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 cast aside 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 a proof of that statement; a quote from usually reliable Wikipedia: "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."  A secondary 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."

In my discussion of these two theories, I will start with the "Satisfaction" theory, the "latecomer" put forward by Anselm.

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;” and what is wrong with his theory that says that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He also said 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 our sins without a punishment. But where is there room in this theory for God's forgiveness?  And about the related idea that "No sin can be forgiven without satisfaction"--Is this idea Scriptural? Or, just maybe it is based on Medieval chivalry.  Why do I suggest that?  Consider this:  perhaps Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and as sovereign they had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run their land effectively. This theory might perceive that God is a God of justice, not mercy, since He could not simply forgive.  So we're questioning whether this idea is 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 desperate need for justice.  So it says that Jesus endured God’s wrath and paid for our sin.  Thus, Jesus took our place—then when He suffered enough, He had paid our ransom to the Father, so we are now potentially acceptable by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since God's 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; and, as I say, their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). This theory states that our sin put us in rebellion to God and put us under the legal 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, yet no 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, whatever that may mean to Anselm, wants to forgive and have mercy on us. If we do our part.

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 mercy, and then turn around and tell us that we need to be forgiving, without worrying about justice? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. By reading the "Satisfaction" theory 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 lacked the grace of mercy, 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? First of all, Jesus was willing to be the “ransom." 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 indeed 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? Does that idea pass the smell test? 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. He was the bad guy to whom ransom had to be paid.

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 driven by worldly gain—that’s how most unsaved people serve Satan, whether they know it or not.

We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and we become rebels, and start our accountable lives 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 kill his biggest enemy and forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. Thank God for that!  Since the ransom was paid by Jesus at His death, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for--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 the payee--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 guess, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have three blogs 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 view against the theory of eternal security; they held the opposite view. 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. Thus, God received no consideration (payment) for our sins (except our humility and worship, which is what He really wants).  This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15:1-6, and Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a "debt-forgiveness" move 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 and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 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.”

Remember the verse from the Lord’s Prayer again:

And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors

After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we later fall back into “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” if you cannot pay). 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, and express no repentance, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let us all know Him and love Him.

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

 

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

 Let’s start with Genesis 6:1-5, 7:

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; 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. …So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” ⁸ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Now read the New Living Translation of Genesis 6:4:

In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

The New King James says the “sons of God” and daughters of men bore giants, mighty men of renown.  Curiosity compels us to ask: Who are the “sons of God?”  Modern commentators say they were the descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, the godly son from whom Jesus came after many generations.  The phrase “daughters of men,” they also say, refers to the descendants of Cain, the wicked son of Adam who killed Abel.  So, plugging in these definitions, what are they saying?  That the marriages of godly men and ungodly women produced giants. What? There is not one verse of Scripture backing this theory. No Scripture anywhere, either, refers to the descendants of Seth as “sons of God.”  Why are godly men and ungodly women singled out?  Why not the reverse?  And why would their sexual union produce giants?  Their theory is too odd. This unprovable idea proves that you can’t always follow the commentators.

You can see why I like the NLT above. It clearly says the children of this union were Nephilites, a word used in many other translations; and it clearly says it was the sexual union between “sons of God” and earth women, women in general, that produced giants. More on that later.

 There is more proof about who the “sons of God” are. As it turns out, the phrase “sons of God” does appear elsewhere in NKJV Scripture.  We find it in Job 38, where God is chastising Job for not seeing the big picture of His sovereignty.  He is speaking here of the creation of the earth. Here is God talking to Job:

“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, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I remind you, God is referring to the time of the creation of the earth; notice how the "sons of God" were present. But as you read the order of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis, man was not created at the very beginning of Creation represented here; that was later. Thus, the only ones who were there with God were the angels.  So they have to be the "sons of God.”

For further proof, in Job 1 and 2, when Satan appears in heaven to accuse Job, angels are in attendance and are again called by that name, “sons of God." For my third and final proof, one translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, was so reliable that its Old Testament was used by the early apostles, such as Paul and Peter. It translates the Hebrew word in Genesis 6 by not calling them “sons of God;” they straightforward translate it “angels.” Thus, with these three proofs, the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were, by all reasonable accounts, angels.

But most of us believe angels are always good. These angels, however, seem to be breaking God’s command; after all, they knew that their DNA was immortal but the earth women’s DNA was mortal—so that something aberrant would result.  But Scriptures (Isaiah 14:12ff) show that there were angels that earlier rebelled against God and were called fallen angels.  Satan himself was their chief, being the first fallen angel. So Genesis 6 is probably blaming these fallen angels, as lusting after earth women. They had sex with them; they had babies, called Nephilim, that were giants.

Genesis 6 also shows that God was so sick of the corrupt culture that He brought about a flood under Noah that wiped the entire population of humanity away, except Noah’s family; which I presume (speculation, to be partially proved later) had the only DNA that were unpolluted.

Now, to answer an objection that some of you knowledgeable folk might raise--it’s true that Jesus said in Matthew 22 that heavenly angels are unmarried, so they therefore would not lust after women.  But these angels in Genesis 6 are rule-breakers, and not heavenly--their ultimate destination is hell.  Despite being spirits, they took human form--as men (that happens often when demon expulsion is spoken of—even today; they desire to live in human bodies). So, the fallen angels entered earth and broke God’s rule by taking upon themselves physical bodies, to have sex and to marry—and to have children. 

Here is another Scripture which will back our theory up. In the Book of Jude, verse 6, some angels are accused of the sin of “not keeping their proper domain,” and leaving “their own abode.” Their proper domain was originally heaven. But they broke that rule, and became fallen--to earth (PS: Fallen angels are not in hell). It's fair to assume that when they became humans on earth, that was not keeping their proper domain; and, they messed with human births, society, and generation, which was outside His commands as well.  So God punished them by placing them in “chains under darkness.”  As it says in Jude 6:

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 fire.

Now, another proof; please read Jude 7:

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 that Sodom and Gomorrah are called a “similar manner to these.” How are they similar? Their proper abode, sexually, was with women. In Sodom, they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality…after strange flesh."  Scripture means homosexuality. That’s strange flesh. The same idea is true of Genesis angels: They lusted and wanted to have sex with mortal women so much that they were willing to leave their domain, though they knew they would be punished severely for it. Immortal angelic “flesh,” even taking on a human form, is not human flesh. Sexually preying on mortal women is strange flesh. Thus, the reference in Jude has to be the same angels that are spoken about in Genesis 6. Jude and Genesis are tied together.

This is confirmed, and proven again, by II Peter 2.  Note the “chains of darkness” reference again, which now ties all three Scriptures together.  Here's II Peter:

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

Now we have three verses that are tied together; angels that sinned, and put into chains of darkness for breaking God’s commands. Noah also ties II Peter to Genesis. Those angels were rebellious and fallen.  The angels that stayed in heaven who were NOT disobedient are the ones that carry out God's commands in Scripture, and protect us now, including fighting with "rulers of the darkness of this age," making warnings and happy announcements to humans, and worshiping God in heaven.

Back to the union of fallen angels and women.  The evil result was that the babies turned out to be giants. Why giants?  Now I get to my very important speculation: I think the reason is in the DNA.  Angel DNA is not human; but, if mixed with human DNA of the women, that sex act with "strange flesh" produced aberrant DNA and aberrant children--who can predict how that DNA mix would result? This is not impossible to believe, especially since we can observe DNA now, and even change it. 

Now here’s another point in the theory: It's true that when the children grew up, their activities were at the same time (as it says in Genesis) as a vast increase in violence and evil.  The question is, were the appearance of the giants and increase in evil, cause and effect?  It’s possible. The likely answer to that is the Scriptural word “then.”  Note how fast the giants and violence are close to one another in Scripture.  Reading further in Genesis 6:

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…¹² So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

When you think about it, tying the giants to increase of violence is easy.  The giants were loved by the people for their sinful ability to conquer and kill. Let's just show our giant the enemy--and in those days, anyone not of your tribe could be your enemy.  Thus, if a tribe has a giant, they'll attack other tribes to conquer them for booty, slaves, and women. This heightens the killing, and the bloodshed.  It seems reasonable to then suspect that the giants, the greatest of warrior-heroes who ever lived, 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. (It would also explain the stories of powerful demigods like Atlas and Hercules, and others in world literature of the day.) They were called “men of renown”—the public knew them. They were rock stars in that day. They were incredibly strong.  Based on Galileo's estimates of size and weight, they could easily have weighed over 3000 pounds! They also had superior intellect and could make weapons of war (see Genesis 4 and 11).  I suspect Satan passed along a lot of information to them. So, I see men falling into idolatry by worshiping these creatures.  And idolatry will ruin any godliness you used to have faster than anything.  I’m sure the Nephilim  were happy for the attention, and it boosted their ego—egged them on to perform outrageous feats for entertainment. How many of these women can I take on? How many men could a giant kill?  The people asked, 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 prove my DNA speculation, let's take a closer look at the Word in Genesis 6:9.  It says that Noah "was a just man, perfect in his generations.“  The combined reference of "perfect" and "generations" (not used elsewhere in Scripture), really suggests the possibility of DNA perfection down through his family's years, unlike others who had corrupted their DNA by inheriting it from a fallen angel ascendant who had passed it down.  Speaking of “corruptness” of men, let's take a closer look at that word, used twice in Genesis 6:12.  In Hebrew, the word means “marred, spoiled, perverted,” and “injured.” So their corruptness was not just immoral, as "perverted" says--the definitions included "marred" and "injured," which guide us to some physical harm.  I speculate that the mixed DNA of the angel and the women perverted and physically injured, or radically changed the DNA genes of their descendants.  I speculate that the giants and their parents then probably spread these corrupted genes around.  We can assume that they, with their giant egos, had casual sex. Women would certainly be attracted.  Their female "casual sex" partners probably had sex with others.  Any resulting babies’ DNA would be corrupted, and on down it would go with their partners passing it on to others, and it multiplies geometrically through each generation until it perverts a great number of people's DNA (think about the rapid spread of sexual diseases; don't all of these spread super-rapidly from a small starting point?).  The thing to also keep in mind is the extended life span they had to spread their corrupted DNA. We're talking a lifespan of over 800 years, on average. Imagine how many people you could corrupt over THAT life! Now, finally: 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 experience salvation from hell; cannot repent to be godly or heaven-bound. That’s because God's plan of salvation was strictly for humans.  We humans are the people in His image.  These giants, and their genes, were NOT humans, but a hybrid.  They were not in His image.  Look how Noah was considered a preacher of righteousness in II Peter 2--yet, in 120 years that he worked on the ark and explained to everyone its purpose, he couldn't save one person outside his immediate family!  That's unusual failure. That failure has to have been caused by preaching to a group of people that were completely unreceptive. The simplest explanation is, they couldn't be turned to righteousness, because they were not human. So if we ever wonder about why God killed everyone except 8 people, perhaps He had a legitimate reason; maybe they were tainted and unsavable. Perhaps we could also understand why God would want to start over, at least with humans, with those whose DNA had not been corrupted. They would have a chance at salvation.  He loves to see people saved.

Lest you think this story is just too strange to be true, let’s not throw away this idea because you've never heard it before.  Modern commentators often have a flaw they learned in seminary; they shy away from the supernatural (except in cases like Mary, or cases that most people accept), as an explanation for strange events. They see it as a cop-out from rational thinking (and they take great pride in being rational).  And they also shy away from showing God's anger in judgment. They want to sell more books. Negative subjects or wild fantasy are killers for book sales.

Actually, though, supernatural events are what God is all about.  Think about Mary and Joseph, and the number of times a dream or a word actually from God helped them.  If I had a daughter who got pregnant, what would people say when I told them, “she is still a virgin—she has never known a man.  The child’s father is God.”  Would I be believed?  No.  But was it true nevertheless? Yes. Likewise, the Resurrection is hard to believe, but it happened--nothing is impossible with God.  And also consider the anthropologists’ argument that, when many societies have a legend, it more than likely that the core of it really happened. I'm thinking of the demigod giants. They were spoken of, not just in Europe. Also in India and in the East they have such stories.

I’m also thinking of this:  Don't we have huge structures and detailed perfection in weighty materials, that archaeologists and architects say could not have been engineered or put together by humans? Perhaps the simple explanation is, they were in fact not humans--they were built by giants in that day.

So, God wanted to start over with Noah’s immediate family, perhaps the only ones left who had pure DNA, uncorrupted by sex with a not-savable recipient of corrupted DNA. Well, what happened to the Nephilim, the giants? Physically, they died with the Flood.  But their evil spirits lived on, since they were immortal. Satan was not done with corrupting men, so the fallen angels were still living, still under his command, and they were "at it" again, later, taking human form and enjoying sex, and messing in society. Scripture implies this:  take another look at Genesis 6:4 again:

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward (the NLT says: “and for some time after”).

The Bible has many references to giants later; they were still being born after the Flood.  (Trace the word “Nephilim” or "Rephaim" in Scripture, using the NIV Bible, and you will also see other tribes mentioned with giants, like Emim, Zamzummim, and Anakim (Deut. 2)).  And, of course, don’t forget Goliath. His angelic physique was reduced by many generations—he was more human than angelic, since he was at the end of the giants. (And look up Og of Bashan). I would like to add another speculation: Since all of the tribes just mentioned were Canaanites, could it be that All the Canaanites were unsavable? Is that why God wanted the Israelites to kill ALL of them? He was interested in maintaining men’s genes human; killing all the tainted ones would have been the only way to prevent another Noah’s “wipeout” happening again. The Israelites did not do a complete job of obeying God’s orders; that would be why there were some giants left.

Think what that would mean: when God put His promised Land in Canaanite country, the devil made sure it was filled with giants. When God told the Israelites to attack them, He wanted them to attack men who were several feet taller than them. When the scouts were sent out as spies, they praised the country, but felt like grasshoppers compared to the giants. Numbers 13:33:

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them

It would have taken a real leap of faith to attack these men; to all but two of the Israelites, it was a suicide mission. In answer to that, God made sure none of the men and women with no faith would survive the next 40 years in the wilderness. A harsh sentence! But when the kids grew up, they didn’t hesitate to go on the attack. Their memory, and newfound faith, found a way, with God’s help.

I’d like to take a little rabbit path below, making things up-to-date. I realize I am dipping into speculation now, but it’s interesting stuff.

Jesus said the end times would be like the days of Noah, in Matthew 24:36-38. Here is part of His teaching:

“But of that day and hour (that is, end times) no one knows….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

In what way will the end times be like Noah's day?  They ate and drank too much, they forgot about God--much like today. But the simple truth is, men haven’t thought about a second coming for Judgment much in any time period, so why did God pick Noah’s day as the particular comparison for judgment?  One scenario is, today's scientists are getting close to the ability to mess with DNA, and create monster-men eager for war and violence.  Chimeras (more than one DNA) with extraordinary advantages are being created.  Have you ever heard the term “editing DNA,” or “recombinant DNA?” Or, have you ever heard the word "transhumanism?"  An interesting article in Wired in August 2017, issue, gives the good side of altering DNA. Their headline is "Transhumanism And The Future Of Humanity: 7 Ways The World Will Change By 2030."  They cite DARPA and claim that that agency is working on making humans more “augmented.”  Their ultimate goal is making humans live "forever" and supposedly live a more fulfilling life. Much of this controversial subject is secret now, especially regarding DARPA. But here is another article:

• The Economist, in March of this year, has noted that advances in genetic engineering might allow for performance enhancements beyond the limits of diet and exercise. Research has successfully used gene therapy to build significant muscle mass in mice (often referred to as "super mice" in headlines), which points to the underlying biological potential of these technologies.
• The gene-splicing technique CRISPR is a prominent topic in science magazines and journals due to its efficiency in editing the human genome, which has fueled discussions about both therapeutic and enhancement uses.

But articles consistently highlight the profound ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. Concerns include:

• Safety and Unintended Outcomes: The risk of off-target mutations and unforeseen side effects is a major concern.
• Social Inequality: There are fears that if genetic modification becomes widely available, it would be used by the wealthy first, exacerbating existing socioeconomic disparities and potentially creating a "genetically stratified" society.
• "Designer Humans": There is ongoing debate about the moral boundary between using gene editing for preventative medicine (e.g., removing serious diseases) and using it for enhancement (e.g., increasing muscle strength or intelligence).

Military Interest: Some articles, such as one in the South China Morning Post mentioned by the United Church of God blog, have discussed Chinese military scientists exploring the use of animal DNA to create "super soldiers" with increased resistance to radiation, a concept also explored in general human enhancement discussions. 

Bioweapons.  Invasive mutants. Reading further on transhumanism, these DNA mixing are creating chimeras. By mixing man's DNA with creatures' DNA, they can mix in the creature's superiority in some trait. What if soldiers had the benefits of the eyes and ears of the bat, so they could see and hear better in the semi-darkness? They would have a great advantage if they attacked terrorists at dusk or just before sunrise.

To quote Wired again: “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.” At least, successfully. 

But despite the risks, I'm sure that that won't stop the military; they would love to develop mixing in these creatures into soldiers' DNA.  They could breed super-soldiers, the kind that could kill more people, hear and see them better, maybe mixing in ant DNA so they could comfortably carry more weight, making them more efficient and durable.  And I'll bet they could also psychologically engineer them to not feel remorse.  Those countries who have this technology would use it to attack 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 such wars.  As for the other purposes of editing DNA--most everybody would like perfect babies.  With that, we could say good-by to the flaws of natural birth and natural genes.  Does that sound great too?  No? But what if only some parents could afford it, others couldn't? Then we'd be talking about who gets the designer genes, who doesn't.  Separate schools would have to be built for the mutant intelligence. This is starting to sound like X-Men. Then we're back to the Superior Race stuff again, a replay of Nazism, and that didn't turn out good. Every one of these results has an immoral end-play. More wars, more killing, more oppression, slavery, superior races, no remorse. Man creates bad with far more devastation than his creation of good.

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 sub-headline was spooky and probably prophetic, "The Genesis Engine."

This “third scenario” of Nephilim could go like: Satan sends his demonic angels to have sex with women again, and giants are produced again.  These giants perform the same way they did in Noah's day, with the same worship, and tragic results--war, bloodshed, and oppression. End-times stuff. Or, they could come in a spacecraft, and pretend to be aliens visiting us because they “seeded” the earth millions of years ago (they say). Many people could worship them (one world religion), if they could stop war and chaos, and bring economic justice and higher standards of living. Now we’re close to Revelation 13:3-4:

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?”

Thus my final point in my theory:  If we, or satan, corrupt DNA again, we again have superior "people," or really hybrid trans-humans, who are revered for their killing power and for their intelligence. Since they are a chimera of DNAs, and not in God’s image, and not human, they are again unsavable. Like Noah.  They would again be prone to ego, violence, and oppression. It also could lead to many wars and land-grabbing, and man oppressing man.  Now think about it: Does this not sound like a Scriptural description for the Beast's environment in Revelation? Would this not help generate the wars predicted in the End Times? The Beast is a great warrior and general, with an ego to match. He loves being worshipped. And plenty of people are willing to be his lackeys. Is the Revelation’s “Beast” a "demigod," super-strong, unsavable, ego-driven, partly evil angel and partly Man?  Is that why he is called a "beast" in Scripture?  And note his extreme hatred of God and his extreme persecution of God's people in Revelation 13:5ff:

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 creature, along with lots of other warriors that are chimera-produced by man or directed by satan, that may mean judgment day is coming again--the Last Days.  We're not far off from editing DNA, so 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 Scripture-based 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 where you have no answers for the things that are happening? Where you are always feeling unsafe?  You can receive help by falling into the arms of Jesus.  He has a claim on your obedience to His commands in Scripture--He loved you enough to die for you. And He is the winner in the battle with the Beast.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Thankfulness of Jesus

 

From John Henry Jowett

“And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened…” —Luke 24:30-31

I want to lead the meditation of my readers to one of the private habits of our Lord–His habit of thanksgiving. Everyone who knows the New Testament knows how the apostolic life abounded in praise. It runs like some singing river through all their changing days. And where did they learn the habit? They had got it from their Lord. The Master’s habit must have made a profound impression upon them. There must have been something very distinct and distinctive about it. We are told that the two disciples, journeying to Emmaus after the awful happenings in Jerusalem, recognized their risen Lord when He began to give thanks. “He was made known to them in the breaking of bread.” They knew Him by His gratitude and by the manner in which He expressed it. He was recognized by His praise. Let us recall two or three examples of this shining habit of our Lord.

“And Jesus took the loaves and gave thanks.” That is to say, He took commonplace, common bread, and associated it with God, and it was no longer a commonplace. He gave thanks, and in the recognition the common was revealed as the Divine. The ordinary meal became a sacrament with the Unseen Presence as real as we apprehend Him at the table of the Lord.

Now, a man who feels the divine relationships of bread will have a very transfigured road. The man whose praise is elicited by loaves will also be thankful for the cornfield, the sunshine, the dew, and the rain, for the reapers who gather the corn, for the touch of God in the labourer, and for the millstones which grind the corn that makes the bread. He who took the loaves and gave thanks would also give thanks for the common lily of the field, the daisy of His native land. Indeed, I think we may truly say that the Master’s habit of praise made every common thing radiant, and every wayside bush became aflame with God. He breathed His music of gratitude through the commonest reeds.

Now unless His disciples can do the same, unless we can touch and feel God in the commonplaces, He is going to be a very infrequent and unfamiliar Guest. For life is made up of very ordinary experiences. Now and again a novelty leaps into the way, but the customary tenor is rarely broken. It is the ordinary stars that shine upon us night after night; it is only occasionally that a comet comes our way. Look at some of the daily commonplaces–health, sleep, bread and butter, work, friendship, a few flowers by the wayside, the laughter of children, the ministry of song, the bright day, the cool night–if I do not perceive God in these things I have a very unhallowed and insignificant road. On the other hand, the man who discovers the Divine in a loaf of bread, and lifts his song of praise, has a wonderful world, for divinity will call to him on every side.

I do not know how we can better begin to cultivate the Master’s habit than by beginning with daily bread. Because if we begin with bread we cannot possibly end there. If we see one commonplace lit up with God, other commonplaces will begin to be illumined, until life will be like some city seen from a height by night, with all the common lamps in the common streets burning and shining with mystic flame. So let us begin with bread. But let us give thanks reverently, not with the sudden tap and the sharp, superficial sentence of a public dinner. Let us do it quietly, apprehendingly, with an effort to realize the presence of the awful, gracious, merciful God. And let us do it without formality, and seeking deliverance from the perilous opiate of words. Let us change our phraseology, let us sometimes bow in silence, and share the significant, worshipful stillness of the Friends.

Let us watch our Master again and listen to His praise. “I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Our Master thanks the Father that spiritual secrets are not the perquisites of culture, that it is not by cleverness that we gain access into the Kingdom of Grace. He gives thanks that “these things” have not been made dependent upon academic knowledge, that they are not the prizes of the merely clever and acute, but that they are “revealed unto babes.”

Now, mark this: Out of six men only one may be clever, only one may have the advantage of knowledge, but all six may have the elementary simplicities of a child. All cannot be “knowing,” but all can be docile. All cannot be “cute,” but all can be humble. All cannot be “learned,” but all can be trustful. All cannot attain to mental sovereignty, but all may sit on thrones of sovereign love. And it is upon what all may have that our Lord fixes His eye; it is the common denominator for which He offers His praise. He takes bread, the commonplace of life, and gives thanks; He takes the child, the commonalty among men, and gives thanks. He offers praise for the commonplaces and the commonalties. He gives thanks for the things that are common to Erasmus and Billy Bray, to Spurgeon and John Jaspar, to Onesimus and St. Paul. To give thanks for commonplaces makes a transfigured world; to give thanks for commonalties makes a transfigured race. The one unveils the world as our Father’s house; the other unveils the race as our Father’s family.

Now, would it not be good to exercise ourselves in that form of praise? Would it not be wise to allow our minds to rove over the race of men irrespective of class and condition, and search out the commonalties and sing our song of praise? One thing such praise would do for us. It would preserve in our minds a vivid sense of the relative values of things. We should recognize that academic learning is not to be mentioned in comparison with loneliness, that carnal power has not the holy standing of meekness, and that mere eminence is not to be counted in the same world with love. What we may have in common with the poorest and most ignorant is our most precious possession.

Look at the Master once more. “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me.” The Master gave thanks before the miracle was wrought, while the dead was still lying stiff and stark in the tomb. He offered praise not for the victory attained but for victory about to be won. His song was not for what He had received, but for what He was about to receive. He gave thanks before the dead marched forth, and before the mourners’ tears were dried. The doxology was sung at the beginning and not at the end.

“Father, I thank Thee . . .” “And when He had thus spoken He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth, and he that was dead came forth.” The sound of praise thrilled through the call that awaked the dead.

Have we learned the habit? Is that the gracious order of our thought and labour? Sometimes we thank God for food we are about to receive. Do we thank God for power we are about to receive? Do we thank God for victory we are about to receive? Do I go forth in the morning to the warfare of the day with thanks for coming victory filling me with exhilaration and powerful hope? Did I rear my altar of praise before I took my sword? Is that how I go to the pulpit, thanking God for victories about to be won? Is that how I go to my class, quietly confident in the coming of my Lord? Is that how I take up the work of social reform? Is the song of victory in the air before I enter the field? Can I begin to sing the song of harvest home as I go forth to sow the seed? Am I sure of God, so sure that I can sing as soon as the struggle begins? That was the Master’s way. It was first the thanks and then the miracle.

And so Jesus assumed that His prayer was answered before He addressed the dead. And the significance of the act is this. To gratefully assume that prayers for power are answered opens the entire being to the full and gracious influence of the answer. Gratitude opens the channels of the whole life to the incoming of the Divine. There is no mood so receptive as praise; it fills the soul with the fulness of God, and the indwelling God works wonders, even to the raising of the dead.

I have given these three examples of the Master’s habit of thanksgiving. It is our great wisdom to follow in His train. All manner of things are promised to the grateful heart. Thanksgiving is to be a minister of vigilant sight; “watch in the same with thanksgiving.” Thanksgiving is to be a stimulant to a jaded and weary soul: “Be not drunken with wine, . . . but be ye thankful.” Thanksgiving is to be a beautifier of the regenerate soul. Ten lepers were purified, only one was beautified; “he returned to give thanks.” And, lastly, thanksgiving glorifies God. It is by the brightness of our praise that we offer the best witness to the goodness and power of our God.