In my previous post, I laid out the reason that I do not believe in Original Sin. That is CENTRAL to the Doctrines of Grace with BOTH parties.

Debunk Original Sin, and they both fall apart.

Next…the word Elect:

Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

We are not Israel. Romans 9-11 is discussing Jews only. The famous Pharaoh of Romans 9 is discussing that God USED the Pharaoh to tell a story about God. The role of Satan is played by the Pharaoh. The role of Jesus is played by Moses. Egypt is known as SIN, and the promised land is known as Eternal Life, and the wandering the desert is known as a Christian walk.

It’s a spiritual story told by the life of individuals, and has nothing to do with SOTERIOLOGY.

In order for God to tell a story about himself, he USES people, mostly the Jews only, but occasionally a gentile, like the Pharaoh.

And if you notice, Romans 9 mentions the word “MERCY”. So, my take of Romans 9, the famous Pharaoh, he got MERCY (in the afterlife), due to being used (for destruction).

Now, take the rest of Romans 9-11, the topic is on the Jews…BLIND Jews, to whom God will give mercy to, just because they are blind, and the reason? Because God is telling a story about himself THRU the Jews.

Jews vs. Gentiles

Jews:
Romans 11:8/Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Gentiles:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

God has to UNBLIND them, the Jews, in order for them to see:

John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

And due to no fault of their own…all Israel will be saved. Lydia was a Jewish woman.

All of the epistles discussing Elect, is discussing Jews only, not Gentiles. Saved Gentiles are not elect.

Also, the word REGENERATION is discussing Jews, not Gentiles. Also, Remnant is discussing Jews, not Gentiles.

John chapter 6 is discussing Jews, not Gentiles. The Father Draws is discussing Jews, not Gentiles. Those Jews were already God followers in the Law of Moses, and the DRAWING is in regards to Law of Moses followers to become Jesus followers.

Gentiles is a totally different conversation to have.

What I have found is that both Armenians and Calvinists take what was meant for Jews only, and apply it to all of humanity.

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I am beginning this article with 2 Corinthians 4:18, because when discussing the Doctrines of Original sin, some people get the idea that this earth that we live on was originally meant to be our permanent home, and that due to Adam’s sin, he screwed up that plan. This earth is just a temporary place. If you can see it, it’s temporal. If you can’t see it, it’s eternal. It’s always been that way, from the beginning. It was never meant to be our permanent home.

If you are reading this, then you should already be aware of what the Doctrine of Original Sin is. If you are not aware, please seek what it is from other sources, then come back and read this. It will make more sense.

The Doctrines of Original Sin is central to the Doctrines of Grace between both Calvinists Irresistible Grace, and Armenians Prevenient Grace.

If you remove Original Sin, that alone destroys both Calvinism and Arminianism.

Augustine…Augustine had no idea what he was even talking about, but he made himself THE Authority over scriptural matters. Thus, we have the Doctrines of Original Sin declared as Orthodox. He declared Pelagius a heretic for not buying off on Augustine’s teaching of Original Sin. By the time you finish with this post, you should see that it was Augustine who is the heretic. I must emphasize that I am not Pelagian. I am not Calvinist, I am not Armenian, I am not Catholic, nor Lutheran. I’m not a Bishop, or Pope, nor a monk. I’m not a Doctor, Jim. I’m just a lowly non-denominational kinda guy who is not beholden to any “We Believe” statements, or corporate creeds. I never heard of Pelagius until recently, and have only skimmed what he believed. But I can say this, he was more accurate than Augustine was…by a long shot.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The following verse is used by the Original Sin folks to establish that Adam had a GLORIFIED body before the fall, and therefore, he LOST that glorified body after he “sinned”, therefore, began the DYING process in a different body, and that we “inherited” a sin “NATURE” because of Adam’s sin. Some even go so far as to put Adam’s guilt upon everyone, as if his sin was hereditary. Some say it was hereditary, literally, by fertilizer. The Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, as the “vessel” of Jesus, so there is a contradiction just in that alone, for all have sinned. Carnal fertilizer has nothing to do with anything. And to suggest that it does, makes the life of Jesus on this planet eternal from the moment of conception, meaning, that if Jesus didn’t take our sin on the cross, then Jesus would not have ever died at all. But let’s not forget, that the body of Jesus was DIRT, until the resurrection. Jesus was man based on DIRT, Jesus is God based on SPIRIT. Jesus could have sinned, but he didn’t.

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

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Philippians 2:7-8
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Hebrews 2:16-18
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Augustine is just a man, who had no clue as to what he was reading, but made life a living hell for those who disagreed with him, like Palaguis. I would have been a dead man, had I lived in those days, by suggesting the following:

Many who believe in Original Sin think that Adam FIRST HAD a glorified body, and that he lost that body at the fall, all because God said that IT IS GOOD. Others think that Adam ate of the Tree of Life in order to MAINTAIN eternal life.

They also think that Adam’s disobedience of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the sin, and that “in that day” the dying process began, all because God said:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I’m just going to come out and say it now. The death that God is discussing here is NOT NOT NOT related to Romans 5 at all. Genesis 2:17 is discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH, not natural death. This will be proven later in the article. Since Adam did NOT die “IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST”, they seem to get the idea that the “dying process” began. Process. It amuses me of the things that the “experts” came up with.

Have you ever told your children not to play with matches? Why is that? JUST BECAUSE? Or, could it be because you don’t want them to get hurt?

So, if your children play with matches, they will get burnt.

Well, that’s why God told them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because not only did they disobey, but they got knowledge that God did not want them to get. They didn’t know good. They didn’t know evil. They were CARE FREE, free spirited.

Why did they cover their genitals? Because that tree informed them that being naked was a sin. And it doesn’t matter that God put them in the garden naked. They were IGNORANT to the fact that being naked was a sin, and God never told them.

Ponder the following for a long while:

Genesis 3:11
And [God] said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?

God didn’t tell them. Neither did Satan. A Tree did. Has anyone ever wondered or contemplated as to why God never told them that they were naked? Their eyes were closed to that knowledge. Why? And why were they ashamed of that fact when their eyes were opened? What is the difference between eyes shut to knowledge of being naked, vs. eyes opened to the knowledge of being naked? What was it about being naked that made them ashamed, especially to the point of covering their nakedness? After all, didn’t God put them there like that, and said that it was GOOD?

Genesis 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:10
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Genesis 3:11
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Imagine, being naked that whole time, and they didn’t even know it, until a tree told them: KNOWLEDGE, Good and Evil, Tree of.

Speaking of which, it’s also a sin to have sex with your sister, as well. But Abraham slept with his sister, and God never told him that it was a sin. But God gave brother/sister an inbred promised Isaac.

And that is what Romans 5:13/4:15 is all about. KNOWLEDGE, vs. NO KNOWLEDGE.

I’ve read LOTS of Calvinist stuff regarding Romans 5, and it always amuses me when Romans 5:13 is excluded.

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
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Speaking of which, let’s get back to the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

God never sat Adam down to give him THE LAW. A tree informed him instead.

In essence, God told Adam to STAY IGNORANT, for as long as he was ignorant, he is innocent.

But Satan comes along and tells Eve, STOP BEING SO IGNORANT AND GET EDUCATED. So, they ate, and got educated, and LEARNED of their sin, hence covering up their genitals.

Now, this is where the TREE OF LIFE comes into play, which some think is just a METAPHOR.

It must be noted, that God never told Adam anything about the Tree of Life. Moses narrates that God planted that tree, but God never informed Adam of that tree. God only told him of the one tree not to eat from, but didn’t say one word about the other tree. He said EVERY TREE you may eat from…except one. But no mention of the Tree of Life to Adam.

Genesis 2:16
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Why didn’t God tell him about the Tree of Life?

God had to BLOCK ACCESS to the Tree of Life, because God didn’t want Adam to GAIN eternal life while in a fallen state. Why is that? Because the DEATH that God told Adam about was NOT the natural death of the body, which you think that Romans 5 eludes to, but SPIRITUAL DEATH, meaning SEPARATION FROM GOD.

We need to acknowledge that Adam could have gotten eternal life, even in a fallen state. So now, go back and review Romans 5 with that in mind.

We all die a natural death (Romans 5) because Adam never ate of the tree of life. God blocked access to that tree after the fall so that Adam could not get eternal life while being separated from God (spiritual death).

Now, if that tree was a METAPHOR, why would God have to block access to a metaphor?

Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

NOTE:
And THAT was the reason that God didn’t want them playing with matches, uhm, I mean, eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because he didn’t want them to KNOW Good and Evil! What happens when you know Good and Evil? You learn of your sins, that’s what! Do you really think that Adam and Eve NEVER committed any sin whatsoever before they ate? Oh, but they did. They just didn’t KNOW IT.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

NEXT…what kind of Body did Adam have BEFORE the fall? A Glorified Body? Uh, no.

1 Corinthians 15:42-46
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

This is discussing the NATURAL body (made of dirt, by the way, aka EARTHLY), vs. the SPIRITUAL BODY made from Heaven. Adam was DIRT, remember?

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The Natural body is:
sown in corruption (MEANING A DYING BODY AT THE MOMENT IT WAS FORMED…DIRT)
NOTE: The word CORRUPTION here does not mean what you think it means. It means a decaying dying body.

Acts 2:27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

The body of Jesus did not decay (corruption). In other words, corruption is not discussing sins, or morals.

sown in dishonour
sown in weakness
sown a natural body

And again, verse 46:
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The natural [DIRT] body came first, meaning that Adam was going to die a natural death ANYWAY, whether he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or not, REGARDLESS.

The only way that Adam was going to have eternal life was to have eaten of the Tree of Life, and he failed to do that. Not only that, but God never told him of a Tree of Life. Nonetheless, God blocked access to it, after the fall.

So yes, we all die because Adam sinned (Romans 5), but Adam did NOT start out with a spiritual body, because the natural body came first…DIRT.

Adam never ate of the Tree of Life. There is only one purpose of the Tree of Life, and that was to GAIN eternal life, not MAINTAIN eternal life. Just as one bite of the tree of knowledge of good and evil got Adam knowledge of good and evil, so one bite of the Tree of Life would have given him eternal life. There is no need to MAINTAIN eternal life. This negates out the idea that Adam at of the tree for nourishment.

We did not inherit a sinful “NATURE” from Adam at all. We were made weak from the start. The only thing we inherited from Adam was death of the body (Romans 5), but Adam was made to die from the start, regardless of eating of a tree that God told him not to eat from. The death that God spoke of in Genesis 2:17 had nothing to do with Romans 5’s natural death at all. It had to do with SPIRITUAL death, and Romans 5 does not mention that at all. But Romans 7 does.

There is a huge difference between Natural Death (Romans 5), and Spiritual Death (Genesis 2:17). The natural death dying process did not begin “in the day that thou eatest thereof…”

Everyone dies a natural death, but not everyone dies a spiritual death. Knowledge of Good and Evil is required for spiritual death. Babies don’t have that knowledge, hence Bar/Bat Mitzvah’s for the Jews.

Deuteronomy 1:39 (Who gets to go to the Promised Land?)
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Who else got to go, and why? Hint, Caleb and Joshua got to go, but why? Hint, they had faith. Everyone else of that generation died off, except for those in Deuteronomy 1:39.

And that is the spiritual depiction told through a carnal story.

Romans 7:7-9
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Romans 7:7-9 is discussing Spiritual Death, showing that we are NOT born spiritually dead. It is a death that we die once we get KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. It’s no different than Adam and Eve.

*Genesis 2:17 is spiritual death (Romans 7:7-9), Genesis 3:19 is natural death (Romans 5).

We didn’t inherit a sinful nature from Adam at all. Yes, for all have sinned, just like Romans 5 indicates. But Romans 5 also indicates something else that no one wants to talk about. So let’s talk about Romans 5, shall we? I wish to discuss the word KNOWLEDGE, as in the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

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

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

Romans 7:7-9
…I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Let’s also include this from chapter 4:

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

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

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

NOTE:
Many times when I read about Original Sin, and Romans 5 is referenced, verse 13 is skipped. They begin with verse 12, skip verse 13, and move on to verse 14 or 15. Apparently, they don’t like what verse 13 has to say.

So let’s add verse 14 from chapter 5 to add context for those two verses, shall we?

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

That, of course, is discussing NATURAL death of the body only. But it also indicates FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. But all those BETWEEN Adam and Moses, Abraham is in that category. Did Abraham have KNOWLEDGE of his sin? What was his sin? And did God inform him of his sin?

In order for sin to be IMPUTED, one must first have KNOWLEDGE of that sin. Let’s look at Abraham, shall we?

Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, and “TORAH”?

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

Now, because you have read Genesis 26:5 above, you might get the idea that Abraham was “sinless”? How can that be, with the statement, “for all have sinned”?

Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son.  According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED.  God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.

For all have sinned.

KNOWLEDGE VS. NO KNOWLEDGE

And FINALLY, let’s get back to Romans 5 regarding FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, and SIN ENTERED THE WORLD, and especially the following:

Romans 5:19
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Now, what does that mean to those who believe in Original Sin? That we inherited a sin “NATURE” from Adam? That we inherited Adam’s sin?

Remember, just above I mentioned KNOWLEDGE vs. NO KNOWLEDGE.

Well, do you know what God did TO US, outside of 1 Corinthians 15:42-46 (planted in corruption, dishonor, weakness, and NATURAL body)? He gave each person a conscience.

Romans 2:14-16
14 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:

15 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;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Key Words:

“Law Written in their HEARTS”.

The sin of Adam was NOT imputed to us. We did not INHERIT a sinful NATURE from Adam. We got a conscience directly from God himself. We already know that it is wrong to lie and steal without anyone telling us that it is wrong to lie and steal. God wrote that morality in our soul. By NATURE, Romans 2:14 states.

The FIRST TIME that you ever felt GUILT, that was your conscience telling you that you did something wrong. And it was God that wrote that law into your being.

And this is why I do not believe in ORIGINAL SIN.

Oh, and one last thing, for all those who think that David was a sinner from the womb…that’s not what Psalm 51:5 even states.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

His mother was in sin, not David. The following will explain:

https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm

Moreover, the OT land of Israel is a carnal depiction of a spiritual matter, called the Inheritance, The Promised Land. For the Jews, it’s a small piece of real estate. For Christians, eternal life in heaven. Galatians 3:16 explains that Jesus is the promised seed for the NT, but in the OT, Isaac was the promised seed.

So, who gets to go to the promised land?

  1. Those who have faith, which really means, believes in the promises of God, given to Abraham, regarding the inheritance. Inheritance, being the key word. Now…what is that inheritance? Remember, one is carnal, one is spiritual…of the same promises, and there were only two promises. Land and Seed.
    a. Caleb, and Joshua from the OT are the only two who had faith, of that generation, who got to enter the Promised Land.
  2. Those who had “no knowledge of good and evil” (little ones, children): Deuteronomy 1:39

That is the promised inheritance. In the OT, it is THROUGH Isaac, a small piece of real estate. In the NT, it is THROUGH Jesus (Galatians 3:16), eternal life in heaven.

My emphasis on this is in regards to BABIES WHO DIE, or CHILDREN WHO DIE, who have no KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. They get to heaven, because they were NEVER separated from God to begin with, never died a spiritual death. They never needed saved, never needed grace, never needed mercy, as God never left them to begin with. Everyone is BORN OF GOD at creation. Once a person SPIRITUALLY dies, then one is required to be born AGAIN, hence the word “again”, which is just another way of saying that you returned to God (God’s Holy Spirit comes back inside your body). However, babies never spiritually died to begin with. They are not lost at all. Even if they sin, they are not lost, all because KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil is first required in order to be separated from God, or, to spiritually die.

The End

The 6th Seal is used in this post to connect the dots

Acts 2:13-20
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:


I need everyone’s attention that Peter just mentioned the 6th Seal here, as mentioned in the last part of Revelation Chapter 6, IN CONJUNCTION WITH the 144000 Jews being SEALED with the Holy Spirit in the beginning part of Revelation chapter 7.

That is very important to note, and why? Because Jesus mentions the 6th Seal, as mentioned in the last part of Revelation 6 as well. He did not mention the 144000, as Peter did, but he did mention the LATTER PART of Revelation 7, whereas Peter just mentions the first part of Revelation 7. To wit:

Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mark 13:24
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Luke 21:25
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

And here is Revelation 6:

Revelation 6:12
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

And here is Peter’s references to Joel:

Joel 2:10
The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:

Joel 2:31
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.

Joel 3:15
The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

WHY do I concentrate so much on the 6th Seal? Because that is where Jesus STOPS in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. There is absolutely NO MENTION of the 7th Seal of Revelation chapter 8-16. HOWEVER, Jesus does mention the LATTER PART of Revelation 7 right after the 6th Seal.

And why is my mention of that so important?

Because Jesus never mentions the 7th Seal of Revelation, which begins in Revelation chapter 8, AT ALL. There is no discussion of it whatsoever. Therefore, 70 AD cannot be the eschatology that preterists claim, because, according to Jesus, believers are RAPTURED out before the opening of the 7th Seal.

NOTE:
Many think that we are in the last days NOW. One such person that I saw on Twitter is a Gentile woman, who is a “Law of Moses” abiding Christian, and she claims to have had DREAMS AND VISIONS.

I don’t take her serious. She claims that we are in the 3rd Seal now, and that she had the dreams and visions about those seals being opened. She is using Acts 2 as her means as proof, that in the last days there will be dreams and visions.

My major problem with that, it was based on JEWS being given the Holy Spirit, and there were no Gentiles that got the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

Acts 2:17
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Note the word, “your”. That would be Jewish heretage, not Gentile. Hopefully later on, you will understand. John is the Apostle to the Jews. So is Peter.

RAPTURE #1 (FOR THE CHURCH)

Yes, there is MORE THAN ONE Rapture. One for the Church, and one for the…Well, you will see in a bit. From the Gospels, I am going to first pinpoint a verse in each end time gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) with the sixth seal reference and then I am going to quote the RAPTURE right after that.

Matthew 24

Sixth Seal:
Matthew 24:29

Rapture:
Matthew 24:30-31

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

NOTE:
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and where the words “tribes of the earth” is mentioned, I’m going to conclude that what Jesus is discussing here is the 12 Tribes of Israel (JEWS ONLY). There are several reasons, one of which is that Israel (JEWS ONLY), whether saved, or unsaved, are the elect. Gentiles are NOT the elect. That is a Christendom fallacy to think that the saved Gentiles, or THE CHURCH is the elect. Saved Jews are known as the REMNANT. Remember, Jesus is talking to JEWS ONLY here. And John, the Apostle to the Jews, is talking to JEWS ONLY in the book of Revelation.

Now, I’m not saying that saved Gentiles are different here, but then again, yes, I am saying that Gentiles are different here. Why? Because the Jews don’t know Jesus on purpose. It’s not their fault that they don’t know Jesus. Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8 spells it out. And John 9:39-41 shows that Jesus unblinds A FEW at time so that they can SEE and UNDERSTAND, therefore, those who do see, are the remnant. Those who can’t, remain in a slumber. Feast your understanding on Joseph and his brothers, when Joseph FINALLY revealed himself to his brothers, and he forgave them, and then read the rest of Romans 11 regarding the MERCY on the Jews that Jesus will have on his BRETHREN (the Jews). Joseph kept his identity SECRET from his brothers, and he toyed with them for a while before finally revealing himself.

Moving on.

Mark 13

Sixth Seal:
Mark 13:24-25

Rapture:
Mark 13:26-27

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

NOTE:
Notice, if you will, that so far we have 2 events SIDE BY SIDE. The 6th Seal, and then the RAPTURE.

Luke 21

Sixth Seal:
Luke 21:25-26

Rapture:
Luke 21:27

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Now, that’s the END of the story in all of the end times chapters of the gospel. And Jesus did not mention one word about the 7th Seal. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

So now, seeing the connect the dots of the 6th Seal, and the side by side events of the 6th seal with the RAPTURE, let’s look at Revalation chapters 6-7.

Sixth Seal:
Revelation 6:12-17

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation Chapter 7

I’m not going to quote all of Revelation 7, except a small portion. But I want to make note first about Peter. In Acts Chapter 2, the Holy Spirit came down onto JEWISH believers, and the JEWISH unbelievers thought it very strange and funny that they were speaking in tongues. So, Peter explains the LAST DAYS to them, putting a timeline together by mentioning that 6th Seal. Why is that important? Note the word, “SEALED” in the following.

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Peter is discussing the following:

Revelation 7:4
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

144,000 previously blind Jews now get their site, healed of their blindness, and BOOM, all of a sudden become believers. THEY are the ones Peter was discussing in Acts 2 regarding Last Days SPEAKING IN TONGUES, DREAMS AND VISIONS. Unfortunately, for today, we have some real nut jobs telling us that they have dreams and visions, telling us that WE, our own generation is the last days generation, and they are even bold enough to tell us that seals 1-3 have already been opened. That’s another topic altogether, but as far as I’m concerned, until there is a Temple in Jerusalen for the Anti-Christ to walk into, we are NO WHERE NEAR the LAST DAYS.

Those 144,000 PREACH the gospel to UNBELIEVING Jews after the Rapture of the rest of the CHURCH. In other words, the 144,000 are “LEFT BEHIND”, along with the rest of the blind Jews.

Revelation 7 Rapture

Revelation 7:9
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Where is the location of these people? THE THRONE OF GOD.

And that is the end of it for believers. And now that you know that, you need now to RELOCATE your previously understood TRUMPS, i.e., the LAST TRUMP, because it ain’t what you were previously taught, I can guarentee that.

Revelation chapters 8-16 is the 7th Seal.

RAPTURE #2 (FOR THE JEWS + NEW CONVERTS)

Now, in the midst of the 7th Seal, in chapter 14, is ANOTHER RAPTURE of the 144,000 Jews, plus new converts. This one is important because it is BEFORE Armegeddon.

I’m not even gonna quote Revelation 14. You can read it yourself, but please note the LOCATION of these people is at the THRONE OF GOD, just like it was in chapter 7 for the first rapture of the Church.

All of these references of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts 2, and Revelation 6-7 are BACK TO BACK events, and all you gotta do is connect the dots, and you will be convinced that there is indeed a rapture, and the rapture is NOT FALSE DOCTRINE created by some woman in the Pentacostal movement, or Darby.

So yes, we actually do “FLY AWAY” in a “SECRET RAPTURE”.

But again, not one word about the 7th Seal did Jesus mention at all in his end times discussion with his disciples/apostles.

NOT A PEEP. Why? Because his believers WON’T BE HERE FOR IT. And we certainly won’t be here for the infamous “Mark of the Beast”.

I challenge anyone to find anything that Jesus said that references any event in the 7th Seal. This concludes the blog post, however, below are some noteworthy side notes.

SIDE NOTES:

Now, many of whom I debate with, seems to ignore something that Jesus said, regarding the Abomination of Desolation standing in the HOLY PLACE (KJV). Doing a bit of research, the Temple is known as the HOLY PLACE. And many say that there is no temple, therefore, they must be discussing 70 AD. Well, that is NOT POSSIBLE, because of THIS:

Jesus asks the Pharisees:

Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

Were they correct? Yes.

Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This is HUGE, because the Anti-Christ MUST BE a Jew. And this will negate out all the conspiracy theories about a Pope in Rome. We are discussing a Jewish man, in Jerusalem at a Temple, walking in the Temple and proclaiming to be God. This has nothing to do with a Pope. First, Catholic dogman, such as the one that Mel Gibson subscribes to, hates Jews, and why? Because Jews killed Jesus. That’s why. There will never be a Jewish Pope, but then again, the context is a temple in Jerusalem, not the Vatican in Rome, not the UN in New York, not a President of the USA, etc.

The destruciton of the temple in 70 AD is NOT, I repeat, NOT in relation to the end times prophesy. THAT generation did NOT SEE the rest of the things that Jesus indicated, regardless of the claims of those who think that they did.

 
A JEW must walk into that Temple proclaiming to be God, not a Gentile. That negates out ROME, or the European Union. It also negates out the 70 AD destruction of the Temple.

Therefore, the generation that sees the destruction of the 3rd Temple and sees the REST of what Jesus discusses is THAT generation. And no one has convinced me that the 6th seal has already taken place in 70 AD.

Let’s keep in mind, the Jews are looking for a Christ. All of Christendom already acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ, even the cults. Other “religions” has their beliefs in whatever, and they are not looking for a Christ, either. Just the Jews. There HAS TO BE a 3rd Temple built in Jerusalem for this JEWISH Anti-Christ to walk into, and let’s not forget, he must perform miracles. The Jews need to be convinced that this is the guy they’ve waited so long for. This is where God sends them strong delusion to believe the lie. Yes, Thessalonians 1 and 2 was Paul’s letters to the Jewish believers. This is why Paul never mentions any of this stuff to GENTILES letters. It’s for the Jews. Hence, when Jesus mentions “all the tribes”. HE was speaking to Jews, not Gentiles. Yes, the word ALL has a context.

Final note, If Acts 1 states that Jesus will come back in the same manner as he left, that tells me that the 1st and 2nd rapture, no rapture at all, is the 2nd coming.

Zecharia 14:1-5

 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Looks to me that WE COME BACK WITH HIM, and that, is his 2nd coming, just like Acts 1 states. Until then, I do not consider “in the clouds” as a 2nd coming.

How about you?

I challenge ANYONE to prove me wrong.

Both Catholics and Protestants have the COMMUNION wrong. Most protestants have no clue that the Catholics believe in Transub…, whatever that word is. But then again, Catholics is all about ritualism anyway. However, the protestants took that “ritual” and modified it to symbology.

My problem with it is no matter whether you are a Catholic, or a protestant, it’s a RITUAL, and people actually think that it is a “commandment” to participate in this ritual of eating bread and drinking wine, remembering the crucifixion of Jesus.

Has anyone actually read the section of the Bible pertaining to this at all?

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is the COMPLETE story. But it seems that people are isolating the story down to a couple of verses only, thereby CREATING a ritual called, Communion.

When you read the complete story, you will see that this is nothing more than a Chicken Dinner (with all the fixings), and with desert included (Apple Pie) CHURCH BANQUET with the teaching of ETHICS on how to conduct yourselves at the dinner table at this church banquet, and Paul uses the LAST SUPPER (Passover meal), as his example as how to be polite, and this church BANQUET is called The Lords Supper. It’s not about Bread or Wine. It’s about eating and drinking, tho.

Let’s review:

First, let’s see what Luke has to say regarding “do this is memory of me”:

Luke 22:19
Then Jesus took bread. He gave thanks and broke it. He handed it to them and said, “This is my body. It is given for you. Every time you eat it, do this in memory of me.”

NOTE: It is important to note that none of the gospels indicate anything about “EVERYTIME YOU DRINK OF THIS CUP, DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. But Paul mentions those exact words. Do you know what that tells me? That tells me that there is a MISSING testimony that never got put in the Canon of scripture of the GOSPELS. But that’s another topic.

Now, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (The COMPLETE story). Let’s do this in the NIV version, then you can go back to your favorite version of your preference.

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,

21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.

22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

NOTE: See Luke 22:19

25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

NOTE: DING DING. Verse 29 “body of Christ” is the “congregation”, not Jesus’ physical body. See Verse 31 below.

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.

32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.

34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

Conclusion:

You decide. Is this really about a ritual called communion, or is it about a church banquet? A Chicken Dinner at Church!

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

Daniel 9

A few things that I have discovered regarding eschatology:

 
Many are concentrating on the word “anti-“, as in Anti-Christ. Nothing wrong with that, except we need to bring the “UNBELIEVING” Jews in the picture, and way less focus on Christians. Maybe to the point of NO focus on Christians, really.

 
It is the Jews who are looking for a CHRIST, not an anti-Christ. So the Jews are the focus, not the Christians.

 
According to Galatians, Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, whereas Peter, James, and JOHN are apostles to the Jews. Now, SOMETIMES Paul writes epistles directly to the Jews. Both of Thessalonians being one huge example that not many people realize. Back in Acts, Paul is able to convert a number of Jews of Thessalonica, and the unbelieving Jews were giving the newly converted Jews a bad time, hence the UPLIFTING letters that Paul wrote to JEWISH BELIEVERS in both epistles of Thessalonians. We all know that Paul goes to the JEWS FIRST before going to any Gentiles. However, James, Peter, and JOHN’s responsibility is to the JEWS. Their focus is NOT the Gentiles. I say that for a reason. JOHN’s letter of Revelation is to JEWS, not the Gentiles. I could expound on this a much more, but I’ll leave it at that for a moment.

 
I could go thru all the proof texts as to WHY the Jews rejected Jesus, but that would take too much time.

 
The Jews must believe that their Christ had come, and therefore, THAT Christ is the anti-Christ. Nero would not be able to convince them, even if he had lived beyond his suicide. No one is going to be able to convince them, except:

 
Matthew 1:1 (Preface)
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David…

 
Matthew 22:42 (Proof Text)
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

 
Now, what nationality do you suppose the son of David is? Now, do a word search in the 4 gospels, “the son of David”, where people are crying out, “THOU SON OF DAVID”, etc. They know that their Christ is a Jew. Even the unbelieving Jews know that the Christ is a Jew. So any talk of Rome is outside the bounds, whether it be the 7th Day Adventists and others proclaiming that the anti-Christ is the Pope, or others claiming that it’s someone from the European Union, or the United Nations, et. al. The Anti-Christ must be Jewish, and circumcized, for the Jews to believe that their savior had come.

 
In addition, a timeline of events is extremely important, and a common theme, or denominator, that I have found is: THE SIXTH SEAL, which many mention.

 
Jesus mentions that sixth seal in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. The sixth seal is found in Revelation chapter 6. Peter mentions the sixth seal in Acts 2, and Joel mentions the sixth seal 3 times, not just once.

 
NOTE: Seal number 7 is the Great Tribulation, as found in Revelation chapter 8-16. Seals 1-6, as found in Revelation chapter 6 is not the Great Tribulation. And a final note, chapter 7 of revelation is a BREAK between seal number 6, and the opening of seal 7.

 
Peter mentions Seal Number 6, referencing Joel. This is due to the non-believing Jews mocking the believing Jews receiving the Holy Spirit.

 
NOTE: We are SEALED with the Holy Spirit. Sealed is an important word, because, the Sealing of 144000 unbelieving Jews in Revelation chapter 7 is right after the 6th Seal of Revelation chapter 6. So this is what Peter is talking about in Acts 2, regarding the end days.

 
Now it’s just a matter of connect the dots, from Jesus, and Peter, and Joel, and Revelation 6, and 7 *(sixth seal, sealing of 144000, and rapture, all events that are SIDE BY SIDE in the order of events).

 
Another NOTE: The latter part of Revelation 7, RIGHT AFTER the 144000 Jews are sealed. The People that John sees. They are located at the THRONE OF GOD. How many are there? They are the ones who CAME OUT OF…the NEXT CHAPTER, which the seal hasn’t even been opened yet. That is important, because this is the rapture, and Jesus mentions this also in Mark’s account of the end times.

 
******Notice, if you will, that Jesus doesn’t mention anything regarding the 7th Seal in regards to his end times prophesy. That is extremely important to see. Not one word.

 

 

So, we escape (in a “secret rapture”, or FLY AWAY (for those who make fun of the term)) the 7th seal. Seals 1-6 is not the Great Tribulation. Seals 1-6 is not the wrath of God. It’s just a prelude. They are just the OBVIOUS warnings that Jesus spoke of events PRIOR TO the rapture, and because Jesus never mentions anything of the 7th Seal, then the conclusion is…resurrection is NOT YET. So it can’t be rapture/resurrection. Look at the 5th Seal for example. It’s nothing more than a Q&A. Question: “HOW LONG”, answer, “NOT YET, WAIT”. Does that sound like the wrath of God to you? NOT YET! Besides, Seal number 5 is BEFORE Seal number 6 that Jesus definately mentions in the gospels.

 
The destruciton of the temple in 70 AD is NOT, I repeat, NOT in relation to the end times prophesy. THAT generation did NOT SEE the rest of the things that Jesus indicated, regardless of the claims of those who think that they did.

 
A JEW must walk into that Temple proclaiming to be God, not a Gentile. That negates out ROME, or the European Union. It also negates out the 70 AD destruction of the Temple.

 
So, the 6th seal is the focal point to set the written timeline in order, before, and after, with clues mentioned by Peter from Acts 2, Joel, Jesus from Matthew 24 AND Mark 13, AND Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6-7, and the realization that Jesus never mentions any event in seal number 7, and why? Because we are NOT APPOINTED unto the wrath of God.

 
Here is a side note:
Romans 4:15 (KJV)
Because the law worketh wrath:

 
It seems that MOST are dismissing the Jews in the story, when it’s all about the Jews, NOT THE GENTILES. Gentiles are involved, but are NOT the focus. Let’s also keep in mind that Jesus came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel (those under the law of Moses). His conversations in end times is directed at the Jews, believing Jews at that, hence FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS (not the Rocky Mountains). Those in 70 AD, they fled the country, not to the mountains.

 
Finally, the word CHURCH in Revelation 1-3 is JEWISH ASSEMBLIES, not believers of BOTH JEWS and GENTILES. Jewish believers (assemblies). The definition of the English word CHURCH, of the Greek Ecclesia, is…assembly. When I was a child, we had church is school all the time in the gymnasium. ASSEMBLIES.

 
In regards to Post Trib, in my view, that is LIKENED, if you will, to the Catholics purgatory on a different scale. WHO, other than the Catholics, believe in purgatory? So are we really to trust CHURCH FATHERS on eschatology matters who believe in a purgatory? No wonder some make fun of Darby, because they still trust Church Fathers.

 

 

Now, for those who believe in MULTIPLE resurrections, just because of the words FIRST resurrection, here is a simple response to those people:

 

 

The FIRST resurrection is for those who DIED, “in Christ (Christian)”, meaning DEAD believers. The Righteous. There is NO OTHER RESURRECTION for the righteous. But there is also a resurrection of the UNRIGHTEOUS, and that is the 2nd resurrection. Those unrighteous will DIE AGAIN, hence, the 2nd Death. So there is ONLY one resurrection for the righteous, and one resurrection for the unrighteous. Now, regarding the righteous who DIDN’T DIE to begin with, they are CHANGED to a resurrected body, just not resurrected, because they never died to begin with. Resurrection is only for those who DIED, not for the ones who are “ALIVE AND REMAIN”. They are CHANGED, hence, “WE SHALL NOT ALL DIE”. Why is this so hard to understand? It’s so simple.

 

 

So, this should also put to bed that Revelation chapter 4, “COME UP HITHER” is not the rapture.  It’s not pre-trib, it’s pre-GREAT trib.  It’s also not post trib or preterist, either.

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 call themselves, “SERVANT LEADER”. The rest of us are just servants, to serve him.   How do we serve?  Paying him ten percent to beat us down.

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.

Before I begin, I just want to start off by saying that when I read Matthew 18, I see a HABITUAL sinner, in which, when confronted, all he has to say is “My Bad!”, and he’s forgiven.  WHERE IS THE DISCIPLINE?

Oh…I see…3 verses, Matthew 18:15-17 means that the whole chapter is about Church Discipline?

I was in the US Navy.  I know all about the word DISCIPLINE.  A person that is kicked out is NOT disciplined.  The military person that is KEPT is disciplined.  In other words, PUNISHED TO CORRECT A DEFICIENCY.

But where in Matthew 18 is anyone punished to correct a deficiency?  It’s not there.  So why do reformers put it there?

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.  Who are those two people?

Person number 1:  The VICTIM ONLY

Person number 2:  The ACCUSED ONLY

Note:  I’ve heard some preachers say that if you see someone in a sin, then this applies.  How?  The person who saw is a witness, not a victim.  Therefore, if you have seen someone in a sin, this STEP does not apply at all, because you are not a victim.  There is a different book, chapter and verse that covers this one.

Matthew 18:15 KJV

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass AGAINST THEE, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

In the KJV, if words are added for emphasis, or for the purpose of better understanding, then those words would be italicized.  The words, “against thee” is NOT italicized.  Modern English translations have OMITTED “against thee” from the passage.


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”.

PLEASE NOTE:  Pastors/Elders LOVE to reference the following:

1 Timothy 5:19
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

They seem to think that this is UNIQUE only to them, that they are in an exclusive club, that they can make an accusation against someone without 2 witnesses, but that it takes 2 for them.  This shows just how much that they are abusing the congregation.  It shows their ignorance of scripture which shows that 1 Timothy 5:19 is stating that elders are treated NO DIFFERENTLY than anyone else gets treated.  Again,  references are Deu 19:15 and Matthew 18:16, as well as:

Deuteronomy 17:6
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

2 Corinthians 13:1
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

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

 


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:  In 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.  Can you believe that pastors actually advise not calling the law?  Hush hush in the church?  Pastors demand that the victim swiftly forgives their tormentor, so that everything is hunky dory?  The tormentor gets to stay, to intimidate the victim?

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.  But they sure love preaching it.

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 STRUGGLES with sin.  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.

NOTE:   I have one very important thing to say regarding Abraham in Genesis 26:5, for those who think that Abraham had the law, but that it just wasn’t codified yet.  I make reference of Genesis 26:5 later, in which I will make mention of it then…just to keep you interested to read on.

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).

So let’s test to see if Abraham had the law…it’s an easy test.  We will take a good look at the “codified” law, and see if Abraham really did OBEY the Law of Moses, before it was codified.

Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, and “TORAH”?

Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son.  According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED.  God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.

And somehow we are to equate this with Genesis 26:5?

Genesis 26:5 (again, for those who missed it)
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

When was Abraham judged accordingly regarding Sister Sarah? There was no judgment, and why? Romans 5:13, and 4:15, and many others.

Can we finally conclude that Abraham did NOT have the Law, and the law is NOT equated to Genesis 26:5?  Can we also conclude that God never told Abraham anything about forbidding sexual concorse with sisters?  Can we also conclude, based on the two previous, that there was no forgiveness or mercy NECESSARY in this case?  Why or why not?  Hint…keep reading.

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