scholars who compiled this text that the phrase was not a part of the original Gospel of Mark. We will discuss their reasoning below.

Next, it is important to note that the phrase “take up the cross” appears four times in the King James Version of the Bible: Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23, Mark 8:34 and the disputed passage at Mark 10:21. The first three all recount the same incident in the teaching ministry of the Lord Jesus. If there is indeed some “conspiracy” on the part of the modern translations to get rid of the call to take up the cross, surely they will delete this phrase in these passages as well, will they not? And yet the modern translations have all three occurrences in their translations. Note, as an example, Mark 8:34 in the NIV (emphasis added):

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

It is difficult to see how a charge of “conspiracy” can be made against the modern translations, unless one believes that theology is based upon how often the Bible repeats a command. That is, if the Bible says “take up the cross” only three times, rather than four, this somehow makes the command less important or binding than if it were said four or five times. But surely we all can see that this kind of thinking is muddled. God’s truth is not decided by counting how many times He says the same thing. When God says “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, NIV), we do not ask that He repeat Himself three or four more times before we will accept the great truth of monotheism, that there is but one true God. In the same way, Scripture records Jesus’ call to take up the cross in three places, and this is sufficient.

Why, then, does the KJV contain the phrase at Mark 10:21? Again, we note that it is because the Greek text used by the KJV translators, later called the Textus Receptus, contains the phrase in the Greek. In point of fact, the majority of Greek texts contain the phrase. So why omit it? Here are the reasons.

First, and foremost, the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament do not contain the phrase. This includes not only the two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, that are so often vilified by KJV Only advocates, but many others. Not only this, but entire translations into other languages lack the phrase.

When Biblical scholars encounter a situation like this, they look for a reason as to why a phrase like this would be inserted into the text. Most often, insertions are made due to the presence of the phrase in a similar context elsewhere in Scripture, which causes a scribe to place the material in the copy he is writing due to familiarity with the other passage. For example, in Ephesians 1:2 in the NIV we read,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This phrase found a place early on in the regular vocabulary of Christians. It was used in the worship of the Church, and everyone was familiar with it. That familiarity led to a problem with Paul’s greeting in his letter to the Colossians. Here is how the KJV reads at Colossians 1:2:

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet the NIV reads,

To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.

The final phrase “and the Lord Jesus Christ” is not found in many of the early manuscripts, but it is found in others. Why not include it? Because we recognize that this passage has been influenced by Ephesians 1:2. We find no reason why the phrase would be deleted, but familiarity with the phraseology of Ephesians 1:2 gives us a good reason why the phrase would be included here. It is not a matter of trying to slight the Lord Jesus Christ, but one of again asking that question, “What did the Apostle originally write?”

The same is true in Mark 10:21. Remember how Mark records the one time the Lord Jesus spoke of taking up the cross in chapter 8, verse 34:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

Notice that Jesus says that those who would come after Him must deny themselves and “follow me.” When we come to Mark 10:21, we again find that phrase “follow me.” Seemingly an early scribe, familiar with the phraseology of Mark 8:34 and its use of “follow me,” upon encountering the same thing in Mark 10:21, either mistakenly or even on purpose, inserted the phrase “take up the cross.”

But this is not the only fact that points to the correctness of not including “take up the cross” at Mark 10:21. There is another good reason. Mark 10:21 is part of a story that is found in both Matthew and Luke as well, specifically, in Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22. Note that neither Matthew nor Luke record the phrase “take up the cross” in their gospels at this point:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me (Matthew 19:21).

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me (Luke 18:22).

The fact that the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke omit the phrase in all manuscripts further verifies the propriety of not including it in Mark 10:21. Indeed, those who would charge the modern texts with “heresy” for not including the later insertion at Mark 10:21 are hard pressed to explain why they do not make the same charge against both Matthew and Luke! Nearly all the charts produced by KJV Only advocates suffer from the same kind of “double standards” seen in this example from Mrs. Riplinger.

END SIDEBAR

In Conclusion . . .

It is not joyous to have to engage in the kind of task that requires you to dwell upon mistakes, errant conclusions, and mis-citations. I would much rather take my time to speak of the wonders of God’s providence in preserving His Word through the centuries, not in the way the KJV Only folks demand, but in the way He sovereignly decreed. I would rather speak of the glories of Christ and the wonders of His grace. But Gail Riplinger, purposefully or not, has disturbed the peace of Christ’s Church, and that for no reason. Her errors must be exposed, and she must be called to cease her troubling of the saints.

SIDEBAR

New Age Conspiracy or More Accurate Translation?

On page 184 of NABV Mrs. Riplinger notes that while the KJV has the phrase “the Godhead” at Romans 1:20, the NIV and NASB have “divine nature.” She objects to the “modern” rendering found at Romans 1:20 with the words, “Now ‘Christian’ and cultic blasphemies bear a strong resemblance.”

The problem here is that not only is Mrs. Riplinger making connections where none logically exist (the single most common error she makes in her book and in her speaking), but she is attacking the modern translations for being more accurate than the King James! The KJV uses the phrase “Godhead” three times, once at Acts 17:29, once at Romans 1:20, and once at Colossians 2:9. In each case the KJV is translating a different Greek word by the same English word! This leads to a real problem when comparing Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. The term at Romans 1:20, qeioth", means “divinity” or “divine nature” just as the NASB renders it. However, the term at Colossians 2:9 is qeoth", which means “deity,” i.e., the state of being God. Colossians 2:9 is one of the plainest affirmations of the deity of Christ, yet the KJV obscures this by rendering different Greek terms with one English term that itself communicates poorly. Rather than applauding the modern translations for their accurate rendering, Mrs. Riplinger, because of her tunnel vision, has to attack them for being “different” than the KJV!

END SIDEBAR

It is my sincere belief that the preceding information is sufficient to establish, beyond doubt, the unreliability of Gail Riplinger as a researcher, writer, theologian, and textual critic. While one could literally fill another hundred pages with the errors she makes, there simply is no reason to do so. If the preceding does not establish the point, no amount of information will suffice.

If you see someone in your church with New Age Bible Versions, do not ignore them. Give them this booklet. Warn them of the problems in the book. Do something, or before long you will have problems. Sadly, we hear of people attacking everyone who does not carry the KJV with them into the service, and often, this includes the Pastor, who does not need that kind of grief at all.

An Open Letter to Mrs. Gail Riplinger

Dear Mrs. Riplinger:

Over the past month I have made a number of efforts to contact you, including two letters, which have gone unanswered. Individuals involved with the “Defending the Faith” radio program on KIXL in Austin, Texas, have attempted to invite you to appear on their radio program to debate your claims in New Age Bible Versions, but they report that you have not returned any of their phone calls. As you seem unwilling to engage in open discussion of your book or your claims, I felt an open letter would be appropriate. I will be enclosing copies of this letter as part of the information we will be sending to people who request information on your book, along with my booklet, New Age Bible Versions Refuted.

Over the past few weeks I have been doing research in preparation for the writing of my new book, The King James Only Controversy. Part of that research has taken me deeply into your own book (as well as many others), as I wish to collate as many of the common passages cited by KJV Only advocates as I can, and your book is surely filled with such passages. As I have checked your citations, however, I have been appalled by the errors upon errors that I have encountered. Up until this moment, I was simply marking them in my copy, knowing that someday I will have opportunity of sharing these things on various radio and television programs. However, the error I just encountered, coupled with the tremendous misrepresentation I encountered yesterday with reference to a couple of NIV translators, has caused me to put aside my writing project for a few moments and write to you to ask you to please do something about all the falsehoods that fill your book and that are misleading many across the nation.

I am referring specifically to the chart at the bottom of page 289 of NABV. I reproduce your own statements:

NIV, NASB, et al.

 

KJV

My kingdom is not of this realm. (The NASB concordance pretends the word is enteuthen; all Greek MS say kosma, even Nestle’s.) NASB

John 18:36

My kingdom is not of this world.

Mrs. Riplinger, even a brief glance at the Greek text shows your error. The NASB Concordance is not “pretending” anything, but surely, Ma’am, you are “pretending” scholarship in your writing. Note the Greek text of John 18:36:

ajpekrivqh jIhsou'", JH basileiva hJ ejmhV oujk e[stin ejk tou' kovsmou touvtou: eij ejk tou' kovsmou touvtou h hJ basileiva hJ ejmhv, oiJ uJphrevtai oiJ ejmoiV hjgwnivzonto a[n, i{na mhV paradoqw' toi'"jIoudaivoi": nu'n deV hJ basileiva hJ ejmhV oujk e[stin ejnteu'qen.

Obviously, you looked only at the beginning of the verse where the NASB has, “My kingdom is not of this world,” just as the KJV. Here the term is definitely kovsmo" (not “kosma” as you erroneously put it). However, you attack the NASB for the translation of the final phrase, “My kingdom is not of this realm.” Yet the KJV has “my kingdom is not from hence.” The Greek term is indeed ejnteu'qen, just as the NASB Concordance said, and it is the very same term that is found in the TR and translated by the KJV as “from hence”!

If this kind of error was an isolated instance, one might forgive the unwarranted attack upon the NASB. But it is the norm, not the exception! Your inability to check your assertions against the actual text (you may be able to “make out” a word or two here or there, but there is a vast difference between being able to read the language and merely recognizing a term once in a while) lead you to error after error after error, and, most sadly, since you have put your errors in print, you are leading others to follow you in your mistakes! Note your words on page 145:

The Sacrament of Penance

NEW VERSIONS

 

KJV

confess your sins

James 5:16

confess your faults (All Greek texts have the word for faults here, --not sins.)

Mrs. Riplinger, what is the term translated “sin” or “sins” in the KJV? Is it not the term aJmartiva? You say that “all Greek texts have the word for faults here.” Really? Why, then, do I note the following in the Nestle-Aland text?

ta paraptwmata 049 | txt a A B P Y 048vid 33. 81. 614. 630. 1241. 1739. 2495 al

The text reads aJmartiva", and that is the reading of all the manuscripts cited above. How can you say “All Greek texts have the word for faults here” when that is simply not the case? Is this not very much like your assertion that all Greek texts read as the KJV at Revelation 14:1, when in fact the exact opposite is the case? Are you able to understand the information presented in the textual footnote, Mrs. Riplinger? Or are you dependent solely upon secondary sources?

I note in passing that often your generic “New Versions” heading is inaccurate. For example, you say the “New Versions” have “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven” at John 6:33 (page 146), while the NIV has “he” just as the KJV. On the same chart you cite the “New Versions” as saying “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God” while neither of your two main targets, the NIV and the NASB, give such a reading. The same is true on page 170; you lump “New Version” into one group reading “respectable” at Luke 5:32, when the only translation I can find that so poorly renders the passage is the TEV: the NIV, NASB, etc., all translated the passage as “righteous.”

On page 172 we find this chart:

NIV, NASB et al.

 

KJV

Nobody should seek his own good.

1 Cor. 10:24

Let no man seek his own...wealth.

the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

1 Tim. 6:10

For the love of money is the root of all evil

Here, amazingly, we find you misrepresenting the KJV itself! Here is the actual, unedited rendering: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” The way you have presented it differs from the reality; besides this, the term “wealth” is not only in italics, it doesn’t even fit, and is in fact an error in the KJV translation (we are not to seek after other people’s “wealth” but are to look to their welfare, that is, their good). And I might add that the modern rendering of 1 Timothy 6:10 is perfectly accurate; rizw in the Greek is anarthrous, and pantwn twn kakwn is plural, hence, “all kinds of evil.” Think about it, Mrs. Riplinger: is the love of money the root cause of rape? If not, then obviously the KJV rendering cannot be defended as absolute.

On pages 175 through 176 you claim the NIV does not translate bzk. Again you are in error. The NIV translates it as “false gods,” and you might wish to think about how appropriate that translation is.

On page 182 you attempt to make the NASB’s translation of the Greek term qrovnoi (thronoi) relevant to the psychology of self-esteem. The translation of qrovnoi by the term “thrones” can hardly be faulted; indeed, it is the KJV’s “seats” that is less direct.

On page 184 you address the quite accurate modern translation of a group of terms translated by “the Godhead” in the KJV. I provide you with the following chart of my own making:

NASB

 

KJV

the divine being

Acts 17:29 (qeio")

the Godhead

divine nature

Rom 1:20 (qeioth")

the Godhead

deity

Col 2:9 (qeoth")

the Godhead

Would you care to explain, Mrs. Riplinger, why the KJV translates three different terms by one English term, when those three terms do not, in fact, mean the same thing?

Your penchant for “hacking up” quotations is plainly seen on page 188. Here are the first two entries in your chart on that page:

NEW VERSIONS

 

KJV

as he hath prospered

1 Cor 16:2

as God hath prospered him

we might become the righteousness of God

2 Cor 5:21

we might be made the righteousness of God in him

First, the term “God” is nowhere to be found in the TR at 1 Corinthians 16:2; this is a “paraphrastic” translation on the part of the KJV. You then emphasize “in him” in your chart at 2 Corinthians 5:21, and cite the “New Versions” as if they don’t contain this phrase. Yet, the NASB says,

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

And the NIV has,

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

By quoting the NIV from the point immediately after “in him” appears, you create an illusion to fit your scheme. How can you do this kind of thing?

On page 191 you indicate that the NIV and the NASB “OMIT” the phrase “that they might accuse him” at Matthew 12:10. Yet, when we check out your accuracy we find the following:

And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”-- in order that they might accuse Him. (NASB)

and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (NIV)

On page 246 you seem to be unaware that the KJV translators anticipated the phrase “and you he has made alive” in Ephesians 2, translating it as part of verse 1 when in fact it is in verse 5. As a result, you falsely accuse the NIV/NASB of not having a phrase that they properly translate, in its place.

In your chart on page 260 you contrast the KJV’s “the words of eternal life” against the NASB’s “words of eternal life,” not mentioning that the NIV, RSV and ASV all have “the words of eternal life.” Besides this, the Greek construction is anarthrous, making the NASB an acceptable translation. Further on down the list you have “a common faith” under the NIV/NASB column, contrasted with “the common faith” of the KJV at Titus 1:4. Again you ignore the NIV’s “our common faith.” And again, the construction is anarthrous.

As I have mentioned, it is the consistency of your misrepresentations that is so striking. The examples pile up as anyone takes the time to work through your book. More of your seemingly purposeful misrepresentation is found in these three examples taken from your chart on page 269. First I give your representation, and then in the second chart I contrast your deceptive citations with the real words of the translations you are attempting to malign:

NIV, NASB, et al.

KJV

whosoever believes

whosoever believeth in him John 3:15

in Him

In whom ye also trusted Eph 1:13

also have obtained an inheritance

in whom also we have obtained an inheritance Eph. 1:11

But in reality:

Mrs. Riplinger’s Citation

What It ACTUALLY Says

whosoever believes

that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. (John 3:15, NASB)

in Him

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, (Eph 1:13, NASB)

also have obtained an inheritance

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:10-11, NASB)

I thought the last one was really great, given that all you had to do was not tell folks that the “missing” term is found in verse 10. One could write a book just on how often you mislead your readers. On page 270 you do the same thing all over again to the NASB with reference to Romans 3:25. You cite the KJV, “through faith in his blood,” and put the “NIV, NASB” rendering as “faith” as if the modern translations do not have “in his blood.” But, again, a quick glance at the texts demonstrates your error:

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (NASB)

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--(NIV)

Did you assume, Mrs. Riplinger, that no one would look at the texts? On the same page you cite the NIV/NASB as “that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” and attempt to contrast it with the KJV by citing Colossians 1:24 in this manner: “the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” If anyone looks up the passage, they find that you are comparing apples to oranges:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: (KJV)

The emphasized portion is that which corresponds to what you cited from the NASB; you conveniently neglect to quote it, and instead quote a later portion, misleading the reader yet once again.

The inconsistency of your arguments is overwhelming at times as well, Mrs. Riplinger. On page 303 you point out through the use of a chart that the KJV follows a “fuller” text, especially when it comes to titles. Expansion of titles in the Byzantine manuscript tradition is a well known fact, and is indeed one of the very things that leads scholars to recognize secondary elements in that tradition. However, can you not see that your chart actually disproves your conspiracy theory? You note, for example, 2 Corinthians 4:10, where the modern texts have “Jesus” and the KJV has “the Lord Jesus.” Yet, you also cite Matthew 12:25, where the KJV has only “Jesus.” Why is it acceptable for the KJV to have just “Jesus” at Matthew 12:25 and not “Lord Jesus”? If the KJV is not denying the Lordship of Christ by using the single name “Jesus” at Matthew 12:25, then how can you assert the NIV/NASB is doing this at 2 Corinthians 4:10? And looking down the chart, you note that at 2 Corinthians 11:31 the modern texts have “Lord Jesus.” Well, if they were trying to attack Jesus at 2 Corinthians 4:10 by not having “Lord Jesus,” why did they allow that title just a little over seven chapters later? The argumentation makes no sense at all.

Your ignorance of the Biblical languages leads you to more serious errors in your section on the deity of Christ. It is here, indeed, Mrs. Riplinger, that you should surely be ashamed of your activities, for there is no more important doctrine than the deity of Christ, and yet you sacrifice many of the most important references to it in your struggle to make a 17th century Anglican translation the “inerrant word of God.” You do this in a number of ways. First, as I have already demonstrated (in my booklet), you sacrifice the great passages at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, preferring the inferior translation of the KJV over the plain and proper translations found in the NIV/NASB. You do the same thing on page 305, where you prefer the errant reading, and translation, of Jude 1:4 over the proper translation, again giving us a Granville Sharp Construction, “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” If you were familiar with defending the deity of Christ against those who deny it, you would know that this is a very significant passage, for the term in the Greek here, despovth", “Master,” is used of God alone in Acts 4:24 (though poorly rendered in the KJV--note the NIV’s bringing out of the fuller meaning). Once again your zeal for the KJV has caused you to lead believers astray from yet another passage that demonstrates the deity of Christ.

As I mentioned briefly in New Age Bible Versions Refuted, your comments on the great Carmen Christi at Philippians 2:5-11 are completely out of line. You do not seem to have any idea what the passage is saying, nor how the NIV translation of this passage is the best available. You speak of sharing with Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I can assure you I have shared with far more JW’s than you have, and this passage, as it is found in the NIV, is one of the best single passages in the New Testament for explaining how Jesus Christ was eternally God, and yet became man to die as the sacrifice for the sins of God’s people. Please at least attempt to understand that when the modern translations have “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” they are not saying that He did not already have this equality, but did not consider it something to be held on to. The NIV makes it very plain that He was “in very nature God” prior to the incarnation. The torturous KJV rendering only hides this marvelous fact.

But I tire of demonstrating error after error. I mentioned at the beginning that the second thing that prompted me to write this letter was your gross misrepresentation of NIV translators. I am specifically referring to pages 261 and 262 where you misrepresent the words of Calvin Linton and Ronald Youngblood. I begin by giving your own words:

NEW VERSION EDITORS

CHRISTIANITY

Calvin Linton: NIV

The bible is “God’s message” and not his words, contends Linton. He believes the bible is “the wrong side of a beautiful embroidery. The picture is still there, but knotted, blurry--not prefect.” He calls Christians “amusingly uninformed,” who “presume the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of the text of the original writers.”

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Matthew 5:18

(A ‘jot’ is the smallest letter and a tittle is the smallest ornament placed on a letter.)

Your reference footnote is number 76, found on page 665. It cites The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, 1986 edition, pp. 17-19. Here we find an article by Calvin D. Linton entitled, “The Importance of Literary Style in Bible Translation Today.” I provide Dr. Linton’s actual words so that the depth of your misrepresentation can be easily seen:

I recently received a lengthy letter from a devout reader of the Bible who asked why there needed to be any modern translations of the Bible at all. Why cannot we simply put down God’s exact words in English form? Why dress them up in so many styles? (These questions remind one of the famous mot: “If the King James Version was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me.”)

Such questions, though amusingly uninformed, do actually touch on a profound consideration, one suggested by the great seventeenth-century poet and preacher John Donne, whose sermons as dean of Saint Paul’s (in his later life) drew throngs. Speaking of the style of the Bible, he said, “The Holy Ghost is an eloquent author, a vehement and abundant author, but yet not luxuriant.” This presumes that the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of the text to the original writers, thereby (it is further presumed) investing the entire Bible with his own literary style. The style of the Bible, however, is not homogeneous. Rather, each writer has his own style, reflective of his personality, which a faithful translation must reflect in ways perceptible to the modern reader. “When the original is beautiful,” says The Story of the New International Version, “its beauty must shine through the translation; when it is stylistically ordinary, this must be apparent.”

The Holy Spirit, while preserving the inspired writers from error, used the individuality of each writer as colors on his palette to paint a unified picture--or, to use another image, to weave a seamless garment. Such exploitation of the differing characteristics of the original writers--their learning, personality, environment, literary style, etc.--in no way impugns the inerrancy of the original autographs. It merely means that God did not expunge all individuality from the inspired writers, using them only as automata or as “word processors.” The written Word comes to us through the “dust” of our earthly nature, but it is uniquely breathed into (animated) by God. It foreshadows and testifies to the ultimate revelation of God in his Son, when “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). He, too, like the Bible, partook of our earthly condition (yet without sin, as the Bible in its original autographs is without error), possessing a human body, a certain physical appearance and manner of speech, and reaching us on our level, that God’s message may be made wholly ours.

I pause briefly to note the propriety of Dr. Linton’s remarks. Anyone who has read Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, or the epistle to the Hebrews, and also 1 John, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the style differs markedly between these three books. Belief in plenary verbal inspiration does not require one to hold to a dictation theory. Dr. Linton is exactly correct when he points out that each of the writers used by God had their own style, their own mannerisms. The style of 1 John is not the style of Luke, that is for certain. This in no way vitiates the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit in “carrying along” these men as they spoke “from God” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

Dr. Linton then goes into a discussion of literary style, and gives us these words, which you badly misquote in your work:

If, therefore, style is a fusion of the idea to be expressed and the individuality expressing it, it follows that, since no two individualities are identical, no two styles are identical. And it further follows that no translation can be a perfect reproduction of the original style, for it is not possible to alter the original words without altering the original style. The goal, therefore, is to create (and it is a creative act) a style in modern English as closely reflective of the original style as possible. The translator must, among other things, strive to eradicate all characteristics of his own personal style, becoming a sounding chamber without strings. At best we probably must agree with the seventeenth-century writer James Howell when he says that a translator can do no more than reveal the “wrong side of a Persian rug.” Fortunately the Bible is so gorgeously woven a tapestry that even the “wrong side” is wonderful!

Mrs. Riplinger, I was so shocked at the depth of the purposeful misrepresentation here that my naturally generous nature forced me to stop writing this letter and contact individuals who could help me to verify that the above material, taken as it was from the 1991 edition of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, matches what is found in the edition you cite, that being the 1986 edition. I had to make certain that there was not some mistake, some reason for your complete misrepresentation of Dr. Linton. But there is no such reason. The 1986 edition reads the same as the 1991. You made up the entirety of your chart entry for only one purpose: to malign the character of Dr. Linton, and to misrepresent his statements so that you could further the goal of your book. This kind of action is ungodly, for it is nothing more than lying, and lying is a sin against God.

Sadly, the exact same thing happens on the very next page of your book, page 262. Here the target of your attack is Dr. Ronald Youngblood, and his article, “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” found on pages 111 through 118 of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. Here is your statement, allegedly quoting from pages 111 and 117:

NEW VERSION EDITORS

CHRISTIANITY

The bible is the “words of men,” a “literary production.”

Ronald Youngblood: NIV

The word of the Lord endureth forever. 1 Peter 1:25

We see that you are attempting to contrast a belief in the “word of the Lord” with Dr. Youngblood’s statement. Since you are also contrasting “New Version Editors” with “Christianity,” we can only assume you do not believe Dr. Youngblood or Dr. Linton, “New Version Editors,” to be representative of Christian belief. Therefore, we must understand your citation of his saying the Bible is a “literary production” is meant to deny a belief that the Bible is inspired or is the “word of the Lord.” And yet, is this was Dr. Youngblood said on page 111 of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation? Of course not:

The Bible is the most dramatic literary production of all time. The preparation and promise of the Old Testament find their completion and fulfillment in the New Testament. Each half of Scripture needs the other for its fullest understanding. As Augustine put it: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” Such a close relationship between the two Testaments is reason enough to warrant frequent examination of the ever-fascinating and always-important topic, “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.” Each of the major elements in that title, however, is fraught with its own dangers.

There is the source of your citation, “literary production.” And what, may I ask, is there to object to in this statement? Setting up a dichotomy between Dr. Youngblood’s statement and a belief in the inspiration of Scripture is not only illogical, it goes against everything Dr. Youngblood said in his article, and hence is, again, dishonest to the core. But you were not through. You also alleged that Dr. Youngblood taught that the Bible is “the words of men.” You specifically set up a contrast between this and a belief in the “word of the Lord.” Here you are drawing from page 117 (I can’t say “citing,” since you are not quoting but misquoting):

Jean Levie gave to his book on biblical criticism and exegesis the perceptive title The Bible: Word of God in Words of Men. The subtle symbiosis between divine and human authorship in Scripture is present in such a way as to give us divine truth without admixture of human error. This fact is none the less true with respect to Old Testament quotations in the New Testament than with respect to any other biblical phenomenon.

I can certainly see how quoting what he actually said would destroy your argument, Mrs. Riplinger. You wouldn’t want people learning that there were NIV translators who believed in inerrancy or inspiration! Such would cause people to actually think of them as Christians, and then ask why you would be so willing to attack Christians via misrepresentation! We can’t have that, so we hack up the quotation, all again in the cause to defend the “true Bible.”

Mrs. Riplinger, you made a frightening statement in your article on why you wrote NABV. You said,

Daily during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources--much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary.

Mrs. Riplinger, God does not lie. God does not hack up quotations. God does not misrepresent people. God does not make basic, fundamental errors on every page of his works. Saying God “directed” you to misrepresent Dr. Palmer and Dr. Barker and Dr. Linton and Dr. Youngblood is, quite simply, blasphemous, is it not? Saying God’s “directed hand” led you to accuse the NASB Concordance of “pretending” when in fact you were simply in error is dangerous, is it not?

The only honorable thing for you to do, Mrs. Riplinger, is to withdraw this book from publication and issue a letter of retraction, apologizing to all those you have misrepresented, and all those you have misled. I pray that God will give you the courage to do just that.

In the original booklet, at this point we reproduced a hand-written note from Texe Marrs, dated July 28, 1994. We provide the text here, retaining original spelling and punctuation:

Texe Marrs
Living Truth Publishers
1708 Patterson Road
Austin, Texas 78733-6507
(512) 263-9780 FAX (512) 263-9793

July 28, 1994

Mr. White:

Don’t write me again unless in sincere repentance. You are a devil, plain + simple. And I understand well why Mrs Riplinger does not respond to your ridiculous assertions. Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan!

TWM

P.S. Dr. Waite will make you look exactly like what you are: a sinner in need of redemption, so arrogant + uninformed you do not even know that the new versions take out the “Alpha + Omega”--the very name of your Fake “ministry” in one passage of Revelation I also notice that you corrected your incorrect spelling of Gail’s name in your unscholarly, pitiful article. As I recall, that’s one of the things you falsely accused her of--spelling words incorrectly. Exactly the error in the first version of your ever changing treatise God doesn’t lie, true. But Satan + his people do, of which you are one.

Amazingly, Mr. Marrs is not the only person who has focused upon only two issues in responding to what I have written about New Age Bible Versions. It seems all the critics can think about is how to spell Gail’s first name, and the fact that Revelation 1:11 in the KJV has the phrase “Alpha and Omega” while the modern texts do not. I answered these concerns in my response letter to Texe Marrs:

July 30, 1994

Texe Marrs
Living Truth Publications
1708 Patterson Road
Austin, TX 78733

Dear Mr. Marrs:

Long ago, sir, the Scripture writer recorded the following words:

“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” (Proverbs 18:13).

These are indeed words of wisdom, and your letter of July 28 shows clearly that you do not find these words relevant to your reactions to those who would seek to be of assistance to you in your ministry.

Over the years I have received “nasty” letters from all sorts of people. Working as I do with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists, Roman Catholics, and others, I take my share of “heat” from irate people. One does not stand outside the LDS temple in Salt Lake during every General Conference for the past ten years and pass out tracts without getting some people a little upset. And one does not pass out literature to the thousands gathered to see the Pope in Denver, or debate Roman Catholic apologists on the Papacy at Denver Seminary, without encountering opposition and angry feelings. And I certainly heard my share of foul language as I held a sign outside the convention of the American Atheists here in Phoenix a few years ago. But I never imagined that the single meanest, nastiest letter I would receive would come from a “Christian leader.” Just so that you are clear on what you said, I quote your brief letter verbatim:

[See above for text]

The fact, sir, that you can respond to the materials I have provided to you, which do nothing more than plainly and clearly document the errors and mistakes in Mrs. Riplinger’s work, and that in a fashion that can only be called “kind and gentle” in comparison with your own demeanor, is truly amazing.

With reference to “sincere repentance,” I can only repent of thinking that you, a Christian leader, would be open to correction and instruction. Obviously, I was quite incorrect in thinking in such a manner.

I am not a devil, sir. I am, in point of fact, your brother in Christ (if in fact you know Him), a redeemed sinner saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. I have known the Lord for more than 25 years, and have served him as a minister most of my adult life. That you are willing to call a Christian minister a “devil” simply because I have the temerity to disagree with you, and to demonstrate the errors of your statements, is beyond comprehension. And to then identify such a person as a “servant of Satan”--are you willing to answer for such absurd and reckless accusations before the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus Christ, Mr. Marrs? You will surely have to answer for such things, I can assure you.

It is telling indeed to note that upon receipt of nearly 30 pages of double-column small print you have only two things to say by way of substance (ignoring the ridiculous insults). First you take me to task for having spelled Mrs. Riplinger’s name as “Gayle” in my initial draft of the paper, calling me a “liar” for having done so! Such is, of course, so utterly irrational as to boggle the mind. Perhaps you have not noticed that Mrs. Riplinger did not put her first name in her book, Mr. Marrs? Look for yourself. She always has “G.A. Riplinger.” No first name given. The only reason I knew her first name wsa Gail was because the host of the radio program I listened to (and later participated in) called her by her first name. I had to guess what spelling she used, and I chose Gayle. Later someone mentioned that they had received a letter from her and she had spelled her name “Gail.” So, I changed the spelling in my paper. You consider this obviously understandable situation as grounds for calling me a liar, sir? Do you not remember the words of Jesus, wherein He warned us about condemning our brothers? His warning is in the KJV as well as all other versions. Why do you ignore His teachings on this matter, sir?

Secondly, you assert that I am “arrogant and uninformed” with reference to the phrase “Alpha and Omega” in the book of Revelation, and the fact that there is one place where the modern texts do not include the phrase. I can assure you, sir, that I am not in the least ignorant of the textual variation found at Revelation 1:11. We chose the name Alpha and Omega Ministries on the basis of Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, not 1:11. The phrase is found in that passage only in the A text type; it is not found in a A C 1006. 1841. 2050. 2329. 2351. K lat sy sa. Hence, the Nestle-Aland, UBS 4th, and Majority texts do not place this reading in the text, and rightfully so. Of course, this in no way, shape, or form does damage to the plain identification of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. As I have shared this precious truth with many, many Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years, I can assure you that they are hard pressed to explain this clear teaching of Scripture. And I am just as hard pressed to understand both the harsh, mean-spiritedness in your letter, and your unwillingness to defend what is plainly a later addition to God’s Holy Word. I despair of your providing a meaningful answer to this question, but why do you invest infallibility in Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, who made the choice of including this passage in his text? The inconsistency of this action, given your other statements, is exceptionally plain.

You identified my article as “unscholarly and pitiful.” I will gladly allow any and all to examine my article, and your retort, and judge for themselves who is unscholarly, sir. The simple fact is that neither you nor Mrs. Riplinger can respond to the plain documentation of error after error in her work. And, you cannot defend your statements made on KXEG radio, either, for again, the facts are not on your side.

Christian are people who love the truth, Mr. Marrs. They do not love traditions more than truth. KJV Onlyism is a man-made tradition, and it is very plain, given the tone of your reply to being corrected on the issues, that you love this tradition quite deeply: so deeply that you will identify Christian men who try to share the truth with you as “devils” and “servants of Satan.” Such charges are quite serious, but given the irrationality of your words, they carry little weight.

If you love the truth, Mr. Marrs, you will take the time to seriously and rationally consider the stance you have taken. If you fear the face of men more than the face of God, you will continue with your tirades against modern translations such as the NASB and NIV. The choice is indeed yours. I would hope that you would take the time to examine what I have sent you. You say it is unscholarly. Prove it. Document it. Don’t hide behind blustery words of condemnation. Come out and show my errors, if there are any. I will be glad to meet you in the public arena.

How did Mr. Marrs respond to this letter? He sent it back with red writing written in large letters across the first page, read:

MR MARRS DOES NOT WANT YOUR EVIL TRASH. DON’T WRITE AGAIN EXCEPT IN REPENTANCE.

Most people find it hard to believe that men can act in such a manner, yet this is very common amongst the hard-core KJV Only believers. Another such individual, Dr. Peter Ruckman, concluded a short article about me and Alpha and Omega Ministries with these words:

Blow it out your nose, kid. Out here in the traffic you’re liable to get run over. Stick to fairy tales.

This kind of behavior is directly contradictory to the teaching of Paul found in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 in any translation. We pray for those who speak evil of us and who spread lies about us. We leave it in God’s hands to judge the motives of their hearts, and the truth of the issues at hand.

Another Book by Mrs. Riplinger?

The middle of 1994 saw another book published under Mrs. Riplinger’s name, Which Bible is God’s Word? When I first saw the book I failed to notice that Mrs. Riplinger attempted to make some reply to my earliest criticism of her first book. Her responses demonstrate yet once again that honesty and integrity is the farthest thing from her mind when she sits down to write her works. We note her words:

The NIV Translation Center directs queries about the version controversy, not to a scholarly detailed defense of their word choices, but to two copied pages written by a self-proclaimed, “apologist working in the front lines in dealing with the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon] (sic) . . . .” NIV champion Jim White spent all of several “days,” at his own admission, researching the topic. Three examples of his careless and unlearned comments follow: (p. 61).

I note that 1) my initial review was much more than two pages in length. 2) Mrs. Riplinger failed to provide even the beginning of a meaningful response to the first review of her most unscholarly work. 3) I am an apologist who has worked for years on the front-lines of evangelizing LDS people. She conveniently ignored the rest of my sentence (found in its original form earlier in this text). 4) I have never “admitted” to having spent “several days” studying textual critical issues (the context in which she places her words); such is a simple lie. She may be thinking of the several days I spent reading her book, but that is not what she says. Anyone who has read the previous pages of this booklet, has listened to my debate with Mrs. Riplinger, or has read The King James Only Controversy, well knows that I have spent more than a few “days” studying the issue of the King James Only controversy. 5) How “careless” and “unlearned” I am can be seen by looking at the four (she said three, but must have added another later and forgot to go back and edit her words) items she chooses to include in her review.

The first item she chose to address, by God’s providence, happens to be the “take up the cross” issue that is so thoroughly discussed earlier in this text. Obviously Mrs. Riplinger had not seen my comments on this issue before she fired her broadside, for all she says in response to my statement, “We are told that new versions delete the call to take up the cross, when in fact they do not” is this: “They do delete it. See Mark 10:21, NIV, NASB, et al.” Please note that our initial comments on this topic earlier in this work are borne out completely: Mrs. Riplinger does want people to think that this phrase is deleted from the Bible on the basis of Mark 10:21, and she still does not deal honestly with the presence of the phrase in three other places in the modern versions.

Her next statement should astound all Christian readers. Mrs. Riplinger caught me in an error. Yes, earlier in this work I indicated that “all” Greek texts contain the disputed phrase at Revelation 14:1, a phrase that Mrs. Riplinger said was based upon a “tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts.” I was technically wrong in my statement. While none of the popularly available Greek texts cite any variants here (including the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, the UBS 4th, and even the Majority Text, which cites the TR as standing alone), there are a “tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts” that read as the KJV does. The vast majority of the manuscripts join against the KJV reading. But my use of the word “all” was incorrect. But please note that Mrs. Riplinger, while correcting my “all,” somehow, incredibly, forgets to apologize to her readers for having been completely in error in her original statement! In fact, she does not even mention her own statement in her second book! And why not? It’s simple: to prove me “wrong” in having overlooked a small handful of late manuscripts she has to admit that the reading is found in just a few, while she had originally said in NABV that it was the reading of the vast majority! Instead of doing what any honest person would do and admit she made the mistake, she chooses to cover her error and use it as a cloak to attack the person who pointed out her mistake in the first place! Such reprehensible actions are simply shameful.

How does she respond to the demonstration that she completely misrepresented Dr. Edwin Palmer in her quotation of him (see above)? See if you can make heads or tails out of her attempted response:

Neither I nor my quote from Edwin Palmer mention the incarnation at all. Palmer does not believe the word beget (John 1:14 et al) refers to the incarnation. In spite of the fact that the verse is talking about his “flesh.” Palmer’s “begotten God” (John 1:18, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143) is no more accurate theologically than the Mormon notion, “The head of the gods appointed a God for us” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370, 372).

She is here citing from my article that made mention of our radio interview. Any person who has listened to that interview well knows that Mrs. Riplinger did make reference to the incarnation, and misrepresented Palmer on that topic. [Note: one can hear this very section of the discussion by dialing (602) 973-0318 and going to the appropriate area in the Christian Information System]. What is more a quick glance at NABV p. 344 will demonstrate that Mrs. Riplinger was talking about the incarnation! Furthermore, there is no word “beget” at John 1:14; Mrs. Riplinger is again misunderstanding the term monogenhv" as I explained to her in our radio discussion long ago. And finally, we must note that here Mrs. Riplinger even misquotes Joseph Smith! It is almost as if she cannot quote anyone she disagrees with correctly. If one thinks that is an unfair conclusion note her fourth and final point. She points out my assertion that she misspelled the names of Longenecker and Carson on page 343. Here is her response:

He is really grasping at straws. The early printings of the 700-page New Age Bible Versions did accidentally drop the “e” from the name Longenecker and add an “l” to Carson. I only reluctantly fixed it, since these men advocate removing the name of deity from the bible about two hundred times. Misspelled names exemplify “horrifically poor research” according to Jim. (He misspells my name thirty times in his four-page critique).

I refer the reader to my response about Gail’s name in my letter to Texe Marrs, quoted earlier. I also note that here she says my critique was four pages: immediately before she said it was two. Her confusion is almost beyond comprehension. But I wish to emphasize the attitude and mind-set that is revealed by Mrs. Riplinger at this point. She only “reluctantly” (emphasis hers!) changed the spelling of these names. Why? Because she dislikes the textual choices of D.A. Carson and Richard Longenecker! This surely fits with her blatant campaign to misrepresent all those with whom she disagrees--one does not even need to spell their names correctly! Let the reader beware of this kind of polemic literature.

And so the booklet, New Age Bible Versions Refuted, concluded as of October of 1994. At that time was I working hard on The King James Only Controversy. I completed the work, and the editing and publication process began. Since I mentioned Mrs. Riplinger in the fifth chapter of that book, which came out in April of 1995, I sent sections of chapters to her, offering her the opportunity of commenting upon or correcting anything she felt was in error. I have often sent articles I was working on to individuals who were being reviewed, or refuted, asking them for their comments (an action that has almost never been reciprocated).

As anyone knows who has attempted to contact Mrs. Riplinger, it’s next to impossible, especially if you are “the enemy” from her perspective. At one point, when I was faxing a letter to her, the fax machine on her end hung up half-way through the transmission! Obviously she feels that she does not owe “rude, crude heretics” much in the way of manners. Be that as it may, Mrs. Riplinger never once responded to my attempts to get her replies to what I was writing. But, I did hear from her. Right as my book was about to come out, Mrs. Riplinger began writing to Bethany House Publishers and threatening to sue if they published the book! She made repeated threats, though she never provided any meaningful documentation of the alleged “errors.” Instead, she sent pages from a future publication in which she makes many more of the same kind of wild-eyed, conspiratorially-driven accusations that we have already reviewed in her first two efforts. In fact, as time goes on, she becomes more and more removed from the realm of reality, retreating, it seems, into a world of her own fanciful creation.

Of course, no lawsuits resulted from the release of The King James Only Controversy. Indeed, many have commented on how fairly Riplinger is treated, especially in light of the fact that if someone wanted to, her own writings provide a massive storehouse of “legally actionable material” (to use her own phraseology), wherein she has grossly misrepresented and mercilessly attacked a wide variety of Christian leaders, living and dead. The double-standard she lives by is most amazing.

Later in 1995 her 64 page magazine/booklet, King James Version Ditches Blind Guides came out. Nearly half of the book is dedicated to attacking me, but others who come under Gail’s wrath include Dave Hunt, and even David Cloud, a strong KJV Only advocate who had the temerity and honesty to point out some of the ridiculous and absurd conclusions found in NABV. As normal, Gail’s only means of responding is to play games with a person’s name (if one took out all the name-calling there would be a cover and about half a page of text). For Cloud, we get these words:

Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much ‘heat’ comes their way. Pilots know that Clouds are dense and full of hot air; consequently, they detour around them when they can. I’d recommend the same course (pp. 33-34).

My name seemed to delight Gail as well. Some of the sub-titles in this cartoon-filled booklet include “White-out,” “James Games: James White Meets Vanna White,” and “White’s Whopper.” Indeed, the book begins with a little rhyme, printed over a picture of three blind mice:

Blind mice and “scribes” will never see
their names in Matthew 23
--The word slips from their NIV!
To get it back, they will not flee,
but sit and search for gnats on me.
Blind guides would rather strain for lice
than search within for their own vice
They’ll swallow some unsavory story,
cooked-up by White, McMahon, or Morey,
their caravan of camels served
with humps and truth severely curved.
Woe to these scribes, who having swerved,
have turned aside from God’s pure words.

According to my computer, we just began page 39. If after this amount of time anyone still thinks Gail Riplinger has anything of substance to say regarding the Bible, history, the biblical languages, or textual criticism, there is nothing more I can say that would be of benefit. The facts are plain. But those dedicated to Riplinger’s theories and speculations are rarely impacted by any kind of factual rebuttal.

Gail Riplinger’s works have been reviewed, and rejected, by numerous Christian leaders and scholars. For most, it’s a waste of time to even discuss the issue, since it’s so obvious that she is a troubler of the brethren, a woman who is out of control, setting herself up as an expert on topics about which she knows nothing at all. Her inability to function as a scholar is plain to anyone who wishes to see. The impact she has had in disrupting churches, damaging missions work, and in generally causing trouble, is hers to answer for.

In closing, though, we should actually be more troubled about what Gail Riplinger’s work says about the church as a whole. Where has discernment gone? Why didn’t someone sit her down a long time ago and try to straighten her out? And what is worse, why are men to this day letting her go on her merry way, spreading falsehoods, and even encouraging her in such activities? I have been informed (but have not taken the time to verify) that Mrs. Riplinger was recently granted an honorary doctorate by Jack Hyles for her work, New Age Bible Versions. Can someone explain how a person who doesn’t even have the first bit of undergraduate training in any of the fields relating to Bible translation can be given an honorary doctorate for having produced the most error-filled volume on the topic ever to grace the planet? Is “acrostic algebra” the stuff of doctorates? One may well forgive Gail, for she is obviously deceived; but what of the many others who encourage her to continue on in her path of disturbing the work of the Church? Might not they be even more liable? It would seem so.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Apologetics

We Can Trust the Bible

Related Media

The question of biblical authority is a burning one, so much so that to some theologians and preachers it is too hot to handle. Some writers, reportedly of high intellectual and spiritual standing, look upon the Bible as a book which, to them, is obviously marked by inconsistency, historical inaccuracy and self-contradiction. They see the Bible as containing but not as being the Word of God. While they are telling us that the Bible contains errors, incorrect dates and fictitious authorships, they claim that in this Book one may find the Word of God. These men say they are our brethren in Christ, and some of them might be, but I find it very hard to identify myself with such teachers and teaching.

While this book is being written wholly from a preacher's point of view, it is set forth in non-academic, non-professional, and non-technical terms. It is addressed to both pulpit and pew. I am fully persuaded that every Christian should study the Bible with the view to gaining true knowledge about God. He must read and study diligently this Grand Old Book. This is not optional but obligatory. We need this incomparable and indispensable Book for a right understanding of the origin of the universe and man, the great redemptive work of God culminating in the Advent, Atonement, Ascension, and Second Advent of His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. We need the Bible to teach us how to live right and to prepare for death and eternity. We need this Book to tell us of future events, how this age will end, the final overthrow of evil and destructive powers, and the coming Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is our one standard text-book, our safe and sane rule of faith and practice, our final court of appeal. True, the goal of understanding is not easily reached, nor will we know it perfectly in this life, but we must obey the command which, though addressed first to Timothy, applies to every Christian: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15). We must study this Book of all books because Christianity is again at the crossroads, and we Christians are compelled to choose the road upon which we will travel. It will not be an easy matter for some to make the right choice. The road map, the signposts and the guide books have been tampered with to intentionally lead us astray. But if the earnest seeker for truth will give himself to a careful reading and study of the Bible, he will not travel the wrong road nor come to the wrong destination.

What is the Bible? Let the minister, and all men, settle this question once and for all time. Do not presume to know what the Bible is until you have exercised yourself diligently to discover exactly what it is. Beware of your own prejudices, misconceptions and ignorance. Too long the Bible has been misrepresented. Millions of young people have been brainwashed by infidels and atheists who have never taken the time to attempt to understand the Bible. It is criticized and condemned by those who know the least about it. A professor in a state university apologized to his students for the Bible, as he said, "We all admit there are scientific errors in the Bible. However, we can excuse these errors on the ground that the Bible was not intended to be, nor is it, a textbook on science, so let us not look for scientific accuracy in such a book." I react strongly against the blasphemous statement that "there are scientific errors in the Bible." If the Bible is not scientifically accurate, then it cannot be, to me at least, the Word of God.

The most serious and intense struggle in which the Christian Church has ever engaged is the war over the Word of God. If this war could be lost, our faith and hope in God would be destroyed and every witness for Christ would likewise be destroyed. The Apostle Paul warned of the coming war against the Word of God. Here is his statement to the elders in the assembly at Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:28-30). And in his final written message before his death, he added, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. . . Evil men and seducers (or imposters) shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (II Timothy 3:1, 13).

Paul's prophecy of the coming conflict came to pass, and the struggle becomes more intense and more serious with every passing day. While the imposters and deceivers multiply, the exhortation stands which says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:14-17).

The late James Orr, a distinguished Bible scholar, reportedly predicted at the turn of the century that the theological battle of the twenty-first century will be fought around the fortress of the worth and authority of Holy Scripture. We are in the thick of that battle today. Is the Bible the Word of God or is it the work of man? For myself I cannot see how the Bible can possibly be the product of man's efforts. If the Bible is confined to human thought, then why is there only one such book? Whatever man has produced in the past he has reproduced with improvements. Many attempts have been made to paraphrase and revise the Bible, but no man has ever attempted to write a Bible of his own.

The questions which relate to life here and hereafter can be answered with satisfaction only after we have proved to ourselves whether or not the Bible is a true revelation from God. There are leaders in various branches of religion who admit to Divine revelation in nature and through reason, but who deny a supernatural revelation in writing. The natural theology of the deist may be good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. God has revealed Himself in nature, to be sure, but such a limited revelation has in it no solution to the problem of evil. Christian belief cannot be satisfied with a limited revelation of God derived from the light of nature and the processes of human reasoning. Man needs the Bible!

The Inspiration of the Bible

The Meaning of Inspiration

There are teachers among us who seem too willing to surrender the time-honored Biblical meaning of inspiration. Their new attitude toward the Bible grew out of their demand for a new doctrine of inspiration. Neo-orthodoxy would have all Christians abandon the Scriptural teaching about inspiration and accept its new theology. But if we do this we will then be judging the Bible on the basis of what certain "scientists" and "scholars" have said concerning it. This I am not ready to do, and I am quite aware that my position is not a popular one among some religious leaders of our day.

Now where should one begin in his quest for the meaning of inspiration? I do not hesitate in insisting that the first place where one must go to learn the meaning of the inspiration of the Bible is to the Bible itself. We cannot accept merely what is acceptable to modern man. Our generation has witnessed the growing exaltation of man and his intellectual powers to the degree that some men are looked upon as knowing more than God. Let us come back to the Bible and accept the concept of inspiration which is based solely upon the teaching of the Bible. When the Biblical meaning of inspiration is accepted, there can be no mistaken identity.

Someone might raise the objection that it is "circular" to appeal to the Bible for its own authentication and vindication, meaning that to appeal to Scripture in support of Scripture is to argue in a circle. Any court will recognize that a man has a right to testify in his own behalf. Now we know that it is possible for every man to lie, or to deceive, or to be prejudiced. But because the Bible is the Word of God, and God, because of Who He is, cannot lie (Titus 1:2), most certainly the Bible's witness to its inspiration ought, therefore, to be accepted as trustworthy.

One of the great doctrinal passages in the Bible is the well-known word from Paul to Timothy. The King James Version reads as follows: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (11 Timothy 3:16). Take notice of that word "inspiration." I believe there are only two appearances of this word in the English Bible, one in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) and one in the New. The passage which for our purpose is of supreme importance is the one in the New Testament.

The five words, "given by inspiration of God," are the translation of the one Greek word theopneustos. It is a compound, consisting of theo (God) and pneustor (breathed). The true meaning is "that which is breathed out by God." It is a strange figure, but a strong one. Used only here in the entire New Testament, it is designed to make the reader aware of the fact that all Scripture, every writing to which the name Scripture could be given, was actually breathed out by God, and consequently bears the stamp of Divine origin and authority. When man speaks, his words might be said to be man-breathed; when God spoke, His words were God-breathed. It can be said metaphorically that the Scriptures are God's breath. How much of the Scriptures have gone out of the mouth of God? All Scripture! The Scriptures came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself. Modern theories of inspiration would have us give the larger role to man and the lesser to God, as though God is not necessary to inspiration. But be certain that the Scriptures are the product of the Divine breath because they have their origin in God. And since the inspiration of the Bible is the focal point of conflict, we assert with firmness and finality that this greatest Book of all books owes its very existence to the direct creative work of God Himself.

The Lord Jesus said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4, cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). He is merely stating that God had spoken, and that the words came from His mouth, they had been breathed out by God. On another occasion He said to the Jews, ". . . the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). The precise point of our Lord's statement here is that the Scripture cannot be fragmentized, the Scripture as a whole cannot be annulled or set aside. He was attributing to all the Scriptures an authoritative character. His was an appeal to the unity and totality of Scripture, namely, all of Scripture must be inspired or none of it can be. The Bible claims for itself total inspiration. All Scripture is the product of the breathing of God Who is the first and final cause of Scripture and of all things. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life" (Job 33:4). This graphic figure of speech tells us that God employed the same movement in the creation of the universe, man and the Scriptures, namely, the activity of His Spirit or Breath. When the three American astronauts were circling the moon, the first humans ever to do so, they alternated reading aloud the divinely inspired record of creation as found in Genesis, chapter one. In so doing they were paying the same reverence and respect to the Scriptures that they attributed to God and His vast creation. And rightly so, because both the universe and the Scriptures proceeded from Him.

The Magnitude of Inspiration

How high a view of inspiration can we hold? Is the inspiration of the Bible plenary, that is, is it totally, fully inspired? Is it verbally inspired, or merely thought inspired? We believe that the inspiration of the Bible extends to the very words because the Bible itself teaches this. The neo-orthodox position, in its quest for a new approach to the doctrine of inspiration, rejects the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Bible. When one reads what some modern "scholars" have written on the subject he sees in some instances a mind that is hostile toward the idea of verbal inspiration. Some opponents of verbal inspiration go so far as to misrepresent us by falsely claiming that verbal inspiration is synonymous with mechanical dictation. We will leave the mode of inspiration for later discussion. The late Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas wrote, "In Scripture we do not have mechanical dictation, but inspiration; and whether we call it verbal or plenary, the phrase is not intended to say how God does it, but how far it has gone."

The magnitude of inspiration reaches the words of Scripture as well as the thoughts. How can we know God's thoughts if we do not have God's words? It is illogical reasoning for a person to expect to find inspiration in one's thoughts without the words of the person who thinks those thoughts. Surely inspiration cannot mean a collection of uninspired words supposed to convey inspired thoughts. For myself, I am forced to the conclusion that it would be just as impossible to divorce the thoughts of the Bible from its words as it would be to divorce my thoughts from my words. Why would any professing Christian consider it an incredible thing that God should speak in words? The Bible itself claims to be the Word of God, and must therefore be written in the words of God. I am not suggesting that there is no disclosure from God apart from the Bible. It is not necessary to use words to impart revelation. We know that "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard" (Psalm 19: 1-3 ). But this first or primary disclosure of God in His works falls far short of the knowledge we receive through the fuller revelation in His words. The former discloses His power, while the latter reaches beyond to the revelation of His purpose and future plans. The Bible is not merely a work of God, it is the record of His words.

The writers whom God raised up recorded His words, not their own. When we say that God revealed His word to the prophets, we are saying that He revealed His words to them. Since the Bible is God's word, it consists of God's words. In this way the writers were inspired of God, for He said, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deuteronomy 18:18). Moses said, "And God spake all these words" (Exodus 20:1), and "These are the words which the LORD hath commanded" (Exodus 35:1). David said, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and His word (not his thought) was in my tongue" (II Samuel 23:2). When God called Jeremiah, He assured His servant, "Behold, I have put my words (not thoughts) in thy mouth" (Jeremiah 1: 9). Perish the thought that the sovereign, almighty God, Who created the universe and man, was indifferent about the details of His written revelation! David prayed, ". . . Thou hast magnified Thy word above Thy name" (Psalm 138:2).

In 1940 the editor of The Challenger magazine asked this writer to send him a statement of his belief about inspiration. As a young pastor in my first church, I prepared and submitted the following, quoted here only in part: "Inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture, so that by inspiration is meant verbal inspiration. By this I am not suggesting that God dictated every word, but rather that He guided the writers in the choice of their words. The Bible is fully inspired, in all parts and respects. I believe in the plenary inspiration of every word of the original text of Holy Scripture. The writers were infallibly guided by God in their choice of subject matter and the words used to record their subjects. Words are necessary to express thoughts, therefore inspiration includes words as well as thoughts and concepts. Such guidance of the Holy Spirit over the human penmen does not extend to other writings, but rather excludes all other writings as uninspired. Of the Bible it must be said that 'all' is thus inspired (II Timothy 3:16), including 'the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets' (II Peter 3:2), the letters (Galatians 3:16 - notice the absence of the letter's'), the 'jot' (the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet) and the 'tittle' (the small ornamental mark in that alphabet distinguishing one letter from another) (Matthew 5:18). The Bible is the only God-given, authoritative revelation which gives to man an infallible rule of faith and practice." And now thirty-two years later (1972), 1 am prepared to say that my convictions about inspiration, as expressed above, are stronger than when they were first written.

The Media of Inspiration

At this point it is necessary to make the distinction between inspiration and revelation. Inspiration is that activity of God whereby He imparted certain information to certain men of His own choosing for the express purpose of committing that information to writing. He superintended each writer of the Scriptures in order that those Scriptures would possess Divine authority and be free from error. Revelation, while closely related to inspiration, is essentially the communication of that information and has to do more with the mode or method of presenting and preserving the imparted knowledge. Revelation is the act or process of imparting knowledge; inspiration guarantees its veracity.

Most appropriate for our purpose is an examination of II Peter 1:20, 21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:20, 21). These words make it clear that the Scriptures are not the result of any man's personal and private investigation. Peter is stating here that the knowledge contained in the Scriptures is not to be found in man. The Scriptures are not the product of human search and reason, not of human origin. This is how the Bible did not come to us, and on this point there can be no misunderstanding. The teaching in these verses is both negative and positive.

Negatively, the Scriptures do not owe their origin to human initiative, investigation or imagination. How wonderfully the Holy Spirit anticipated the scoffers and critics in their claims that men concocted the Bible! He first disposes of such a notion. Never, at any time, did any part of Scripture come through the will of man.

Positively, human instrumentality is fully recognized, for "holy (set-apart) men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." First, observe the kind of men God selected for the task of writing the Scriptures. They were "holy men," meaning men set apart by God Himself. The human penmen did not choose writing as a career. As a matter of fact, Peter, who penned the passage we are presently considering, was an unlettered fisherman. Yet, for reasons known only to Himself, God set apart Peter to pen two Epistles. Jeremiah was a writing prophet, and God said to him, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5). Jeremiah was a holy (set-apart) man, selected by God to receive the inspired word from God. Paul testified, ". . . It pleased God, who separated me (set me apart) from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me. . . " (Galatians 1:15, 16). For this reason the Apostle could say, concerning the gospel he preached, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12). All of the writers of Scripture were men set-apart by God to be the media of inspiration, the human penmen to whom God could reveal His thoughts.

Upon a closer examination of Peter's words, we learn how God controlled their minds as they received and wrote the message. They are said to have been "moved by the Holy Ghost," meaning that they were controlled and carried along by the Spirit. Without this special work of the Holy Spirit, the revelation from God could never be known by the natural man. When Moses wrote, for example, of the creation of the heavens and the earth, what he wrote would have to be an inspired writing. He was not present at the time of creation, nor was any other man. No human eye saw it and no human mind could have conceived it. The case of Moses and his account of creation illustrates the idea of revelation, the fact that God set apart a man to reveal a truth that only God knew. Inspiration has to do with the keeping of the writings from error and mistakes in the process of transmission.

Human writers were the media of inspiration, penning not their thoughts and words, but the utterances of God as they were lifted up and carried along by the Holy Spirit. The writers were not mere passive automata whose own gifts and abilities lay dormant. Man, unaided by God, could not have written the Bible, yet God did call certain men and control them by His Spirit to do His writing. There is definitely the human side of the Scriptures, but the Scriptures themselves are from God. Paul knew this great fact when he wrote, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13). Paul could not take credit for the "words" which he spoke because he knew that the Holy Spirit gave them to him.

The Divine-human combination in the matter of inspiration may be illustrated from a statement made by our Lord. We must look at it in the parallel passages as recorded by Mark and Luke:

    “For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, the LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”
    (Mark 12:36).

    “And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”
    (Luke 20:42, 43).

Look carefully at these two verses, and what do you see? In Luke's account the quotation is attributed to David, but Mark's account includes the fact that David spoke "by the Holy Ghost." Both are correct. The words that David spoke were God's words because they originated with God and He alone is their Author. On the other hand, God spoke them by the mouth of His servant David. When Peter and John quoted the Second Psalm in their prayer, they said to God, "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said. . . " (Acts 4:25, cf. Psalm 2:1). In like manner Zacharias said, "He (God) spake by the mouth of His holy prophets. . . " (Luke 1: 70). Jeremiah said, "Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jeremiah 1: 9). The Bible is not a record of the thoughts and experiences of the human writers, but it is itself the very Word of God as God revealed Himself to those men. Jesus said to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).

There are doubtless many questions about inspiration which arise in our minds and which we cannot answer now. All that God requires of us is that we accept humbly the truth He has given. The media of inspiration have not in any way robbed the Word of God of its perfection.

The Inerrancy of the Bible

The Demand for Inerrancy

Admitting that God has spoken through the Scriptures, of necessity it follows that He expressed Himself accurately. The very nature of God demands that this be so. It is unreasonable to imagine that God would even allow His communication to man to go unguarded. Because the Scriptures came from God Himself, they must, like their Author, be inerrant. Inspiration and inerrancy are inseparably linked together. There is no point in claiming inspiration for the Scriptures if they do not possess the quality of freedom from error or if they are liable to mistake. To say that there are errors in the Bible is to say that there are errors in God Himself. The very nature of the case demands inerrancy.

Religious liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy hold to their own brand of inspiration which has in it no need for inerrancy. They judge the Bible inerrant insofar as man sees inerrancy. They assume a half-way position but will not agree to the full and complete inerrancy of all portions of Scripture. One liberal went so far as to say that "the theory of inerrancy that adopts the slogan, 'The Book, the whole Book, and nothing but the Book,' is blinded by a superstitious bibliolatry." We answer such a charge by asserting that the Bible, rather than man, is and must be its own judge. The Scriptures must stand or fall together. Holy Scripture is established upon the highest pinnacle of inerrancy. It is blasphemous to say that the original Scriptures have in them errors of any kind. God Himself is in this Holy Book, the Bible. It is the only Book in all the world that is thus inspired.

The Bible is called "the holy Scriptures," a term which characterizes it and its contents as sacred (II Timothy 3:15). "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6). "The law of the Lord is perfect. . . " (Psalm 19:7). These statements apply to all of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts, for all of Holy Writ is the Word of God. To say that the Word of God is in the Bible is a half-truth which might imply a lie. The Bible is the record of what God actually said, not what fallible human beings thought He said. Inspiration demands inerrancy, the only view of the original Scriptures which accords with the nature of the God of the Bible.

The Difficulty in Inerrancy

With all of the acknowledged greatness of the Bible, this most remarkable volume ever to be written, there are some acknowledged difficulties we face. Having said as much, let me follow immediately by adding a few sentences from the pen of Dr. W.A. Criswell, and to which I heartily subscribe. He said, "From beginning to ending there is not a word or a syllable or a revelation in the Word of God that has contradicted or ever will contradict any true, substantiated scientific fact. The reason is very simple. The Lord God Who inspired the Book is the Lord God Who made all things from the beginning . . . The latest scientific theories are confirmed by the Word of God." The atom has been here from the beginning of creation, but man discovered it and put it to use only recently. The waves that carry the sound and sight of radio and television have been here from the beginning, but only in recent years have we discovered them and learned how to use them.

Contemporary theologians and "scholars" dispense with the inerrancy of the Bible with ease on the ground that there are discrepancies and scientific discoveries of the last century which have rendered untenable the entire concept of the Bible as a verbally inspired and inerrant book. This writer humbly acknowledges that there are problems relating to inerrancy that he has found difficult to answer, but he refuses to jettison his belief in Biblical infallibility merely because modern opinion seeks to undermine the foundation of historic Christianity and because he encounters a problem here or there. I am not so foolish as to profess to solve the problems I encounter, but I would be more foolish were I to dismiss the idea of inerrancy in the Bible because of these problems.

In Matthew 27:9 a quotation is attributed to Jeremiah the prophet, but upon close examination it seems to have been taken from Zechariah 11:13. Did the word Zechariah appear in the original text, and did a copyist err in unintentionally substituting the word Jeremiah? Whatever the correct solution to this problem may be, I refuse to accept the assertion that Matthew was not inspired, or that he made a mistake by attributing to Jeremiah that which was actually from Zechariah.

In II Kings 8:26 it is stated that King Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. However, in II Chronicles 22:2 it is recorded that he was forty-two years of age when he ascended the throne. Now which account is correct? And how can we account for the discrepancy? Is it possible that we have here a human error on the part of a copyist? Yes, this is possible. It would be a simple matter for a scribe to make a mistake in spite of great care having been taken. The rabbi in charge of copying solemnly warned the scribes, "Take heed how thou doest thy work, for thy work is the work of heaven, lest thou drop or add a letter of the manuscript, and so become a destroyer of the world." The age given in II Kings 8:26 is in all probability the correct one. If Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty-two, as recorded in II Chronicles, he would have had to be born two years before his father Jehoram, who was only forty years old when he died (II Kings 8 :17).

The reason for citing these two alleged discrepancies is to acknowledge that we face some minor problems. However, I am deeply impressed by the fact that the Bible makes no attempt to gloss over or hide what appears on the surface to be a contradiction. And if satisfactory answers are not forthcoming at once, this does not mean that the problems cannot be solved. These problems are not new, and they are numerous. They were faced by the early Church Fathers and Reformers, and yet they did not cast aside their belief in Biblical inerrancy. No Christian need hesitate to accept in its entirety the Bible as the inspired and infallible revelation from God. If there is one falsehood in the Bible, we could conclude that none of it came from the holy and almighty God. But it is all true, and to all of it faith gives its witness.

The Defense of Inerrancy

It has been stated many times and in different ways that the Bible needs no defense. The late Dr. Pettingill used to say that it was not necessary to defend a lion, but if you would release the lion he would defend himself. In like manner the Bible needs only to be released, read, preached and taught, and it will defend itself. Certainly there is much to be said for this. But when one hears a continuous chorus of protest against Biblical inerrancy voiced by men who are recognized as Christian leaders, he is compelled to speak out against such spokesmen in defense of the Grand Old Book. There is need for a vigorous presentation in the present battle over the Word of God. We know that the Word of God is indestructible—a truth we are about to consider in this chapter - however, there are multiplied thousands of men, women and young people who have no faith, no hope, and who are without salvation because the Bible has been criticized and condemned by its enemies.

In July 1943 Bibliotheca Sacra published Dr. Wilbur M. Smith's article entitled, The Need for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Battle for the Christian Faith. In the article Dr. Smith warned against an indifferent attitude toward antagonism to the Word of God. To illustrate the fearful consequences of such indifference on the part of Christians, he related what has happened in one of the great colleges in our country, the famous academic institution, Dartmouth College, at Hanover, New Hampshire. "Dartmouth College was founded by Ebenezer Wheelock, an ordained clergyman, who wanted to establish a school where Indians of New England could be trained in the truth of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the first president of Dartmouth, from 1769 to 1779, and was followed by his son, John Wheelock, president for one-third of a century (1779-1815). As a later president said, at its centenary celebration, 'Dartmouth College was conceived in the fervor of piety; born in the throes of a great missionary zeal; dedicated at birth to Christ; cradled the first year in a revival; and stands wedded to religion -- until death.' One of its greatest presidents, under whom Dartmouth enjoyed unusual growth, was Nathan Lord, president from 1828 to 1863, who, says the latest historian of Dartmouth College, 'based the entire philosophy of life upon a belief in the literal accuracy and inerrancy of Holy Writ . . . he was insistent that God should be the mainspring of all the activities of man.' It was Nathan Lord himself who, in a famous letter to the alumni of Dartmouth College at its centenary celebration in 1869, said: 'For Christ the college was founded and has been administered. To Christ all its influence in all times belongs.'

"Of the first fifteen classes graduating from Dartmouth, a majority -- sometimes as many as five-sixths of the class -- entered the ministry. From 1810 to 1830, one-third of its graduates became clergymen, and from 1830 to 1868 nearly one-fourth of its graduates continued to enter the ministry. 'And,' says one of its presidents, 'the astonishing thing was that one-fourth of the preachers graduating from twenty-nine consecutive classes at Dartmouth, were converted during their college course.' Even as late as 1886, the catalog of Dartmouth College included the following statement regarding its religious life and Biblical course: 'A Biblical exercise systematically arranged is being attended by each class on Monday morning. For the present, the subject in the Freshman Year is the Historic Origin of the Bible; in the Sophomore Year, New Testament History; in the Junior Year, the Development of the Church as Exhibited in the Acts; in the Senior Year, Old Testament History from the Creation to the Entrance into Palestine, with special references to Inspiration and the Historic and Scientific Relations to the Scriptures.'

"And what is the condition of Dartmouth today? In the first place, chapel is not compulsory, nor any religious meeting. Furthermore, no course in Bible is compulsory. All of its religious courses are what are called electives. Eight courses in the latest catalog of Dartmouth are listed in the Department of Biblical History and Literature, one in Archaeology and History, one in the Philosophy of Religion, one in the Great World Religions, and one in Ethics. The catalog would not really indicate that any course is to be found in Dartmouth College strictly devoted to the interpretation of the Word of God. There are more courses offered in Dartmouth College today in the one subject of Biography alone than in the whole realm of Biblical history, religion, and religious literature. However, these are what some might call only technical matters of curriculum. There is more to be said.

"In the student daily, published by Dartmouth and about Dartmouth, known as The Dartmouth, in 1927 the following statement appears: 'Dartmouth has always been considered a liberal college. Graduate and undergraduate alike take pride in the freedom of thought that is permitted here . . . On the religious question it is only to be expected that Dartmouth shows a large percentage of atheists and agnostics. Dartmouth is proud of her disbelievers.' This statement, proceeding from the student body, has never been repudiated by the faculty or trustees of Dartmouth College, and we take it to be a true statement of the religious conditions prevailing in that school of 2,000 students, with a faculty of some three hundred instructors."

The complete turn-about at Dartmouth College is typical of the growing trend throughout the world. Scores of colleges and universities that were founded upon God's Word and built with the money contributed by Christian people are today repudiating the Bible and what it teaches. Yes, there is need for a vigorous defense in the battle over the Bible.

The Indestructibility of the Bible

The Witness of Scripture

Now I have no fear that the Bible will ever disappear from the world. My reasons for believing this are valid ones. First, there is The Witness of Scripture. "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119: 89). This verse is in a remarkable setting. Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible, its outstanding feature being that all but six of the one hundred and seventy-six verses speak directly about the Word of God. What the inspired writer is saying in verse 89 is that God's Word was established in heaven before He revealed it to men and reduced it to writing. The Word of God is "forever," it is eternal. That which holy men of God wrote on earth is but a copy of what God had already written in heaven in eternity past. You see, there is a permanent quality about the Word of God. It is forever. It was with God in the beginning, and so shall it ever be. "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:160).

The prophet Isaiah said, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8). Now the Holy Spirit Who inspired Isaiah likewise inspired the apostle Peter when he borrowed from Isaiah. Peter wrote, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (I Peter 1:23-25). Peter describes God's Word here with the Greek word afqartos translated in our English Bible incorruptible, meaning imperishable. Because of its Source, the Word of God, like its Author, is incapable of diminishing one iota. Isaiah said, "The Word of our God shall stand forever." Man may criticize it, ridicule it, and burn copies of it, but it stands and will stand because it is imperishable.

The Lord Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). Should any Christian be surprised at the remarkable preservation of the Scriptures? Of course not! When one has read what our Lord and the inspired prophets have said about the incorruptibility and indestructibility of God's Holy Word, he should expect it to stand. God Himself has guaranteed their preservation. There is no other explanation for the survival of the Bible through the many centuries. The very fact of the Bible's continued existence and influence should convince any person that this Book is indestructible.

The Work of Scribes

Second, consider The Work of Scribes. The story of the transmission of the Scriptures is a miracle in itself. Even though we are cut off from original manuscripts, God's providential care over His Word during the long period in which the sacred text was transmitted in copies written by hand is a miracle. It is inconceivable that Almighty God, Who chose to give His Word to man as the vital and essential instrument in the salvation of His people, would fail in the preservation of His own written revelation. Both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament have been preserved with remarkable purity.

The scribes who copied Hebrew manuscripts were keenly aware of the fact that they were handling a sacred and precious revelation. They were trained to exercise the greatest care. They counted not only the words but the letters, making note of how many times each particular word and letter occurred. If an error was detected, the entire sheet would be destroyed and the scribe would begin again. They knew they were handling God's revelation to man; therefore the rule for the copyist to follow was that of pronouncing each word aloud before writing it, and never was a single word to be written from memory. No other written work of ancient times has been transmitted with such care and therefore as accurately as the Word of God has been. Modern scholars who have spent many years in study and research are agreed that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with substantial correctness. Men like F. J. A. Hort, Bishop Brooke, Foss Westcott, Robert Dick Wilson, William Henry Green, Benjamin B. Warfield, and many others have labored long and hard to produce incontrovertible evidence that God has preserved His Word, causing it to triumph over the hazards encountered in the transmission of the Scriptures.

The miracle of preservation is witnessed in the remarkable way in which the apocryphal or spurious books were omitted from the canon. In 1545, at the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church voted to add all the volumes of the Apocrypha to God's Book. But God saw to it that those monstrous absurdities of human origin were never added to His Holy Writings. The Roman Catholic Church has been successful in corrupting many areas of Christendom, but she has failed to force her fourteen extra books into God's Holy Book. What is truly God's Word belongs in God's Book, therefore God saw to it that the uninspired writings of men should not be allowed to creep in and corrupt His message.

The Wiles of Satan

Third, consider The Wiles of Satan. Through all of the centuries, God in sovereign grace and by His power watched over and protected His Word against the wicked onslaughts of the Devil. Paul warned the believers at Ephesus that they would be facing "the wiles of the Devil" (Ephesians 6:11). The word "wiles" means methods. Satan's methods are characterized by cunning, deceit, trickery. One of his methods is to infiltrate the good and the holy with the bad and the unholy. This he tried to do when the Roman Catholic Church officially recognized the apocryphal books in A.D. 1545. But God overruled Satan's trickery to include those forgeries.

But the battle against God's Word has been a never-ending one. The story of the Bible's persecution is an amazing one. The hatred against it has been persistent and relentless. Every scheme of destruction which man's unregenerate mind could conjure has been brought against it. During the early centuries of the Christian era some of the most cruel and merciless persecutions were meted out to men and women who held sacred the Word of God. So seemingly effective were the attacks that the enemies supposed they had eradicated the Bible. In A.D. 303 Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire, sought to obliterate the Bible through an official decree that any person possessing even a portion of the Bible should be slain.

When John Wycliffe presented the Scriptures in the vernacular of the people in England, the Roman Catholic Church marked him out for death. That saintly scholar of Baliol College, Oxford, escaped the Devil's attempt to slay him. He died in 1384, but the Roman Church was so infuriated over Wycliffe's publishing the Scriptures in English that in 1415 she dug up his bones, burned the remains with fire, and threw the ashes upon a dunghill. And then in 1816 Pope Pius VII issued a papal bull declaring every organization and institution that distributed the Scriptures "a fiendish instrument for the undermining of the foundations of religion."

And yet the Bible stands, this impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture. Men fling themselves against it in all their fury, but instead of them breaking the Book, the Book crushes them. Bibles have been burned and torn to pieces, but God's Holy Word remains triumphant. In our world of darkness and despair the Bible shines forth as the scintillating light to lead men aright. The Bible is the only light for man's pathway (Psalm 119:105); the one Light shining in a dark place (II Peter 1:19). The Bible is the greatest luminary on the earth to bring men to God. It is the one beacon of hope in the night of men's sin. However dark the shadows of sin and sorrow might become, the Light will always be there for those who will follow.

"Holy Bible, Book divine,
Precious treasure, thou art mine."

When the poet and novelist, Sir Walter Scott, lay dying, he said to his son-in-law, Lockhart, "Son, please bring me the Book." The son-in-law was a bit uncertain because Walter Scott had a large library, so he replied, "Sir, which book? Which book?" The dying saint answered immediately, "My son, there is just one Book. Bring me the Book." At once Lockhart went to the library and returned with Sir Walter's Bible. Yes, there is but one Book!

"Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chimes;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

'How many anvils have you had,' said I,
'To wear and batter all these hammers so?'
'Just one,’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,
'The anvil wears the hammer out, you know.'

And so I thought, the anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptics' brows have beat upon,
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone."

Related Topics: Inspiration, Inerrancy

Christmas Faith (Matthew 1:18-2:23)

Related Media

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." 22 Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him."

3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 And they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, 6 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, Who will shepherd My people Israel.'" 7 Then Herod secretly called the magi, and ascertained from them the time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him."

9 And having heard the king, they went their way; and lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was. 10 And when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their own country by another way.

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him." 14 And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Out of Egypt did I call My Son."

16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi. 17 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, 18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more." 19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, 20 "Arise and take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead." 21 And he arose and took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he departed for the regions of Galilee, 23 and came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

The Faith of Joseph
Matthew 1:18-25

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." 22 Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says,' I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' 15 then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

22 "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 23 "If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 25 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 "But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 "When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. 28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days (Deuteronomy 22:22-29).

Joseph's options from Deuteronomy 22:13-29:

  • If he confessed he was not the father, Mary would be condemned as an adulteress.
  • If he lied and claimed to be the father, the reputations of all and the qualifications of Jesus as Messiah would be tarnished.
  • His action was to take Mary as his wife, to keep her a virgin until after the birth of Jesus, and to serve as the father of our Lord, protecting him from danger.

The source of Joseph's faith:

  • a dream
  • an angelic message

The content of Joseph's faith:

  • Mary was pregnant in a unique and miraculous way--Jesus was virgin born.
  • The virgin birth was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, a text no doubt not viewed as messianic at the time.
  • The Lord Jesus was destined to save His people from their sins.
  • The appearance was the opposite of reality, thus requiring faith:
  • The appearance: Mary and Joseph had an illegitimate child, and Jesus was, as such, disqualified from normal access and worship (Deuteronomy 23:2).
  • The reality: Jesus was indeed the Son of God, supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus sinless and qualified to become the sin-bearer for the sins of men.
  • The appearance would cause many to reject Jesus (John 8:41); the reality was that which men must believe to be saved.

The Faith of the Magi
Matthew 2:1-12

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him." 3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 And they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, 6 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, Who will shepherd My people Israel.'" 7 Then Herod secretly called the magi, and ascertained from them the time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him." 9 And having heard the king, they went their way; and lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was. 10 And when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their own country by another way.

The source of the revelation which was the basis of the Magi's faith: A star

  • "King of the Jews"(?)
  • The prophecy of Micah 5:2
  • The contrast between the Magi and the Jews of Jerusalem:
  • The Jews had the Old Testament prophecies
  • The Magi had a star
  • The "King" was the "King of the Jews"
  • The Magi were surely Gentiles
  • The Jews had 7 miles to Bethlehem
  • The Magi came from afar
  • The Jews did not visit Jesus
  • The Magi did
  • The Jewish king Herod sought to kill Jesus (taking 2,000)
  • The Magi came to worship, bearing expensive gifts
  • The Magi (purposely, or they were directed there) went to the palace of the King of Israel, King Herod. What splendor they must have seen. Here was where one must expect to find a royal king.
  • The star led the Magi to the place where Jesus was found
  • He was not an adult, but a baby (which they expected)
  • He possessed no crown, but a cradle
  • He was not surrounded by riches and splendor, but poverty
  • No evidence of royalty was found, other than the star
  • If they were in the stable, they would have smelled the aroma of the barnyard, and the babe would have been surrounded by animals. There were no other worshippers. They could have stepped in barnyard stuff as they stood by.
  • What was it that the Magi believed?
  • The "King of the Jews was born" (His humanity)
  • They were actually looking for a baby
  • He was to be worshipped (His deity)
  • They believed in a very supernatural birth
  • They rejoiced greatly
  • They worshipped the child, giving expensive gifts (see Isaiah 60:6)

1 "Arise, shine; for your light has come, And the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. 2 "For behold, darkness will cover the earth, And deep darkness the peoples; But the Lord will rise upon you, And His glory will appear upon you. 3 "And nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising. 4 "Lift up your eyes round about, and see; They all gather together, they come to you. Your sons will come from afar, And your daughters will be carried in the arms. 5 "Then you will see and be radiant, And your heart will thrill and rejoice; Because the abundance of the sea will be turned to you, The wealth of the nations will come to you. 6 "A multitude of camels will cover you, The young camels of Midian and Ephah; All those from Sheba will come; They will bring gold and frankincense, And will bear good news of the praises of the Lord (Isaiah 60:1-6).

They disobeyed Herod, going home a different route

The Faith of Herod
Matthew 2:1-9; 16-23

3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 And they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, 6 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, Who will shepherd My people Israel.'" 7 Then Herod secretly called the magi, and ascertained from them the time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him." 9 And having heard the king, they went their way; and lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was. . . 16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi. 17 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, 18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more." 19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, 20 "Arise and take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead." 21 And he arose and took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he departed for the regions of Galilee, 23 and came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 1:1-9; 16-23)

  • Notice the difference in the "messengers" of the good news to Jerusalem--not angels, but foreign nobility--Gentiles.
  • The star led the men to Jerusalem--and went out
  • They had to ask Herod, thus announcing the news
  • The star then went back on outside Jerusalem, leading them right to the Lord Jesus
  • Herod had a kind of faith
  • He believed there would be a "king"
  • He believed this king would come and rule Israel
  • He believed the Old Testament Scripture in Micah 5:2
  • His "faith" was very different than that of the Magi.
  • His faith made him fear this king.
  • He wished to kill Him, not to worship Him.
  • Secretly, he set his plan in motion, killing 2,000 infants.
  • He did not want a Savior who would change the world.
  • He did not want a Savior to forgive his sins.
  • He wanted things just as they were.
  • While the Magi rejoiced with exceeding great joy, Herod and all Jerusalem found the news of their King troubling. While these Gentiles came hundreds of miles, they would not walk the short distance to Bethlehem to see this king or to worship Him who had come to save His people from their sins.

Jeremiah 31:10-18 Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, And declare in the coastlands afar off, And say, "He who scattered Israel will gather him, And keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock." 11 For the Lord has ransomed Jacob, And redeemed him from the hand of him who was stronger than he. 12 "And they shall come and shout for joy on the height of Zion, And they shall be radiant over the bounty of the Lord-- Over the grain, and the new wine, and the oil, And over the young of the flock and the herd; And their life shall be like a watered garden, And they shall never languish again. 13 "Then the virgin shall rejoice in the dance, And the young men and the old, together, For I will turn their mourning into joy, And will comfort them, and give them joy for their sorrow. 14 "And I will fill the soul of the priests with abundance, And My people shall be satisfied with My goodness," declares the Lord. 15 Thus says the Lord, "A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more." 16 Thus says the Lord, "Restrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded," declares the Lord, "And they shall return from the land of the enemy. 17 "And there is hope for your future," declares the Lord, "And your children shall return to their own territory. 18 "I have surely heard Ephraim grieving, 'Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, Like an untrained calf; Bring me back that I may be restored, For Thou art the Lord my God'" (Jeremiah 31:10-18).

Jesus' birth was not just an occasion for the rejoicing of those who received it, by faith. Nor was it even the cause for some being troubled, as those in Jerusalem were disturbed by the news of His birth. It was, for many, the occasion for great tragedy and mourning. In His frantic effort to rid himself of the threat posed by the Messiah, Herod killed 2,000 infants in Bethlehem, fulfilling yet another Old Testament prophecy, undoubtedly not recognized as such.

How could God allow such tragedy and suffering to accompany the birth of His Son? How could God spare His Son, but allow the 2,000 sons of other parents to be slaughtered by Herod? How can this text bring us joy?

  • God would allow the rulers of Israel to put His Son to death.
  • The context of Jeremiah's words links divine judgment and divine deliverance. Before Israel was restored, they must first endure the divine chastening which their sins deserved.
  • The reality is that these 2,000 children were delivered, by death, into the hand of God.
  • Jesus' words, spoken early in His public ministry at the Sermon on the Mount, suggest to us that it is those who mourn who turn to the Savior for comfort and salvation.

Conclusion

Many were those, that first Christmas night, who did not have any idea that the Savior of the World had been born.

Most of those who were informed of His birth were troubled by it.

Few came to grasp the meaning of the event.

Things have not changed.

To truly rejoice at this Christmas time, one must view the event through the eyes of faith, like Mary and Joseph, the shepherds of old, the Magi from the east, and a handful of others. They must look beyond appearances, and see the reality. They must understand the event in terms of the prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the light of the revelations given at the time of His birth.

You must believe in the virgin birth.

You must believe that He came to save men from their sins.

You must believe that He will come again to reign as King of all the earth. All of these truths were made known at the time of the Savior's birth, and those who rejoiced were those who believed them, and believed in Him, falling before a baby, in worship.

Related Topics: Christmas, Faith

Trouble at the Inn

Related Media

* This article by Dina Donohue is reprinted from the Baptist Herald (Dec. 15, 1968).

For years now whenever Christmas pageants are talked about in a certain little town in the Midwest, someone is sure to mention the name of Wallace Purling. Wally’s performance in one annual production of the Nativity play has slipped into the realm of legend. But the old timers who were in the audience that night never tire of recalling exactly what happened.

Wally was nine that year and in the second grade, though he should have been in the fourth. Most people in town knew that he had difficulty in keeping up. He was big and clumsy, slow in movement and mind. Still, Wally was well liked by the other children in his class, all of whom were smaller than he, though the boys had trouble hiding their irritation if the uncoordinated Wally asked to play ball with them.

Most often they’d find a way to keep him off the field, but Wally would hang around anyway—not sulking, just hoping. He was always a helpful boy, a willing and smiling one, and the natural protector, paradoxically, of the underdog. Sometimes if the older boys chased the younger ones away, it would always be Wally who’d say, “Can’t they stay? They’re no bother.”

Wally fancied the idea of being a shepherd with a flute in the Christmas pageant that year, but the play’s director, Miss Lumbard, assigned him to a more important role. After all, she reasoned, the Innkeeper did not have too many lines, and Wally’s size would make his refusal of lodging to Joseph more forceful.

And so it happened that the usual large, partisan audience gathered for the town’s Yuletide extravaganza of the staffs and creches, of beards, crowns, halos and a whole stageful of squeaky voices. No one on stage or off was more caught up in the magic of the night than Wallace Purling. They said later that he stood in the wings and watched the performance with such fascination that from time to time Miss Lumbard had to make sure he didn’t wander onstage before his cue.

Then the time came when Joseph appeared, slowly, tenderly guiding Mary to the door of the inn. Joseph knocked hard on the wooden door set into the painted backdrop. Wally the Innkeeper was there, waiting. “What do you want?” Wally said, swinging the door open with a brusque gesture.

“We seek lodging.”

“Seek it elsewhere.” Wally looked straight ahead but spoke vigorously. “The inn is filled.”

“Sir, we have asked everywhere in vain. We have traveled far and are very weary.”

“There is no room in this inn for you.” Wally looked properly stern.

“Please, good innkeeper, this is my wife, Mary. She is heavy with child and needs a place to rest. Surely you must have some small corner for her. She is so tired.”

Now, for the first time, the Innkeeper relaxed his stiff stance and looked down at Mary. With that, there was a long pause, long enough to make the audience a bit tense with embarrassment.

“No! Begone!” the prompter whispered from the wings.

“No!” Wally repeated automatically. “Begone!”

Joseph sadly placed his arm around Mary, and Mary laid her head upon his shoulder, and the two of them started to move away. The Innkeeper did not return inside his inn, however. Wally stood there in the doorway, watching the forlorn couple. His mouth was open, his brow creased with concern, his eyes filling unmistakably with tears.

“Don’t go, Joseph,” Wally called out. “Bring Mary back.” And Wallace Purling’s face grew into a bright smile. “You can have my room.”

Some people in town thought that the pageant had been ruined. Yet there were others—many others—who considered it the most Christmas of all Christmas pageants they had ever seen.

Related Topics: Christmas

Pages