Click the Daniel 9 Link below for a Microsoft Word Document that shows a Flow Chart that I created a few years back.

As with any prophesy interpretations, I’m probably wrong, so please don’t take my interpretation as saying that I’m right.

Daniel 9

Advertisements

We’re gonna DISCIPLINE the lad

Discipline:
the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.

Many pastors are making lots of money writing books on the subject, and they get paid a lot of money just being a pastor, even tho they pretend to be humble taking only small tokens to survive as a humble servant.

They are REALLY hot on this Church Discipline topic, and their interpretations of it just make me want to puke.

Pastors/Elders have no authority anywhere in scripture to punish any Christian what so ever.

But they think that they do.

First of all, Matthew 18 is between 2 people only, and no where does it say that pastors/elders get involved in an issue between 2 people.

That is step 1.

Step two requires ONLY the 2 people involved, plus eye witnesses of the sin (Deuteronomy 19:15), not the pastor/elders.

Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16
 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

NOTE:  Those who practice church discipline seem to think that Matthew 18:16 is discussing people to witness the confrontation of an unrepentant sinner by the accuser.  NO, that is wrong.  The purpose of witnesses is to prove the accusation, and Deuteronomy protects the falsely accused.

Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

If there are no eye witnesses, then the whole issue stops at the end of step 1, and it goes no further.  The church (congregation) does not hear it at all.  Neither does the Pastor/Elders, who seem to think that they have “all authority under heaven”.

Step three requires the WHOLE congregation, and the pastor/elders have no more say in the matter than a pew sitter.  The accused has a right to defend himself, and that is what step three is all about, to present the facts on both sides, just like a court hearing.

Did anyone ever think for a moment that a reason that someone is unrepentant is maybe they didn’t do what is being accused?  God put in place safeguards to protect the accused in the case of false accusers, which is why eye witnesses of the sin is required before it can even go to the congregation if step 2 did not solve the problem.

NOTE:  Matthew 18, there is a victim.  NO ONE has authority to forgive except for the victim.  Pastor/Elder cannot forgive on behalf of the victim, and neither can the congregation.  In Catholicism, priests forgive sins, and there are no protestants that believe that priests have authority to forgive sins.

Then there comes the troubles of victim shaming if the victim does not forgive, and before you know it, the victim is put in this crazy doctrine of church discipline.

1 Cor 6 discusses things that are small matters, and some matters are not small, and church’s that practice church discipline ignore Romans 13.  No one needs pastor/elder permission to call law enforcement.

1 Cor 5 are those people that fall under verse 11.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

This shows that the individual in 1 Cor 5 is NOT a brother at all.  It shows that he is a wicked person that needs to get kicked out.

And, Paul, being a lawyer of the law of Moses believed the accusations based on Deuteronomy 19:15.  Otherwise, he would have scolded the Corinthians for being busybodies, tattle tales, tale bearers, gossipers and bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

Yes, there is no such thing as church discipline in the bible.

Pastor = Feed.  What’s the food?

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge and Understanding.  What does that look like?

Nehemiah 8:1-12
And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.

And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground.

Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.

10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.

11 So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved.

12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.



What is the job of an elder?  Well, what did it mean as a child when we were taught to respect our elders?

Elders are mentors, not authoritarians to whip us into shape.

Every Christian is a sinners who STRUGGLE with sin still, and those that are spiritual are to mentor us, not beat us down with punishment, which is a key word in discipline.  

There is a difference between STRUGGLING with sin, and outright not giving a damn about sinning.

Now, I must bring up 2 Corinthians Chapter 2.

Many seem to think that Paul is instructing the CONGREGATION to forgive that wicked person from 1 Corinthians 5.  Where in God’s name did they come to that conclusion?

First of all, as I have been saying, the congregation has no authority to forgive any sins on behalf of the victim, if there is one.  Therefore, we cannot confuse Matthew 18 where there is a victim and 1 Corinthians 5 where there may not be one.

Secondly, we are all sinners, and what brought us to church in the first place?  Wasn’t it because Satan destroyed our flesh so that the spirit may be saved?  Church is not a place for those who wish to practice verse 11.  If they give up those things, then yes, they are indeed welcomed, just like we were when we first came to church.  But NOT until Satan destroys the flesh FIRST, which means that you still kick him out and let Satan do his thing.  People sometimes REPENT just because they got caught, and that does not solve the problem of the flesh.  However…

In 2 Corinthians Paul is discussing a DOWNER letter that he wrote to the Corinthians and it made him sad that he wrote a downer letter and he was asking for forgiveness for writing a downer letter, when he wanted to write a letter that uplifts instead….IN THE 3RD person, which he often did of himself, especially in 2 Cor. Look at chapter 12. Paul was not discussing the guy in 1 Cor 5 at all in 2 Corinthians 2.

But based on their conclusion, that wicked person is brought back into the church and the victim is left hanging by victim shaming if the victim refuses to forgive, when it is so noted in that same Matthew 18 that if the victim does not forgive, then the sin is still unforgiven in heaven.  If the victim forgives, then the sin is forgiven in heaven.  The victim has the right to decide when and if the accused is forgiven or not, not the pastor/elders.  This may take years to get to that point.  But the problem is, the accused never repented to the victim.  He only repented to people who have no authority to forgive on behalf of the victim.  Pastor/Elders/Congregation and Catholic Priests have no authority to speak FOR or on behalf of the victim.

You can discipline your children, but we are adults, and pastors/elders are not our parent.

My extremely short synopsis of the Tullian case is that no one is seeking justice, but  vengence. And that, to me, is awful.

In my views, there is no victim in the case of Tullian. All parties involved are guilty of adultery. All parties were married to someone else. No one forced anyone to have sex with Tulian. He did not, as what is being portrayed, use ANY position of “authority” to have sex with these women.

In my Christian world, pastors do not have any position of authority…UNLESS…unless they are actively counseling a congregant. There is absolutely no power that a clergy has, unless that counseling hat is on. There is no power differential here, just because he is a pastor. There would be, however, if that counseling hat was on, by the statutes of law, and that is only in 13 states, currently.  This is not to be equated with student/teacher, doctor/patient, etc., as some have equated it to be, referencing statutes that they cannot even interpret properly.  Clergy only has power in the capacity of a counselor.

So, it was not against the law as to what Tullian did. But, avoiding adultery is every Christian’s responsibility, not just the pastor.

I can’t blame Calvin’s Reform Theology that these women were somehow weak and vulnerable, and that they had no choice in succoming to Tullians sweet words of seduction that forced each of them to pull down their panties in submission.

If you do extensive research in the case of King David and Bathsheba, the only real reason that they did not face being stoned to death, is because there was absolutely no witnesses. The bible indicates that in order to accuse anyone of any sin (not just adultery), there must be the testimoney of at least 2 or 3 witnesses.

And, that pregnancy would be evidence that adultery would have taken place, in regards to Bathsheba, which is why David had her husband killed.  So, David was indeed guilty of both murder, and adultery.

There is even a law in the Law of Moses regarding the situation that Mary found herself in, being pregnant.  A single girl, pregnant? In Judaism, that does not happen, without death, at least, in the days of a Temple (or “tent of meeting”). If a couple gets married, then finds out that she was not a virgin, she would get stoned, because she played the whore.  Whore is what the Bible states.

Anyway, again, the only reason that Bathsheba and David did not get stoned, was because there was no witnesses to convict them.

David confessed after confronted by Nathan. What was David’s “fruit’s” of repentence? What was Bathsheba’s fruits of repentence? They got married?   What was Bathsheba’s story?

Tullian got divorced. The women involved in adultery got divorced.

The divorce ends it all. And it should remain a closed story at that point. He is remarried now. All of this should remain a closed story for both he and his new wife.  No one should be harrassing Tullian at this point.  No one.

In regards to Tullian being a pastor, that’s not my call, just my opinion. But my opinion is: What did Paul tell Timothy? That should be the ONLY discussion in all this.

There should not be this vindictive vengence and revenge against Tullian that is being done on these various Spiritual Abuse Blogs.

This had absolutely nothing to do with Calvin’s Reform Theology in regards to weak and vulnerable, barefoot and pregnant submissive women.

This is just a simple case of Bible 101 for all parties involved, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”. And to say that these women were ignorant of “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” is insane in basic Christianity.  Tullian knew it, and so did those women.

This is not in any way an equation to the cases of a Jim Jones, scenario or David Koresh.

I do not find this case of Tullian to be any kind of spiritual abuse or clergy sexual abuse, because he had no power to begin with, nor did he use any perceived power.

A very good looking married man seduced and committed adultery on two women, both who were married themselves, so they, too committed adultery. That is not abuse of power. It’s just plain adultery on all parties involved. Coveting, too. Lying, too.

Now, the women (some) wish to come out and “tell their story”? Why? To cover up their own shame for their own sins in order to point fingers at someone else for their own free will decisions to sleep with a married man, in order to tell family and friends, “He made me do it”? Or for vengence/revenge against whom they committed adultery with, because he makes money writing books, while they got the shaft?

No one is seeking justice here, but in my opinion, there is no justice needing to be sought. But they are indeed seeking vengence, for which is totally out of bounds for these women to do, and for the Spiritual Abuse blogs to pursue.

If they are accusing Tullian of rape or molestation, then they need to seek justice thru proper means…the law. By our own Constitution, the accused is allowed to face his accusors in a court of law. But they don’t want to do that. Why? The excuse being used is that “victims” are generally afraid, frightened, scared, blah, blah, blah.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see any victims in this case of Tullian. None whatsoever.

I am not victim blaming, as what I have been accused of doing.  I just simply do not see that there is any existance of victims period.

Now, if people wish to discuss theology, that is a totally different conversation to have, but I can’t blame any of this on theology at all. I look at Bible 101 stuff, and in this case, the conclusion is that…all parties are gulty of adultery, and Tullian did not break any federal or state statutes in any way.

Calvin’s Reformed Theology about grace cannot be blamed here.  Tullian’s belief about grace is not the issue that many want it to be.  His percieved narcicism is not the issue here either.  The accusations of him being a preditor is way out of bounds, as well.

All parties are guilty.  This vengence needs to end now.

I do not equate this case to the cases of Doug Phillips, and others.  It’s not the same.  There is a huge difference.

When a former president of Liberty University was caught lying, a certain blogger would not let it go.  He kept hounding and hounding until something bad happened.

In that case, if I am not mistaken, a son tried to defend his dad.  In this case of Tullian, a son tried to defend his dad.  What happened to the son of the former president of Liberty University?

I feel that spiritual abuse blogs are going down a road that they once did not want to go down.  I see that Tullian is being harrassed, just like the former president of Liberty University was…in the name of so-called “victims”, for which, in the case of Tullian, I see no victims.  What I see is a couple of women claiming to be victims.  But that does not make it so.

Justice, or Vengence?

 

  • Children, PUT AWAY your toys, it’s time for school.
  • PUT AWAY your gun

Or, is it:

  • Children, DIVORCE your toys, it’s time for school
  • DIVORCE your gun

Or, does it matter?

Sin can only be defined as what the Law of Moses states. There is no other way to define sin, but by the law of Moses. So, to teach that divorce/remarriage is a sin, that is a travesty. The burden of life long guilt trips of something false weighs more on a person than anything. Frivolous teaching that one can spend eternity in hell for divorcing/remarrying is an evil teaching that no one needs.

Whatever reason that people divorce, it’s allowed. And we need to stay out of it, because it’s none of our business.

What defines sin?

Romans 3:20
for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Sin cannot be invented, modified, or changed. It’s the law.  For example, picking your nose is not a sin.  But, I’m sure that someone has deemed it a sin, all because someone thinks that picking your nose is impolite, or something like that.  To others, farting is a sin.  These are both man made invented sins.

Divorce/remarriage is not a sin to begin with, so how can it be advocated that it is a sin now?

Divorce/remarriage is not a sin in the law of Moses, and neither is it in 1 Cor 7.

Some wish to interpret 1 Cor 7 as a commandment that if violated will send your wife to hell.

And that is what this is really all about. So, they FORBID wives from divorce, threatening them with hell if they leave. Forcing them to stay, when they don’t want to.  Threats and intimidating women as to their spiritual destiny if they leave.

If one spouse is not in love, that is reason enough for a divorce. Boo-hoo for the other spouse. You can’t force anyone to love you that doesn’t, hence, hardened hearts.

1 Cor 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth;

Do you see the words, “THE LAW” in that? What law? The Law of Moses, of course.

Another, Romans 7:2-3
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Again, if you look at Romans 7:1 it states,
(For I speak to them that know the law,)

So, Paul is taking you BACK to the Law of Moses.

Where might that law be?

Deuteronomy 24:3 is the place.
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

Note the word, “OR”.

Deuteronomy 24:1,4 (KJV)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

4  Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

But wait a dog gone minute here.

What happened to verses 2 and 3?  Conveniently deleted?

Contrary to popular Christian belief, started by the Catholics, of course, it is not a sin to divorce…for any reason. Neither is it adultery to remarry.

Intro:

Major note: I use the KJV, not a modern English Translated version. Why?

For example, 1 John 3:4, in some modern English translations state that sin is lawlessness. That means what, in English? In the KJV, it states that sin is the transgression of the law. That means something significant, because according to Romans 3 and Romans 7, the law of Moses is what defines what sin is. What is the Law of Moses? It’s the Old (Not new, or renewed) covenant that spans from Exodus 20 (Not Genesis 1) thru Deuteronomy, which, I might add, includes Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the topic of divorce. It’s The Law.

In the statement by the Pharisees in:

Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 

Many seem to think that Jesus changed the rules of the law in regards to divorce, and that Moses, the person, allowed, or as some state, “tolerated” divorce, against God’s will or plan, so, Jesus comes on the scene to correct that error.  But the only error is in identifying what the word, “Moses” signifies in Matthew 19:7.  Many incorrectly identify “Moses” as the person of Moses, but that is far from the truth.

The Pharisees were not discussing Moses, THE PERSON, but the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is not an invention of Moses. The law of Moses is the Law of God, to wit:

Joshua 24:26
And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.

Nehemiah 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.

Nehemiah 10:28
And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

The Law of Moses is known by many names, one of which is the Law of God. Another name for the Law of Moses is, “The Law”, for which some confuse with the word “Torah”, which it isn’t. Torah begins in Genesis 1:1, whereas the Law of Moses begins in Exodus 20.

Still, other names include the words, “Book of Moses”, or, just “Moses” alone. So, we should be able to see that Matthew 19:7 is not discussing the person of Moses, but rather, the Law of Moses, or more specifically, the Law of God. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is Law.

Law is not God’s toleration of a situation, nor is it Moses tolerating a situation. Law is God commanding Moses to “write it down”, so that when the word “Moses” is mentioned, it is God’s Word, written by Moses, so it is God commanding the Children of Israel, not Moses, the person.

Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Moses’ law?  Or God’s Law?

So let’s start off with a question.

Is divorce, based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the law of God, or a toleration of Moses?

My second question is:

Why isn’t verse 3 taught?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 shows a, get this, twice divorced woman. Twice. Let me say that again…Twice.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

That shows that divorce is not a sin, and neither is, get this…remarriage.

NOTE: Some people, and theologians in particular, ERRONEOUSLY interpret the word in verse one, “uncleanness” as some sort of sexual sin, aka, adultery, or fornication. Some have interpreted this to be “some sort of ‘indecency’”. Indecency? Are you kidding? This is an anatomy issue, not a sin issue. Any interpretation of anything sexual, or sinful here is wrong, big time. This issue deals with the anatomy of the genitals, that there is something wrong with the genitals that the man does not like, stating something like, “I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole!”.

What is the punishment for adultery under Moses, uh, er, the law of Moses? Divorce? Divorce with the opportunity for remarriage? Or Death?

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

So, let’s reword Deuteronomy 24:1-2 for a moment and see the logic in this:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found out that she committed adultery: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

What? She can get a divorce and then marry someone else? How is that possible if she is supposed to be dead, according to Leviticus 20:10?

Part 2
Many years later, in the gospels, the subject of divorce is discussed…or is it?

The original question by the Pharisees had nothing to do with divorce at all. It had to do with “put away”, not divorce.

Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

This is where I get into theological disputes with SOME people. I use the KJV. Other versions will miss this. There is two different topics being discussed, not just one topic:
1.) Put Away, and
2.) Divorce.

They are not the same, not even the same Greek word, but the Catholics…and others, have equated them to be the same, redefining “put away” to equate it to mean the same exact thing as divorce. That is wrong.

A Put Away spouse is a separated spouse, without a divorce decree.
A divorced spouse is a put away spouse with a Certificate of Divorcement.

Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

NOTE: GOD PUT AWAY HIS WIFE, BUT DID NOT DIVORCE HER. This shows that put away is not divorce.

In the case of adultery, divorce is not necessary. Why? What is the penalty for adultery again? Divorce? NO NO NO. Death by stoning…even in the days of Jesus, the penalty was STILL death by stoning.

Jesus would not have told any Pharisee that people can get divorced in the case of an adulterous spouse. Never. Adulterous spouses get stoned, not divorced…that is, in the days of Jesus walking under the law himself, discussing the law with lawyers.

Can you imagine the heyday that the Pharisees would have over this one, telling lawyers that adulterous spouses no longer need to be put to death under the law, but rather that they can simply get divorced now, and not face any penalty of death?

Put away, then death is the only thing necessary for adultery. Divorce is not warranted in the case for adultery when Jesus walked the planet, as he, too, was under the Law of Moses, yet did not sin.

“PUT AWAY”, is another way of saying, KICK HER OUT OF THE HOUSE.

For any other reason, if you put away your spouse, you need that divorce decree, otherwise, you are still married. And, if you marry someone else while still being married, that is bigamy.

There is a verse that must be dissected once this is understood. The verse, already dissected, states that if a man marries a put away wife, they are committing adultery, all because the wife is still married to her so-called former husband. She never got a divorce. So, their relationship is bigamy.  Not polygamy.  Polygamy is where a man is married to two people where the first wife was NOT “put away”.

What is that verse?

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Note:  The word “divorced” in the above should be “put away”. Note the Greek word used twice in this verse.  You will see this in the following verse.

and

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In these references, a man married an already still married woman. She never got a divorce yet. She was only KICKED OUT of the house (Uh, that is, PUT AWAY, aka Send Away) by her husband…without the divorce.

We can divorce for simply “hating” our spouse, as Deuteronomy 24:3 states. If Jesus didn’t love us, would we be compelled to remain married to Jesus?

But, why do theologians not want to discuss that one verse, verse 3?

Why do theologians not want to discuss that in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, that in any remarriage, NO ONE GOT KICKED OUT OF JUDAISM?

Oh, but, they want to teach us that in Christianity, people are hell bound for eternity if they get remarried? That logic, is insane.

Jesus did NOT change the rules of divorce, nor did he change the law of divorce. And again, Moses, the person, did not allow divorce. God did. He made it a law, not Moses, the person.

Hardened hearts, one may retort. Well, when did that change? Humans have hardened hearts by nature. God made a law allowing for divorce, just simply for hating your spouse. But theologians don’t want to discuss that for some reason, thinking that Jesus forbids divorce, when in fact, he forbids “put away”, WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCEMENT.

Now, in regards to 1 Corinthians 7, we are not to PUT AWAY our spouse, but the spouse is FREE TO LEAVE. The choices after she leaves…divorce her, or reconcile with her. Both parties here are believers, where not one party is an unbeliever. A separate verse addresses where one spouse is an unbeliever.

NOTE: Both parties here are believers. In the law of Moses, when a divorce happened, neither spouse was kicked out of Judaism, right? RIGHT.

Now, in regards to 1 Cor 7:10-11…Let not…but if she…let her

Don’t let her go, but if she leaves, divorce her or reconcile with her. (She can leave your sorry butt!). 1 Cor 7:10-11 is to BELIEVERS. Both remain a Christian even if she leaves.

That’s all that means. But like I already said, the Catholics, and others think that it states that she can never marry again.

Again, the two choices when both parties are believers, reconcile or divorce, but don’t “PUT AWAY”. Why? Because she can leave on her own accord without the husband kicking her out. And guess what? She can remarry, and still be in the family of Christians, a Child of Jesus.

Therefore, I disagree with the theologians that put restrictions on people getting a divorce, even those who think that the only reason to divorce is for abuse. A Christian can get divorced for just for not being in love anymore. But we never seem to hear preaching on verse 3 of Deuteronomy 24 from the theologians. That is interesting since they believe that an adulterous spouse under the law of Moses can get remarried.

And for those who think that God hates divorce, in the KJV it does not say that. It states that God hates “PUT AWAY”, not divorce.

Malachi 2:16
For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away

Remember, Joseph was going to”put away” his fiance’, quietly. Why quietly? Because her pregnancy would be evidence of adultery, and based on evidence, she would be killed…not allowed to marry another person.

This is what the Law states in regards to the situation that the betrothed Mary was in:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (KJV)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

She does not divorce…she dies. In Mary’s case, she is pregnant. That is all the evidence that is needed for a conviction of death…not a divorce. Betrothed adulterers were put to death.

So, again, why they don’t preach verse 3 of Deuteronomy 24? What do you do with a married couple that at least one party just isn’t in love anymore? Keep them in bondage because they think that Jesus only sanctions divorce in adultery, abuse and abandonment issues? Really?

Do we not get it yet that there is no such thing as a divorce, let alone a remarriage, for the case of “sexual immorality”? It’s just death. Being stoned is the means of death for sexual immorality, until you are dead. The subject of Deuteronomy 24:1 has nothing to do with sexual immorality, or as some have translated it to be, “indecency” to begin with, and even if it did, verse 2 is NOT ALLOWED, which proves that their theology is wrong in this regard.

To review, the original question by the Pharisees had nothing to do with divorce, but “PUT AWAY” (AKA Send away), is that the Pharisees were allowing “send away” for any reason, not requiring a divorce. And THAT alone is what causes adultery when the sent away spouse “marries” another person, because that “another” person is really an additional person. The old marriage was not severed by divorce.

This is the basis for my argument, because there is no such thing as a divorce for the cause of adultery in the days of Jesus. No such thing. It’s just death.

Christians can get divorced, where both parties are believers, where no abuse issues are going on, simply for not being in love anymore, just like Deuteronomy 24:3 states.

“Put away” is the only conclusion for an adulterous spouse, therefore, put away and divorce cannot be equated. The only authorized reason to put away is in the case of adultery, then death. For any other cause, you must not only put away, but divorce as well.

In the days of Jesus (Jesus was talking to lawyers here), the law states death penalty, point blank. We do remember the woman caught in adultery that was going to be stoned to death, and Jesus made a point to say “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

And, I reference the following already:

Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

It was Jesus who showed mercy, not the people, not the Pharisee’s, nor the rabbi’s, or anyone else. The Law does not allow for a divorce, let alone a remarriage for an adulterous spouse.

Also note: One reason for divorce, according to Deu 24 is just because the husband didn’t like his wife very much. So, what do you do if a spouse does not love the other? Forbid a divorce when Deu 24:3 allows for it?

JESUS would never allow for a divorce for an adulterous spouse. Dead people cannot divorce, let alone remarry.

The Catholics really screwed this one up, and the Reformation folks bought off on it.

I find it amazing the amount of explanations that I hear from many different Church’s in regards to Hebrews 6.  This chapter is most widely used by those who believe that you can lose your salvation.  First let me quote Hebrews 6, and then I will give my extremly short synopsis.

Hebrews 6 (KJV)

6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

And this will we do, if God permit.

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,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

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.

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:

But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

My synopsis:

In a nutshell, Hebrews 6 is not discussing that one can lose their salvation.  It is discussing this:

Stop preaching the same ole same ole introductory Christian doctrines and move on to the more advanced doctrines.

The phrase: “If they shall fall away” is an incomplete phrase, because it is accompanied with “to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

The key word here is the word “again”…back to repentance to crucify Christ, over and over and over again.

But this whole lesson is incomplete.  Take verse 9 for example:

9  But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

Another way to say that is:  We expect more out of you, that you learn not only what you have been taught ABOUT salvation, but what you are not learning is those things that ACCOMPANY salvation.

Again, my summary…stop teaching the introductory Christian doctrines over and over again, but move on to the bigger and better things.

Ed

I say, neither.

There seems to be a few sects of Christianity that are “Law/Gospel” oriented.  Just to name a few:

1.  7th Day Adventists
2.  Some sects of Calvinism
3.  Emerging “Returning to our Jewish Roots” movements.

Note the word, “movement”?

There are others, as well.  Some of those Christian sects can’t stand the thought of Christmas, or Easter, and they don’t eat bacon with their eggs, nor will they buy a ham sandwich at Subway.  Some of those Christian sects don’t like the Apostle Paul very much.  They are called legalists.  They all have one thing in common.  Their arguments are coming from their hatred for Catholics, and not the Bible itself.  Another one of their arguments is that God never changes, that is, if God set before us the Law of Moses, then we are to be obedient to the law of Moses, for God never changes.  Some of these sects tells us that Abraham had, or knew the Law of Moses, as they quote the following:

Genesis 26:5
 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The words commandments, statutes, and laws is somehow equated to the Law of Moses?  The whole chapter of Galatians chapter 3 negates out that claim.  Moses was four generations later.

Galatians 3:18-23
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.  Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

The law kept faith out of the picture.  The law prohibited the inheritance of eternal life (promised land).

I’ve also found that when they preach on the subject of faith, they all have a common denominator of leaving out information.  I use scripture to counter what they leave out.  I was recently given the boot on a “Returning to Our Jewish Roots” blog, not for giving opinion, but by quoting scripture.  In a private email to the blog owner, I stated, “It’s hard for me to fathom people rejecting quoted scripture.”

Are we to be obedient to God?  Well, of course, we are.  To them, however, being “obedient” to God is equal to being “obedient” to the Law of Moses, and somehow that is supposed to be not only Good News, but Great News.  So, I will counter their good news, with the quoting of scripture.  We are to be obedient to the Law of Christ (Faith), not the Law of Moses (works).

So, to start things off with this article, here is one thing that they don’t want to tell you:

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:24
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Take, for example, that you have a bus schedule in your hand, and that you are at the bus stop at 1:48 P.M.  According to the bus schedule, the next bus is scheduled for a 2:00 P.M. arrival.  You believe the bus schedule.  You are just waiting for the bus to arrive at 2:00 P.M.  The conclusion is that you have faith in the bus schedule.

Faith is based on the promise (ASSURANCE) that the bus will arrive at 2:00 P.M., and that you are just waiting for it to arrive (HOPE).  You believe that the bus will arrive at 2:00 P.M.  THAT belief is based on the credence of the Bus Schedule.

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287:  Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as:  Pledge, Guarantee

Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?  But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680:  Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as:  Anticipation;   Anticipation is defined as:  The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.

Hebrews 11:1 
Now FAITH IS:  The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).

Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as:  mental acceptance as true or real.

We are all familiar with the following verses:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The Calvinists believe in a term called “Saving Faith”. The following is from a Calvinist believing website:

“Faith is a gift of God and not a work of man, so that no man can boast and God receives all the glory (Eph. 2:1-10).”

That is not what Ephesians 2:8-9 states.  That is what the Calvinists reword it to state. We non-Calvinists do not consider faith to be a gift, or a work.

The Calvinists boast about the word exegesis.  Dictionary.com defines Exegesis as, “critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.”  But the Calvinists are expository driven, rather than topical driven.  I do both. The following topics will be covered in regards to this “saving faith” garbage.

What is the Righteousness of God?

Works vs. No Works

According to dictionary.com, one definition of “work” is:  a deed or performance, the word “deed” is defined as:  something that is done, performed, or accomplished; an act, and the word “do” is defined as:  To perform, to accomplish, to execute.

Abraham believed God.  He didn’t work.  He believed. Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23 all state the following:

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Note the word “it”.  “It” is simply his belief of the promise given to him by God.  What was the promise?  Seed, and Land, hence the terms, Promised Land, and Promised Seed.  A piece of real estate.  These promises are twofold.

1.  Carnal (Physical Land of Israel…with “specific” borders, and Isaac).
2.  Spiritual (Heaven…aka Eternal Life, and Jesus).

Romans 4:2
*For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

*We see here that belief is not considered a work.    What is considered a work is explained below.

Note:  Let’s not get James 2:26 (Faith without works is dead) confused with Romans 4:2.  Abraham was indeed justified by “works” of James 2:26.  What does that mean?  It means that Abraham “lived” his belief.  The works that is being discussed in this post has nothing to do with the book of James.

Works
A worker is one who works, right?  Well, the Bible states that a worker is one who is a “doer”, a doer of the work, not just a hearer.

We should all know that the Old Testament, aka, Old Covenant, First Covenant, begins in Exodus 20.  This is where God spoke to ALL of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. After God Spoke the Ten Commandments to ALL of the children of Israel, they were afraid that if God continued to speak to them, that they would die, so they asked if Moses would speak to them about what God wants of them, instead of God himself.

Exodus 20:19
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. So, Moses continued to listen to God, and Moses gave the word of the Lord to ALL of the children of Israel.

Exodus 24:3
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

Notice the last word in that verse, “do”. Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses once again reiterates what was spoken in Exodus 20 – 24. After that review, the children of Israel responds:

Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

Again, notice the word, “do”.  That is works of righteousness.  Obedience to the law of Moses is known as works of Righteousness. If anyone can keep the law perfectly, then they have “earned” a wage, and God “owes” them eternal life.  That is why it is called “works”, or “deeds”.

Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned.

Romans 6:23
the wages of sin is death

So, who can be obedient to the Law of Moses and get to heaven?  No one.

Galatians 2:16
a man is not justified by the works of the law…for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Remember the word, “do” from Exodus and Deuteronomy?  Anyone that attempts to be “obedient”, or, “do” works of righteousness, to the law of Moses is under a curse. And yet, the legalists affirm that God did not do away with the Law of Moses.  Well, according to various legalists, some laws were done away, while other laws are not.  They separate the laws into categories,  i.e., ceremony, stone, parchment, food, etc.  Some say that it is OK to eat all meats, while others think that having bacon with your eggs will get you to hell in a hand basket. Others say that only sacrifices were done away, while eating pork chops, or lobster with your steak is an abomination.

And how do they convince people?  Well the 7th Day Adventists ask, “Is it a sin to steal?”, to which we do indeed state, “Yes”.  Then they continue with the remaining 8 commandments before stating that it is therefore a sin to go to church on Sunday, telling people that they are hell bound if they step one foot in church on Sunday.  In regards to the Calvinists, they acknowledge that the Lord’s day is Sunday, so according to them, that is the ONLY commandment that was changed.

Then I have heard people say that if we “love” God, then we will be “obedient” to the Law of Moses, and this is somehow to be “a joy and a delight”?  Really?  A delight?  A joy?

Recently, on one of many “Restoring The Jewish Roots” blogs, by Gentiles pretending to be Jewish, a legalist told me this:

“it is not called the ‘old testament’, nor was it changed to that name except by one lost man’s interpretation”.

What is interesting about that statement, is that I heard that before, from Calvinists. Calvinists are about Law Plus Grace.  Most legalists will quote Romans 6:1 through HALF of Romans 6:2:

Romans 6:1-2 (half of verse 2)
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid...(That is where they stop)

This is also demonstrated in Romans 6:15.  But what they fail to do is to read the rest of the chapter, plus Romans 7.  When they do that, they will see that under grace, that it is impossible to continue in sin, all because we are not under the law, and that the question in Romans 6:1 and 14 is a rhetorical question.  When we are under grace, we are not under the law.  In other words, you can’t break a law that does not exist.

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Notice the words, “doth not”, and “cannot”.  It does not say, “should not”. Furthermore, I have been told that Abraham had the law, but it just wasn’t codified yet, that it was codified under Moses.  In addition, I’ve been told that Abraham stumbled at his faith, because he lied about Sarah, and did not consult God about providing him food before going to Egypt.  But when we read Genesis, he did not lie about Sarah.  She was his sister.  And the justification that Abraham gives in not disclosing that Sarah was his wife was because he did not feel that the fear of God was in that place.  Again, he believed God’s promise, and NOTHING was going to change that promise.  Abraham knew that the Pharaoh was not going to harm Sarah.  God would protect her, all due to the promise seed through Sarah, Isaac.  The promise was “unconditional”.  The Covenant of Circumcision came later, and that was based on the family line of Isaac receiving the promise of inheritance, not Ishmael, the first born.  Today, the physical land of Israel belongs to the Jews, promised by God.  Not to the Palestinians, promised by the UN, or whomever.

Note:  That is the “carnal”.  Remember, the spiritual, Jesus is the promised seed, and the promised land…is Heaven, aka eternal life, not a piece of real estate in the middle east.

Romans 4:19-20
And being not weak in faith
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So, if we are to believe that Abraham had the law, but that it just wasn’t codified yet, then we can be led to believe that Abraham was sinless, when reading Genesis 26:5.  And yet, we are told “For all have sinned”.  Like I said above, Galatians 3 counters the claim that Abraham had the Law of Moses. Abraham sinned, too…but (See Romans 5:13 below).

Did Abraham go to church on Saturday?  Did Abraham observe the Sabbath?  What Sabbath?  The first mention of MAN observing any Sabbath, or taking a “rest” is in the book of Exodus.

Exodus 16:23
And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord:

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

When was “until”?  Until Abraham?  Note the word “Imputed”.  I would conclude that Abraham did not have the law…of Moses…not one bit.  The law is not of faith.  Faith and Law is contrary to one another.  It is faith vs. law, not law plus faith/grace. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt.  Did the Egyptians allow the Hebrews to take Saturday off?  No.  There was no such thing as a 4th Commandment yet.

Old Testament (The Law of Moses(Works)) vs. New Testament (The Law of Christ(Faith))

Hebrews 8, 9, and 10 addresses Old Testament vs. New Testament . The Jewish Roots folks(Gentiles pretending to be Jewish) are confusing the words, “The Law of Moses” with the word, “Torah (law)”. In other words, law vs. law.  Sound confusing? Torah!, Torah!, Torah! (Wasn’t that a movie?).

The owner of the blog told me:
“Torah simply means…INSTRUCTIONS” Jesus taught…TORAH.”

However, I was taught, by Jews themselves, that the word “Torah” simply means “First Five Books”, hence the Latin word, Pentateuch, penta meaning “five”, teuchos, meaning tool, vessel, book.

I responded with:
“Your teachings are trying to equate the Law of Moses with the Torah, and that is not true. They are two separate things. The Law of Moses is “within” the Torah, but it is not the Torah.”

Further, I explained:

Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Torah), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I included the above verse because legalists are always referencing this verse.)

“Jesus makes it clear that he didn’t come to destroy the “Torah or the Prophets” (Tanakh).  When it is stated in scripture, “The Law and the Prophets”, it is discussing Genesis to Malachi.  The Law, or Torah, is simply Genesis to Deuteronomy.  The Prophets is Joshua to Malachi.  Put both together, it is Tanakh, or TNK.  The T stands for Torah.  The N and K stand for writings and prophets. However, within the First Five Books (Torah, or Law) is the Old Testament/Covenant/Law of Moses. You  are trying to equate the Law of Moses with the Torah.  The Law of Moses is “within” the Torah, but it is not the Torah.” So, when Jesus discusses Matthew 5:17-18, I see that many folks delete the word “prophets” from the verse, focusing on the word, “law”, as in The Law of Moses, and they falsely conclude that Jesus came to fulfill the Ten Commandments, i.e., the law.  I hear this time and time and time again from many folks, legalists or not.  This is where they are WRONG!  Once you put the word “prophets” back in the verse, properly using it as TNK, you will see that Jesus came to fulfill prophecy of himself from Genesis to Malachi, not to fulfill the Ten Commandments.  But he did indeed come to destroy the Law of Moses and replace it with The Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is totally different than the Old Covenant, hence, New Testament.  The law of Christ is known as the Law of freedom (liberty (James 1:25; 2:12)). “The Law (Torah) and the Prophets” is a phrase used several times, even with the Apostle Paul.  Many are getting confused with “The Law (Torah), vs. “The Law [of Moses].  The Law of Moses is the Old Testament.  The Old Testament does not begin with Genesis 1.  Identifying the Old Testament with Genesis 1 to Malachi is extremely common place with all of Christendom.

Now, lets look at the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:1
the first covenant

Hebrews 9:15
new testament

Hebrews 9:15
first testament

Hebrews 9:16-20
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.  Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Exodus 24:8
 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

What words?  From Exodus 20, beginning with the Ten Commandments.

Hebrews 8:7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 8:8
new covenant

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

*Hebrews 10:9
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

*Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.  He took away the first, calling it old, so that he may establish the second, calling it new.

The New Covenant is NOT a RENEWED Covenant of the Old.

Jeremiah 31:31-32
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;

Therefore, it cannot be law plus grace/faith.  Law was taken away, so that grace may be established.

2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament

Conclusion:
First/Old Covenant/Testament vs. Second/New Covenant/Testament.  The first/old covenant/testament is the Law of Moses, not the Torah.

No Works

1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead

Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law

Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,

Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.

Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested

Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace

Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith

Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Faith is NOT imputed.

There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness

Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith

For all have sinned (NOT OBEYED THE LAW OF MOSES). Then how are we made righteous? Faith alone without the Law of Moses. We are now under the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Faith, which is the Law of Freedom (liberty) and the COMMANDMENTS of Jesus is a singular commandment: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.  Now, some will say that we have two commandments, and I left out the Love God part.  However, the way that 1 John explains it, is that we prove that we love God by loving people. For Love fulfills ALL, not just the parchment, but the stones, too, the law of Moses. The singular commandment of Love is the delight, the joy, not obeying the Law of Moses, which is a curse.

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Why was the Law of Moses instituted?  Was it to bring about morality, so that sin would decrease? Many seem to think so.  They call it “God’s Standards”.  Really?

Romans 5:20 (NIVr)
The law was given so that sin would increase.

Did Abraham really need a law that stated, “Thou Shalt Not Steal” to know that it is wrong to steal?  Think about that.

Romans 2:14-16
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

By nature, they obey laws that they don’t even have.  It’s called a conscience.  And Jesus judges them by what they know, not by what they don’t know, and Paul calls that good news (gospel), and these people don’t even know God, or Jesus.  So, do people who don’t know God, or Jesus, automatically go to hell because they are sinners?  NO.  But some seem to think so.

Again:

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Bottom line:
Faith is KNOWING that we are going to get what we are waiting for.  Obeying the law of Moses is earning your way, not knowing for sure.

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:24
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The law of Moses is Bondage.  Jesus set us free from the law.  Flesh vs. Spirit

Galatians 4:24
for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage

Everything Begins with Seed

This is one thing that no one, on either side of the debate, has yet to consider.

The one side that seems to be leading the charge on the YEC belief system is the Calvinist movement.  As a matter of fact, Calvinism has differing views on many Bible topics that are dead set against non-Calvinism Christian beliefs.

It seems to me, my opinion, of course, that Calvinism is set up in such a way as to pit other Christians against other Christians.  The Calvinist debate of Old Earth vs. New Earth is an internal Christian debate, having really nothing to do with atheist vs. Christian.  Also, the Calvinist wants to make this issue a “salvation” issue, as well.  How can that be, since salvation is based on the disobedience of the 613 laws from Exodus 20 to the end of Deuteronomy, having nothing to do with Genesis 1 and 2?  Sin vs. Salvation.  Where does one have to believe that a creation day is 24 hours to be saved?  Which of those 613 laws specify that it is a sin to not believe in a literal 24 hour creation day?

I am an old earth believer.  I do not believe in evolution.  I do, however, believe that Bible genealogy supports a young mankind, including that of the animals, more specifically, dinosaurs.  Animals were “FORMED” after Adam was formed, and Adam named all the animals, not just some, but all.  This supports that there were NO dinosaurs before Adam.

It seems to me that all of the young earthers believe that all of the Old Earth believers believe in evolution.  I don’t.

Next, all young earther’s have a stance that a day is 24 hours.  Why?  Someone recently told me “and the evening and the morning were the _____th day.

So what?  Does that prove that a day in creation is 24 hours?  I think not.

If, as the Bible states, that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day to God, then, just by that statement, after a thousand years is completed, then there is an evening and a morning, then the next day is a thousand years.

I say that to show that there is a difference between a carnal day, and a spiritual day.  I am NOT saying that each day was a thousand years, I am saying that each day is a spiritual day, not a carnal day.

The young earther’s dismiss that the 7th day of creation is not over with.  We present them with Hebrews Chapter 4 for this.  God rested on the 7th day.  There has never been an 8th day, or even a 9th day, or a tenth day.  God is still resting.

We are to “enter into HIS rest”.  We are to enter into HIS 7th Day, HIS rest, HIS Sabbath.

This shows that the 7th day has not ended, proving that there is a huge difference between spiritual days, and carnal days.

Next, both sides of the debate miss one very important issue.  Both sides seem to agree that Genesis chapter 2 is a review of Genesis chapter 1, specifically in regards to day number 6, man’s creation.

I disagree that Genesis chapter 2 is a review of chapter 1.  Why?  Simple:

1.  Genesis Chapter 1 is CREATION
2.  Genesis Chapter 2 is FORMATION

1.  Genesis Chapter 1:  Creation of the SPIRITS (SEED), (BREATH OF LIFE) of man.
2.  Genesis Chapter 2:  Formation of the Body (Dirt) of man.

Everything begins with a seed.  Everything.

How do I come to this conclusion?  Simple.

The ORDER OF EVENTS is DIFFERENT between the two chapters.  Many have not even noticed this.

In Genesis Chapter 1, notice that animals were CREATED BEFORE man.
In Genesis Chapter 2, notice that animals were FORMED AFTER ADAM.  Then, after all of the animals were formed, FINALLY Eve was FORMED, and yet, in chapter 1, Eve was created at the same time as Adam.

Many people assume that Adam was the first human CREATED.  No, We were all created on the same day, as spirits.  We were all created IN HEAVEN.

One by one, God plants a seed (spirit) in dirt (BODY), and each one of us became a living soul.  Life begins at conception.  The sperm and the egg are dirt (BODY), but our spirit gives the body life (James 2:26).  When we die, WE GO “HOME”.  Home is where we came from, where we were created.  We were not created on earth, we were formed on earth.  All of us were created, at the same time, in heaven.  God is still resting from creation.  Man does not create man.  And since God is still at rest from his creation, that means that you and I were created at the same time that Adam was created, in God’s image (to be eternal from the moment of creation).

Next, from what I am reading in regards to the Young Earthers, they believe that when God created, say, for example, trees, that they were MATURE trees.

But, I don’t believe that, since I believe that EVERYTHING begins with SEED, planted in DIRT.

Carefully review how this is worded:

Genesis 2:5-9
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Note:
1.  Nothing grew until mist watered the whole face of the ground.  This was BEFORE Adam was FORMED of the dirt.  Later, God PLANTED a Garden (How much later?  See note 2 below).  The ONLY thing that is PLANTED is SEED.

2.  When did God put Adam in the Garden?  During, before, OR after Adam became a “living” soul?  The answer is “AFTER”.  So Adam did NOT start out in the Garden.  The “planting” of the Garden was AFTER Adam became a living soul.

3.  After Adam was “IN” the Garden, “THEN” God made every tree IN the Garden GROW.  They weren’t already grown trees.

Do people who claim literal reading on both sides of the debate ever happen to read the order of events?

Seed is missing from both sides of the debate.

Seed is a very important topic in regards to spiritual things.  Seed is a carnal example of spiritual eternity.  For example, seed has no expiration date.  If you go to the nursery to buy apple seed for example, there is no “Plant no later than” date on the packet.  Come on Christians, think spiritual thoughts on things.  Seek out spiritual matters.  Seed begins all living things, including trees, animals, and man.

Finally, the next topic is also missing from both sides of the debate.  Angels.

When were the angels created? The answer to that one is before “time”, before the beginning, in eternity. Genesis states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. He certainly was not discussing his abode when he said “heaven”, as his abode is eternal. God has always been in heaven. He created the Angels before Genesis 1:1.

Consider the angels in this:
1. When were they created?
2. When were they kicked out?
3. Where were they kicked to?
4. Where is hell?
5. Who was hell created for?
6. When was hell created?

THIS topic in regards to angels and hell is key to my understanding of the gap theory.  Hell is not in “eternity”, but it is in “time”.  Heaven is in “eternity” where there is no concept of “time”.  Spiritual words to consider are the words “darkness”, and “deep”, for example.  Carnal definitions do not always help when looking at spiritual interpretations.  For example, in the book of Jonah Chapter 2, there is a “spiritual” description of hell that Jesus went to.  Put on spiritual lenses and couple that with both 2 Samuel 22:4-51 with Psalm 18:3-50.  They are both the same with the exception of one verse in each.  2 Samuel 22:8 and Psalm 18:7.

Jeremiah 4:23
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

We cannot ignore Jeremiah when discussing the following:

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I do think that if one “spiritually” interprets scripture, that there is a “hint” of a concept of Old Earth.  This, to me, would tie into the tohuw (void)/bohuw (without form).  Something happened, and I don’t know what, but I think it had something to do with the angels that were kicked out of heaven, and placed on this earth.  We know that there are demons in the world, not just down in the “heart of the earth”, but that they are all around us.

I just wish that there was more “spiritual” investigation in the debate, rather than all of the science stuff.  Science will never ever ever ever prove the existence of God.  But OBSERVATION OF SCIENCE is an important part of the equation, COUPLED WITH a spiritual look at scripture, and not the carnal 24 hour day concept.

Please consider what I have written, and take another fresh look at Genesis 1 and 2, paying particular attention to the difference between the two chapters, rather than the similarities of the two.