Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred?

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred When We are Not Righteous?

Hopefully you read our first article on atonement. We put forth the idea that the Classic view, by the earliest church fathers (who had more direct access to the apostles), was superior than the currently popular “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm. Reasons were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God.

Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” let's have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what went on with the word “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first article, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.

First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty before we have done anything; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of "impute" to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).

Let’s look at their idea of imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that God has attached to man that the Satisfaction theory is charging Him with. By each generation receiving his guilt, we're all hell-bound from the day we become accountable.  However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that other verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:

…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…

This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this idea seems to say the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is one of two:  (1) "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" does not have to mean passing guilt, or make someone hell-bound. Or the verse could also mean that (2) the sin is hating God, not simply being born.  I'm suggesting that the children of God-haters usually hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God might have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can possibly philosophize that life isn’t fair; just being born into a bad family stacks the cards against you. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.

So we still conclude that the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture from Ezekiel above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first Atonement article. Namely the Classic theory.  According to the Classic theory, what was transferred was (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption--he leaned toward sin; these were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) was necessary for God to allow because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves and others will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to rebel before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access than He was with Adam (but He is still not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins.  From all that wonderful love and mercy: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved.

But there are other favorite verses presumably backing the Satisfaction theorists that we need to deal with. Such as Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” Thus we are only responsible for our own sin.  We can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin--if we can blame him for that. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

But there can still be an evangelism problem with the Satisfaction theory too. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin,” it's tougher to reach them with the Gospel.  But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement and God's forgiveness in that theory, the easy tendency to blame God for unfairness is dispelled.

The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

In the phrase “as in Adam all die:” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on.

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement article; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher.) But it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good--because thereby we are saved.  Why God allowed sin and suffering is beyond the scope of this little paper.

On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a classic conservative evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other articles know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. The Satisfaction theorists sometimes also say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments. Just like that one. Then google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include twisting the word "righteous." God's demand for righteousness after we accept what Jesus did does not mean perfection, praise Him.  And He does commend people who strive to make their lives a righteous living for Him.

To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This contempt for righteousness seems to try to contradict over a hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here?  In context, it is a prayer of penitence and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times?  Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

I commented above on the last 26 words ("visiting the iniquity of the fathers," etc.), but you see the two sides of God. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.

Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

Through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” seemingly says works are not a part of ultimate salvation, so you can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works as a part of salvation. But I have many blogs on this apparent contradiction about works and faith, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this idea over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.

Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section of verses is an argument against the need to circumcise the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” that he hates are Mosaic law, or Jewish works--such as circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or his initial salvation. So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles,or forcing them to do Jewish works? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.”

Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—their behaviors became more righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—keeping their bodies clean (of sin)--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. Believers in Martin Luther can “call” someone washed when they aren’t behaving clean at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says?There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian strives to be holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for ultimately going to heaven. Read other blogs to get a clearer picture.

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.

Two Atonement Theories

A word of prelude: This paper is designed for the average reader, not for seminarians. Atonement is an important subject—for everybody. There are some important controversies on that subject that everyone needs to hear. It affects our view of God, among other things.

So let’s start with a definition: Atonement is defined by Unger’s Bible Dictionary as “the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins.”

Nothing could be more important, right? Now, I’m not here to challenge the definition—the problem is in the details. First, a word of background assumption: If there are two different theories on the same subject, I believe the correct one would more likely be the one that was believed by the earliest church fathers (we’re talking about the disciples of the apostles, and the next generation to, say, 250 AD—all before the church got corrupted by marriage to the State). That is based on two things: (1) Their literature is breathtaking in its knowledge of the context of Scripture; and they developed an ability to effectively prove doctrinal theories with Scripture; and (2) If they had doctrinal questions, there was a disciple of Paul or Peter nearby (or only a generation or two removed) who could talk on the subject ad infinitum.

Well, there are indeed two different theories on Atonement. The theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (called the “Classic” theory) was good enough that it endured from the church’s apostolic beginning for 1000 more years, but it was overtaken by the “Satisfaction” theory of Anselm, a Roman Catholic church philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury around 1080. His theory was accepted by Catholics, and later, believe it or not, by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin). Thus, most “main line” denominations believe this way as well. (I have three proofs of that statement; the first two are quotes from usually reliable Wikipedia: (1) "Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred."  (2) "The satisfaction view of the atonement is a theory in Christian theology about the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Western Christianity, specifically in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles."  The third proof is from the Baptist Confession of Faith: "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God."

So what are my problems with Anselm's theory, the one that is now acceptable by most—how could I challenge something that has been around almost a thousand years (1080-today)? Let’s take a closer look at Anselm’s “Satisfaction” theory. Firstly, what about his insistence that sin is, quoting him, “a debt to divine justice that must be paid,” that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He is also saying that a sin against a sovereign—such as what God is—is too great to be forgiven, because it insults His majesty. So, says the theory, God could not forgive it. But where is there room for God's forgiveness?  "No sin can be forgiven without satisfaction?"  Is this idea Scriptural? Or, maybe it is based on Medieval chivalry, perhaps.  I suggest Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and you had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run your land effectively. This theory poses that God is a God of justice, not mercy, since He could not simply forgive.  But again...is this idea based on Scripture?

The theory further says that God loved us enough to allow His Son to suffer and die on the Cross. That's fine, but it further states that His suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—they “appeased” His need for justice.  By Jesus enduring God’s wrath and paying for our sin, He took our place—our ransom has been paid to the Father, so we are now potentially acceptable by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since His wrath as payment for our sin was poured out upon His Son instead of us.

Now, for comparison: Here is the “classic” theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (from 50 AD to 250 they developed this; their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). The theory states that our sin put us in rebellion to God and under the control of Satan. Satan demanded a ransom, a price for our lives, as he had a right to do, because our sin placed us under bondage to him. Jesus’ suffering and death on the Cross was to pay Satan—not God. Jesus gave Satan His life for our lives. So the “substitutionary” aspect of Jesus’ incarnation still remains, but different, as you can see.

Now I realize that this presentation is oversimplication to the highest degree—but as I said, this is written for everybody, and it has the main germ of the theories. It’s an easy base by which we can now discuss the issues. So here are my main problems with Anselm's theory:

1. Because God is a divine sovereign, does that mean He cannot simply forgive our sins? Did He send His Son to the cross based on an insatiable quest for justice, without mercy? Did He really “demand” payment for our sin, either from us or from His Son? Did He really have to pour out wrath because of our sin? This is what Anselm was saying. For one possible response, let’s look at Matthew 18:21-27:

Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

Consider also James 2:13: Mercy triumphs over judgment.

These verses clearly show that God, despite being a divine sovereign, wants to forgive and have mercy on us.

Consider this too, though: The Matthew parable above says He requires us to forgive each other. Matthew 6:12, part of the Lord’s prayer also says:

And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors

So, we ask Anselm, would God assert justice without forgiveness and then turn around and tell us that we need to be forgiving? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. By reading the "Satisfaction" idea so followed today, you get the idea that God was inflexible, and wanted all justice and no mercy; that He wanted to pour wrath on His Son, that all this suffering by Jesus was His Father’s quest for blood appeasement. Now, I don’t want to take away from how we should have a righteous fear of God; He is not a “grandpa that overlooks my faults.” But I have a serious problem with the rigidity of God as One who is totally unforgiving—as Anselm suggests. Scriptures above say otherwise (read also the prodigal son, Luke 15).

2. The second problem I have is the issue of “who was Jesus paying” with His suffering and death—was He paying His Father, suggested by Anselm, or was He paying Satan, suggested by the church fathers’ classic theory? The key to that is the word “ransom” in Scripture. As Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say:

...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many

And as repeated in I Timothy 2:6:

who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time

So, given that Jesus was ransomed, here’s my question: To whom is a ransom supposed to be paid? Well, how much sense is it that a ransom be paid to the father of the one being held for ransom? Huh? You don’t need to watch many criminal shows on TV to see how senseless that sounds. Yet that’s what Anselm is suggesting. The classic theory, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was held as ransom by Satan—and any payment would be made to Satan. That makes more sense right away, since ransoms are paid to the bad guy who is holding the person you want released.  Satan had a bondage claim on us because of our sin.

The question you might have now is: What right did Satan have for holding Jesus instead of us, the sinners? Well, here’s where the substitutionary aspect comes in.  The problem was us. We, starting with Adam, have all sinned and have therefore put ourselves under Satan’s control. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know how much God hates sin. Jesus has said we all have a master; it is either God or Satan. Look at Matthew 6:24.

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Note: “mammon” means wealth-driven—that’s serving Satan.

We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and thus start our accountable life, having sinned, under Satan’s mastery. He was our “father” if we’re unsaved. Further proof of that is how Jesus called those who don’t love Him children of the devil. Look at John 8:42-44a:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. .. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…

This is echoed in I John 3:10: In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

But God, thank Him, still loved us sinners, and wanted to free us from Satan’s control. Satan demanded ransom to release us. God’s Son was willing to pay that ransom, to be our substitute, placing Himself (temporarily, as it turned out) under Satan’s control in exchange for us. Satan was willing to accept this as ransom payment. His thinking was, by tormenting and killing Jesus, he would forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. By virtue of that ransom, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for by Jesus’ suffering and death, paid to Satan, and we were set free.

Scripture is also clear on who is satisfied by the ransom of Jesus. Is it God or Satan? As Galatians 1:3-4 says, Jesus delivers (redeems) us—not from His Father (so says Anselm), but from this “present evil age”—that means Jesus bought us from Satan’s realm:

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age

Finally, Acts 20:28 says: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock…to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Now think with me: Did Jesus purchase the church from His Father—so Anselm would say? Well, does that mean God had ownership of the church, so He had Jesus suffer so He could “sell” it to His Son who purchased it from Him? Huh? That makes no sense. No, the church was purchased for a ransom price from an enemy holding it up for ransom—Satan. That’s what a ransom is all about.

3. My third problem with Anselm is of an underlying, hidden fact of his theory. If we accept Anselm’s view that Jesus paid our debt to God, then God cannot burden us with our debt again. That means He cannot unsave us. As any good lawyer will tell you, reinstating a debt is impossible once it has been paid. Once your debt is paid, you’re done. No retraction possible. This leans, as you can probably tell, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have a huge blog disputing that view, elsewhere on this site. That view is attractive, but Scripturally wrong.)

The classic theory of atonement, written by early church fathers, follows their expressed view against the theory of eternal security, the exact opposite. They’re saying, remember, that God was not “paid” for our sins; Satan was. God simply forgave our sins when we trust the work of Christ. God received no consideration (payment) for our sins. Christ's death paid Satan, remember.  This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15, Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a debt-forgiveness is possible. Scripturally, this is also clearly taught in “the rest of the story” of the servant of Matthew 18 above. We left off with the Master forgiving his debt, verse 27. Let’s bring up Matthew 18:28-34:

“But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[a] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[b] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.”

After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we adopt “the ways of the world,” such as greed and unforgiveness as exampled here, we could lose our salvation (the debt is reimposed and you could be “delivered to the torturers.”) These verses clearly teach how we can lose salvation. (I’ve covered losing salvation in other blogs too).

I trust you agree that the Scriptural evidence backs the early church fathers. They have a better view of God from Scripture: God is forgiving, but if we deny Him in word or behavior, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let us know Him and love Him.

Acknowledgement to Dave Bercot’s CD, “Atonement #1.”

The Incarnation

Christmas is about the incarnation of Jesus. From God to man. Strip away the season’s hustle and bustle, the trees, the cookies, the extra pounds, and what remains is a humble birth story and a simultaneously stunning reality — the incarnation of the eternal Son of God.

This incarnation, God himself becoming human, is a glorious fact that is too often neglected, or forgotten, amidst all the gifts, get-togethers, pageants, and presents. Therefore, we would do well to think deeply about the incarnation, especially on this day.

Here are five biblical truths of the incarnation.

1. The Incarnation Was Not the Divine Son’s Beginning

The virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem does not mark the beginning of the Son of God. Rather, it marks the eternal Son entering physically into our world and becoming one of us. John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated (ed., ruined) if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).

2. The Incarnation Shows Jesus’s Humility

Jesus is no typical king. Jesus didn’t come to be served. Instead, Jesus came to serve (Mark 10:45). His humility was on full display from the beginning to the end, from Bethlehem to Golgotha. Paul glories in the humility of Christ when he writes that, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).

3. The Incarnation Fulfills Prophecy

The incarnation wasn’t random or accidental. It was predicted in the Old Testament and in accordance with God’s eternal plan. Perhaps the clearest text predicting the Messiah would be both human and God is Isaiah 9:6: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

In this verse, Isaiah sees a son that is to be born, and yet he is no ordinary son. His extraordinary names — Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — point to his deity. And taken together — the son being born and his names — point to him being the God-man, Jesus Christ.

4. The Incarnation Is Mysterious

The Scriptures do not give us answers to all of our questions. Some things remain mysterious. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God,” Moses wrote, “but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Answering how it could be that one person could be both fully God and fully man is not a question that the Scriptures focus on. The early church fathers preserved this mystery at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) when they wrote that Jesus is “recognized in two natures [God and man], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. The Incarnation Is Necessary for Salvation

The incarnation of Jesus does not save by itself, but it is an essential link in God’s plan of redemption. John Murray explains: “[T]he blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 14).
And the author to the Hebrews likewise writes that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).

The incarnation displays the greatness of God. Our God is the eternal God who was born in a stable, not a distant, withdrawn God; our God is a humble, giving God, not a selfish, grabbing God; our God is a purposeful, planning God, not a random, reactionary God; our God is a God who is far above us and whose ways are not our ways, not a God we can put in a box and control; and our God is a God who redeems us by his blood, not a God who leaves us in our sin. Our God is great indeed!

Written by Joseph Scheumann, December 25, 2013

Exact Month of Jesus' Birth Predicted by the Stars and Scripture--And What Happened on December 25?

People tend to scoff at this Biblical record of the star of Bethlehem, saying

“this star is doing things a star cannot do.” They’re likely referring to Matthew 2:9:

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

“How does a star “stand over,”or stop, people say. So they assume this story is a fable. Well, science has a surprising answer to that question. Of course,if we can "prove" it, they would ask “Why do you think you can introduce some new facts now, when we haven’t heard anything convincing in all of history?” Science has a reason for that too.

A little background: The author of the CD I'm summarizing is Professor Larson--a lawyer, not a reputed scientist. But he has been a lifelong fan of astronomy—movements of stars and planets and constellations. (Not the same as astrology, which is often abused as predictive, often telling you how to run your life). Scripture praises astronomy: it insists the stars tell us things from God. But Scripture condemns astrology. Note Job 9:9:

He (God) made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south.

And note Psalm 19:1-2:

The heavens declare the glory of God…2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.

Thus, the stars communicate. God wants us to study the heavens to see what He might announce or tell us. Prof. Larson found Biblical proof that will surprise you (see also his website, bethlehemstar.net)  Now you’ll surely ask, “Why isn’t he supported by reputable scientists?” Well, why do most of our scientific minds believe in evolution instead of creationism? And what happens to scientists who believe in creationism?  The fact is: To the world, their basic “truths” are anti-God. Hey, If those who have the media, those in power, are rational, why did they kill Jesus?

Final background: Johannes Kepler in 1619 discovered the math behind the movements of the solar system. With hundreds of hours of effort, he could map how the sky appeared on any date, past or future, since all movements of everything in the sky are predictable. But the effort required was ponderous for math and science geniuses of his generation. Now we have the advent of computers; so these movements have been incorporated into software programs. How the sky will appear from any location on the planet for any given date can now be found in seconds—in fact, the computer can even animate their movements through a period of time. So we are only now able to answer the big question: “Which of them is the star of Bethlehem—if any?” There are, it is estimated, 100 billion galaxies, and 100 billion stars in each—how can you find the Bethlehem star in such a crowd?

Here is the relevant Bible passage, Matthew 2:1-9, from which we will draw necessary characteristics for the Bethlehem star:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.” 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

From these verses, the Star of Bethlehem has to fulfill 9 qualifications:
a. The star has to indicate birth (2:2)
b. It has to indicate Kingship ( 2:2)
c. Has to point to Jewish Scripture (2:1)
d. Rising in east (2:2)
e. Appears at an exact time
f. Herod didn’t know when it appeared ( 2:3)
g. Endured over a considerable period of time (2:2, 9)
h. Went ahead of magi as they traveled south to Bethlehem ( 2:9)
i. The star has to Stop! Over Bethlehem ( 2:9).  This is the strange one.

So here is what he concluded:  It couldn’t be a meteor, which doesn’t rise in the east, and it isn’t long-lasting. It couldn’t be a comet because omens are perceived as foretelling doom. But Jesus’ birth is good news. Also, there were no comets in 3-2 BC (those were the conception/birthdate, see below). It couldn’t be a nova—a spectacular exploding star--Herod wouldn’t ask “when,” because his scientific advisors (also astronomers, though I suspect not as smart as the magi) would’ve told him—along with their “interpretation.” Also, there were no novas for 3-2BC.

Based on what we just excluded, and from (f) above, the “right star” wasn’t spectacular—but it must have been moderately bright. It so happens, a conjunction of planets, or planet/star, would fulfill that. Larson decided, why not look at Jupiter, the King Planet (as it is so-called—and, it is the largest in the planet system). If Jupiter is involved, it would help us meet requirement (b) above as well. As it so happens, Jupiter, the King planet, was conjoined to Regulus (the King Star, how “coincidental”) in September of 3 BC. Since a magus had likely seen this 2-3 times before (this conjunction happens every 12 years), that by itself is not a big enough deal to get the Magi excited enough to pack up their camels and travel to see what's happening. Nor is it a big enough deal for Herod to hear from his scientific advisors.  But later, as we shall see, that is the date of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit into Mary.

A scientific note here: planets sometimes reverse (“retrograde”) motion (like passing a car slowly on the freeway, it seems to move backward, so when earth swings past a planet, that planet seems to move backward). It so happens, Jupiter is in retrograde in 3-2BC in a very peculiar path—it passes Regulus, then reverses course, passes again, then reverses course, passes a 3rd time! This would have been exciting by itself, but additionally, if you draw this movement, it forms a halo above Regulus. Thus we have a triple-proof coronation of a king! (King planet, king star, and halo). Item “b” above is definitely solved, and we have a base "star" for further study.

Now, what about Jewishness--(c) above? A little Scriptural background will get us toward the answer: Gen 49:9 says, in summary, (1) out of tribe of Judah would come a King of all kings. (2) Judah is compared to a lion. Well, why not look and see if anything is happening in the constellation Leo the Lion? (By the way, good astronomers in those days knew many faiths' Scriptures.)  

Now let's talk about Jesus' birth.  Is it also confirmed by the stars?  Begin with Revelation 12:1-5, a prophecy of Jesus' birth.  A “great sign appeared in heaven;” a woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet,” who was pregnant and due to bear a child “to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” She is threatened by a dragon wanting to kill her child. This has long been interpreted to be about Jesus and the Virgin Mary—and opposed by a dragon--Satan working through Herod. Compare these verses with how the stars told us all about it:  It So Happens that as Jupiter begins to crown Regulus, an interesting event happens in the constellation Leo—and behind Leo is—guess what—the constellation Virgo (Virgin). Virgo is rising, clothed in the sun. The moon at the time (within September, 3 BC, see below) is new, so it was under her (Virgo’s) feet! Note the Scriptures above.  An amazing prophecy come true in many "coincidental" points! You must see the DVD to appreciate this amazing point!

As it turns out, the stars tie together the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and the Birth. How do we know? Because 9 months after the event in the last paragraph, Jupiter is finished crowning Regulus; and has moved to conjoin with Venus, making the brightest conjunction in the world (planetariums love to show this conjunction). This was the only time in those magi’s lifetime for this conjunction. If the magi were thinking about all the activity just noted from September, this bright combo practically screamed out, “Mount Up!”

The bright planet conjunction happened in June, 2 BC.  Thus, Jesus was born in June, 2 BC.Yes, it "should" have been 0 BC/AD. Medieval dating experts were good, but not that good.

And the magi began planning a trip.

The next several months after June 2 BC are speculative, as opposed to the Keplerian rock-hard scientific facts above. Let’s assume the magi were, within a few months, starting their trip. We’re assuming the magi, from the East, were located at Babylon, a home base for the best astronomers of those days. After a couple more months, they would arrive at Jerusalem asking “where?” They tell Herod the details about September, 3 BC and June, 2 BC, then get sent south to Bethlehem—only 5 miles away, please note that.

It So Happens that in December of 2 BC (thus allowing 6 months from Christ’s birth to their arrival at Jerusalem), Jupiter is in the sky south of them from Jerusalem-- thus it continues leading them toward Bethlehem.

This means 8 of 9 requirements above are fulfilled:
a.The first conjunction signified birth by its association with Virgo “birthing” the new moon at her feet (in the tradition of the day, a woman typically gave birth downward).
b.The Planet of King’s halo-coronation of the Star of Kings signified kingship.
c.The triple conjunction began with the Jewish New Year and took place within Leo the Lion, showing a connection with the Jewish tribe of Judah (and prophecies of the Jewish Messiah).
d.Jupiter rises in the east.
e.The conjunctions appeared at precise, identifiable times.
f.Herod was unaware of these things; they were astronomical events which had significance only when explained by experts.
g.The planet/star events took place over a span of time sufficient for the Magi to see them both from the East and upon their arrival in Jerusalem.
h.Jupiter was ahead of the Magi as they traveled south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem

But Jupiter somehow stopped, since it stayed over Bethlehem for the time they traveled there. (This is what brings the scoffers out). There is a simple explanation for the scoffers.  As it so happens, when a planet (or star) goes to the end of an arc and begins to retrograde, it has to “stop” briefly. (Picture an elliptical arc, say the outline of the end of an egg, say the egg is standing up—as you draw the edge of the egg in your mind, from the left, the arc, or egg outline, is moving down. At the right, it moves upward. But for a brief period, at the bottom, it isn’t moving up or moving down—so it seems to stop). It So Happens that Jupiter was “at the bottom”—just before retrograde, it “stopped”—and that day was December 25, BC 2! That must’ve been the date of their arrival to the toddler Jesus, in the house. That’s a Significant date—not for the birth (by which we mistakenly celebrate it), but for the celebration of worship and presenting gifts to Our Lord.

Thank You, God, that your planets, stars, and constellations speak of Your great Immanuel! With perfect prediction. Jews knew the night sky well (they had no light pollution, no real air pollution, they slept on their roofs a lot—knew the constellations).
FOLLOW MY BLOG AT EASTER: THE EXACT DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST—FROM THE STARS.

Messing Up the DNA Happened in Noah's Time, Will Happen Again. An End-Times Sign.

Let’s start with Genesis 6:1-4:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, ² that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”  ⁴ There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown

It says the “sons of God” and daughters of men bore giants, mighty men of renown.  Who are the “sons of God?”  Modern commentators say they were the descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, the ascendant of Jesus.  The “daughters of men,” they say, refers to the descendants of Cain, the wicked son of Adam who killed Abel.  But there is not one scrap of Scripture backing this up—no Scripture anywhere refers to the descendants of Seth as “sons of God.”  And why would their sexual union produce giants?  You can’t always follow the commentators.  As it turns out, the phrase “sons of God” does appear elsewhere in Scripture.  In Job 38:4-7, God is chastising Job for not seeing the big picture of His sovereignty.  He is speaking here of the creation of the earth:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. ⁵ Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? ⁶ To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, ⁷ When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The sons of God couldn’t be humans, who were not around at the creation of the earth (see Genesis 1 for the order of events).  They have to be angels, who were there for that great spectacle.  In Job 1:6 and 2:1, when Satan appears in heaven to accuse Job, angels are in attendance and are called by that name, “sons of God.”  So, based on these Scriptures, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are clearly angels.

What happened in Genesis 6 is this: angels lusted after earth women. (Heavenly angels in Matthew 22:30 are unmarried, but these in Genesis are rule-breakers; also, angels are always referred to as male).  They took human form (as happens many times in Scripture, such as Genesis 18).  They entered earth to marry and have babies.  But this broke one of God’s rules.  What rule? In Jude, they are accused of the sin of “not keeping their proper domain.”  Their proper domain was heaven.  So they were severely punished by being placed in “chains under darkness.”  Jude 1:6-7 says:

 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; ⁷ as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Note the telltale comparison tying these angels to Sodom, having "given themselves over to sexual immorality."  Particularly note the reference to their going after "strange flesh." Angelic "flesh" is not human flesh.

This is confirmed by II Peter 2: 4-5.  Note the “chains of darkness” again tying Jude and II Peter together.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; ⁵ and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 

I would note that the “hell” in the verse was a mistranslation.  The Greek word was “tartarus,” a word never used elsewhere in Scripture, a dark place just for them. 

God gave angels a free will.  Please keep in mind that the angels that stayed in heaven were NOT disobedient; these are the ones that protect us now.  Their job in protecting us includes fighting with the demons, making warnings and happy announcements, and worshiping God in heaven. Some angels, however, left their “proper domain,” and went to earth and committed sexual immorality by going after “strange flesh”—for them, strange flesh means earth women.   So clearly Jude and II Peter are thinking of the same event as Genesis 6.  Since they chose evil, they had an evil result:  babies that turned out to be giants. Why giants?   I’m thinking, angelic DNA is not human; but it mixed with human DNA and produced aberrant children who grew to be giants—whose appearance, it so happens, coincided with a vast increase in violence and evil.  Was this just a coincidence?  Read on in Genesis 6, starting with v.4b-7a, 12:

Those (the giants) were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. ⁵ Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…¹¹ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹² So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

My speculation is, the giants were loved for their sinful ability to conquer and kill the enemy.  I think they were the initial cause of much of this severe and sudden decline in man’s morals.  First of all, you can see the fast connection in the verses between the rise of the giants and the rapid downward spiral of men’s morals.    Could it be that the giants were often worshiped as demigods—they had one parent mortal, the other parent immortal—there would have been a fascination with them just because of that. They were called “men of renown”—the public knew them.  Plus, they were obviously strong.  They had superior intellect and could make superior weapons of war (I’ll prove that later).  So, men falling into idolatry, worshiping these creatures, could have been the thing of the day.  And idolatry will ruin your morals faster than anything.  The giants could have been like rock stars.  These qualities make them leaders in any society of “plain” men that they cared to reside in.  I’m sure they were happy for the attention, and it boosted their ego—egged them on to perform outrageous feats for entertainment.  But men are always looking for a way to dominate, to destroy other men, to loot and take their land. These demigods were ideal to lead armies, to gain an edge, in killing.  The attention, the ego, might also mean that they led the whole land into idolatry and violence.  One tribe tries to make war and oppress another tribe.  How many men could a giant kill?  Can we capture more men, make them slaves, take advantage of their wives, loot their houses, with this giant as our leader? Let’s find out! 

To further prove my case, there is the definition of “corrupt” in Hebrew (Gen. 6:11-12 above).  The word means “marred, spoiled, perverted,” and “injured.” It’s not just a moral problem that the word usually conveys.  I think the mixed DNA perverted, or corrupted, the DNA genes.  If so, the giants were not the only ones with perverted genes.  We can assume they, with their giant egos, had casual sex. Their partners had sex with others.  Their babies’ DNA would be corrupted, and on down it would go until it perverts a great number of people (see studies on the rapid spread of syphilis, for example).  If you pervert the gene pool, who knows what immoral results you get—and you can’t go back and make it right again. I also believe (and this is speculation) that a person who is not really human, with aberrant DNA, cannot be saved, since God's plan of salvation was strictly for humans. Look how Noah was considered a great preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5 above)--yet, in 120 years (see Genesis 6:3 above) he couldn't save one person outside his immediate family!  That's extraordinary. Maybe they simply couldn't be turned to righteousness. So if we ever wonder about why God killed everyone except 8 people, He has a legitimate reason; maybe they were tainted and unsavable, and God would righteously want to start over, at least with humans whose DNA had not been corrupted.  This word “corrupted” is the strongest hint in the Bible at the possibility that messing with DNA was the real problem behind all this.  But I have more on this later. 

Lest you think this story is just too strange to be true, I have several more Bible quotes to consider.  Besides, supernatural events are what God is all about.  Think about Mary.  If I had a daughter who got pregnant, what would people say when I told them, “she is a virgin—has never known a man.  The child’s father is God.”  Would I be believed?  No.  But was it true?  Yes. The Resurrection seems hard to believe, but it happened--nothing is impossible with God.  And also consider the anthropologist argument that, when many societies have a legend that speak of basically the same thing, it must have really happened.  So, since every society in the world has a legend about a gigantic flood, even though their stories differ, there must have really been one.  Every society, too, has a legend of demigod men, of “gods” coming down and being intimate with earth women.  They may have been called Hercules, Atlas, or Cu Chulainn, but the point is, this worldwide legend also strongly suggests they truly existed.  

So, God wanted to start over with Noah’s immediate family, the only ones left who had pure DNA.   But evil angels were not done with corrupting men, because later Scripture stories show some of these creatures, on a lesser scale, were still being born, after the Flood.  (Trace the word “Nephilim” in Scripture, using the NIV, and don’t forget Goliath.) 

I’d like to take a little sidelight below. I realize I am dipping into speculation now for awhile, but it’s interesting stuff. 

Jesus said the end times would be like the days of Noah, in Matthew 24:36-38:

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. ³⁷ But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ³⁸ For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Everybody focuses on the drinking and multiple marriages, and the lesson they teach us is that people are not thinking of God, and no one is aware that judgment is coming.  But there’s likely another story here—why did God pick Noah’s day as judgment day back then?  What was unusual?  I’m talking, of course, about messing with the DNA. Then, it led to extreme violence and evil.  Well, what’s happening today?  Have you ever heard the term “editing DNA,” or “recombinant DNA?” Or, have you ever heard the word "transhumanism?"  Interesting article in Wired magazine’s August 2015, issue, gives the good side of it. To quote: “Using the three-year-old technique, researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Agronomists have rendered wheat invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew, hinting at engineered staple crops that can feed a population of 9 billion on an ever-warmer planet. Bioengineers have used Crispr (ed: the name of the technique) to alter the DNA of yeast so that it consumes plant matter and excretes ethanol, promising an end to reliance on petrochemicals.”

All good, right?  But the article shows a little of the questionable side of it:  “designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them.”

Bioweapons.  Invasive mutants.  You know the military would love to develop these.  They could breed super-soldiers, the kind that could kill more people, more efficiently.  Those who have this technology would use it to oppress other nations who don’t have the money or the scientific capability to develop it.  This would kick off a scramble of many wars of oppression again, on a scale like it hasn’t been for centuries.  That’s the military’s dream scenario--assuming, they figure, we could win.  As for the other purposes of editing DNA--most everybody would like perfect babies, so natural birth and natural genes, with their flaws, fade away.  So here we are again, messing with DNA again, looking at the possibility of horribly sinful results again.  There are no rules, so I guarantee some scientists are going down the wrong road.  The Wired article’s headline says, “Easy DNA editing will remake the world.”  What’s really spooky is the subheading:  “The Genesis Engine.”  Are the end-times near, I’m wondering.

We have further good proof of this DNA claim --not from Scripture, but a source close to Scripture.  It’s from the book of Enoch. Enoch was a man, from the 7^th generation from Adam, a prophet, and was so godly that he was one of only two people in history who did not die (the other was Elijah, who went out on a flaming chariot).  Genesis 5:24 says: 

And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him

This means he didn’t die; God raptured him.  Jude, writing a book of the Bible, was directed by God to write one of Enoch’s prophecies.  That prophecy was recorded in the book of Enoch first, then in the Bible.  So God approved Enoch's book.  The prophecy is In Jude 1:14-15:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men (false teachers) also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, ¹⁵ to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

The point is, Enoch is a good source for godly and truthful writing.  And he does have many things to say in his book about those sinning angels. Enoch agrees with Scripture and, interestingly, agrees with our deductions from Scripture, only he expressed them more plainly.  Here is a quote from Enoch

…bore beautiful and comely daughters.  The angels, children of the heavens, saw and lusted after them and said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives from among the children of men, and beget children for ourselves.  And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and began to go in unto them, and began to defile themselves with them…and they became pregnant, and they bore great giants.  

The book of Enoch then describes how these angels taught men how to make superior weapons (that would increase violence); taught women how to make cosmetics--how to become more sexually attractive (thus increasing sexuality, and ignoring the inner character that God approves), and taught them astrology (an ungodly "science," not astronomy).  These are all bad.  Enoch explains that the angels are then punished by “chains…all the days of the world” because they “defiled” themselves with women and begotten children “intermingled with the blood of humans.” Note that phrase “intermingled with the blood.”  The problem is an intermingling of angelic and human DNA.  The reference to the intermingling of blood is a stronger suggestion of corrupting DNA.  Enoch says about angels, “Your dwelling is heaven.”  Here is the final plain statement from Enoch I would like you to consider:  

 The giants who are produced from the spirits and flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth. 

Thus we have a definitive quote for giants being called “evil spirits.”  These Enoch verses, I believe, were godly and true.  Though the Bible’s quotes only hint that the giants were evil, Enoch says so plainly.  The corrupted giants evidently had superior technological intelligence (which could explain much of why many scientists believe that some ancient architecture must have come from an alien visitation to earth).  But superior technology has always been given over to a corrupt use, a way to more efficiently oppress or kill other men.  

Thus my final point:  If we corrupt DNA again, we again have superior people, who are worshipped for their power and intelligence--and, since they are unsavable, they are prone to ego, violence, and oppression. And they will again be worshipped.  It sounds like the Scriptural praise for the Beast (note that that term references him as non-human--but worshipped like a human).  And note his extreme hatred of God and his extreme persecution of God's people.  It's in Revelation 13:

And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. 6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Satan and the Demons,” Scroll Publishing.