A Consuming Fire

 

This blog pays high respect to Dr. R.C. Sproul, who was not only a master of the spoken word, but whose words still give us enlightenment of God that I have not heard anywhere else. I’ll try more than most to use only his words.

The text that he is speaking on is on the holiness, justice, and wrath of God.

These are things that we must examine over and over again. We live in a culture, and sadly, in a church, that, if they believe in the existence of God, do not consider God to be holy. If, peradventure, they acknowledge that He is holy, they do not add to that holiness any idea of divine justice. And if, with the lamp of Diogenes, we are able to find a handful of people who agree that God is both holy and just, it is next to impossible to find someone who will add to these elements the idea that God is a God of wrath.

The assumption in the world and in the church today, is that the love of God, the mercy of God, and the grace of God, either swallow up the justice and wrath of God, or certainly trump it. At funerals we may hear people or bagpipes play “Amazing Grace,” but nobody believes that grace is amazing. It is something we assume. The assumption means that God is not holy, or a God of wrath.

I’d like to read from I Chronicles 13:2ff:

And David said to all the assembly of Israel…” let us bring the ark of our God back to us, for we have not inquired at it since the days of Saul.” ⁴ Then all the assembly said that they would do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.

⁵ So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor in Egypt to as far as the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God… who dwells between the cherubim, where His name is proclaimed. ⁷ So they carried the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. ⁸ Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets.

⁹ And when they came to Chidon’s threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. ¹⁰ Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. ¹¹ And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzza; therefore that place is called Perez-Uzza to this day. ¹² David was afraid of God that day, saying, “How can I bring the ark of God to me?”

When I was in Seminary, I was taught that these Biblical passages that refer to the sudden explosion and paroxysms of rage that God manifested in the Old Testament such as this episode of the sudden killing of poor innocent Uzzah with no significant warning, manifested the truth that the Old Testament is not the inspired Word of God, but is simply an example of popular religion of a tribal deity from a semi-nomadic group of people who were pre-scientific and unsophisticated. They would say that these episodes recorded in the Old Testament are totally incompatible with the New Testament portrait of the love of God revealed in Jesus.

So what I experienced in Seminary was a revival of the Marcionite heresy, with an attempt to expurgate from the Bible all references to this Old Testament angry Deity. I thought that, since it was recorded in pages of Scripture, it at least deserved a second glance. So let’s do so.

David brings the whole nation together for a celebration of transporting the most sacred vessel of their religion to the holy place.  It had been in storage, and now David will bring it back to the life of the people in its proper place. He had a brand-new cart made to carry this precious cargo, the Ark of the Covenant. But when, in the midst of their jubilant procession, an ox stumbles, and the Ark begins to slide, Uzzah instinctively, out of a sense of respect for this sacred object, held up his hand to stop it from sliding into the dirt, where it would be desecrated.

And what happens? As soon as he does that, the heavens opened, and a deep voice shouts out, “Thank you, Uzzah!” Not so. As soon as he touched the Ark, instantly he was stricken—God executed him. Oh, the gymnastics my Old Testament professors went through in Seminary. “Well, that’s the way it seemed to these simple Hebrews who were watching this incident. Surely the man just dropped dead of a heart attack, generated by his terror that he would venture to touch the sacred object.” Or they would say “This is evidence that the Old Testament depicts God’s wrath as being arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious.” And it was an example of what one professor called “the dark side of Yahweh, the demonic element within the nature of God Himself.” (Caution: This professor does not believe that about God, but he is saying that the people believed it, and wrote their thoughts in the Old Testament.)

Evidently these modern philosophers have never read the fourth chapter of Numbers. God had assigned the responsibility of caring for sacred vessels of the tabernacle to the family of Kohath in the tribe of Levi. For transporting the sacred vessels, they had rings on each side, so by putting rods through, the men could carry it on their soldiers, and, importantly, on foot. This was more stable than oxen, so it hopefully fulfills God’s purpose that human beings would never, ever, come into contact with the holy throne of God. So David had it wrong, assigning it to a cart and oxen. It says explicitly in Numbers 4 that he who touches the holy throne of God, must die. Uzzah knew all this. But he touched it anyway.

Jonathan Edwards has a sermon about this: He says the sin of Uzzah was the sin of arrogance. But it looks to the reader as a heroic act of humility—he risked his own life to make sure the Ark would not be in contact with the mud. Edwards says Uzzah assumed that contact with the mud would be a greater sacrilege than contact with the hands of a sinful human being. But really, what is mud, but the earth mixed with water? There is nothing innately sinful about dirt. If it touches the ground, there is no sacred damage. What desecrates the throne of God is not the touch of the earth; it is the touch of Man. So God executed Uzzah for profaning the most holy object in Israel.

A similar event happened in Leviticus 10, with Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offering “profane fire” in their incense before the Lord. God sent His fire and devoured them. Moses was not sympathetic. He repeated a Biblical passage to Aaron, a passage when Aaron was first consecrated:

By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.

But instead of regarding God as holy, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Moses additionally did not let anyone mourn their deaths, lest the wrath of God come upon all the people. He simply urged that men remove their bodies out of the camp. God is in effect saying to Moses, “I don’t even want their bodies in the camp! And I don’t want anybody lamenting in dust and ashes—I don’t want a wake for these guys! They are polluting my sanctuary. I want their bodies outside because they have profaned Me with their false worshipping.”

 These young Kohathite men were possibly eager to change liturgy that God had ordained in such a way that would be more appealing to the congregation. They missed the fundamental principle of worship: worship is to be determined not by what is pleasing to us, but what is pleasing to God. The most “successful” worship service in the Old Testament broke all attendance records. The singing was so full of gusto that it was heard miles away on a mountain; and one of the men who heard it thought that a war had broken out, and the loud noise that he was hearing was the tumult that accompanies battle. When they investigated it, it was not a war; it was a worship service with a golden calf.

Nothing attracts greater crowds than the practices of idolatry.

Dr. Sproul imagined Aaron’s thoughts, seeing his sons killed by God. “God, what are You doing? These are my sons.  All they did was tinker a little bit.” Even David had trouble with the wrath of God. You read in I Chronicles 13:12, “David was afraid of God that day,” and he put the Ark back in storage for awhile. (Later he was educated in Numbers 4 and did it right.)

 In reference to modern worship, I think of the beginning of the song service is being treated as “Ok, it’s time to break up the chitchat in the foyer, time to go in and sing.” Dr. Sproul was more serious. He says, “Do you realize how the Lord God Omnipotent considers our profane worship, when we dare to come into His Presence without considering Him as holy, and without seeing our primary responsibility in our celebration of worship as displaying before the whole congregation the glory of God?” 

He goes on: The most famous sermon ever preached was by Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” I was required to read that sermon in college as an example of “sadistic preaching.” I thought, if Jonathan Edwards was sadistic, which he wasn’t, and if he believed in hell, which he did--a sadistic preacher would do everything in his power to tell his congregation that there was no such place as hell --and secretly enjoy the inevitability of their being plunged into it. Edwards was no sadist; he loved God and he loved his people. And he cared about their ultimate destination. (Ed. What does that say about how most pastors today never speak in detail of sin, never speak of hell?) The text for that Edwards sermon is based on the following, in Deuteronomy 32:35:

Their feet shall slip in due time.

Edwards’ sermon has also been used in modern Seminary classrooms because of its graphic imagery of the wrath of God. While most people who hear these images that Edwards expounded had no idea that the vast majority of them, describing the perilous situation of impenitent people, are images drawn from the Scripture itself. For the text “their feet shall slip..” he draws the picture of a man crossing a deep chasm on a rope bridge where the planks that are swinging to and fro in the breeze are rotten, covered with moss, slippery, where you can’t even see which planks have rotted through, so that every step you take on the bridge may be your last one before you slip and fall into the abyss. Thus their fall was not simply probable, it was inevitable. For God warned sinners, that if they did not repent, their feet would slip in due time.

Note Paul’s teaching that we are storing up, heaping up, treasuring up, wrath, against the Day of Wrath (Romans 2:5). For that, he gives the image of the accumulation of torrential rain that a dam is trying to hold back, but destined to break, and engulf the people with water. But the unsuspecting person goes to bed at ease, with no fear that a dam will ever burst.

Edwards then uses the image of a spider and his web. He said to the people, “Sinner, you hang over the pit of hell by one slender thread; not a whole web, but one thread.  And every second, the flames of divine wrath are burning all around that single thread, ready to singe it and burn it at any second. And the second that that thread is burned, you will fall into the pit of hell. The only thing that keeps you from falling is the hand of God.”

While the sermon is on the wrath of God, I think that it is a sermon on the grace of God, too; the hand that is longsuffering and temporarily keeps us out of hell (I Timothy 2:4).

That sermon wouldn’t scare anybody in our culture, because nobody believes in hell anymore—or that they are headed there. The most brazen lie is the lie that people tell themselves, “I have nothing to worry about, from the wrath of God. My God is a God of love. Your God is an idol, and no God at all.” (So they say).

Apart from the Gospel, there is no reason why any of us is alive, and not in hell.

My favorite illustration of how callous we have become with respect to the mercy, the love, and the grace of God, goes back to the second year of my teaching career, when I was assigned to teach 250 college freshmen an Intro to the Old testament course. On the first day of class, I gave them their syllabus, and told them, particularly, that they have three 5-page term papers to do. The first is due September 30, the second and third ones due October and November 30. I told them they have to turn them in on that day, unless they are physically confined, or there is a death in the immediate family. Or else they would get an ‘F’ on that assignment.

When September 30 came, 225 turned them in, but there were 25 terrified freshmen, who came in the back of the room trembling: “Oh, professor Sproul, we didn’t budget our time properly, etc”. (I wish I could give you his expressions on this; very funny). “Please don’t flunk us.” Dr. Sproul said, “OK, this once I will give you a break. You can have three more days to get your papers in, but don’t you let this happen again.” “Oh, no, no, no. Thank you so much.”

Then came October 30. This time 200 students had their papers, but 50 students didn’t have them. They said, “Well, you know how it is, prof. It’s midterms, and we had all kinds of assignments etc. Please give us one more chance.” I said, “It’s the last time, I’ll give you three days.” And you know what really happened? They started to sing, spontaneously, 250 voices, “We love you prof Sproul, oh, yes, we do.”

And I was the most popular professor on that campus—until November 30. This time 100 papers were done, but 150 did not have them. And I watched them walk in as cool, and as casual, as they could be. And to one of them, a Marine veteran, I said, “ Johnson, where’s your paper?” And he said, “Heyy“ (like Happy Days). “Don’t worry about it prof, I’ll have it for you in a couple of days.” I picked up my little black book and said, “Johnson? No paper? ‘F.’ Nicholson? Pratt? No? ‘F.’ Then, out of the midst of this crowd, somebody shouted, as you know they would, That’s….Not….FAIR. I said, “Fitzgerald, was that you who said that?” He said “yeh. It’s not fair.” I said “Right. Weren’t you late last month with your paper?”  “Yeah.” I said “Fitzgerald, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. If it’s justice you want, justice is what you will get.” So I changed his grade in October to an ‘F.’ And there is this gasp in the room. And I said “Who else wants justice?” I didn’t get any takers. It was like a song similar like one out of My Fair Lady. “I’ve grown accustomed to His grace.”

What had happened, was that the first time they were late, they were amazed by grace; the second time, they were no longer surprised; they basically assumed it. By the third time, they demanded it, and believed that grace was an inalienable right, an entitlement to which they all deserved. I took that occasion to explain to my class. I said, “You know what you have done when you said “That’s not fair?” You have confused justice and grace. The minute you think that anybody owes you grace, a bell should go off in your head that reminds you that you are no longer thinking about grace, because grace, by definition, is something that you don’t deserve, something that you can’t possibly deserve. You have no merit before God, except demerit. And if God should ever, ever, treat you justly, outside of Christ, you will perish, and your foot will slide, in due time.”

 Now Dr. Sproul looks at the group he is talking to. “I know that in a group this size, there are people in this room, who are that (fingers close together) far away from hell, and they are assuming that they are not going to go there. But if there is a God, and there is, and if He is holy, and He is, He could not possibly be without wrath. And if you have not been reconciled through the blood of His Son, the only thing you have to look forward to is His wrath, which is a divine wrath, which is a furious wrath, and is an eternal wrath. Because God must be regarded as holy by anyone who comes near Him.

So, my beloved, if you would come into the Presence of God, consider the nature of the God you are approaching, that you may come covered by the righteousness of Christ.

That was the end of his message, but not the end of the Gospel. As James 2:14 says:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can (that) faith save him?

The answer to the rhetorical question is, NO. Despite how the Reformers despised the word “works,” it is a necessity. It is often spoken by the word “fruit.” As Jesus says in John 15:5-6:

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Jesus is clearly saying, if we don’t abide in Him, it will so happen, in Judgment Day, that we aren’t saved. What is “abiding in Him?” Obeying His commands; He bought us and is Lord of our lives.

One command that He gave was, we must forgive one another. An example of one who did not obey that command, is the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35. It begins with Jesus’ command to forgive to the uttermost:

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.”

The parable then begins with a Master (Jesus) who forgives (saves from hell) his servant (us) a great debt (our sins). But the servant then turns around and will not forgive his fellow servant for a smaller debt. What does the Master do? He retracts his forgiveness, restoring to the evil servant the debt, and gives him to the torturers (hell). Here’s the end of the sad tale, and the warning for us, vv 32-35:

 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.

³⁵ “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

These verses are a few of many that prove that a God of holiness can have wrath, even against an adopted child, for perennial disobedience. You can lose your salvation. For further study, read my blogs on this, or, better yet, read Jesus’ Words in the Gospels with an open mind to learn something new.

May God bless you all.

 

 

 

 

Rejection of the Received Text in Favor of Two Questionable Texts for All Modern Versions of the Bible

In my earlier 3-part series on the huge changes going on in Bible translations, I ignored a subject which God won’t let me go without writing about. My two sources for this paper are from Parable, each a 3-hour You Tube audiophile. They are called “Decoding the Great Bible Hoax of 1881” and a second one, “Tares Among the Wheat.” Below is a summarization of that history of how the modern translations are from sources hostile to God’s Word.

There are two sources for most translations of Bibles today. One source is called the “Received Text” (or Textus Receptus) for good reason—prior to the 1950s, all Bibles were from that source. Erasmus was the original author; in the early 1500s, he combined some 5500 old reliable partial texts that were then available, and came up with the New Testament in Greek. It has been the source for most of the translations (until the 1950s) ever since. Luther used Erasmus’ second edition and translated it into German. Up til that point, the Bible was hardly ever in the languages of the people. That was partly due to the expense of being hand-written, and partly due to the Catholics keeping them in Latin and hiding them, and burning them and burning everybody who tried to make translations that the public could read. It was a laborious effort by Erasmus, but the results were highly praised for hundreds of years. Please note that he rejected the Vulgate (the Latin Bible done by the Catholic Church). He considered it corrupt, as some of the verses were translated in a biased way to be in accord with Catholic tradition.

The second source for most Bibles today is a combination of the “Codex Sinaiticus” and the “Codex Vaticanus.” Compared to the 5500 texts that the Received Text had to work with, these two only have some 40 texts that loosely back them up. How those two came about is the fascinating story I would like to tell. Keep in mind, ALL MODERN versions use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their main source, so this is a relevant and important study. The ONLY way that a translation uses a Received Text source nowadays, is the King James Bible. Even that Bible has been partially corrupted in its 2013 version. If you can, the best advice I an give, is buy a copyright 1979 (published 1983) New King James—the version before it got corrupted in 2013. It eliminates the “thees” and “thous,” and is solid on all Bible doctrine, and doesn’t have any missing pages or phrases. But not all Bible bookstores even have them, and the day will come that you will only be able to buy used ones online or luckily, at some market.

Well, as you can already tell, I dislike the modern sources—I promise, you’ll see why in this paper. This all came about when Bible scholars from England decided we needed a Bible that doesn’t have the obsolete words of the original 1611 King James. They also knew that many archaeological studies have improved the definitions of Greek and Aramaic words of Jesus’ day, as well. So English Anglicans formed a committee in 1870 to get the revision ball rolling. They instructed the committee that not too many changes were really needed to the Received Text.  BUT….in time, the committee radically departed from that goal. 

Here are the facts of those two new Greek editions that we are now stuck with. The Vaticanus was first discovered in the Vatican Library in Rome in 1475. Not an old text at all, by Bible standards.  But the Catholics claimed they originally had it in the 4^th century, but buried it. Of that, they have no proof. I think it actually was produced in 1475. Anyone in their right mind could see the Catholics hated the Bible because it disagreed with many of their doctrines; and you simply couldn’t trust their version, whether in Latin or Greek. They did offer the Latin version to Erasmus, who tossed it. Which is what we should do today.

The Sinaiticus has a much more interesting history. The official word was, it was partially discovered in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf, an average Protestant seeker who happened to be wandering (in his quest to find the perfect Bible) in St. Catherine’s monastery, an out-of-the way Catholic location, in the Sinai peninsula near Egypt. He allegedly just stumbled on it in a trash bin that was used for kindling fires. He grabbed 43 leaves, all he could hide without being discovered by monastery personnel. He reached the public, and called it the world’s oldest Bible, and he got backing for that from the experts. He was determined to revisit St. Catherine’s to obtain the many other pages in the monastery which he had also seen. Which he did in 1859. To his alleged surprise, it was the entire New Testament, and two other books. He published it.  

But he ran into a problem named Constantine Simonides, who claimed he wrote it himself, in 1840. So it only appeared old (palaeography is an uncertain profession). For proof as to his professional ability, Simonides also had unique copies of ancient books that he had created. His knowledge of calligraphy was particularly good. He was an expert among experts in the palaeography profession, especially the Bible, as it turned out. When evidences were examined, he pulled out from his portfolio exact copies of two books: The Epistle of Barnabas, which he originally published in 1843, and the Shepherd of Hermas, presented in 1856. There is no way that Simonides was not connected to the Sinaiticus, because those two exact books were found with the Sinaiticus that Tischendorf found. The “Hermas” book, especially, because there was no other “Hermas” in Greek known to the world before this. His living was made by ancient treatises that he sold, or he gifted copies that he created. Especially from the Bible.

Actions by Tischendorf were suspicious: He actually discovered the New Testament conveniently whole (copies of similar 1500-year-old MSS had been, for centuries, found in small fragments). And why were the precious pages he left behind from 1844 to 1859 not used for kindling in the intervening 15 years, if his original taking was in secret? Seems likely, too, that 15 years was a long time before he moseyed over and re-visited to obtain the rest of the diamond find of the centuries; shouldn’t he have returned more quickly, worried about them being used as kindling too?

Simonides protested ownership vigorously, not only to Tischendorf, but to the London press. He got backing for awhile as they began asking questions as well; but Tischendorf avoided him and held his ground. Later the press did change sides, and even accused Simonides of forgery on numerous of his works. The Catholics might have swung some influence to do that. Why do I think they were involved? Because history proves that the Catholics red-carpeted Tischendorf in 1843, just before he began his “quest.” The Pope met with him, an extremely rare thing for just an average guy, a Protestant to boot; plus, a cardinal who was normally unapproachable, who knew 50 languages, indulged him as well. Think of it! A Catholic pope, who despised the Bible so much that his people were burning Bibles in Champlain, New York in the same year, 1843; and the tortured skeletons of those who tried to bring the Bible to the public were housed in Rome in a building right next to where Tischendorf was visiting. Tischendorf had not done anything at his time of meeting the Pope; he was a nobody. Why did he get such treatment? Did the Pope have a plan to make sure that he WOULD find something that he could use and become famous? Perhaps the Sinaiticus would be pre-planted, all put together by the Catholic church’s expert forgers?  

Fact was, they wanted the King James out of the way. A defective text as a substitute was perfect for them; they had always denounced “sola Scriptura” of the Protestants, since they believed that the “infallible” Pope was better than the Bible, which was  subject to man’s errors. I think they told the monastery what was going on, to protect the Sinaiticus; and also told Tischendorf that the rest of his find would still be there, so he didn’t have to rush the return. Maybe Simonides originally left his copy there unattended, and a dedicated Catholic who followed him, grabbed it and waited for Tischendorf. We will never know.

Disgusted for the turn of events, Simonides left London in 1864. He was not English, after all; but a patriot Greek fighting against the Ottoman Empire. I never heard of a Bible palaeographologist who was blowing up bridges in his spare time, but such was Simonides.

So, having the fabulous Sinaiticus in 1859, and combining the Vaticanus (to the Catholics’ pleasure), the next stage was selling this combination to the upcoming revisionist committees, who would in turn sell the publicists, who would sell the public, on a revised Bible--translated from their new defective Greek codexes. That’s where Hort and Wescott came in. They were charismatic enough, and Protestant enough, to head up the English revision  committee. Now, you might wonder, what was in the mind of Hort and Westcott to messing up the Received Text and the King James Bible? After all, except for Old English (or whatever language transcribed), everyone was happy with it for 260 years already. And how was the committee, who was told to make small changes, convinced to approve a radical move and introduce an entirely new Greek text?

Imagine what we might conclude if we knew the thoughts of Hort and Westcott. And, blessedly, we can. Because, in those days, the phone was not in common use (it was huge from 1900-1920). So communications were done by letters; people received a letter with the inner-mind of the sender in print, and everyone saved them. And it so happens that the children of Hort and Wescott published their parents’ letters when they died. Thus we have a window into their minds. So here are some facts: Hort expressed his hatred for the Textus Receptus even at the tender age of 23, calling it “villainous” and “vile.” Hort, in a separate letter to Wescott, wanted to keep their beliefs a secret from the rest of the revision committee. He admitted that his views were heretical, as he used that very word. Other letters revealed that they did not believe that God inspired the Bible writers. They did not believe that Jesus died for the world’s sin. They did not believe that Jesus was God. They had an agenda from day 1 of the revision committee: they wanted a totally new Greek text that had 2,900 fewer words from the King James, and they wanted their version to imply that Jesus was not God, that He lied, that He had questionable birth, and that He was a normal man with sin in his early life. In short, they were sent there by Satan. They had two Greek publications with those defects that they would foist on the committee. One of them was passed on from Tischendorf, who was influenced by Catholics. The other one was Catholic all the way. After publication of Bibles from their new Greek texts, Hort and Westcott planned on publishing a series of essays to reveal their unorthodox views. Sort of an “in your face” to the public.

I should first tell you that not everyone took their pressure lying down. After the new Greek text was published in 1881, Wescott and Hort received some angry criticism over their revision. The most noteworthy came from Dean John Burgon, an English Bible scholar who studied this new Greek disaster; and he was worried enough to produce a book, “The Revision Revised.” It was scathing in its denunciation. Even a member of the revision committee, Scrivener, published a denouncement and denial that he had anything to do with the result. But these were a small minority, and could be ignored.

You may ask about the Catholic Vaticanus, why was it thrown in? They owed the Catholics a favor, since the Catholics probably produced the original plan to come up with a new Bible. But there is this: Not only the Catholics, but many “enlightened” Protestants as well, wanted the whole Christian world on one Bible. Catholics  were tired of being on the outside, having to create “Catholic Bibles.” What better way to do that than to do what they accomplished? They asserted that the Sinaiticus text was not Catholic, since it was produced around 350 AD before the church went Catholic. And the Vaticanus was Catholic, of course, but it was older than the Received Text. They claimed it dates to 350 AD, as well. So that combination was an ecumenical combination for everyone. But before you are sold on this, please read my previous blogs on this subject; I have listed some of “their” Scripture that are in dereliction of true Christian doctrine.

If it seems the experts were way too eager to accept a new defective Bible, it might be explained like this:: The religious chaos of the day probably helped churchmen begin to desire ecumenism. They wanted to maintain peace among those that focus on Jesus, that were Christian. Here’s what I mean about chaos of the day: “The Origin of Species,” by Darwin, was published in 1859. This did huge damage to people’s belief in God’s creation story in Genesis. (Hort agreed with Darwin, even though it refutes Genesis 1-3). In the same century came the Jehovah’s Witnesses; and the Latter Day Saints, in 1852, announced publicly that they were in favor of polygamy. In that day, too, Bible scholars attending in Oxford or Cambridge learned how to be liberal: they learned that scholars used a “rationalist” approach to Scripture. Under that approach, they could not accept that the Bible was “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. Under rationalism, the idea of textual criticism began with doubting the infallibility of Scripture.  They say, “Yea, hath God said?”—as Satan would do. This involves total elimination of the supernatural. No virgin birth; no sinless Jesus; no resurrection; no ascension. This whole thing started in Germany in the 18^th century, and was called “higher criticism.” Iain Paisly was an English prophet in the 1800s who didn’t mince words about how England was copying Germany, in taking belief systems down the pit, and the anti-Christ dangers of it--but nobody listened.

Here’s more: In the mid-1800s, the Church of England was swayed by an invasion of Jesuits, who were teachers. But they were such loyal Catholics, that they were able to work in this Protestant surrounding and still tried to convert priests of the Anglican Church back under the authority of Rome again. They were partially successful, since around 150 Anglican priests converted to Roman Catholicism. The Jesuits were still applying the “counter reformation” which was staunchly opposed to the doctrine of “sola scriptura,” the Protestant belief that Scripture was the only source for doctrines (as Scripture says). They still believed in tradition and the infallible Pope.

So the “scholars” who were schooled in Oxford and such were now going liberal, and had just the right temperament to accept these weak new Greek sources in publishers’ revision committees.

I should add that both Hort and Wescott, similar to Tischendorf,  liked the Catholic Church, and were strongly influenced by its guiding light at the time, John Newman. He was a  Catholic textual critic. “Him I all but worship,” said Hort. Hort also admitted that “the pure Romish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth rather than the Evangelical.” Hort spoke well of the worship of Mary, too. He also believed that a priest is necessary to mediate between a people and God. But the Bible speaks of the “priesthood of the believers.” Also seek I Timothy 2:5,6. These Catholic mediators are blasphemous, and Hort and Westcott knew it. How they were signed on to help a Protestant revision committee of God’s Holy Word, is beyond me. But nobody paid any attention.

So, assuming that the rest of the committee could not smell a rat, how did Hort and Westcott sell their new Greek discovery to the committee? Keep in mind, their heretical views were kept quiet at the time—while they were still alive. First, they maintained that the Received Text had been corrupted in Antioch between 250-350 AD. This was a lie. There would be angry public writings (like there were when they introduced their new Greek text). But the Antioch church had no such record. But the committee didn’t know that, and didn’t seek assistance to determine its truth. Secondly, Hort and Westcott maintained “the oldest is the best,” and theirs were dated 350 AD, so they said. They assumed that the Sinaiticus, coming from Alexandria, near Egypt, with drier climate, would give them older, preserved documents. BUT there were many early heresies in the Alexandria area, notably Gnosticism (see my “Final” blog listing #17). Also, papyrus that wasn’t “worn out” could have simply been because it was corrupt, and no one read it, so it was still in good shape when found.

Nevertheless, the committee bought it, and favored the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for Revision in 1881. So then it went to all of developed Europe, and to the U.S, namely Dallas Theological, to Princeton, to the Southern Baptists, etc ad nauseum. Nobody cared about the background of the Codexes or the background of Hort or Westcott. Publishers put together their own revision teams, and new Bibles burst forth based on the two Codexes. The first one I see developed was the Revised Standard Version, 1952. They played it safe. They removed the verses below from the main text, but at least put them into footnotes at the bottom of the page. Here they are:

Matthew 27:49: And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood

Luke 22:19b-20: "...which is given for you, Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Luke 24:3: (they did not find the body) of the Lord Jesus

Luke 24:6: he is not here, he is risen

Luke 24:12: But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home wondering at what had happened.

Luke 24:36: and said to them, "Peace be to you!

Luke 24:40: And when he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet

Luke 24:51: and was carried up to heaven

Luke 24: 52: worshiped him, and

 

As you can see, a lot of touchy, important doctrines were being threatened for removal.

This debate over trying to find the truth behind Simonides, Tirchendorf, and the Sinaiticus raged on until the early 1900s. (It is still going on. You Tube has a flock of audiophiles on this subject.) It will never be resolved, partly because not enough people are interested in the truth. The scholars in all the developed world (it was passed around to England, the U.S.A, France, Germany, Italy, etc) all wanted the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I suspect, then, that most of their “Christianity” would until Judgment Day be in apostrophes. Why do I say that? It was easy to see, after the deaths of Hort and Wescott, with their letters published, where their true colors lied—they were apostates. The publishers, I believed, knew that. They should have scrapped their “new” Bibles and demanded a recall, with apologies. They should have gone back to publishing the King James, as far as serious Bibles go. Of course, re-filling an older book doesn’t make as much profit as claiming “We have a new one!” There have been over 20 “new” ones in the past 70 years. They make money. The secular publisher that took over Zondervan also owns Harper’s, which produces the Satanic Bible. So they take the profit, as all secular publishers do, and leave the repentance til’ Judgment Day.

Of course, the Catholics are happy enough with our modern editions that they don’t need to produce their own “Catholic Bibles.” We are all on a one-world Bible since 1979. The Bible has prophesied a one-world religion for the last days. This one-world Bible could be a part of that.

It doesn’t help that not 5 people out of 100 church-goers notices anything different about Scripture verses that have been radically changed, or the doctrines that have been attacked (for more detail, see my earlier Translation blogs where I number about 20, just for starters). Truth is, we don’t know our Bibles.  Of those that do, our Bible teachers, often get distracted by playing games, like “which is the best word?”. With all the modern versions, they spend too much time “cherry-picking” which Bible version has the word or definition of an item that best fits their agenda. They would be smarter to use the King James word, look it up in a Greek-English dictionary, and get the cold, hard meaning (Greek is good for that). Don’t have an agenda unless Scripture has an agenda first.

God has promised that His words would last forever. In Matthew 24:35 Jesus promised:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

And in I Peter 1:24-25 Peter wrote:

All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever.”

Let us believe God that He will find a way to keep our thirst for His pure word quenched—among those that are looking for it. We need His Word as we need water. We need to read it daily; not like water from broken cisterns, but water distilled and pure. God will defeat the plans of Man. As Scripture says, He laughs at them and holds them in derision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Nation Israel Was Rejected for a Long Time by God

 Have you ever walked into a Christian bookstore looking for End Times material, and were puzzled about the number of books on Israel? That’s probably because, either the bookstore is owned by dispensationalists —or because the bookstore simply buys what they know sells—and dispensational books sell. But there are problems with this tie-in to Christian doctrine.

The purpose of this paper is to give you a thumbnail sketch of dispensational doctrine, so that you can see the one tenet by which everything else in this doctrine hangs. If we blow that tenet up, through Scripture, then the whole doctrine collapses.

Per Wikipedia, dispensationalism is defined as “an evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that understands God to have related to human beings in…“dispensations,” or periods in history…expounded in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800-82) and the Plymouth Brethren movement, and propagated through…Scofield Reference Bibles…They hold to a pretribulation rapture…they believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and that God has yet to fulfill His promises to national Israel. These promises include…a millennial kingdom and a Third Temple where Christ, upon His return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years…. Dispensationalists also believe that toward the end of the Tribulation, Israel as a nation will turn and embrace Jesus as their messiah right before his second coming during the Great Tribulation…the Church, though, is a "parenthesis" or temporary interlude in the progress of Israel's prophesied history.”

Sorry about the long definition of dispensationalism. Now here is their timeline of relevant events of the last days:
With no prior specific warning, the Rapture comes—i.e., when Christ comes, and all alive at the time who have had faith in Jesus will be called up by Christ to meet Him in the clouds, and onward to heaven. That means, they say, that those who are left after this on earth will all be unsaved, and will immediately endure seven years of tribulation and persecution by the antichrist. Then somehow (despite no saved people to start this period with), a huge evangelism effort (presumably led by 144,000 newly-saved Jews) will lead a huge number of additional Jews and newly-saved Gentiles to Christ, who will face off against the antichrist at Armageddon, when Christ comes to strike down the enemy (i.e., a third coming). That ushers in the Millennium, ruled by mostly Jews; and then after a short rebellion, there is final judgment—when the unsaved of all ages are tried and sent to the lake of fire.

You can see how their idea of a rapture, followed by the tribulation, came to be called “pre-tribulation rapture.” What you may not know is that this idea from John Darby was unheard of through the first 1800 years of the Church. Great, godly men who were taught by the apostles, had never come up with the pre-trib idea, and suddenly it appeared in the early 1830s. From the beginning of the Christian church until 1830, those who held a futurist view almost universally felt that the end times= a great tribulation, after which the saved are raptured, followed immediately by a great judgment for saved and unsaved.  Supposedly we've had it backwards for those 1800 ignorant years.  Their idea is, Christ comes three times, once for birth, another for the rapture, third for judgment.  Scripture simply calls the final touchdown the Second Coming.

As you can see, Darby’s “pre-trib rapture” idea switches those two events—the tribulation-then-rapture he turned into a rapture-then-tribulation. Mr. Darby, despite the fact that his idea was the new one, called all other Christian churches “apostates.”  He knew better, he figured.

But I’m not here to discuss the timing of the rapture and tribulation. I have written three blogs on the subject, very carefully laying it all out by clear Scripture (hint: It doesn’t agree with Mr. Darby). What I want to analyze is indicated in my italicized statements in the definition above. I’m speaking of the dispensationalist  claims that (1) God has promises to still fulfill to the Jews; and (2) the Church is a “parenthesis,” or temporary interlude, in the progress of Israel’s prophesied history. You can see how that second tenet, in particular, is crucial to their whole doctrine—they believe that with the Christians raptured to heaven, the church is out of the way in earthly influence (it's been only a parenthesis, anyhow, right?), and God can resume His promises to the Jews from the Old Testament. So, he concludes, all subsequent events on earth after the rapture feature the Jews. The 144,000 Jews are massively successful evangelists, even more than Billy Graham, and the Jews rule the Millennium.

My problem with his theory is this: Scripture indicates, instead, that God has rejected Israel as a fleshly nation. Further, in the present church age, the Church—saved Gentiles and Jews--are today's “Israel,” when the Bible uses the term "Israel"for future events.  After all, all Christians are spiritual sons of Abraham, Scripture says. Secondly, saved people are all one people—God doesn’t have two programs for two peoples, as dispensationalists allege. The “saints” mentioned several times in Revelation are saved Gentiles and Jews, together. The Millennium will be ruled by the saints—Jews and Gentiles. The Church is not a “parenthesis” to God; we carry the Holy Spirit, we are Jesus’ body—we represent Jesus in exercising compassion and rescue in the tribulation—we have a vital part to play in that time of great suffering and spiritual battle. I will easily prove these facts by Scripture. Scripture is so clear on this, frankly, that the only reason someone could believe dispensationalist doctrine is because either (1) the idea of God rejecting people that He once blessed is an unacceptable thought to them; (2) rejecting the Jews sounds anti-Semitic; or (3) dispensationalist thought is attractive-- it asserts that Christians “get outta town” (via Rapture) before the bad days of the tribulation comes. Getting to watch the tribulation from heaven sure sounds better than being in the thick of it.

Of the three reasons listed for liking dispensationalism, I can challenge two of them right away (the third will be covered in my main points below): (1) Whom God rejects depends simply on his or her reaction to His clearly-worded Scripture about redemption through Christ, and the required righteous life. Unfortunately, most people (including many who think they are Christian) don’t truly love God—their lives ignore God, except for ritual. So God, in turn, has to reject them—the truth is, most people want to run their own lives, and make themselves the god of their lives. So He has to consign most people to hell for their disobedience. Matthew 7:13-14 speaks clearly about life (heaven) and destruction (hell). Note that heaven is attained for a small minority of people.  The majority go to hell:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

(2) As to calling other beliefs about Jews "anti-Semite": I’m just following Scripture in my analysis. The Jews had a part in killing Our Lord, as you know. Consider Mark 15:12-14:

Pilate answered and said to them again, “What then do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?” 13 So they cried out again, “Crucify Him!” 14 Then Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, “Crucify Him!”

We’re not just talking about the Pharisees crying out their rejection of Jesus here—there weren’t enough of them to make a loud enough turmoil. Pilate felt Jesus was innocent, but was afraid that the noise and hate meant he would have a riot on his hands if he didn’t shed blood that they wanted; so that means the majority of Jews present were screaming—thus, the majority of the Jews at that time rejected Him. (Really, the only time they wanted Him as king was so He could help get Rome off their back.)  So the majority of Jews were guilty. And Pilate (a Gentile) could have had a spine, too, but believed Jesus was disposable. So that makes Gentiles guilty too. Everyone’s sins doom us before a holy God who cannot stand sin. Without Christ, our Advocate, we are lost. Salvation is available—but only one way to attain it, through faith and obedience in Christ.  No anti-Semitism here, folks.  Same litmus test for everybody.

Now let’s get to our main point: God has rejected Israel as a fleshly nation. Scripture below will make that point forcefully. God’s Old Testament prophecy of the Jews’ unfaithfulness was in the mouths of all His prophets, as far back as Moses. Read Deuteronomy 31:16-17a:

And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.

Note that God said He would forsake them. The Jews could have repented of their unfaithfulness, and God would take them back, with His forgiving heart; but instead they kept on killing the prophets. As the prophets predicted, the Jews were, in time, captured and made slaves, but later a small ragged group returned to the land. If you felt that that little return meant God forgave the Jews—that is not the case.  The few who returned were not a free people for long after the return, being taken over by Rome.

God then begins the New Testament with the same theme of rejection of Jews, starting with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:9:

…and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

(I have blogs on the subject of good fruit being crucial to salvation). John was bluntly telling the Jews that they won’t get to heaven on their genes—just being a Jew doesn’t get you there. Thus, the Jews were still failing heaven.

Jesus is even more violent with words than John, in John 8: 22-47:

So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?” 23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”…33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants 34 Jesus answered them,…37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, 39 They said to Him…we have one Father—God.”…42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; …44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.…47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Note the beginning words, "the Jews said"...and note His reply: "you will die in your sins..." Calling the majority of Jews sons of the devil couldn’t be printed in America; it would be called hate speech, but it’s Scriptural. Jesus even called the Pharisees “serpents, brood of vipers” in Matthew 23:33—and asked them, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

It’s true, of course, that nowadays some Jews are saved—but few. Under 1% of Christians are former Jews!

The actual rejection of the Jews is more plainly laid out elsewhere. Look at Matthew 8:8-12:

The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy…But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed… 10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Many will come from east and west” are the Gentiles; the “sons of the kingdom” are the Jews. There it is, plain as day: The mostly unsaved Jews would be cast out into outer darkness (hell). When Jesus said things like this, it was God’s miracle that He even lived for three years of ministry, they would so want to kill Him—rather than repent. More confirmation is in Matthew 21:33-43, a parable where everyone figured out the meaning:

There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard… And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers…38 But when the vinedressers saw the son (Jesus), they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard (God the Father) comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”42 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing… 43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

As plain as day about the kingdom of God: Taken from the Jews, given to another. God is giving the kingdom to people, from all countries, who bear the Holy Spirit’s fruit (Gal 5:22-23).

Paul also deals specifically with this rejection of the Jews, in Romans 9:30-32, written to saved Gentiles who had faith in Jesus:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue (the Law's) righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the Law..., has not attained... righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the Law.

“Attaining to righteousness” is heaven; and “not attaining” is hell. Again, the Jews hung their belief system on the wrong hook, only trying to follow the Law—so the majority of them will be in hell for eternity.

In Galatians 3:28-29, Paul deals with two subjects at once: (1) In the New Testament, all saints are one. God doesn’t have separate programs for two groups of saints: one group who get parenthetically shunted aside, and then dealing with another group to fill an Old Testament plan. (God is no longer interested in Old Testament covenant, now—just the New covenant). (2) Saved people, the Church, in the New covenant, are God’s Israel, and sons of Abraham. Thus, Israel, as a nation, has been rejected and the majority of Jews are not spiritually sons of Abraham, a man of faith, who believed in God's promises.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Plain as day: In the New Testament (the only one to consider, since it replaces the Old covenant), saved people are sons of Abraham—saved people are now the Israel of God, not a fleshly nation which has been rejected.

Part of the Old covenant given to the Jews was the rite of circumcision; but the problem is, they felt that that ritual guaranteed their salvation. We can see in this paper that they were quite wrong in thinking a fleshly sign or their genes is all you need. There were big arguments in the New Testament where the saved Jews felt that if Gentiles wanted to be saved, they would have to get circumcised too. Paul was against any part of the old Law as a prerequisite for salvation. Salvation now  all begins in Christ. See what he has to say in Galatians 6:15-16:

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Who is the “Israel of God?” You can see it: “New creations,” or saved people. Born again people, all saints, all one. What is the current rule, called “this rule?” It’s us saying, “the world has been crucified to me.” That means I have prayed away the love of the world so my body’s members don’t respond to its temptation, as if they’re dead. What is the meaning of “and I to the world?” That means I am ready to give my life to Christ’s mission for me, rather than chasing after the world.

I Peter 2:8-9 has a secret message: They (unsaved Jews) stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 9 But you (saved Gentiles) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him..

The secret message? The three phrases that Peter uses for saved people, the Gentiles, were once given by God to the Jews. But you see, they have been rejected, and the phrases are now given to the saved.  By the way,the phrase "to which they...were appointed" is not a fatalistic Calvinistic phrase, that God appointed them to hell, and there's nothing they could do.  They were appointed to hell after their behavior and thoughts revealed them as unsaved.

Have you ever heard about the phrase, “the fullness of the Gentiles?” It's used in Romans 11:25-26:

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved...

As Luke 21:24ff and Revelation 11:2 will explain further, the "fulness" idea is  talking about End Times, when the last of the Gentiles gets saved and Christ comes. (As I proved by Scripture in another blog, that will happen toward the end of the tribulation). But don’t get the idea, like dispensationalists do, that it means “the Gentile number for heaven is full, so let’s rapture them and start working on building up the Jewish number during the tribulation.”

And what about that last phrase, “all Israel will be saved?” This has been debated heatedly. Well, that could have two possible meanings: (1) In the End Times, when the antichrist has slaughtered millions of Jews, the remaining remnant sees the light—and loses the “blindness” which has pervaded them for centuries. Many of the remnant get saved. That would be a wonderful thing.  Or it could mean (2) “All Israel” could simply mean “all saved people.” Obviously all of them are saved, by definition.

Two more thoughts: (1) Just because of the possibility that Israel gets evangelized in the End Times and a remnant all get saved does NOT justify the dispensationalists’ wild curriculum. I would hope you would agree that we have proven that the Jewish nation has been rejected, and does not have a separate, premier program in the Last Days. This Scriptural fact does a lot to destroy many of the distinctive facets of dispensationalism. And (2) I don’t care which of the two meanings above apply to “saving all Israel.” If hundreds of thousands of Jews get saved at the end, high fives for them—lots more interesting stories to share while we’re all in heaven forever. Remember, I don’t have an ax to grind against the Jews. I'm just figuring out doctrine from Scripture about being saved. God help us to study Scripture and not be rejected on that Day.

Also keep in mind, that according to dispensational thought, Christ has a second advent to do the rapture, and a third advent to rescue the tribulation saints at Armageddon. (First advent was His birth on earth). Three advents! It has never been taught that Christ has three advents. Scripture clearly indicates two.

But there are a couple other things going on with this “pre-trib” doctrine that I don’t like to see. First, what’s with this AWOL mentality among the dispensationalists? Are you saying you want to be raptured and leave your unsaved family or friends behind to suffer the tribulation alone? What’s with that? But your life is a sacrifice to God—it’s not yours. If He wants you on earth in the heat of battle against the antichrist and the devil, well, we’ll have to all just tough it out. Get used to the idea. Don’t be afraid. Fear is not of God (II Timothy 1:7).

Secondly, on the subject of rejection: I keep seeing this mentality: “God is grandpa and doesn’t reject anybody (even those who have rejected Him for thousands of years). He’s mellow and forgiving; once you accept Him, He’s yours forever no matter what you do.” I’ve got several blogs on this flawed mentality showing up in other subjects as well. Let me repeat: Remember Matthew 7:13-14: Only a minority get saved. The majority are rejected and sent to hell. As I said in another blog, some people need to read more of the Old Testament and God's anger against sin, or people need to read everything Jesus said, which included some mighty tough words about heaven and hell. God is holy and can be tough. On a side note:  Don’t expect to hear all aspects of God from preachers. Mostly, you'll hear only about His love and help from most of them.  Pastors everywhere are dropping the ball on this one-sided view.  I don’t know why. Maybe corrupt doctrine has crept into seminary schools, or maybe they’re afraid if they make people feel down or anxious, they’ll go to another church. READ YOUR BIBLE YOURSELF. Ask the Holy Spirit—not “common taters”—for wisdom.

The Problem of Celibacy in the Priesthood

 Dr. John MacArthur  delivered a 2002 sermon on the Roman Catholic priesthood, which later appeared on You Tube.  It is theological at the beginning, historical in the middle, and empathetic at the end.  It may sound judgmental, but please read it to the end.  That was not what it was intended to be.  Here is a summary of his words: 

 

Let’s talk about the issue of celibacy.  Celibacy is an obligatory law to be a priest. But a poll shows that 70-80% of Roman Catholics believe that the priests should be allowed to be married. The Magisterium (Catholic official doctrine) defends celibacy partly on Matthew 19:12 where Jesus said ‘there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.’  The Apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 7, also says in times of extreme distress, being single is better.  Catholic thinking was, you don’t have to worry about the wife and the family’s safety, so you can give your entire focus on the Lord, even in poverty.  But I (Dr. MacArthur) question all that.  Paul also says in the same chapter that in normal times it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.   Actually, those verses make it very clear that overall, marriage is preferable to singleness.  Some tried to twist the Scripture so as to make Peter into an unmarried man.  In I Corinthians 9:5, where Paul says, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas” (Note:  Cephas is another name for Peter. He clearly had a wife.)  The Catholic Bible says, for that verse, “…a believing sister....”  But the Greek word is “wife.” Twisting Scripture to make it agree to doctrine. Thus, making celibacy mandatory is utterly unbiblical. Here’s an interesting reference to celibacy in I Timothy 4: 1-5: 

 

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴ For every creation of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; ⁵ for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

Paul is saying, those who forbid marriage (or certain foods on Fridays) are advocating a doctrine of demons (with the exception of economic or political extremes, such as persecution).  They are listening to deceitful spirits.  I really believe that Satan has managed to control this element of the Catholic system.  The Bible clearly says that marriage, like food, is to be sanctified, and received with gratitude—because marriage comes from God. 

 

Celibacy grew slowly in the Catholic world; it started in the 2^nd century.  It had a pagan history already in places like Asia and Buddhism.  The 3^rd century saw the theology of Gnosticism becoming popular—they emphasized that ‘matter’ (like the body) was evil.  Its followers took the path of scorning the things of the flesh. It was felt that attainment of the highest levels of spirituality was only possible if the body’s needs or desires were supplanted or supressed.  Many took vows of poverty, of chastity, of obedience, of stoic diets, even of silence.  Many other groups felt that Mary remained chaste, a virgin, so they followed her.  The truth is, she had a whole family with Joseph (Matthew 13:55-56, as any version reads.  Assuming  that Joseph had a family before he met Mary has no Scriptural support.)  Others followed Christ, who was celibate. This was by choice. But forcing celibacy among bishops, priests, and deacons happened first in Spain around 390 AD; Catholic supervisors were simply told they would be deposed if they kept their wife and children. Nevertheless, celibacy spread and completely dominated Catholicism in the West by the 5^th century.  But east of Constantinople (Istanbul today), the Orthodox churches never took to it and later split from the Roman churches. 

 

It was finally made their canon in 1079.  But widespread sexual sin followed. Quoting a reliable historian:

 

This mandate generated all kinds of immorality.  The abodes of priests were often dens of corruption.  It was common to see priests frequenting taverns, gambling, having orgies, and speaking blasphemy.  Many priests kept mistresses; and convents became houses of ill fame.  In many places the people were delighted at seeing a priest with a mistress because the married women would be safe from him.  

 

This celibacy requirement began under Pope Gregory VII. If you ask, “Why did he do this?”  The answer is political.  Anyone who desired to be a priest, if married, was immediately separated from his wife and his children—permanently--AND it was required that all his property was confiscated.  Priests, before that time, were very influential, very powerful people. They had wealth, passed it down through their families, and it accumulated, giving families power and influence.  The Pope determined that priests controlled too much wealth, and the Church should take it.  Because if the Church was going to have more power than the State, if it wanted to rule the world, it needed to take wealth and property away from the people in power. (The number-one landowner on the planet today is the Church).

 

The serious problem was, women were cut loose with no means of support or land, so they could not grow food, and many of them died of hunger.  Some were suicides; some turned into streetwalkers. But the Church accumulated massive wealth. The regular people, largely illiterate and poor, presumably supported this dictum. (Get back at the rich priests!) They scorned, even attacked and mutilated the priests when they refused to obey. The disobedient priests were run out of town and exiled. If they wouldn’t give up all their property, the Church would exile them and confiscate their property.  Their children were designated as illegitimate, and their wives were often buried in unconsecrated earth. (That put them, in their minds, in danger of hell).  

 

So it was all about power, about avarice, about a system that wanted to engulf the earth—a horrible story surrounding an unbiblical, pagan doctrine.  In an Oxford Encyclopedia entry under the Reformation Age, Hans Hildebrand, editor, Oxford University Press, 1996, wrote that the priests, without a wife now, often lived with a long-term concubine, and received special dispensation from their religious supervisor so as to have their children legitimated. But this, too, changed in the late 12^th century when concubinage was prohibited.  Some clergy responded to this latest dictum by rioting.  Enforcement of this meant women from reputable families no longer entered into relationships with priests, knowing that it could never be called a valid marriage.  But the priests often could not withhold their sexual desires, and defied the mandates by simply using discretion in their sexual relations.  Denied any release, and usually unsaved, they often slid into gross corruption. 

 

Keep one thing in mind:  a vow of celibacy does not mean you are bound to a promise of chastity.  Canon law does not require sexual chastity; it only prohibits marriage.  You don’t break the law of celibacy by engaging in sexual relationships.  Because of its ‘lesser’ importance, they decided that absolution for sexual relations comes by pardon from a fellow priest.  That’s all you have to do to get it expunged! (Sorry, but God doesn’t so easily absolve this unbiblical ‘law.’)  If a priest wanted to get married, on the other hand, absolution has to come only one way—from the Pope.  Why this inequality of treatment of sexual sin vs. marriage "sin"?  Because they care more about a priest who marries, and the impact that will have on the power of the system, than they do about a priest who commits sexual sin.  Marriage is far worse for the confiscatory system than sexual sin, because it threatens the Church’s power and property.

 

In light of all this, how can the Church hold that marriage is a sacrament, as Scripture insists, the way that they compromised it? Their most holy people—priests and nuns—are denied this sacrament.  The Council of Trent, which solidified Catholic doctrines to counteract the Reformation, pronounced anathema (damnation) on all who teach that the marriage state is preferable to celibacy. But Jesus even said, ‘Not all men can bear that.’  Paul said, ‘It is better to marry than to burn.’  God made all of us sexual, as adults. For them to force celibacy is also an effort to see the priest as more divine than you. You will confess to him, you will, upon dying, ask him to read last rites. Neither of these is Scriptural. God commands us to confess to Him; no human mediator is necessary, except to a peer. In the eyes of the priesthood, considering they were still often taught that the flesh is evil, they often perceived that sexual desires is inherently unclean—so, they were (and probably are) filled with guilt.  And unable to give good advice to families.

 

Lorraine Boettner, in a book on Catholicism, writes:

 

Henry VIII of England, in 1535, appointed commissioners to inspect all monasteries and nunneries.  So terrible were the cruelties and corruptions uncovered, that a cry went up from the nation that all such houses without exception to be destroyed. 

 

True, Henry wanted to dismiss Catholic theology so he could continue to divorce and remarry, but he couldn’t have gotten away with destroying their housing without tacit approval of the people.  We conclude that priests were still actively involved  with sexual sin.  By the way, having men who are trying to suppress their minds, in monasteries with other pent-up men, and all day, every day, listening to people in confessionals describing their own iniquities, sexual or otherwise—is that a healthy environment?  How can the priest think holy thoughts?  My heart goes out to priests. Boettner’s book further says, ‘The largest collection of books in the world on the subject of sex is in the Vatican Library.’  (Who checks them out?!) 

 

The Catholics still teach priests a divided system, which is not in the Bible; the natural, or secular, and the spiritual. Only the spiritual was pleasing to God. While the natural man is satisfied in the day-to-day mundane, the ideal was found in the mystic, who disdained the day-to-day issues.  To him, the natural events were viewed as a hindrance.  For the priest and the nun in monasteries or convents, withdrawal from everyone was the only way to truly develop the spiritual. BUT in God’s eyes, there is no difference between the sacred and the secular, in seeking spirituality.  Scripture tells us that whatever you do, whether to eat or drink, you do it all to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31).  You don’t serve God better by withdrawing from the world.  Jesus even prayed, ‘Father, I’m not asking that You take them out of the world, but to protect them from the evil one (John 17).  The Catholic doctrine of celibacy, as we have seen, given our sinful nature, had actually the opposite effect; it forfeited the reality of developing the spiritual life.  Forced celibacy introduces hindrances that will diminish, even pervert, most peoples’ spirituality.  Charles Hodge wrote the truth about marriage in his Systematic Theology:  

 

It is only in a married state that some of the purest, most disinterested, and most elevated principles of our nature are called into exercise.  All that concerns filial piety and parental and especially maternal affection depends on marriage for its very existence.  It is in the bosom of the family that there is a constant call for acts of kindness, of self-denial, of forbearance, and of love.  The family therefore is the sphere best adapted for the development of all the social virtues, and it may be safely said that there is far more of moral excellence and of true religion to be found in Christian households than in the desolate homes of priests or in the gloomy cells of monks and nuns.     

 

 To introduce another element, latest surveys say that 50% of new priests are homosexuals.  But these men are predators, tempting the pent-up priests already there.  The thing that’s so sad about the priests is, he gave up all relationships, so he has no past to bring with him and treasure it.  His family name, without a child, has no future, so he has no legacy, and no binding family life. This is truly sad. 

 

A Scripture often misapplied is in Luke 14:26, where Jesus says:

 

 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

This verse is often taught to mean that Jesus told us to cut ourselves off from family.  It is instead a hyperbole, much like Matthew 19:24, where the likelihood for a rich person to enter heaven is compared to a camel going through the eye of a needle.  It’s not impossible for the rich to enter heaven, just difficult. Likewise here: Jesus is not saying to cut off and hate wife, mother, etc.  He is saying that our love for Him must exceed our love for our wife, etc.  To the point that if your wife or your mom rejects Christ, you should still trust Him and endure persecution, even if you’re abandoned by your family by so doing. (In some societies, most notably Muslim, your own family will beat you if you become a Christian; they even have permission by the authorities to kill you.) But this verse does not teach to cut priests off from family. Priests are broken, shattered, tragic, disconnected people.  They are victims of a terrible system. It is a soul-destroying process. 

 

On the elephant in the room, pedophilia: A recent survey shows that the average male homosexual offender will abuse 150 boys.  (The average heterosexual violator will abuse 20 girls or women).  Abusers of children don’t quit; they can’t quit.  The Church should have taken lightning action to eliminate this—but they’re spending most energies on hiding it and just moving these awful priests around.  Pedophilia is not where a priest begins, it’s the end of a long, long, pornographic conduct trail. Pedophilia is the caboose on the train. You don’t start your sin there—you end there. The deviation, after awhile, still doesn’t satisfy anymore as at first; so, often, the age of the child-victim has to get younger, so as to increase his excitement.

 

About the nuns:  There is a corrupt system to proselyte young women to become a nun.  The confessional is the recruiting booth for the convents. The best ‘prospects’ for nuns are young women who are coming off of a shattered relationship. The Church looks for a sensitive soul who comes often to confession, often attends Mass.  So they prey on these women in their time of weakness, offering them that they can be like the Virgin Mary, having a secondary virginity. Or they will emphasize that the young woman could be married to Christ, and experience no betrayal of trust.  They have 60 days to give their possessions to the Church. For her to renounce the family is harder than for the men.  She has to kill all maternal instincts, which are God-given; she has to put to death the idea of being cared for by a man, which is God-given.  In the end, the nun is one of the most remarkable products of the Catholic Church. She is really a slave—she occupies hundreds of hospitals, or she teaches—either way, is poorly-paid. Likewise in parochial schools and orphanages, she is willing to offer her life (this control would fill Communist leaders with jealousy).

 

There is no way we can strike an alliance with this system.  We need to rescue these people, both priests and nuns, and give them the real Gospel which does not depend on works to get saved. Give them freedom and deliverance in Christ.