[CFT Note: We are republishing this important essay because this issue has once again come up in the comments section.
The pernicious idea that the Bible is some sort of racial manifesto that guarantees salvation to all fleshly Israelites imperils many Christians — and as we show here, to maintain this belief requires a willful disregard for a plethora of Scripture that contradicts this notion.
But whether you belief it or not, our advice to all Christians is a simple one — better to be safe in your faith in Christ by living a righteous, blameless life rather than be sorry in putting your faith in your supposed Israelite flesh and expecting eternal life because of it.]
Will There Be An Eternal Resurrection Unto ‘Shame And Everlasting Contempt’ For Some Israelites?
In our recent series on the alleged Israelite identity of all Romans, we have been addressing many of the doctrines held by those who believe that only Israelites according to the flesh will be saved — and also that all Israelites according to the flesh will be saved.
Continuing along that vein, we’d like to address another crucial issue that arises from this doctrine — which contends that every single Israelite who ever lived and will ever live will be unconditionally resurrected unto eternal life — regardless of whether or not they had a personal faith in the Lord Jesus — and regardless of whether or not that faith produced a life in obedience to the Lord Jesus.
To this end, they will always cite Daniel 12:2,
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
They will contend that “all” — not just “many” Israelites “that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” — that they will be resurrected — already ignoring the limiting factor here.
But for them, it’s just a question of whether they will be resurrected to “everlasting life” — an everlasting life of reward for living a good life — or to “shame and everlasting contempt” — an everlasting life of shame as a reward for living a life of sin.
In other words, they contend that every Israelite will live eternally — but some will receive “greater or lesser rewards” depending on the discretion of the judgment of God.
Moreover, they will contend this verse from Daniel offers some kind of prima facie “proof” of the correctness of their own doctrine — without bothering for a second or third witness — or ignoring any Scripture that contradicts this conclusion.
THE SECOND DEATH
First, let’s break down Daniel 12:2 itself — and its context — and determine whether or not it actually conveys any kind of prima facie proof of this hypothesis.
The verse says that “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” — referring to large-scale resurrection. We can immediately see that not all of them shall awake — rather only “many” of them.
Furthermore, we can conclude that those who do wake to “everlasting life” and those who wake to “shame and everlasting contempt” will both be resurrected. We definitely agree so far.
We should note that if the state preceding resurrection is “sleep in the dust,” then no one involved in that resurrection will be in heaven, purgatory, hell or any other mythical and supernatural location.
The dead will merely be unconscious in death. Those who believe all Israelites are saved will probably agree with us on that point.
Yet despite both groups being resurrected, only one of the groups will be resurrected unto “everlasting life.” Therefore, whatever “shame and everlasting contempt” is, it certainly is not “everlasting life” — or even part of “everlasting life.”
Thus those who claim all Israel will be saved will presume that “everlasting life” necessarily means a good eternal reward — and not actual eternal life per se.
Therefore, we can already conclude that Daniel 12:2 could never offer prima facie evidence of their doctrine — because they must both ignore that “many” but not all will be resurrected — and also presume that “everlasting life” means what they think it means — as opposed to what the plain words actually mean.
If they merely presume the truth of their own premise — as opposed to proving why “everlasting life” means something other than the meaning of the words — then they have engaged in the informal fallacy begging the question — a common stumbling block for those who attempt to insist upon the “all Israel is saved” doctrine.
Now if “shame and everlasting contempt” is something other than eternal life, we may simply conclude that “shame and everlasting contempt” at the very least means eternal death.
We have made the following assumptions:
- Most everyone will be resurrected and some will die eternally soon thereafter
- Somehow their eternal death constitutes “shame and everlasting contempt”
These assumptions may logically uphold themselves within the context of Daniel 12:2 — as we have explained — however, we will provide additional witness for each assumption.
Revelation 20:4-6 says,
4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 [The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.] This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Some among those who believe only Israelites will be saved may attempt to claim the event described here in Revelation 20 refers to some kind of Christian revival which already happened and lasted for a thousand years.
Yet no such era exists in the last two millennia — and only the most cynical and pessimistic historian would consider that there has already been such an era of a thousand years where it might be said of some Christian institution,
“Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”
They might also claim that “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed” (verse 5) is some sort of “interpolation” inserted into the verse by some translator long after John originally wrote the Revelation.
For the sake of argument, we’ll work around that verse and show how it doesn’t actually matter either way whether or not it is a later interpolation.
This passage refers specifically to two groups:
- “those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God”
- “those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands”
These two groups are not necessarily exclusive with one another, as we could see how one might by martyred for not worshiping the beast. However, of these two groups, only the first group is definitely dead.
We could see how one might not have worshiped the beast or his image, yet died of old age or some natural causes. We could also see how one might not have worshiped the beast or his image, yet will still be alive at the time when the Lord returns — which will likely be the case.
The first group — the beheaded martyrs — must have lived sometime after the Lord Jesus’ time on earth, else they could not have died for His testimony.
The second group must also have lived sometime after the Lord Jesus’ time on earth because the mark of the beast came into effect only after the Lord Jesus’ time on earth.
Therefore, both of these groups would have known about the Lord Jesus as a man — they would have been born right before or sometime after the Lord Jesus’ birth.
Revelation 20:4-5 tells us that
“…they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. This is the first resurrection.”
We have ascertained that one group was definitely dead because they had been beheaded. The passage says “they came to life” and that event was a “resurrection.”
Now if they were beheaded and then lived, this could only be a literal, supernatural resurrection.
Paul says at the time of the Lord’s second coming — the same time as Revelation 19 and 20 — that
“…the dead in Christ will rise first.”
—1 Thessalonians 4:16
Again he says in 1 Corinthians 15:23 of the order of resurrection,
“Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming.”
This fits the same pattern we see in Revelation 20:4-6 — that when the Lord Jesus returns, there is a “first resurrection” involving only those who have been alive since His time on earth.
Furthermore, the passage says,
“Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power” (verse 6)
This verse provides an additional witness that the context is literal death. They are considered blessed because some event called “the second death” will have no power over them.
If the second death has no power over them, then we can logically conclude that there would be a group over whom the second death would indeed have power. And if the second death would have power over them, then they must necessarily die twice.
Now if only “the dead in Christ will rise first” — constituting martyrs and those who did not take the mark of the beast according to Revelation 20 — then we can reasonably conclude that there is a group still left dead comprised of those who were not “dead in Christ.”
Judging by this passage, we would expect a second resurrection in which the rest of the dead who had hitherto never been resurrected would then be resurrected — and they would be candidates to die once again — or they might be resurrected unto eternal life.
Revelation 20:12-15 says,
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Here we see a group which has been resurrected and subsequently judged according to their deeds. If any of their names are not found in the book of life, they will be thrown into the “lake of fire” — which is the “second death.” Furthermore, the timing between Revelation 20 and Daniel 12 agree with one another.
As a side-note, the very concept of the “book of life” disproves the idea that all Israelites will be saved. The Lord says,
Whoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe him out of My book. (Exodus 32:33)
David provides a second witness when he says,
May they be wiped out of the book of life, and may they not be recorded with the righteous. (Psalm 69:28)
We see clearly that an Israelite’s name can — and will — be removed from the book of life over sin — showing that one’s white skin does not guarantee eternal life.
The Lord says, “The one who overcomes will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life” (Revelation 3:5) — showing that one’s name will remain in the book of life only if they overcome.
Some will claim that “white garments” here refer to white skin — and this verse assures all White people that they will never be erased from the book of life — but this mundane reading ignores the above warning from Exodus 32:33 and Psalm 69:28 — that Israelites can be wiped from that book for their sin.
Revelation 21:27 tells us of the heavenly city,
“…and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
This description of the Kingdom prima facie precludes sinful, unrepentant Israelites who think they are somehow going to be allowed in for “lesser rewards” — and again, Exodus 32:33 and Psalm 69:28 provide second and third witnesses to this fact.
There’s simply no way the book of life could ever refer to “salvation by race” — and the concept of the book of life itself firmly dispels the doctrine of “salvation by race.”
Then in Revelation 20:14 we even see that even “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire” — meaning that death itself has finally been destroyed — along with those whose names were not written in the book of life.
Paul gives the same sequence of events in 1 Corinthians 15:22-26,
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
Again, Paul refers to the resurrection of the first fruits at Christ’s coming. Then comes a period where the Lord Jesus “must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”
Only after that reign — which is after the first resurrection of the first fruits at Christ’s coming — does it say “the last enemy that will be abolished is death.” Only when “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire,” we can consider that death has been abolished.
Therefore, Paul refers to the exact same sequence of two distinct resurrections — one involving only those who have served the Lord Jesus since His time on earth — and another involving everyone who hasn’t been resurrected yet.
With all of the above in mind, to argue that Revelation 20:5 contains an interpolation is a moot point — it doesn’t actually prove anything.
Furthermore, Revelation 20 agrees with Daniel 12:2 — that a group would be resurrected and die eternally straight after — providing witness to our first assumption on Daniel 12:2.
THEIR WORM SHALL NEVER DIE
Now we must flesh out the assumption from Daniel 12:2 — that a second, eternal death could constitute “shame and everlasting contempt.” Does the passage state that they must feel that shame? In other words, must that shame necessarily be subjective for them — from their point of view? Or does the passage state that the shame would be directed towards them?
Nothing in Daniel 12:2 really seems specifies either way, though we can logically deduce it from the wording itself. If only one group will be resurrected unto eternal life — and the group subjected to “shame and everlasting contempt” will die eternally — then we must conclude that the “shame and everlasting contempt” will be a sentiment experienced only by those who would live eternally toward the ones who do not.
Those who would die eternally might experience that shame and contempt for a short while — during the judgment, for example — but it certainly couldn’t be eternal.
Therefore, we flesh out our initial assumption a little more: somehow their eternal death constitutes “shame and everlasting contempt” — and that “shame and everlasting contempt” would exist in the minds of those who were resurrected unto eternal life.
Mark 9:47-48 says,
47 And if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished.
Now the word “hell” comes from the Norse pagan belief in an underworld they call “hel.” The original Greek word used was “geenna” (Strong’s G1067) — or “Gehenna” as we call it in the English language — which comes from the Hebrew words, “Valley of Ben-hinnom” — or “gay ben hinnom” (Strong’s H1516, H1121, H2011).
Certain evil kings of Judah would sacrifice their children to false gods in the valley of Ben-hinnom (2 Chronicles 28:3) — and so Jeremiah would prophecy to Judah in Jeremiah 19:5-6,
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I did not command nor speak of, nor did it ever enter My mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the Valley of Slaughter.
Therefore, Jeremiah prophesied that this very place would become a place of slaughter and death for Israel. Furthermore, extra-Biblical sources suggest that Gehenna became an ever-burning refuse dump for the people of Israel — although we consider the Biblical sources we’ve provided sufficient to connect Gehenna with both fire and death.
So the Lord Jesus offers two alternatives in Mark 9:46-47 — either we enter the kingdom of God, or we enter a place of fire and death. The kingdom of God is where the Lord Jesus will reign eternally with His people; therefore, the only alternative to the kingdom would be eternal death.
Thus the kingdom of God is another way of saying eternal life. Essentially we find the same alternatives here in Mark 9 as we do in Revelation 20 and Daniel 12.
We conclude then, that Gehenna and the lake of fire are indeed one and the same — each involves burning as well as slaughter for the wicked. Moreover, in each case, the only alternative is eternal life.
There is no Catholic-styled “purgatory” or waiting room where sinful Israelites get into the Kingdom but are forced to sit in “the corner of shame” for eternity.
In Mark 9 the Lord adds some extra information to the fate of those who would go to Gehenna. He says that “their worm does not die, and their fire is not extinguished.” Here He was actually quoting Isaiah 66:22-24,
22 “For just as the new heavens and the new earth, Which I make, will endure before Me,” declares the Lord, “So will your descendants and your name endure. 23 And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from Sabbath to Sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord. 24 “Then they will go out and look At the corpses of the people Who have rebelled against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be extinguished; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
When attempting to explain away this obvious connection the Lord Jesus has made between Mark 9 and Isaiah 66, those who believe “all Israel will be saved” have no choice but to claim that those who rebelled according to Isaiah 66:24 were actually non-whites — and thus they were not Israelites.
They will further claim that the “true” Israelites were those dispersed in Isaiah 66:18-21.
They fail to consider, however, that Isaiah 66:18-24 makes no such distinction — and that in Mark 9:47-48 the Lord Jesus was addressing Israelites. He admonishes them rather to enter life crippled or disfigured than to be cast into Gehenna — or the lake of fire.
If He thusly admonishes them, then it stands to reason that there was the very real possibility of them — even though they are Israelites — ending up in the lake of fire.
If all Israelites would inherit eternal life unconditionally, what point would there be to cut one’s own hand off to inherit eternal life? This doctrine of unconditional salvation renders the Lord Jesus’ teaching here an utterly moot point.
As such, their doctrine must necessarily explain away the Lord’s teaching — rather than explain how it might be applied in a sincere Christian’s life.
In trying to “explain” away Mark 9:47-48, they subtly disagree with the Lord Jesus Himself.
They also fail to consider that Isaiah 66:24 said, “the people who have rebelled against Me.” In other words, those who live in violation of the Lord Jesus’ commands.
Now the Israelites who sacrificed their children in Hinnom in the first place were just such Israelites who violated the Lord’s commands. Verily, the Scripture is filled to the brim with examples of Israelites who violate the Lord’s commands.
Many of those who believe “all Israel will be saved” themselves live in violation of many of the Lord’s commands — for the simple reason that their entry into the Kingdom is guaranteed regardless of whether or not they follow Christi’s commands.
This doctrine blinds them to the fact that all those who rebel against the Lord will end up in the lake of fire.
The Lord Jesus continues His teaching in Mark 9:49-50 — but we will touch on that slightly later.
The point here is that those who will be cast into the lake of fire will be “an abhorrence to all mankind” because “their worm shall not die and their fire will not be extinguished” (Isaiah 66:24). Such is the perception of the righteous Israelites who will be gathered in from their dispersion, as Isaiah 66:24,
“…they [the regathered Israel] will go out and look at the corpses.”
We do not consider that their corpses will literally burn for eternity — or that literal worms would be eating them for eternity — or that worms could even eat a corpse while being burned in the first place. Rather, this is an allegory for the fact that those who witnessed the event would never forget it.
Furthermore, Revelation 21:1 refers directly to the “new heaven and the new earth” in Isaiah 66:22 — so we can be all the more sure that the Lord was teaching us about eternal life when quoting Isaiah 66:24.
Revelation 22:14-15 — also referring to the heavenly city of Revelation 21 — tells us,
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
We’ve already learned that those who enter the kingdom are those inherit eternal life — and therefore, only those who enter the heavenly city will inherit eternal life. Therefore, those outside of the city — according to Revelation 21:15 — must be dead.
Revelation 21:14-15 gives us the same alternatives we have explained so far — the righteous and obedient will inherit the city, the kingdom and eternal life — whereas the sinners and the rebellious will suffer eternal death.
Revelation 21:27 also tells us that “only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” would ever be able to enter the city — and again in Exodus 32:33 the Lord assures us that
“Whoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe him out of My book.”
When we consider Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 21:15 and Revelation 21:27, we understand that in the minds of those who inherit eternal life, they will never forget those who died an eternal death because of their sins.
Thus, according to Daniel 12:2, they will suffer “shame and everlasting contempt” — not in their own minds, but in the minds of those who witnessed their deaths.
Those inside the kingdom and the heavenly city — who have inherited eternal life — will understand that sin and rebellion necessarily results in being cast out of the city into eternal destruction.
To this end, we should cast out this notion that when we inherit eternal life, we will suddenly just become obedient to the Lord Jesus after the fact.
No — the condition for eternal life is to demonstrate obedience first — so that we are guaranteed to demonstrate continued obedience when we receive our glorified bodies.
A Death After Resurrection
Now one might consider, “Why would someone be resurrected only to be killed almost immediately after?” The truth of our argument could never be contingent on answering this question — however, we will offer the answer as some kind of closure.
At the end of the age, there must be a final judgment — and everyone must be recompensed according to their judgment. Revelation 20:13 says
“They were judged, each one of them according to their deeds.”
Note that they are not judged according to whether or not they have white skin, but rather in accordance with their deeds.
Anyone who was not a pure descendant of the Genesis 10 nations will not be involved in the judgment in the first place.
Paul especially refers to the final judgment numerous times — and he says in 2 Corinthians 5:10,
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.
Very many evil people die without ever having received recompense for their deeds — so much so, in fact, that most of us rightfully have no faith that we can ever find real justice in this material world.
Yet God promised us that everyone would be recompensed for their deeds. If they die without receiving that just recompense, then God has made His promise to recompense everyone in vain.
Indeed, they must be resurrected in order that they may be recompensed — and that God’s promises may be fulfilled. As we have discussed, this recompense will forever remain in the minds and perceptions of those who inherit eternal life — and witness that punishment.
Furthermore, Paul says in Romans 14:10-12,
10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Everyone who stands before the judgment of the Lord Jesus will bow before Him and they will confess His Name and praise Him.
This fact is not in any way contingent on whether or not they are resurrected unto eternal life or eternal death. If they have been resurrected unto eternal death, they will kneel before Him and praise His name before being cast into the lake of fire.
Hebrews 12:17 uses Esau to admonish its audience against sin,
For you know that even afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
After sinners bow before the Lord Jesus, of course they will want to enter the kingdom — but just like with Esau, they will find no place for repentance, though they will seek it with tears.
In the same way, the five foolish virgins sought to enter the wedding feast — but the Lord said to them, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you.” (Matthew 25:12) The Lord also says in Matthew 13:42-43,
42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears, let him hear.
When they are cast into the fire, they will indeed weep over their fate.
Most interestingly, verse 43 refers directly to Daniel 12:3 which says,
“And those who have insight will shine like the glow of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”
Thus we have connected the event of the lake of fire and Daniel 12:2 with one another yet again. Note that we find that same distinction in Matthew 13:42-43 — either one will be cast into the lake of fire — or be righteous and shine forth like the sun.
There’s no third option where one may be resurrected into eternal life and “shame and everlasting contempt” — essentially having your cake and eating it too, as it were.
ISRAEL WILL NOT BE ASHAMED
Let us now consider another reason why the view that one could be resurrected unto eternal life of shame and contempt could never be true. Isaiah 45:17 says,
Israel has been saved by the Lord With an everlasting salvation; You will not be put to shame or humiliated To all eternity.
Isaiah 54:4 says,
“Fear not, for you will not be put to shame; And do not feel humiliated, for you will not be disgraced; But you will forget the shame of your youth, And no longer remember the disgrace of your widowhood.
These promises were made to Israel as a whole — or generally. Therefore, if one were an Israelite, that would mean they must necessarily not suffer any shame.
These promises are — prima facie proof– that they are irreconcilable with the notion that any Israelite could ever be resurrected to “shame and everlasting contempt.”
Some might attempt to argue that these promises apply only to corporate Israel — or Israel as a whole — and not necessarily every individual who makes up Israel. But we do not see how Israel as a whole might be unashamed while a very large portion of those who make up Israel are indeed subject to “shame and everlasting contempt.”
If one might consider themselves an Israelite — or if anyone from the nations would join Israel — they must necessarily demonstrate all of the promises made to Israel within their own lives. According to Paul, that’s what it means to be a “child of the promise.”
He says that
“…they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Romans 9:6)
and
“…it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” (Romans 9:8)
Now he did not say that “they are not all Israel who are living in the land of Judea.”
“Israel” — unless explicitly qualified — can ever refer only to legitimate sons of Jacob. Therefore, the children of the flesh — the legitimate sons of Jacob — are not regarded as descendants if they do not demonstrate the promises of God in their lives.
Thus no one in Israel will be put to shame eternally because none of Israel will be sinners. They will all be children of the promise — meaning that they will definitely have sin removed from their lives, as Romans 11:26-27 says,
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” 27 “This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”
Being a part of “all Israel” necessarily means having ungodliness removed and having one’s sins actually taken away.
If we live a life of ungodliness and sin, then we have absolutely no claim to being an Israelite — or even being a part of Israel.
Isaiah 60:20-22 says,
20 Your sun will no longer set, Nor will your moon wane; For you will have the Lord as an everlasting light, And the days of your mourning will be over. 21 Then all your people will be righteous; They will possess the land forever, The branch of My planting, The work of My hands, That I may be glorified. 22 The smallest one will become a thousand, And the least one a mighty nation. I, the Lord, will bring it about quickly in its time.”
Verse 20 here should already call to mind Revelation 21:23 — so we know that verse 21 and 22 are another prophecy about eternal life.
It says that all of them will be righteous — as we explained above — and that this will be for the Lord’s glory.
Therefore, those who want to bring unrighteous sinners — who are subject to “shame and everlasting contempt” — into eternal life, tacitly — though unintentionally — want to detract from the Lord’s glory.
Moreover, the “smallest one will become a thousand, and the least one a mighty nation.” We cannot conceive how someone could be subject to “shame and everlasting contempt,” yet be considered “a thousand” and “a mighty nation.”
Again, everyone who inherits eternal life must necessarily inherit righteousness and glory.
DO WE HAVE AN IMMORTAL SPIRIT?
Those who believe that “all Israel will be saved” may also argue — in lock-step with true universalist Christians — that every Adamic person who has ever been born has an immortal soul.
They will quote certain passages which supposedly “support” this idea — and we will consider a few of them out of 1 Corinthians.
However, let us first consider the Lord’s words in Mark 9:49-50 — which come directly after the verses we considered earlier,
49 For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
Peter — who likely had a hand in the gospel of Mark — says in 1 Peter 4:17,
For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
As we have explained at length before, absolutely everyone must suffer judgment and refinement — whether they suffer that judgment in this life or the next — and Peter and Paul were especially aware of this fact.
As such, judgment must “begin with the household of God” — and “everyone will be salted with fire” of judgment.
The question is — will we willingly subject ourselves to the fire of judgment in this life when we still have time to change — or will we be unwillingly subject to the fire of judgment in the next life when we find no recourse to change?
Those who believe all Israelites will be saved may be tempted to quote 1 Corinthians 3:15 which says,
“If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.”
They may insist that everyone will definitely be saved through the fire, even if all their work as individuals has been burned up. This — according to them — allegedly proves that everyone has an immortal soul and must necessarily inherit eternal life.
However, Paul never states the argument which they propose — rather, they merely assume Paul’s words agree with their argument — despite none of Paul’s plain words coming anywhere close to their argument. In this way, they are begging the question — merely presuming the truth of their argument, rather than proving the truth of their argument.
Let us consider the broader scope in 1 Corinthians 3:9-15,
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 each one’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.
Here Paul compares an apostle’s work with building. He says that his work over a certain community — like the Corinthians — is like building on the foundation of Christ. Each person must build with “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw” — constituting the actual quality of the members of that community. In other words, what kind of quality does the teaching of the builder produce?
If the builder teaches poorly — thus building with poor materials — then their work will be burned away. In other words, those members of the community whom they taught will not survive the fires of judgment because of their own poor quality of work.
Paul confirms that the builder is actually building the temple of God — of which Christians are living stones — in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17,
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
Paul calls the people a “temple of God” (verse 16) — and explicitly says that they are “God’s building” (verse 9). Therefore, when Paul says that “if anyone’s work is burned up” — he could be talking only about the Corinthians themselves.
Paul was addressing factionalism in the Corinthian community because they were dividing from one another over differences in teaching between Paul and Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:5).
Elsewhere, Paul tells us that factious people will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20) — but in 1 Corinthians 11:19 he literally tells the Corinthians that
“…there also have to be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” (1 Corinthians 11:19)
Therefore, Paul was warning the Corinthians that they should not exhibit factionalism over himself or Apollos because if they did so, they would show themselves to be building of poor workmanship — and thus they would be destroyed by the fire of judgment.
Verily, the very purpose of their factiousness was to reveal who would survive the fire of judgment. Recall that Paul said “we [Paul and Apollos] are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” (1 Corinthians 3:9) They are the workers and the Corinthians were the building. The Corinthians were Paul and Apollos’ work.
If the Corinthians were burned up in judgment over their factionalism, then Paul and Apollos would suffer the loss of their work. However, just because Paul and Apollos suffer the loss of their work being burned with fire — that does not necessarily mean that Paul and Apollos would themselves be burned up.
Paul says that the builder
“…himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
Of course Paul and Apollos would also suffer the fire of judgment because everyone must suffer the fire of judgment. Yet Paul and Apollos would be saved through that fire because they themselves would not be condemned in judgment — even if the factiousness of the Corinthians would condemn them in judgment.
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:15 proves the exact opposite of what those who believe all Israelites will be saved believe. Paul was telling the Corinthians — who are Israelites according to those who believe all Israelites will be saved — that they could be consumed and destroyed by fire. In no way does this prove that any and every Adamic person has an immortal soul.
Now we must note the very real possibility that a worker himself might be burned up in the fire of judgment. In other words, just because Paul and Apollos would withstand the fire of judgment — despite their own work being burned up — does not mean that every worker will survive the judgment if their work doesn’t.
Paul says that that the worker “himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15) — meaning that the worker himself must survive the judgment.
James tells us that teachers “will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1) — so we expect the fire to be all the hotter for so-called workers.
If a teacher reclines among the praise his work gives him — settling for the approval of men — what will happen when the men from whom they get their approval are burned up in judgment? Who will praise them then?
Proverbs 27:21 says,
The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold, And each is tested by the praise accorded him.
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15 also prove that no one is going to enter the kingdom on anyone else’s coat-tails — everyone must demonstrate the work of the Lord Jesus in their own lives.
Just because the one who worked on us — like Paul worked on the Corinthians — may be saved in the fire of judgment, does not mean that we ourselves will be saved.
Ezekiel 14:20 tells us the standard by which the remnant of Israel will be measured,
“…even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst, as I live,” declares the Lord God, “they could not save either their son or their daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.”
Another verse those who believe all Israelites will be saved may bring up to support the notion that Adamic people have immortal souls is 1 Corinthians 5:5,
I have decided to turn such a person over to Satan for the destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
They will attempt to argue that if one’s body is destroyed — as in they die — then that person’s spirit will definitely be saved on the day of the Lord.
Even assuming their own view, why would Paul have to deliver them to destruction in order to be saved? According their argument, the Corinthians are going to be saved regardless — just because they are born Israelites.
However, they have failed to realize that Paul specifically did something which might result in their spirit being saved. This places a conditionality on their spirit being saved — and as such, this verse alone proves that their spirits are, in fact, definitely not immortal.
They fail to realize just how many times and in so many diverse ways the Scripture places a condition on eternal life which could never be reconciled with “salvation by race” or “all Israelites will be saved.”
Moreover, the Greek work for “destruction” — which is “olethros” (Strong’s G3639) — does not necessarily mean the end state of death or annihilation in Paul’s writing. “Olethros” is a noun, not a verb — and as such, it represents a state of continued ruin.
As with in the English language, being in a state of destruction does not mean that one has already been utterly destroyed — rather, they are in the process of being destroyed.
In 1 Timothy 6:9 Paul says,
“…those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge people into ruin and destruction [olethros].”
Do we conclude that Paul taught that a desire for riches would plunge someone into an immediate end-state of annihilation? Or would it cause someone to enter a state of life which causes their own continual ruin and destruction — possibly resulting in annihilation?
In the same way, the context of 1 Corinthians 5:5 was that Paul had admonished the Corinthians to cast certain sinners out of the community. If they were cast out of the church, they would no longer be under its purview — and they would then be vulnerable to Satan.
This expulsion would constitute the destruction of their flesh because being subject to Satan would place them in a state of destruction. We all know how Satan placed Job in a state of destruction — and He sought to do the same to Peter and the apostles in Luke 22:31.
Paul does the same in 1 Timothy 1:20 where he says,
“Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.”
If he “handed them over to Satan” in order to teach them a lesson, then it stands to reason that they would not necessarily die. The same standard applies to 1 Corinthians 5:5.
Paul considered that they “may be saved” — conditional on whether or not they learned their lesson in this life or not. The word for “saved” in Greek was written in the conditional subjunctive mood — meaning that Paul did not consider their salvation as a given.
Rather, he desired their salvation and considered that their salvation would be a possibility if they managed to learn from the destruction of their flesh under Satan.
Most translators realize this — and so they write “may be saved” instead of “will be saved.”
The last verse we will consider for the moment is 1 Corinthians 15:22,
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”
They will claim that “in Christ all will be made alive” necessarily means that absolutely everyone will be made alive — everyone will enter the Kingdom.
Now The Lord says in John 3:14-15,
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him.
We have “eternal life in Him,” but only if we actually believe in Him — we must have a personal faith in the Lord Jesus.
Therefore, we are “in Christ” only if we believe in Christ. To be “in Christ,” one must live a life of obedience and faith to Christ. One cannot be “in Christ” and also be an atheist or a willful and unrepentant sinner.
Thus 1 Corinthians 15:22 actually disproves the idea of an immortal soul because only those who are “in Christ” will be resurrected unto eternal life.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
As we demonstrated in Daniel 12:2, 1 Corinthians 3:15, 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, the doctrine fails to consider its own logical inconsistencies with the verses themselves. At face value — without any exposition of our own on these verses — the verses themselves outright disprove the idea of an immortal soul. Yet through begging the question they will continue on as if the verses in fact prove their own view.
Moreover, note how severely the view continually begs the question, by assuming the truth of its own premise.
At no point does the Scripture actually state the doctrine in any plain words — so they must continually offer a “special explanation” of why the Scripture means something other than what the plain words say.
Yet despite how their views differ from the plain words of the Scripture, they will contend their view somehow lines up with the plain words of Scripture — because they haven’t yet been able to see their own logical fallacies. We understand how that is possible — because at one point we, too, may have believed the same.
On the other hand, we can offer one simple verse which — at face value — completely destroys the whole doctrine. Matthew 10:28 says,
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Here the word for “hell” is again “Gehenna” — or an allegory for the lake of fire. The Lord literally states that the soul will be destroyed in the lake of fire — which is the second death.
He did not speak these words in vain — and so we should heed His words and fear the fate which He described for the disobedient and rebellious to His gospel.
The prophets of old would preach destruction to Israel — and Israel did not like to hear that message. Like Ahab who called Elijah “he that troubleth Israel” (1 Kings 18:17) — they consider this message to be a personal attack on themselves — or some kind of desire for their eternal death.
On the contrary, we speak the power of the Lord Jesus to cleanse us from all sin and unrighteousness. He has the power to deliver us into righteousness and eternal life with Him.
We present this message to our kindred that they may be delivered from the judgment and be saved through the Lord’s refining power. If it were entirely up to us, they would stand before the Lord Jesus and He would say to them, “Well done, My good and faithful servants.”
Paul says of Israel in Romans 11:23,
And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.
See that condition once again: “if they do not continue in their unbelief.” We must all demonstrate a personal faith in the Lord Jesus — else we continue in unbelief. However, if we repent, we bring joy and praise to the Lord Jesus — and to His angels in heaven.
The Lord says in Luke 15:7,
I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.
And in verse 10,
In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
The father says to the prodigal son in verse 24,
…for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.
Let us — the unbelieving “wild olive branches” of Israel then be grafted back in — no longer continuing in unbelief — that we may bring joy to the Lord Jesus and to His angels.
All it takes is for us to acknowledge our sinful state — to have a personal faith and desire for His righteousness — and to have the prayer and dedication to ask Him to help us. We will part with the words of Jude 1:24-25,
24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Luke
1 Timothy 4:9-11 KJVS
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. [10] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. [11] These things command and teach.
Let me Ask a question, is God all powerful or not? Apostle Paul ask this rhetorical question in the book of Romans.
Romans 9:18-19 KJVS
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Paul had first-hand knowledge of just how powerful God was. On the road to Damascus, hellbent to persecute Jewish Christians in that city, in midstep God converted him to Christianity. And he became the greatest evangelist the world has ever seen. And is there free will? Paul would also argue that point. There is an appearance of free will, until God exerts his will upon the individual.
West
——- Luke ——-
What is your POINT in this comment?
Yes, “God is all powerful”. But ….. what about it?
Are you the same “Luke” that is promoting Universalism here — https://christiansfortruth.com/the-wild-olive-branch-of-romans-11-who-can-be-grafted-into-israel-and-who-cannot/#comment-270450
Taking a quick look at your website —- So, can I presume you believe in “Once Saved Always Saved”?
Can I ask …. how did you find Christians For Truth? Are you Jew Wise? Do you believe that White/Caucasian/European Peoples are the Israelites of Scripture?
What brought you here?
Sincerely,
Romans 11
If you think about it, those Identity Christians who believe that all Israelites (or White people) will be saved, even after an entire lifetime of unbelief, is exactly what the evangelical Zionist Christians believe about Jews.
Dispensationalist Christians believe that once Jews have regathered in the literal land of Israel, Jesus will return and “every knee shall bow” and every Jew “shall glory” in salvation because “all Israel shall be saved”.
In other words, Identity Christians completely agree with evangelical Christians, except for one thing — they believe all White people will be saved instead of all Jews will be saved.
Same shite different pile.
FujianXiamenGuo
Jews most likely the majority of them will be in hell.
West
—– FugianXiamenGuo —–
Your comment implies “the Jew” has the option of doing Good.
Why would God punish a Grizzly Bear for killing a woman who is out picking wild berries?
Do you believe the Jew has the option — Do God’s Will or not to do God’s Will?
No right or wrong answer. Just curious what you think.
Arnie
If you have the faith that Jesus Christ died and was dead three days for us, and was raised from the dead, eternal, forever God, you shall be saved.
There is no guilt about anything you can do because you are dead in Christ, and when it’s time you will be made alive with Him forever. Found Guiltless by His grace.
West
—- Arnie —-
That’s it then?
Obedience to Jesus is not necessary. “Walking according to the Spirit, and not the flesh” just comes naturally without thought and action?
A “Continuation” in the Faith. Not necessary?
Sounds like Modern Christianity which is absolutely feckless.
Jimmy2
“After sinners bow before the Lord Jesus, of course they will want to enter the kingdom — but just like with Esau, they will find no place for repentance, though they will seek it with tears.”
Over and over we see people desperate to take part in the REWARD of Heaven. The reward of Heaven is FREEDOM FROM sin. If uninterested in this freedom NOW, why would those sinning voluntarily today await breathlessly to have it then? I contend it is because of envy and covetousness (and fear), not because of a present desire for sinlessness, that so many “Christians” seek a reward not intended for them.
john
Yes, only a very cruel God would force people into something they don’t want to be in. And for eternity??
john
Could the White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20 be a period of time that allows resurrected people to be taught, some really for the first time. See verse 12, the books (biblios) or bibles were opened. After the education/reeducation, the book of life was opened.
4ntioch
CFT writes:
“Then we have provided a practical precedent, a prophetic witness and simple logic that one may overcome the law through faith and obedience. That is the grace of the Lord Jesus which saves us all. Paul also says rather explicitly, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)”
This is quite incredible, that the Law may be overcome through faith and obedience.
Is sin not transgression of the Law. Shouldnt obedience be to the Law, to keep His commandments. What is the substance of faith if not this?!?
Faith and obedience may overcome the Law!?!
I suppose that is what CFT imagines Ruth is doing, is that her ‘faith’ as a racial moabite (as CFT claims) overcame the Law of God. And therefore faith is subjective, with men, rather than being within the providence of God (objective, apart from man). What is the substance of the faith if it can be possessed by a racial Moabite? Psalm 147:19
I suppose this speaks to so many thing CFT promotes.
Kevin
Well if faith and obedience were to fail before the law, each and every one of us would be put to death, because we are all sinners.
4ntioch was already asked why David wasn’t put to death for his crime against Uriah. The law would demand it. Obviously David’s repentance was accepted and he was spared.
I hope sincere brothers and sisters avoid the stumbling block of the law and don’t follow 4ntioch’s lead here. You may not like me but I hope to win you over anyway, God willing.
4ntioch
I keep seeing it repeated over again that DSCI teaches that we can be saved without Christ. Which isnt true at all. We simply believe that Christ will save all white men, we believe in Isaiah 45 “every knee shall bow”, as it is written without innovation.
Salvation is according to God’s purpose (objective). His purpose cannot fail. It is not according to the will and profession of men (subjective).
It is national restoration. The purpose is not to glorify certain white men, the purpose is to glorify God!
We dont believe our own family members are going to hell. We dont believe that men who rejected the universal jewdeoxtian Jesus are going to hell. Or that men who died at 18 years old in WW@ went to hell because they didnt know the true kinsman redeemer. Or that such men would be without reward. He will judge and reward white men according to their works, grievous sinners will reap as they sowed, they will have no inheritance in the KINgdom.
Kevin
I don’t care to talk about salvation numbers. I care about convincing as many brothers and sisters as God allows of me that their conduct should improve, that we love one another and put away petty things like gossip, slander and defamation.
When a certain couple defrauded Peter and the congregation of coin, God killed them on the spot.
How worse though for anyone to defraud brethren of love or fellowship?
Let’s not tempt God!
Hebrew 6
“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.”
Bayard
“Every knee shall bow” most certainly does NOT mean that everybody will be saved. Every tongue shall confess God does NOT mean that everyone will be saved.
Recall, even the devils confess God, and tremble (James 2:19). What every knee shall bow means is that everyone, every Adamic person will stand before the Lord and give an account of their lives for the purposes of eternal judgment — who enters the narrow gate and who does not.
All of this was address in the following essay:
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/#comments
You attempted this same argument already and were shown to be in error and yet you persist because you cannot accept what the Scriptures actually say as opposed to what you want them to say.
4ntioch
CFT deleted my reply to this comment by baynard but then went ahead and made their own.
I responded to this by clarifying that I was referring to the chapter in it’s entirety. I did not say “every knee shall bow’ is the thing that proves national salvation of it’s self.
CFT
4ntioch, your comments were deleted because you have simply resorted to repeating yourself, digging your heels in, impervious to reason or evidence.
You are at an impasse in your thinking, and we can no longer waste your time or anyone else’s on this issue. You have proven yourself incalcitrant and incapable of self-reflection.
As has been pointed out to you, you do indeed suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which make you impervious to reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Unfortunately, you have no choice but to behave this way because if you concede one single point on any issue your entire two seedline house of cards comes crashing down.
Therefore, the very notion that you are open to having your own views challenged is a farce and dishonest for all sincere commenters here who attempt to fruitfully engage with you. We kindly ask you to cease commenting on this topic, as you have come to a mental and emotional impasse.
Naboth
Unfortunately, 4ntioch’s slothful inductive reasoning, slothful listening/comprehension skills, grandiose, self-aggrandizing judgements and over-estimation of his own perspicacity against those with whom he attempts to debate makes for a rather repugnant ambassage for his DSCI cause.
If I were DSCI, I would cringe at this exhibition.
CFT
4ntioch wrote,
From our article above:
“Israel” is the sons of the twelve tribes. “Israel” is not the territory of Judea. “Israel” could never include Edomites. Therefore, Paul tells us that not all Israelites — that is, literal and legitimate descendants — are regarded as seed. If that is the case, Isaiah 45:25 means something other than what you think. We’ve mentioned this many times, but you refuse to address it in a way that shows you understand our argument: Will All Israel Be Saved — Or Just A Remnant?
Our position on 1 Corinthians 3 is above in the article, but you didn’t even address it — instead, merely reasserting your own position on it. An earnest question for you 4ntioch — and we would be much obliged if you would answer: Were you truly unaware that we addressed 1 Corinthians 3 — or did you intentionally ignore it because you didn’t like our explanation but didn’t have the ability to refute it?
4ntioch wrote,
You’re merely presuming that “every knee shall bow” means salvation. You’re begging the question. Revelation 3:9 tells us Jews will bow at our feet. Do you think that means we’ll save them? Your exegesis seems inconsistent with itself.
4ntioch wrote,
Do you expect everyone to just take your word for it? Prove to us that Moab was conquered by Israel before the time of Ruth. You can’t. Moreover, if you understood our argument, you’d understand that the existence of geographical identifiers is completely irrelevant to it. In fact, we agree. The book of Ruth obviously refers to a “land of Moab” which is so named due to Moabites.
4ntioch wrote,
There’s no such thing as a “racial Moabite,” unless you’d like to prove that concept out of the Bible? Moabites are Adamic just like Israelites.
Isaiah 56:3 was prophesied during the time of the Old Covenant, exonerating eunuchs despite Deuteronomy 23:1 on the premise that they do good.
* David was not killed according to the Law during the time of the Old Covenant. Whether you believe it was prophetic or not has no bearing on the facts at hand. Your opinion on prophecy doesn’t change the facts.
* During the time of the Old Covenant David wrote, “For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You do not take pleasure in burnt offering.” (Psalm 51:16)
* During the time of the Old Covenant, David ate the consecrated bread only fit for priests (Matthew 12:3-4).
* Jesus tells us that during the time of the Old Covenant, it was “lawful” to override the Law in order to do good (Matthew 12:12)
* During the time of the Old Covenant, despite many widows and lepers “in Israel” — that is, the people themselves — God send Elijah and Elisha to a Sidonian and a Syrian respectively (Luke 4:25-27).
* The Old Covenant tells us righteousness is based on the Law (Romans 10:5), but Paul tells us David was granted righteousness in accordance with faith (Romans 4:5-8).
Paul tells us to “serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6), but he calls the Law itself “spiritual.” (Romans 7:14) The Law always was spiritual, regardless of the covenant in effect, otherwise David could never have been regarded as righteous or even have survived as long as he did.
The “exception” — as you insist on calling it — is doing good.
4ntioch wrote,
It is not our position that “the Law doesnt matter and can be set aside for whatever reason.” And as witness to this fact, we offer up our multi-part series reflecting our position on the Law, which we strongly suggest that not only you read but that you study carefully because it witnesses against your contention about us: The Spirit Of The Law — Romans 7 & 8 (Part 1)
We’d like to also suggest you reread our article, How To More Effectively Disagree In Biblical Matters — it will probably be a benefit for you, because — as we explain in the article — misrepresenting another’s position after having been corrected constitutes willful slander. Therefore, if you do not accept our correction of your representation of our own position, then you are guilty of willful slander.
Judging by your arguments, we get the impression you haven’t been actually reading our work — or you are skimming it at best with confirmation bias. We do not understand why you’d come here to contend with our position if you do not make the effort to understand it in the first place.
In any case — to answer your question, again, we suggest you read our series on Romans 7 & 8. It starts with The Spirit Of The Law — Romans 7 & 8 (Part 1)
4ntioch
CFT says “and you would like to elaborate on why you believe the law of kinsman redeemer precludes Israelite men from redeeming non-Israelite wives?”
I never said this. And I do not agree that the Law at Deuteronomy 23 can be nullified by the feelings of a woman or anything else. CFT said (in their article on the matter):
“But why then would Deuteronomy 23:3 not stand against her?
The answer is actually rather simple: Ruth completely gave up her identity as a Moabite, adopting the identity and the one true God of Israel. Boaz even says to Ruth in Ruth 2:12,”
I do not agree with this or the rest of it as it continues. That the Law could be circumvented by a Moabite “giving- up” their identity, as if you change what you are. Neither will I ever agree that Christ had or could have Moabite blood.
The Law of the Kinsman Redeemer considered with The Law in Deuteronomy is what I was saying.
Kevin
And yet the nations were grafted into the vine of Christ – our kinsman redeemer – whilst Israel was provoked to jealousy by being grafted out. Israel, ever since, has needed the grace of Christ to be grafted back in. Paul makes that clear in Romans, even indicating how easily the natural (israelite) branches can be grafted back in, since even the wild (nonIsraelite Adamic) branches could.
In other words, all Adamites are offered salvation in Christ as genesis 3:22 first promised.
And even in the days of the kingdom the law stated that strangers could be accepted if they accepted the God of Israel, and as CFT pointed out, even Jacob took non Israelite wives (obviously) as did his sons.
4ntioch is working from a 2sl perspective where all the non Israelite nations bordering Israel were of mixed race, so his contention seems just to him. But the bible clearly states otherwise in Genesis 10.
It is perfectly logical that Ruth and Rahab were shown just courtesy for their righteousness. The bible never says they are displaced Israelites.
CFT
4ntioch wrote,
We agree — the Law cannot be nullified by anyone’s feelings. However, that is not the argument we made.
4ntioch wrote,
Firstly, you’re presuming that Ruth wasn’t pure Adamic. From that perspective, we might understand why you wouldn’t agree. So long as you presume Moabites were non-Adamic, we’re probably never going to agree. However — as we explained at length, there’s no reason to doubt that Moabites were pure Adamic people. As we have explained in our articles, only Deuteronomy 23:2 is about being of mixed blood. The law against the Moabites was made over their own evil — not any alleged mixed blood. Deuteronomy 23:4-5 is really very clear on that.
Secondly, you might not agree with “the rest of it as it continues” — but assuming hypothetically you agree that Ruth was an Adamic woman, you might then agree with the rest of what we said, yes? If she wasn’t an Adamic woman, none of our argument would have applied.
4ntioch wrote,
Yes, the law of kinsman redeemer could apply only to pure Adamic people. Agreed.
4ntioch
It doesnt matter what you think a Moabite is. They cannot enter the congregation as per the Law.
3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:
The Law cannot be nullified or explained away. I believe in the Law. Assuming Ruth was a Moabite by race; It wouldnt matter if Ruth thought she was a good Moabite, had an emotion or decided she didnt really identify as one or anything else you might conjecture. And of-course she certainly was not and could not have been, it is a faulty position.
Christ cannot have Moabite blood, He is of the congregation of God.
Bayard
4ntioch, do you also hold Deuteronomy 23:1 to be unconitionally true, that eunuchs, like Moabites, can never enter the congregation of the Lord?
CFT
Before we proceed, we would like to see 4ntioch’s reply to Bayard’s question.
4ntioch
WHERE is the exception found in the Law of Deuteronomy 23:3?
Where is it?
Deu 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:
I know the answer from CFT. CFT claims that the next verse contains an exception.
Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.
CFT’s construction is that a racial Moabite could be excepted from this Law if they personally did not act in a similar manner.
Yet I do not think that this is an exception at all. The ‘because’ and explanation that follows does not indicate any kind of exception in the Law. There is no explicit exception. I dont think it necessarily even indicates the full intention of that Law. Even if it it does; it is not for men to decide that certain racial moabites could be excepted from the Law.
Also, as a side note, does CFT think geographical identifications do not exist in the Bible, because such a notion could be torn to shreds in seconds….
Kevin
Seems to me that Israel was commanded to slaughter every Canaanite in Canaan – to a child even. But somehow, someway, the men of Israel knew in themselves that their God would never command the unjust murder of a righteous man or woman, and so Rahab and her entire house was saved.
Similarly – and to Bayard’s question to 4ntioch – the eunuch in Acts 8 was rewarded for his faith in Christ, and so God sent Philip to speak with him and baptize him.
Even though Deuteronomy 23:1 explicitly forbids a eunuch from ever entering the congregation of the Lord.
Spirit of the Law, 4ntioch.
And I know all too well what 4ntioch will say – that we are somehow leaving the door open for Deuteronomy 23:2 to be similarly abridged through the righteous works of a Chinaman or Arab. But this is not so, because Deuteronomy 23:2 regards non Adamites, beasts, and no beast is of the generations of Adam. It is so.common sensical that the spirit of the law could never mistakingly abridge it in such away.
The spirit of the law involves the actual living spirit of God, which discerns all things through the clarity that transcends the flesh as well as the rigid shadow type of the letter of the law.
Really a lot could be said on the matter.
CFT
4ntioch, your previous reply tacitly admits the Moabites may indeed be Adamic people because you said, “It doesn’t matter what you think a Moabite is.” Yet the whole premise of your previous reply was that they were not Adamic people. The whole premise of our article was that they are Adamic people. Not only did you misunderstand — or ignore — that premise, but after having to concede the law of kinsman redeemer does not in fact apply, you have moved the goal-posts by claiming her ancestry doesn’t apply.
Our argument acknowledges the law of Deuteronomy 23:4 — and we lay out the reasons why it doesn’t apply. You’re merely critiquing our argument as if we did not acknowledge Deuteronomy 23:4 in the first place.
As we mentioned in the article, the law of death stood against David for committing adultery. The law of death stands against us all. Yet through faith, the law did not kill David through his own sin — as it does not kill us through our sin in the Lord Jesus. We have established precedent then that through grace and faith the law might not stand against Adamic people.
Therefore, it will not suffice for you to merely say, “I do not agree with this or the rest of it as it continues.” You need to actually address the argument and show us why and where it’s wrong. With rather explicit reference to Deuteronomy 23, Isaiah 56:3 says,
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will certainly separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
The law of Deuteronomy 23:4 said to separate Moab from among His people. Isaiah 56:3 says not to say that of any foreigner — assuming the foreigner meets the conditions lain out in Isaiah 56:6 — and we may add, that foreigner must be an Adamic person. It stands to reason if Moab were removed over their sin — that through obedience they might be exonerated.
Likewise, the eunuch was not allowed to enter the congregation (Deuteronomy 23:1) — yet Isaiah 56 clearly provides explicit witness for how they may indeed enter the congregation. But you have chosen to ignore this example because it refutes your whole premise that there is no exception to the law in Deuteronomy 23. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself witnesses yet again in Matthew 19:12 that eunuchs may indeed enter the Kingdom.
Then we have provided a practical precedent, a prophetic witness and simple logic that one may overcome the law through faith and obedience. That is the grace of the Lord Jesus which saves us all. Paul also says rather explicitly, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)
We have already lain this argument out in the article which you have been welcome to read. If you discard our argument in an off-handed manner as we have lain it out, we would merely call that slothful induction or willful ignorance.
Kevin
4ntioch,
If it’s not too much to ask, could you address the points raised by CFT, myself and others instead of posting defaming and slanderous rhetoric about us to your 2sl congregation?
Is that going to change the outcome of the debate, or the reality of God’s truth in some way?
It doesn’t hurt me brother, if that is your intent. But it does hurt the body of Christ as a whole to speak evil of some (us) to those who are given into your fold, so that those younger, impressionable sheep would learn to hate their own brethren in the same way.
It really is moot at this point in my humble opinion whether or not 4ntioch cops to a point or not. It is vain to think it would even matter when such a man lies continually.
If he came back and admitted a point it would be like a thief admitting to a smaller crime to hide a bigger one.
Such men are spoken of in our scriptures – liars, brutes – as being unworthy of fellowship, because they sin continually without ever repenting, and are harmful to the youth.
It haunts me that I was ever a part of that place.
CFT
“He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.” (1 John 3:14)
4ntioch
So basically CFT has not been able to point to where the exception in the Law is and clearly doesnt understand how the Law was fulfilled in Christ.
CFT’s argument is imo “Ruth was a racial Moabite but the Law doesnt apply because she had an emortion or didnt identify as one”
CFT
4ntioch, then what do you make of the example we used of the eunuchs? What about David who was not killed according to the Law when he deserved to die according to the Law?
Your comments on this discussion will not be approved unless you answer these two examples specifically.
Far be it from us to have to police the discussion, but there’s only so far we can go when you avoid our actual argument — while critiquing your own version of our argument.
A case in point:
4ntioch wrote,
From our article on Ruth,
Bayard
4ntioch, you completely ignored my question of the eunuch in Deuteronomy 23:1, which says that a eunuch cannot enter the congregation, yet Isaiah 56 says that eunuchs will enter the congregation.
Do you deny this? Are you denying that Isaiah 56:3 does provide an exception to the law in Deuteronomy 23 against eunuchs ever entering the congregation? How do you explain this “discrepancy”?
It is impossible to take you seriously if you cannot explain this simple example and just plain ignore it.
This is quite astounding. I have encountered people who just ignore scripture that contradicts their entire argument, but not this brazenly.
Clearly, the eunuch did not overcome the law against them with their “feelings.”
“3Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”
Edward I
Kevin wrote, “Such men are spoken of in our scriptures – liars, brutes – as being unworthy of fellowship, because they sin continually without ever repenting, and are harmful to the youth.”
Correct, but unfortunately these “brutes” of whom you speak believe that the “brute beasts” referred to in Scripture are not themselves, of course, but rather “edomite jews”. How convenient.
Their blindness is so deeply entrenched that they are immune to any self-awareness whatsoever.
Only a “brute” would believe they don’t need Christ to enter the Kingdom of God simply because they are white. I should know because I used to believe that, God help me.
2 Peter 2:12 “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”
4ntioch
I just want to reiterate that there is no exception in the Law at Deuteronomy 23:3 which was the point of contention. There is no basis in Scripture to claim that a Moabite could be let into the congregation because they dont identify as a Moabite or whatever.
Now I am required to answer many other things, CFT seems to be suggesting that if it can seemingly find an exception for any part of the Law than it can dispense with other parts of the Law at their discretion…
So the surest sign that one is making a contextual error is when the Bible seems to contradict itself. For example; claiming that the prophet Isaiah nullifies a Law found in Deuteronomy. The questions are; “which man was really speaking for God” or “does God contradict Himself”, “Does God change His Law”, “Did God forget that other thing He said previously”? and so on. I would rather believe that the error is with man and man’s reading of Scripture in such cases, since the Scripture can sometimes be obscure. It is important to uphold the veracity of Scripture and not force interpretations that bring the Scripture into disreputation.
And so the context of Isaiah 56 is God who “gathereth the outcasts of Israel” and is directed to those who “hold firmly His covenant”, something which only Israel had and those who lament having been separated from His people. These people knew the Law and the Sabbaths, and are compelled to keep the Sabbath by God. They are under the Law which was for Israel.
Being alienated from your nation, being an outcast; you are as a foreigner, you are as a dry tree. It was a disgrace in Israel to be childless, to not have a name in Israel. They were seemingly alienated from the racial covenant, the promise that was passed from generation to generation. Yet God, whio gathereth the outcasts of Israel, says to those who would seek His Law that they will have a name in Israel.
I also cannot accept that racial Moabites could be the ‘foreigners’ of Isaiah 56 given the Law at Deuteronomy 23. I mean do we just throw out Deuteronomy or just follow whatever Law we want at our own discretion …may as well just throw the Bible in the trash or write your own Bible at that point.
David had his sin put-away by God. Which I think is prophetic. Israel was not put to death for their sin immediately, rather they were put-away and then Christ fulfilled the Law by dying as the Husband. Is CFT suggesting that having your sin covered by God, the Husband who gave the Law, is the same as a man deciding that “this Mobaite seems alright, we can let her in, right”…
David was punished for his sin however.
CFT says:
“It should be very obvious then that these lands are not ever referred to as the “land of Moab.”
Which isnt true.
Rth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
Rth 1:2 And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
This was after Israel had conquered Moab. Also one good example of a geographical identifier is at Deuteronomy 26:5, ofcourse there are many others:
Deu 26:5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian [Aramean] ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:
CFT
What of Genesis 17:14 where one shall be cut off from among his people if he is not circumcised? Surely we don’t have to explain the internal inconsistencies with what you’re saying here? Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off may enter the assembly of the Lord.” Then what of Matthew 19:12? Acts 8:25-40? Do you keep the Sabbath in accordance with the letter of the Law? It says that, “Everyone who profanes it must be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:14)
Unless you truly haven’t yet realized the corner you’ve painted yourself into? No, we believe you do realize the corner you’ve painted yourself into — because you still refuse to answer the question of eunuchs and Deuteronomy 23:1. Therefore, short of a satisfactory answer to the above points, you might as well drop the argument insisting on the letter of the Law, just as the Pharisees did, in accordance with your own judgement.
Romans 7:6,
You quoted only half of Isaiah 56:8,
Yes, He gathers yet others to those already gathered. He already gathers Israel, so He will gather yet more over and above Israel. Those are the foreigners which are explicitly referred to earlier in the passage. That is the context.
4ntioch wrote,
It’s all well and good to give your opinions on what about the event is “prophetic” — but the fact remains that David overcame the penalty of the Law through grace and faith. We are showing you that your argument’s insistence on the letter of the Law — in accordance with your own judgement — doesn’t work, because through grace and faith one might be exonerated from the penalties of the Law.
4ntioch wrote,
Firstly, we provided the “case in point” as proof to you that you aren’t paying attention to our argument — or you are willfully representing it incorrectly. Ironically, if you were paying attention, you would have realized that. Secondly, your response merely demonstrates — once again — how little attention you are paying. Not only in your failure to realize the true purpose of that “case in point,” but also the argument you’ve given here — once again — shows you have no idea what our argument is. In trying to disprove our “case in point,” you merely proved it. If our accusation against you here were false, you would have realized the following about our argument:
* Israel were specifically told not to make war with the Moabites while on their way to Canaan.
* Israel conquered the Amorites — who had previously taken the northern portion of the Moabites land from them.
* The land which Israel took from the Amorites — which the Amorites took from Moab — was called Gilead, Bashan or Land of Rephaim, not the “land of Moab”.
* The rest of the Moabites were still alive and well in the remaining southern portion of their own land.
* By the time of Ruth, Israel hadn’t ever conquered Moab.
* In the book of Ruth, “country of Moab” refers to the actual place where Moabites lived at that time — the southern portion of land which they still had.
If you read our article on Ruth and paid attention, you would know this.
Kevin
Isaiah 56 was brought up in reference to eunuchs, as well as Acts 8, as a way to establish precedent for works of faith overcoming the letter of the law.
But you – 4ntioch – are addressing it as if it was a point brought up about Moabites specifically – which it can be – but there was a reason we wanted you to address the eunuch. Why was the eunuch shown mercy and even baptized i.e. given the holy ghost in Acts 8 if deut 23:1 can never be abridged by works of faith?
4ntioch
Once again there is no exception in the Law, no exception can justly be made for Deuteronomy 23:3. CFT had initially claimed there was a mechanism in Law, by the language of the verses, to except a racial Moabite.
While my assertions regarding Isaiah are entirely valid CFT’s position is not. As I explained CFT requires the prophet Isaiah, while speaking for God, to nullify His Own Law. It is not legitimate to even translate a human author in a manner which forces such a contradiction.
CFT is also incorrect about Ruth 4:1, this was the period after Moab was conquered. I also proved that geographical identifiers were in the Bible with a most salient example.
God putting away sin is much different then men rewriting the Law to suit themselves imo. And I am fully convinced that this is the proper position to have. And the history of Israel shows that God did not immediately put Israel to death for sins worthy of death such as idolatry. David’s sin was acknowledged as sin and the Law stood, it was not dispensed with or circumvented.
Now after I even went so far as to answer these thing CFT is now moving the discussion into the New Covenant. For example, the circumcision in New Covenant times …that is an entirely different question. The initial question was to do with Deuteronomy 23:3 and whether there was an exception for racial Moabites, which there isnt.
Bayard
4ntioch has invented a new type of Moabite: a “racial” Moabite. Please explain what a “racial” Moabite is, and where a “racial” Moabite is defined in Scripture.
Is Moabite identity conferred through only the father? Or do both parents have to be Moabites for the issue to also be Moabites? And how are Moabites “racially” different from, say, a Girgasite?
When do “racial” Moabites stop being “racial” Moabites? Or once a Moabite, always a Moabite because of the “one drop” rule in Scripture about Moabite “racial” identity. Why aren’t there any self-identifying “racial” Moabites today? Do tell.
Kevin
On another site, 4ntioch is dishonestly linking me to prosperity gospel hucksters on other platforms, which is what other 2slers did to the creators of CFT from its beginning.
I think we would all be pretty foolish to consider any of his arguments as being sincere and in good faith, though i still hope and pray for our kin in that camp to put down the sword, take a breath and reflect on what is transpiring.
If you are a Christian and love Christ, then you must follow Him and separate from traducers of His basic commandment of brotherly love.
Bayard
Kevin, we are all aware of 4nioch’s dishonesty, and he has made that abundantly clear to everyone every time he posts on CFT. If he’s trying to be an “ambassador” of 2 seedline, he’s doing a great job of showing how dishonest it is.
He cannot prove his case or disprove our refutations of it, so he has no choice but to resort to slander and other desperate ad hominem attacks, the vengeful tactics of someone who has lost. He needs to go back to his echo chamber where no one questions anything he says nor asks for proof either.
He lacks all self-awareness of his own serious intellectual limitations and hypocrisy, and is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Naboth
It’s quite fascinating that a man could be so demonstrably dishonest, yet consider himself to be good and virtuous. I would like to understand the inner workings of his mind which led him to this point.
If only anyone could find one tittle of doctrine which could be compared with the huckster types. It’s quite surreal in a way, to have such things said and not really understand why.
Ironically, it’s like they learned to defame and slander from the Jews. Count it all joy though, because the King watches from His throne in heaven. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Watching the evil and the good.”
@Kevin, out of curiosity, what “prosperity” site are you referring to?
Kevin
Naboth,
I mistyped. I must have got distracted and delayed and when i returned to my message forgot i had already typed “on another site.”
It is just one 2sl site that i know of that also has a chat where most of the members actually “fellowship”.
Naboth
Kevin, I misunderstood you at first, but I’m with you now. Thanks for clarifying.
Minefield
4nioch, please show us exactly where in Scripture it says that Moabites are mixed race. Once you can do that, we can entertain your other arguments.
Bayard
Crickets….
4ntioch
The Moabites were derived from Lot and his daughter, so they were not initially mixed.
I ignored this because it is asking me to respond to a strawman, setting it up as if it is something I said or required for the argument I made.
There can be a discussion about what became of them but that is not something I needed to even touch on. This is not a sincere inquiry.
Bayard
Strawman? Your entire argument is based on the presumption that Moabites are not Adamic people and therefore Ruth cannot be a Moabite.
You now admit Moabites were intitially not mixed. Therefore, the prohibition against them in Deuteronomy 23 entering the congregation cannot be about them all being mamzers.
Deut. 23 tells us why they were barred — for not helping Israel in their time of need.
But still you insist that somewhere in their history all of them become race mixed. Tell us. Where does it say that in Scripture? When did the Moabites, to a man, all become race mixed so that they were not suitable for marriage to any Israelites.
It’s your premise, not mine. I can’t find any verse in Scripture that proves your contention that Moabites eventually became race mixed as a people.
Yes, you do need to explain it, because you said there cannot be a racial Moabite in Christ’s genealogy. You said that. So you need to prove where and when Moabites, all of them, became mixed. Not your opinion, or reading between the lines — I want chapter and verse.
Joseph
Good site and good information, my only contention is the use of the word “Lord” as it means Lareth–Baal.
http://ezra98.yolasite.com/resources/Lar.pdf
Joseph
Correction it has a connection to Lars (the Roman god) not Lareth, my bad.
Laird
Joseph, so you are basically claiming that anyone who uses the term “Lord” is somehow invoking Satan? Or when the English used to refer to aristocrats or Kings as “my Lord”?
The word “lord” in English actually comes from the Old English word “hlafweard” which literally means “one who guards the loaves,” from hlaf “bread, loaf” (see loaf (n.)) + weard “keeper, guardian” (from PIE root *wer- (3) “perceive, watch out for”).
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=lord
I think that Jesus knows what we mean in our hearts when we address Him as “Lord”, don’t you? We are told He reads our hearts. Don’t you think He knows where the English word comes from and why we use it?
Joseph
Laird your claim is addressed in the article, I can see that you didn’t read it. “Satan” simply means adversary but
no the literal comparison to Lord is Baal. http://ezra98.yolasite.com/resources/Lar.pdf
“At this point we need to sidetrack for one moment because the long held definition of
Lord handed to us by the establishment church educational system supposes that “Lord”
theoretically originated with the Old English word “hlaford” which itself comes from
“hlaf-weard” meaning “loaf-keeper”. See http://www.yourdictionary.com/lord This is a
stretch to say the least. It is either a regrettable attempt based on incomplete historical
study or intentional disinformation by influential churches to hide the true origin of
“Lord”. “Lord” sounding anything like “h-laf-weard” is weak at best. Solid references of
English etymology show that “Lord” evolved from the similar sounding Latin word “Lar”
and is religion based.
The English h-laf-weards were feudal land owners responsible for the welfare of their
peasant subjects who had no real liberty. They were “loaf-keepers” or “food source
providers” who had serfs (peasants) work on their lands. In turn these “loaf-keepers”
protected the serfs within their realm. Since the Roman Lar were believed to be pagan
“spirit beings” who were said to have protected their households, and since Roman gods
had entered English social life by military invasion, it was not long until the later English
feudal “loaf-keeper” chieftains were also called Lar or Lord since they too were
household protectors. The language adulteration was historically bound to happen. Only
in this respect do we see a connection between the h-laf-weard feudal ruler and the
term “Lord”, but the primary origin is that of a Latin word, not an Old English word.
—let’s return to the main study points. ]]
Our ancient study sources lead us to the words “Lar, Lars, Larth, Lard” all of which
developed into the later English word “Lord”. These words had a past Greek tie in that
they are pagan Etruscan, and the Etruscan language had Greek influences. The Etruscan
civilization preceded the Roman civilization.
The reader may access the Word Study Tool Lexicon at Stoa Consortium Online, and see that an
Etruscan word “Lar” became our English word “Lord”. Other sources will reveal the same. The
intermediate bridge between “Lar” and “Lord” was the word “Larth”. These all mean the same
thing. Quoting, we see below:
“Lar or Lars , Lartis, m., I. a prænomen of Etruscan origin (in Etruscan, usu: “the prefix of the
first-born, while a younger son was called Aruns. The name Lar, Lars, or Larth was an honorary
appellation in Etruscan=Engl.lord) source: Lars Tolumnius, rex Veientium,” Cic. Phil. 9, 2;
Liv. 4, 17, 1; 4, 58, 7: “ad Lartem Porsenam,” id. 2, 9 (nom. Lar, Charis. 110 P.).”
Note: Click “Show Lexicon Entry” at Elem…” on the below site:
10
http://www.stoa.org/hopper/morph.jsp?l=lares&la=la&prior=incultique#lexicon —“the gods of
places, protecting deities, Lares”. (Lares is the plural of Lar)”
Laird
I didn’t need to read it because I read about that claim about “Lord” being Baal worship probably twenty years ago. It’s not a new claim.
A lot of pagan words have entered our language. Their origin is independent of our intent. I repeat, God reads our hearts and knows our intent when we address Him as “Lord”, or do you think He doesn’t know our intent and is “offended” that we use a term that may have pagan origins? Are you really making that argument?
People argue endlessly about Jehovah being pagan and also Baal worship. Some make similar claims about Yeshua. And even Jesus. It’s not as if there is a perfect name to use that God will only hear, including Yahweh, which people argue about too. Kabbalistic Jews believe that kind of thing. It’s an endless rabbit hole.
Kenneth
Baal is not real. A fake god.
It doesn’t matter what people call Baal, they cannot bring him to life, nor does he have any agency. All pagan Gods are mocked in the Bible as useless to people who worship them.
What does it matter if we “trick” Christians into calling the one true God by another name? What does that accomplish if all other gods are imaginary?
Strange argument to make, I think.
Joseph
Laird Most of this is addressed in the article I posted, I agree with the author. I agree with the article and want to make one thing clear too, I do not subscribe to only using the “Sacred name” I see no issue with saying God, Jesus Christ, Yahweh or Yahshuah, something the article also addresses, however Lord is a whole different ball game. I get where your coming from and yes of course people centuries ago didn’t have this information, but now that we do it is best to use it.
-Joseph
luke2236
Good Lord…
The Bible uses the term Lord in reference to Jesus, so I think that should suffice.
And if we could magically be transported to Jesus’ home as a boy and listened for Mary to call him to supper, would we hear “Jesus” as we say it in English? Probably not. But thats how it has been translated into our language; remember that the letter ‘J’ is a relatively recent addition to the tongue… My own given name is pronounced radically different in different languages btw, yet is still the same ‘name’
I imagine God is smart enough to know what we mean and Who we are referencing. I think He even knows that when I pray to God or mention God in His context, that i am speaking to or about Him, not some mythological character, and that He had enough input into the translation and ‘canonisation’ of Scripture to make sure its certainly close enough…
Theres a lot more important stuff to be discussing fellows…
CHRIST IS KING
Here, here!
Clear
Isn’t it curious that the NT authors never once used the name “Yahweh”? Instead they used “theos” (meaning “god” or “divine”) or “kurios” (meaning “master” or “lord”). Modern translators applied the same standard back towards the OT, replacing “Yahweh” with Lord. It’s a shame they did, because we should render the OT according to what it says… “Yahweh” should be translated as such in the OT, or it could be “Ever-living” like what Ferrar Fenton renders it.
The problem comes in when some NT translators try to push “Ever-living” or “Yahweh” forward into the NT. The fact is, with full knowledge of “Yahweh” of the OT, the NT writers didn’t use the term “Yahweh”. If they didn’t use it, neither do we need to… whether “Yahweh” or “Ever-living”. In a way, “Yahweh” became an outdated term. For anyone who disagrees, they simply disagree with NT writers.
Also if the NT writers saw fit to use terms like “kurios” and “theos”, then that should suffice for us as well. They called Christ “master” or “lord” in the Greek, so we should too. We should not go against their writing by trying to bring the concept of “Yahweh” into everything. From that perspective, the very NT authors reject the notion that we should refer to God as “Yahweh” or “Ever-living” anymore. So not only is there nothing wrong with calling Christ “Master”, but in fact we should actually do so because that’s what NT authors did.
As Kenneth alludes to, the word for “baal” is more nuanced than simply “lord” or “master”. We can’t interchange the Hebrew word for “baal” with the English word for “lord”. “Baal” just means things that “lord” doesn’t. A better counterpart for the English “lord” would be the Hebrew “adonay”, which counterparts well with Greek “kurios” as well (Matt 22:44). So really there is no connection between “baal” and “lord”. Also “lord” is a title, not a name. No one who says “lord” means it as a name for God or Jesus.
Then what this comes down to then is the idea that if the title “lord” has its origins in a pagan concept, then those who use the word “lord” supposedly invoke paganism. Now if I say “lord”, I definitely don’t mean anything pagan by it. I mean it according to the very widespread English meaning of the word. No one in the whole world understands it to be pagan, except for those who have come across this theory like what Kenneth explains.
Then I suppose argument Kenneth makes is that despite not meaning anything pagan with a word, and no one understanding me as being pagan, I’m somehow being a pagan by using it. So even though there’s absolutely nothing tangibly pagan, whether consciously or unconsciously, I would somehow be pagan by using the word. That means Kenneth’s argument states that despite NT authors using “kurios”, and despite modern Christians using “lord” in the modern English meaning as a counterpart to “kurios”, that God considers Christians to be pagans because they use a word which MIGHT be connected with a pagan concept thousands of years ago (itself up for debate).
I just don’t see what the big deal is. God knows us from before we existed. He knows what we will ask before we ask Him. If paganism never enters our minds or our actions, which God well knows, I can’t fathom why He’d hold it against us.
isolde
Well, imagine the shock of those who teach “all white people will be saved” and those who believe it when standing before Christ, who says to them “I never knew you. You workers of iniquity.”
There’s no greater blasphemy than telling someone that their white skin will save them, making salvation for an Adamite possible without Christ, which is exactly what the Jews believe — that their birthright as Jews is to be unconditionally loved by God, and that there is another path to the Father without Christ.
Talk about “white privilege” — this only discourages whites from feeling they need to repent of anything. After all, how bad could “eternal shame” in the Kingdom be compared to the lake of fire? What a dangerous doctrine that puts so many souls at risk of destruction.
Edward I
I have to admit with great shame that at one time I believed this nonsense, and it makes me cringe to think that I fell for it, but I did. I repeated Daniel 12:2 and Romans 11:26 like mantras, like a Hari Krishna or any other cult member.
I pray that I did not lead many other Christians astray by trying to convince them of this pernicious doctrine. And I am grateful to God that He had the patience to allow me to repent of it, but I came very close to the abyss. But He pulled me back from it, and now I hope that I’ve become a much better Christian for it.
The gate to the kingdom is narrow, and those who tell you that all white people will enter through that gate couldn’t be making the gate any wider.
It’s true universalism “through the back door”.
Yes, you have to be Adamic to get through that gate, but being Adamic won’t get you through that gate like a “get of jail free card”.
Paul understood this. His Israelite ancestry counted for nothing without Christ. Israelites need Christ to enter the Kingdom. They needed a savior because they were too sinful to enter through the gate of heaven without being forgiven for their iniquities.
Don’t let anyone try to convince otherwise with scholarly smoke and mirrors.
Trust the Bible, not any man.
Orthodox Realist
Amen, old pal!
Orthodox Realist
Edward if u get this, please check out your boards inbox for me.
Thanks.
Edward I
Orthodox Realist, I think you have me confused with someone else, perhaps another “Edward I”. We definitely do not know each other.
Orthodox Realist
LOL.
in that case, im in for big trouble (risk eviction).
but tbh, i don’t care anymore.
Grass
Don’t sweat it OR… It may just be for the best. I’m curious to hear about what lead to the change of heart though.
I see some ex-members are being called “f***ing idiots” now. I guess Matthew 5:22 doesn’t feature over there?
Kevin, if you’re reading this… We may disagree on some things, but if you’re an idiot, then I am too. Let’s be idiots together.
Orthodox Realist
Grass, i don’t know how it worked with most “ex-members” but i think for me, it was not all that “gradual” after all (as most religious changes seem to be).
and that i think is due primarily to the fact that unlike most other “religions”, CI – and particularly DSCI, has absolutely no logical leg whatsoever to stand upon and i repeat – NONE whatsoever.
to go from a regular ethno-nationalist Christian guy to a believer in “CI truth”, the first thing u must do is to embrace the fact that you can no longer treat the Word of God with the same fear and reverence you used to.
that is to say, you must, before engaging in exegesis, assume your “conclusions” as already being true and then go about reading them into the Text.
and not just Genesis, you have to do that everywhere in the Bible.
the bible says love edomites? must say syrians.
the bible says a canaanite prostitute was forgiven and could enter the congregation? she must be an israelite.
the bible says isralites rebelled against all the prophets, persecuted hundreds into hiding and killed many of them? must be the doing of foreign infiltrators.
the bible says they’re not all israel which are of israel? must mean “from judaea” rather than of israel.
the bible says certain “natural branches” were “cut off” from israel and heathens were grafted on and must stay careful lest they’re cut off too? well, it must mean something else.
and on and on and on…
until it is suddenly “established” that there’s a supposed “tree” or “seedline” which is wrong no matter what and then there’s our seedline which is incapable of doing bad because that “good tree bringing forth evil fruit…” admonition can’t be talking about the words of future false prophets as the plain reading suggests but rather, has to mean something entirely contrary to the message of Scripture because that’s what we want it to mean, lest we be pipe-dreaming.
in my case, i started a pagan WN so when i put this DSCI pipe-dreaming of mine to rest for a moment (since i was starting to develop an actual Christian belief at this point), i soon realized all of this and by the most High GOD it hurt like HELL.
it didn’t hurt me to leave DSCI – no not one bit.
but rather, since i had built my house on quicksand to begin with, i lost my whole house and i was suddenly outside Christ – and i felt naked like i never have and i was all cold and sick (i was actually sick).
suddenly, i was not a Christian.
yet, i prayed to Yahweh.
yes, and i prayed to Jesus too.
i didn’t do it because i was wise, for i wasn’t.
i did it because by grace, Yahweh’s Holy Spirit moved me to.
God had been gracious on me.
and in return, i say it meekly, i restarted my journey in Christ.
the entire project, i started it over – this time not on quicksand but on SOLID ROCK.
no assumptions and conclusions before study, no begging-the-question, no hermeneutic self-delusion.
but wholly pure Bible study.
it wasn’t hard thence.
Praise Christ and Praise Yahweh for going easy on me.
btw, f**k the Law of Attraction to whoever believes it here.
Grass
Amen, OR. You have begun a long and arduous journey, but if you stay true to Christ with endurance and keep praying, you will finish the race. I will pray that you do so. I hope you will do the same for me.
From now until forevermore, we follow one Man… Jesus the King. We serve the King as one should serve a king… With our faces bowed to the dust… At His beck and call.
I hope you will stick around… You won’t find any “Law of Attraction” around here.
Edward I
Wow, Orthodox Realist, that’s a great testimony. Thank you!
I had a very similar experience that started when someone challenged me on some aspect of 2SL by asking me “Where does it say that in the Bible?” I realized that it didn’t, and that all of it was “between the lines”. Smoke and mirrors.
And then I had to rebuild my faith on the solid foundation of what the Scriptures actually says. That requires a lot more discipline than just reading it for what you want it to say. But that’s the standard that CFT has set down, and I’m grateful for it.
BTW, what do you mean by “law of attraction”?
benchmark
2SLCI is a cult, not a religion, and it’s certainly not Christianity if they believe they don’t need Christ to be saved.
Orthodox Realist
Grass, it’s been done.
I am officially not a christogenian anymore (one of the moderators must’ve kicked me, or maybe it was done with a consensus, idk).
I’d miss Joe, Rebel, Aussie, and pray they humble themselves and see the light.
I’d miss also my best friend whom i could never hate.
Grass
They’ve replaced Christ with their white skin, but they call their white skin “Christ”. There’s a simple litmus test to verify this fact:
In 2SL, what saves you? Belief in Christ or being born white? According to them, belief in Christ is optional… being born white is mandatory. Their race is their “Christ”. Simple.
They’ve poisoned themselves with truth, just like I was poisoned once upon a time. Being white IS mandatory… But being white is worthless dung without belief and obedience in Christ. My own evil witnessed to this fact. But in His great mercy, Christ plucked me from the fire of my own sin.
It would be great if they could all humble themselves and see the Light… And step into all of its radiant, purifying glory. Then they’ll truly understand what it means to be white…
4ntioch
I sent you a message explaining why you are wrong about Ruth, that the Law of the kinsman redeemer and Deuteronomy 23 mean that it isnt possible Ruth isnt an Israelite. But you didnt want to learn anything Orthodox Realist. And now you are where you belong.
Christians For Truth
4ntioch, not to worry, we are happy to discuss it with you. We provide this forum to do so — whether you agree with us or not. Only we hope you will hold yourself to the same standard to which you have held Orthodox Realist.
We specifically addressed Deuteronomy 23 in our article Ruth Was A Moabite — But Does It Even Matter? We also wrote at length on Deuteronomy 23 which you are welcome to address: A Closer Look At Deuteronomy 23 — Prophetic Fulfillment Of The ‘Assembly Of the Lord’
Furthermore, the law of kinsman redeemer doesn’t preclude non-Israelite wives (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Why would it ever preclude non-Israelite wives if many Israelites took non-Israelite wives? The sons of Jacob could have taken only non-Israelite wives. Judah sought a redeemer for his non-Israelite daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38).
Are you seriously suggesting that Israelite men never took non-Israelite wives? Unless we have misunderstood — and you would like to elaborate on why you believe the law of kinsman redeemer precludes Israelite men from redeeming non-Israelite wives?
Kevin
Grass,
Brother, I apologize for harsh words spoken by me in the past. If you’ll believe me, God has pressed and purged me over the past three years unto growing meekness. I am starting to truly grasp what it means. We must all be humbled and slowed down.
Zeal is great, but untempered it can only wield rebellion, even unwitting rebellion tempts God to intervene.
I must be careful, because I believe that God wants me to step back for a time. Old habits die slowly. But I definitely didnt want to pass on the opportunity to respond to you. Yes we are idiots, truly. If fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, then realizing you are an idiot is a close second.
Carry on wayward sons.
@Antioch, brother if any part of you remembers my sincere spirit, please yield to patience, even a temporary truce. This isnt about winning, its about obtaining mercy and grace from God through meekness of spirit.
We were wrong on some things, and we must be willing to acknowledge our mistakes. God wont change the truth.
Grass
Kevin, agreed… and we are blessed to be chastised us as sons. Relentlessly strive for what you seek… Christ’s standard for yourself. I will pray that you achieve it and sincerely implore you do the same for me.
Kevin
I was notified of the drama on the boards, and I would just say that airing out anger against brethren publicly over hearsay is unwise, as we should all know.
I did indeed have an unfortunate interaction with one of their members last June, lol. But i was never irate for their disagreeing with me. Use your imagination. Sometimes as men we err and bark at barking dogs. For that I am sorry.
But please for your own sakes quit the mudslinging over ancient feuds.
I repent of the rapid fire exit that jilted many ex friends. My approach sucked. However, to be clear, my perspective on cosmic idolatry is more nuanced then “agree with me or you are an idolater.” A globe believer or FE believer is not an idolater. But, a liar in debate is, and a construct of theories dealt from the worlds “sciences” truly is part of an attempt at seducing the minds of billions away from God.
Take it or leave it, that is my only comment left to make.
I pray CGers find peace and mercy in Christ, and it saddens me that 8 months later this wound appears fresh in the minds of some. That truly is a shame.
An honest man might take my appeals home with them and advocate for a better outcome than this, God willing.
Kevin
Grass,
Certainly do brother 😉