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 “mainline” denominations believe this way as well. (I have two proofs of that statement; the first is a quote 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.  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 second 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 "mainliners"—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 Anselm, “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?  And what about the related idea that "No sin can be forgiven without satisfaction"--Is this idea Scriptural? Or, maybe it is based on Medieval chivalry.  Where do I get that?  Consider this:  perhaps 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 might perceive 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 Christ's suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—this act “appeased” His need for justice.  So, in summary, Jesus endured God’s wrath and paid for our sin.  Thus,  Jesus took our place—then 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). This theory states that our sin put us in rebellion to God and under the control of Satan. Satan (not God the Father) 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 over-simplified—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 automatically 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 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.

Jesus (God) cherished the art of forgiveness.

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 forgiving us otherwise, 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, and must be wrathful. To Jesus or us.  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 we are 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 we become rebels, under Satan’s mastery. He is 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, not having perfect knowledge, 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. Thank God for that!  Since the ransom was paid, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for by Jesus’ suffering and death, paid to Satan, and we were set free.  We, of course, are not free if we refuse to acknowledge these facts and are not willing to be under our Savior's claim on our life as Lord.

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 (as Anselm claims), 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 has to stamp "paid" on our debt, and legally 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. In actuality, God received no consideration (payment) for our sins (except our humility and worship). 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, with no repentance, 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.”

Corrupting the DNA Happened in Noah's Time, Will Happen Again--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?  So, it's easy to find fault with that idea; truth is, you can’t always follow the commentators.  Instead, 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 who rebelled against God (and there were some, see Isa 14:12ff) lusted after earth women. (Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 that heavenly angels  are unmarried, but these in Genesis are rule-breakers).  They took human form (as happens many times in Scripture, such as Genesis 18).  They entered earth as men 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, God said, was heaven.  By breaking the rule, God placed them 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." Note that 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 (Ed. ESV and Amplified, "tartarus," not the same as hell ) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment (THEN they got to hell); 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; 

Note the connection of Noah, which ties this to Genesis 6; also note the severity of their judgment.  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 "rulers of the darkness of this age," making warnings and happy announcements to humans, and worshiping God in heaven. Some angels, however, left their “proper domain,” heaven, and went to earth and committed sexual immorality by going after “strange flesh”—for them, strange flesh means earth women--the evil resulting from those unions climaxed in the time of Noah and God judged humanity.   So clearly Jude and II Peter are thinking of the same event as Genesis 6.  The evil result was 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 grown-up activities, it so happens, coincided with a vast increase in violence and evil.  Were the appearance of the giants and increase in evil connected?  Read on in Genesis 6, starting with vv.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--and in those days, anyone not of your tribe could be your enemy.  Thus, lots of killing, lots of blood shed.   Could it be that the giants, the greatest of warriors, were often worshiped as demigods?  After all, 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. They were rock stars in that day. 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 by effectively worshiping these creatures, could have been the thing of the day.  And idolatry will ruin your morals faster than anything.  These qualities make them leaders in any society of “normal” 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 in all of history 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, thus probably meant that they led the whole land into idolatry and violence.  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.” So it isn't just defined as a moral problem.  I think the mixed DNA perverted, or corrupted, the DNA genes too.  Thinking further, the giants probably spread these perverted genes around.  We can assume they, with their giant egos, had casual sex. Women would certainly be attracted.  Their female "casual sex" partners probably had sex with others.  Their babies’ DNA would be corrupted, and on down it would go with their partners passing it on to others,until it perverts a great number of people (see studies on the rapid spread of sexual diseases, for example).  If you pervert the gene pool, 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, people in His image. And these giants, their genes, were NOT humans in His image.  Look how Noah was considered a great preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5 above)--yet, in 120 years (see Genesis 6:3 above), as far as we know, 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 had 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.  And let's not throw away this idea because it sounds supernatural.  After all, 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 still a virgin—has never known a man.  The child’s father is God.”  Would I be believed?  No.  But was it true?  Yes. Likewise, the Resurrection is 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 giant creatures, on a lesser scale, were still being born, after the Flood.  (Trace the word “Nephilim” or "Rephaim" in Scripture, using the NIV, and don’t forget Goliath.  And don't forget Og of Bashan). 

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, God's image. Then, it led to extreme violence and evil.  Well, what’s starting to happen 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 also shows a little of the questionable side of it, to quote:  “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.  All by mixing man's DNA with creatures, mixing in their superiority in some trait--but all the results cannot be predicted.  Some creatures see better, some others hear better, some can carry far more weight.  You know the military would love to develop mixing in these creatures into soldiers' DNA.  They could breed super-soldiers, the kind that could kill more people, more efficiently. And they could also engineer them to not feel remorse.  Those countries 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 and land-grabbing 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.  Heck, with that, we could say good-by to the flaws of natural birth and natural genes.  Sounds great?  But what if only some could afford it, others couldn't? Then we'd be talking about who gets the designer genes, who doesn't.  Then we're back to the Superior Race stuff again, a replay of Nazism.  

So here we are, messing with DNA again, looking at the possibility of unpredictable sinful results again.  There are no rules, so I guarantee some scientists are on a quest to expand DNA editing, no matter the results.  The Wired article’s headline says, “Easy DNA editing will remake the world.”  What’s really spooky is the subheading:  “The Genesis Engine.” 

We have further proof of this DNA idea--this time, not from Scripture, but a source close to Scripture.  It’s from the book of Enoch. Written by him.  Who is Enoch? Enoch was a man, from the 7^th generation from Adam, he was 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 rose out of sight 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 (which we previously mentioned) was directed by God to write one of Enoch’s prophecies into the Bible.  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 holy ones, 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:

(the earth women)…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 straight up calls them angels. 
Enoch also has descriptions of 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 de-emphasizing 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 begot children “intermingled with the blood of humans.” Note that phrase “intermingled with the blood.”  This speaks of 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.”  Every statement totally agrees with Jude and II Peter, and elaborates further and more plainly.  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 better explain than the current theory: 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. It also could lead to many wars and land-grabbing, and man oppressing man.  It sounds like a Scriptural description for the Beast (note that that term "beast" could refer to him as non-human--but he is 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. 

If the Beast is a DNA-edited "human," we may not be far off from end times.  I have other blogs that say more about the chronological events of end times, and my belief that Scripture proves that Christians will have to live through this Great Tribulation from Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-13.  It will be a world of great danger.

Are you ever fearful for the future, for yourself and your children?  Would you want them to live in a world that is unsafe?  You can receive help by falling into the arms of Jesus.  Believe it when Scripture calls Him the only begotten Son of the Father.  He has a claim on your obedience to His commands in Scripture--He loves you enough to die for you. 

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

What Happens to Us Right After We Die? Scripture Has a Surprising Answer

Perhaps the most important question of all time, to a lot of people, is, What happens after we die?  Is there life after death?   This question has puzzled mankind since Adam, and there are many different theories suggested.   And God is rather clear in the Bible on this subject, as He would be, since Scripture claims in various places that He loves His children—so He would tell us “where we’re moving to.”  

So, let’s study what the Word says on the “moving” issue.  Let’s promise ourselves that what the Scripture says is more important than what our church says.  It looks like the correct doctrine includes an intermediate state, which has either been warped or lost.  But it’s definitely in Scripture.  Studying that is the ultimate focus of this blog.

The most detailed explanation of life just beyond the grave is found in Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus.  See Luke 16:22-31, where Jesus says: 

²² So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. ²⁴ “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’  ²⁷ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, ²⁸ for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ ²⁹ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ ³⁰ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What do we see?  

1)      The previously poor man is in “Abraham’s bosom,” v.22.  He is “comforted.” The rich man is “afar off”—a “great gulf fixed”-- in hades, Scripture says. Yet they’re both in the same place, since they can talk to one another. Abraham's bosom is the good part of this place, but the "hot" section is the bad part.  But they're communicating, so they're in the same place.  We conclude "hades" is the proper name for the whole place, since the word is used several times in Scripture (beware--some versions goof this up).  So hades had two parts, separated by a great gulf.   

2)     The rich man in the suffering region then becomes the focus.  He is “in torments.”  He “cries out” in agony.  Thirst is a serious problem, since a flame is nearby. 

3)    He has a memory--he is well aware of his previous life, since he remembered his brothers and now wants to see them saved.  This adds to his mental anxiety while there.

4)    As vv 27-31 show, there is no way that someone in the lower region can warn those still alive.  Thus, seances would be meaningless, today as well as then.  

5)    Jesus, as the designer of hades, is tough on the man who is eventually to be cast to hell:   

a.  Through Abraham, He is willing to let him suffer, acknowledging “you are tormented” --without relieving him.   

b.  When the man complains of his suffering, Jesus through Abraham even taunts him, reminding him of the reversal of roles for the two of them—and telling him, too bad, he can’t change his fate 

For those who want to cast the doctrine in these verses aside, calling it uncompassionate, only a parable:  I don't think it is a parable, since it has named Lazarus, and parables don’t give names.  This is God’s truth for the intermediate state, what happens right after we die. Even if it were a parable, would Jesus set forth a myth about what happens when we die--would He express an untruth on such an important issue?  Would He say, "Hah!  I got you.  This was a fat lie, and I made your destination inconclusive just so you could worry about it."  I think not.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a truth is the related backup Scriptures, below.  Another reason is that it was universally believed by the earliest church fathers; they were brilliant men in their knowledge of Scripture, and believed it was truth.  They knew their Greek backward and forward, they knew the culture, they could have asked questions of the apostles, or someone only a generation from them--and that church was the most dynamic and godly church in history; so I believe their theology was accurate, and God blessed them accordingly.    

Now here are other supporting Scriptures for the intermediate state: 

1. Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words on the Cross to the dying and just-saved thief alongside:  

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

What's Paradise?  Think with me: if the saved poor man’s first stopover after death, from Luke 16, is “Abraham’s bosom,” as we saw above, and if the first stopover for the just-saved thief is in “paradise,” we have to conclude that paradise is another name for Abraham’s bosom.  But we showed above that Abraham's bosom and Hades are in the same place.  And we saw that  paradise is another name for Abraham's bosom--and that means they're all the same place. Paradise is not heaven, but, like with Lazarus, it's the good part of hades.    Neither person we're talking about goes directly to heaven.  They both go to hades, the intermediate state. :

2. Jesus went to hades too, when He died, as proved by Matthew 12:40 and parts of Acts 2:22-27, the words of Peter:  

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning Him:  Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.²⁷ For You will not leave my soul in hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

So Jesus did not die and go straight to heaven; nor did He go to hell, called “gehenna” in Greek, the lake of fire, a different Greek word.  Jesus told the thief He was going to paradise--yet these verses clearly show, He went to hades; again, this proves paradise is not heaven, but is in the good part of hades.  “In the heart of the earth” doesn't sound like heaven, right?  Hades is presumably located deep in earth.   His soul did not remain in hades long—three days and nights. 

Perhaps your Bible uses "hell" when it should be called "hades."  It also uses "hell" in some versions for Greek "gehenna" and "tartarus."  Those, however, are three separate places, so the English words should be different, rather than combining them all as "hell."  Blame William Tyndale.  He took three Greek words, meaning different things, and translated them all "hell" in English.  A proper modern translation would catch this. 

These truths about the intermediate state were so universally believed by the earliest Christians that it became part of the original Apostles’ Creed:  I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ…was crucified, dead and buried.  He descended to hades (the Greek word); on the third day rose from the dead…Jesus did not go to hell, but gave hope to the waiting godly souls in hades.

3. John 14:1-3:  

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions;  if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

Note the underlined phrase.  This proves that when the righteous die, they do not go immediately to heaven to be with Jesus.  Why?  Well, He has to “come again” (His second coming) and pick us up, and then we go to heaven.  If we were already in heaven (i.e., by rapture, so called), He would not have to “come again” to get us.  No, we are in the heart of the earth, in hades, waiting for “pick up.” The pick up will be better than ziplining, better than being an Amazon drone, I’ll bet.  

4. John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice ²⁹ and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Thus, both groups will “come forth” (at the second coming) to the Judgment at the same time (your denomination may not believe this "judgement at the same time" idea--even though it seems explicit here--and elsewhere).  So hades will be emptied all at once.  If we’re already in heaven, as often taught, the resurrection would be no big deal--since we're "already there," in spirit. It would be just picking up the body.  But the important thing, is it not, would be being with Jesus in heaven--but this has already been going on, according to them. But they are wrong.  It will be a total resurrection, body and soul--a big deal, as Scripture points out excitedly.  It gets us, soul and body, from hades to heaven, not from heaven to heaven with a body. 

    5. I Corinthians 15:22-23:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.  

So when are we "made alive," that is, body and soul together?  When Jesus comes again, not at time of death.  (And at His second coming, not the "rapture.")

6.  I Thessalonians 4:16-17:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

The first verse indicates the Second Coming (not the 3rd coming, as rapturists believe).  Note that "the dead in Christ" will rise.  It doesn't say "their bodies will arise," but "the dead" will rise.  Also note that verse 17 says we will "meet the Lord in the air."  Many modern commentaries who say our spirit goes immediately to heaven when we die; and say that when Jesus comes down, He comes with the spirits of His saved people to pick up their bodies.  But that can't be, since we will "meet the Lord in the air."  "Meet" here suggests "first time I've seen you," since its definition in Vine's Expository Dictionary says "the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary." 

     8. Finally, I Peter 5:4:

and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away

Thus, this does not happen when we die; it happens "when the Chief Shepherd appears"--at His Second Coming.

Hopefully these many Scriptures will be convincing.  But, you ask, "I don't think anyone teaches this, how can it be correct?"  Well, many Mennonites, some Brethren, some Amish, some in the Restoration movement, some conservative Anglicans still teach this. 

Well--so we've had it wrong for centuries?  How could that be?

The speculation is, teaching on the intermediate state has gotten dropped because the Reformation tried to get as far away from the Catholics’ false teaching on purgatory.  Purgatory teaches that (a) the Intermediate State can cleanse your sins and (b) it can change final status. Double False.  Scripture shows that hades (the real Intermediate State) does not change final status, as we saw in Luke.  The sincere pleadings of the rich man were greeted coldly. The rich man encountered Jesus not as merciful, but as Judge.  Remember, few are saved (Matthew 7:14).  We are shocked and sometimes uncomfor- table about seeing this "negative side" of God.  But He doesn't think as we do.  We cannot imagine, for instance, how deep is God’s hatred about sin.  If you’re unsaved when you go into hades, you’re unsaved when you go out.  Period.  There is no Scriptural basis for “cleansing from sin” in that state either.  The idea that you can purge your own sin is completely false and anti-Biblical, as Scriptural points out, and I point out in many blogs. Jesus has done that cleansing from sin for us. The “works vs faith” argument was what kick-started the Reformation—a just movement in its beginning, but it went to wrong theology on some points to get away from looking Catholic. 

Next, Catholicism teaches that there is a special status for those classified as “saints”—they get to go straight to heaven.  Everybody else has to go to purgatory to “work off” their sins.  False.  Scripture is clear that everyone saved is a saint.  There are no “status” Christians.  Philippians 1:1 says:   

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops  and deacons. 

 If saints are only the “status” Christians, why is Paul calling every Christian a “saint,” and, oh yes, let’s not forget the bishops and deacons.  How do you explain that?  

John Calvin, who formulated many Protestant doctrines (not my favorite person, as I have a blog on him), dropped the intermediate state doctrine.  So both Catholics and most Protestants have it wrong.  You’ve got to read Scripture for yourselves, folks. 

Now let us deal with verses the "straight to heaven" folks love:  Start with I Thessalonians 4:14,which I'd like to add context by adding verses 16 and 17: 

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Now remember, "sleep" refers to death. Start by looking at v. 17, "we who are alive...shall be caught up together with them..to meet the Lord in the air."  Who is "them?"  It's  "those who sleep in Jesus."  The verses, taken together, mean that the Christian dead will rise from the grave at His second coming  (yes, His second coming), and Christians who are alive at that time will rise from hades and join them to "meet the Lord."  That's how Jesus will "bring with Him" both groups to heaven.  Paul answers first the Thessalonian problem about "what happens to the dead?"  They go to heaven at the second coming.  Then he also adds those who are alive at the time will join them, with Jesus, who will "bring" us to heaven AT THAT TIME. "And AT THAT TIME (the second coming) we will "always be with the Lord."  
PS.  This explanation is simple and uncomplicated, as long as you don't believe in a separate Rapture.  Note that if you believe in a rapture, all the commentaries are lying about His coming in judgment being His second coming.  You would have to believe it's His third coming. (First was His Incarnation; second, His "rapture;" third, His coming in judgment.)  I have a separate series of blogs on this.  If you DO believe in a Rapture, the explanation for how who goes to heaven when twists Scripture around like a pretzel to figure out. I won't even try, feeling that God would make it simple to figure out the important question of "where do we go when we die?"

Another favorite Scripture of "straight to heavens":  Ephesians 4:8-10:

Therefore He says:“When He ascended on high He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”  9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

"Captivity captive" is confusing for even the experts to figure out.  It could mean either the enemy soldiers captured, or the rescue of our own men held captive by the enemy. So, flip a coin.  If you choose the latter, Jesus is bringing out of hades His children, taking them to heaven. If you choose the former, Jesus is making a show of enemy forces His triumph over them bought by His death.  Who are those enemy forces?  That idea is probably best interpreted by Colossians 2:15, where it is said of the "principalities and powers"--the powers of sin and death--that "He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross." 

The fact is, this event is not normative, that is, there were unusual things that we can't expect to build a theology of "where do we go when we die?" around.  Look at Matthew 27:52-53, when Jesus died:

and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Was that a repeatable event?  Can we form a theology around Matthew 27:52 about when our bodies are raised from the dead? I'm saying these verses, Ephesians 4:8-10, could also have been a strange, non-theologically-based event too.  In any event, since I suggested "flip a coin," I'm saying this is not a proof for either side, and is not relevant to forming a doctrine on.

Another verse for "straight to heavens:"  Philippians 1:23:

For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.

Paul is just wondering which is better--to live and support Christians, or to die and be with Christ.  I don't think Paul put any theology on this "what do I prefer" question (nor should we!).  For that reason alone, Paul is not thinking doctrinally.  Consider also that Christ, or His Spirit, could be in hades with the spirit of a Christian after death, so He is "with" us in hades. So this verse does not lock the case for the "straight to heaven" group either.

Another favorite of theirs is Act 7:56, 59, at the martyrdom of Stephen:

and (Stephen) said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Well, this too could be a special case: Stephen is the first New Testament martyr; plus, he has given a severe admonishment to the Jews about their history defying God, and Jesus confirms him by showing up.  Naturally, a man would react by saying, "Jesus, receive my spirit."  Keep in mind, that's what a man is quoting, and doesn't have to be doctrine God can approve of for everyone.  Think of the musings of Job; they're not all correct.     

Finally, II Corinthians 5:8:

We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

This is clearly the "straight to heaven" folks' favorite verse. But...when there are abundant verses telling us differently, should we believe that God changes the rules and only indicated the change clearly by this one verse?  Would God do that on such an important teaching as "where we go when we die?"  So we should consider opening our mind to a different definition of this verse.  We really ought to consider the phrase doesn't really say that "one leads immediately to the other." And, since Jesus is omnipresent, why couldn't Jesus be in heaven with God and be in hades in Spirit, comforting and speaking with His children there too?

So what I see is, none of these verses lock down the "straight to heaven" idea. My eight verses on the intermediate state logically string together a solid case for the good side of hades, then later heaven at His second coming.    

It's not a new idea. After all, it was believed by the Jews for a thousand years, then believed by the young church for another 600 years, then the Catholic church perverted it.  

If you want to know more about what Scripture really says on How Do You Get Saved, so you can graduate from earth eventually to heaven, you need to know that Catholics and many Protestants have that wrong too.   I have a blog just on salvation, and another on initial and final salvation.  Smarter, though, would be to read the Gospels over and over, noting what Jesus says on that very subject.  He is quite clear.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Life After Death.” Scroll Publishing