Blog

The idea that Paul was a false teacher trying to deceive people into following a new religion he created is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever proposed, yet there are actually a lot of people out there who make this accusation. Most people who make this claim accept that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who was entirely opposed to the teachings of Jesus that Peter, James, John, and the other early followers of Jesus believed and proclaimed. Where they go astray is in their assumption that he decided to create a competing faction (really an entirely new religion) in order to get people to stop believing and following Jesus’ teachings and follow these false teachings instead.

You see, since what he taught after his conversion went entirely against the Jewish doctrines he himself believed, and since he also didn’t believe that what Peter and the others taught was true, this would be entirely counterintuitive, since he’d just be leading them from one false religion (at least as far as he was concerned, if this theory was true) to yet another false religion, which wouldn’t accomplish anything. But on top of that, he’d also be leading all the Jews who followed what he believed to be the actual truth (presuming, again, that this theory was true) astray, at least those Jews who converted to his supposedly new religion (and if the Bible is to be believed, he did convert some), which he also wouldn’t want. So bottom line, he wouldn’t have accomplished anything he actually wanted to accomplish (either purposely leading the early believers astray, or keeping existing followers of Judaism from going astray), so this idea is entirely nonsensical and deserves nothing but laughter.

The problem for those who believe the Bible is the word of God yet who also call Paul a false teacher is that the only way to do so is based on the authority of other parts of the Bible, which requires first accepting that at least some parts of the Bible are indeed true. But if you’re going to remove his epistles and the writings about him in other books of the Bible as false doctrine (which you have to do if he is a false teacher), you end up with a much shorter Bible than you might realize at first (and, of course, this also brings up the question of why you’d accept certain parts of the Bible but not others).

For example, if you truly believe that Paul is a false teacher, on top of his own epistles, you have to cut the book of Acts out of the Bible. And if the writer of Acts (who clearly saw Paul as a legitimate apostle, based on the book of Acts, and who very likely worked with Paul during his ministry) can’t be trusted, then the book of Luke can’t be trusted either and must also be removed, since it was written by the same person.

Of course, Peter also obviously considered Paul to be a brother in Christ, and even considered Paul’s epistles to be Scripture, based on what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16, so you now have to cut 1 Peter and 2 Peter from the Bible too, as well as anything to do with Peter in Matthew, Mark, and John, if you’re going to go down this path, because Peter obviously can’t be trusted, which means he must be a false teacher too and hence can’t be a true apostle either. But not only that, this means that the writers of Matthew, Mark, and John were wrong in considering Peter to be an apostle of Jesus, which means the writers of these books also can’t be trusted, and so these three books also need to be tossed.

So at the end of the day, all you have left of the Greek Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the New Testament”) are James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (and maybe Hebrews, presuming Paul didn’t write that as well, which some people believe he did), at least if Paul is indeed a false teacher. And at that point, I’m not sure what basis you’d have for believing any of what’s left of the Greek Scriptures, although if you’re cutting any of it to begin with — even just Paul’s epistles — you still have no good basis for believing any of it is accurate, and you should have just tossed the whole thing to begin with (this also applies to those who claim that 2 Peter was a forgery, because once you start down that path, you also have no basis for believing any of the rest of the Greek Scriptures, so it isn’t even worth considering unless you’re willing to toss all of the “New Testament” books, which I’m certainly not).

All that said, it’s easy to understand why some people mistakenly think Paul was a false teacher, because, as many people who believe this point out, he clearly taught his readers certain things that contradict what Jesus taught His followers to do during His earthly ministry. The problem is, everybody pointing this fact out is entirely unaware of another fact, which is that Jesus Himself had two entirely different ministries and messages to two entirely different groups of people (one message He taught while He walked the earth, and one He later taught to the nations through the apostle Paul), and the requirements for salvation under each of these ministries were also different. Now, I’m not going to get into all the details of this fact here, because I covered it in detail and proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt in my free Rejecting Rome Bible study, and anyone who isn’t familiar with this fact isn’t even ready to begin discussing anything in the Bible since this is a foundational doctrine one must be aware of in order to be qualified to study and teach any Scripture at all (so if you aren’t already familiar with this fact, go read that chapter, along with the introduction to the eBook I just linked to there). But once you come to understand the difference between Jesus’ two ministries and messages, you can see why there’s no longer any reason to consider Paul a false teacher at all.

And once you’ve finished reading the study that I linked to above (or if you’re already familiar with the facts about this topic in it), I also recommend reading some of Scott Hicko’s articles on the topic here:

• Paul: A False Apostle? Says the Scripturally Clueless
• Paul’s Proof: All Are Under Sin
• Paul’s Radical Gospel
• Paul’s Message– The One Nobody Dared to Invent

[The following is an edited excerpt of my (free) Bible study which goes into depth on this topic, among many others, but I wanted a quick article to prove the fact that the Bible teaches the dead are not conscious. Links to supporting references are underlined.]

Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. — Luke 20:27-38

Strangely enough, some Christians actually try to use this passage to support their view that the dead remain conscious, mistakenly thinking that Jesus’ statement meant the dead aren’t actually dead, but are actually still alive somewhere. If they just took the time to examine the context of the whole passage, however, they’d discover that it was really about how the Sadducees, who didn’t believe in a physical resurrection of dead bodies in the future, were trying to trip Jesus up with a question about who a hypothetical person would be married to after being resurrected from the dead during the impending kingdom in the next age, when the kingdom of heaven exists in Israel for 1,000 years (although it’s translated as “that world” in the King James Version, the word “world” doesn’t always mean “planet” or “earth” in that Bible translation, but in many cases — including this one in Luke, since it was translated from the Greek αἰών/“ahee-ohn’” here — is a synonym for “age,” meaning “a long period of time with a definite beginning and end,” which is why most Bible versions translate αἰών as “age” rather than “world” in this passage).

To put it simply, they weren’t asking about a ghost in an afterlife dimension and whether or not she’d have to be polygamous in that imaginary realm, but were asking their question about her various marriages in order to make the idea of physical resurrection seem ridiculous. However, Jesus corrected them by not only pointing out that those people who are going to be resurrected from the dead at the beginning of that “world”/age will be immortal like the angels and hence will not be married anymore at that time (because procreation, which was normally only done by married people in Israel at the time, isn’t something immortal beings are meant to do, as we know from Genesis 6 — look up the Nephilim if you aren’t familiar with what I’m referring to, because that’s too big of a tangent for me to explain at this point), but also by using the fact that the Lord could not legitimately claim the title of “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,”as Moses revealed Him to be, if the dead weren’t going to be physically resurrected someday, because He’s technically not the God of those who are currently dead, but is instead only the God of the living (Jesus was using prolepsis in that statement — prolepsis being a common figure of speech used throughout the Bible which means “the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished,” calling what is not yet as though it already were, in other words, as God Himself often does — in order to prove that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will definitely be resurrected someday, because otherwise that statement about them would have been a lie since it would mean they’ll never exist again, when in fact “all live unto him” already, considering the fact that, as far as God is concerned, they’ve already been physically resurrected, at least from His timeless perspective — meaning, because God ultimately transcends space and time, He not only exists in our time, but He’s also already existing at the point in time when these three patriarchs will be resurrected as well).

The passage just can’t be read as saying the three of them were actually still alive at the time that Jesus made that statement. Verse 37 of Luke 20 (“…that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush…”) makes it very clear that Jesus is talking about the fact that these three patriarchs would eventually be physically resurrected, not that they’re actually still alive in another dimension (He didn’t say, “that the dead are living in another dimension”; He said, “that the dead are raised,” referring to a future resurrection). Jesus’ whole point is that, if they aren’t going to be raised from the dead to live again, God could not be said to be their God, because He isn’t the God of the dead but of the living. If they were actually still alive in some afterlife realm, God would have still been their God from a literal perspective rather than just a proleptic perspective at that time (and they could still thank and praise Him, contrary to what other parts of the Bible say), but Jesus’ whole point was that, without a physical resurrection, He couldn’t be their God, since they’re dead and will never exist again if they aren’t going to be resurrected. Because they will be resurrected, however, God actually can be said to be their God, even if only from a proleptic perspective at present, at least as far as those of us who are bound by time are concerned.

There’s just no way to read verses 37 and 38 as meaning anything other than Jesus saying that those who have “gone to sleep” are indeed dead and unconscious until their resurrection, because the only way that Moses’ statement about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could possibly be used as proof of a physical resurrection from the dead in the future is if the three of them have ceased to live and consciously retain knowledge for the time being. If the three of them are actually still alive in an afterlife dimension somewhere, and if Jesus’ statement about God being the God of the living rather than the God of the dead was actually Him trying to prove the idea that God is still their God because they’re actually still alive somewhere, then the resurrection of the dead would be entirely unnecessary for God to be their God, and Jesus’ argument couldn’t possibly help prove a future resurrection at all, which means they have to no longer exist as conscious beings for now or else Jesus’ entire argument proves nothing as far as what the Sadducees were challenging Him on goes.

Of course, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:31-32 makes this even more obvious, since Jesus is recorded in that book as saying, “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” making it clear that His statement about God not being the God of the dead, but of the living, is entirely about bodily resurrection (when Jesus said, “the living,” He could only have been referring to living in a physical body in the future and not to ghosts currently “living” in an afterlife realm, based on both this passage in Matthew and the one we looked at in Luke).

However, if you do still believe in the immortality of the soul after reading about Jesus’ discussion with the Sadducees, I’d like you to explain how, exactly, Jesus’ argument about God not being the God of the dead, but rather of the living, could possibly prove a future resurrection if His statement meant that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob actually are still alive in an afterlife realm somewhere. Because, unless you can do so, this statement by Jesus seems to be definitive proof that the dead aren’t actually conscious, and that no other passage in Scripture which one might believe teaches a conscious afterlife can possibly actually be intended to be interpreted that way, which means all the other “proof texts” people use to try to prove the immortality of the soul have to be interpreted in a different manner from the way most people traditionally interpret them. And if you want to know what the rest of the “proof texts” normally used to try to prove the immortality of the soul really mean, please go read my (free) Bible study that I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. — 2 Timothy 2:15

We’ve all heard it quoted many times to try to guilt us into studying the Bible more. And while careful Bible study is a worthy endeavour, is that really what 2 Timothy 2:15 means? Well, Bible study is definitely a method of discovering how to fulfill this exhortation of Paul today, but it isn’t quite what he was getting at in his instructions to Timothy back when he wrote them.

First things first, it’s important to know that the word “study” in 1611 when the KJV (the King James Version of the Bible) was translated is what’s known as a False Friend, which is a term that is sometimes used to refer to English words we still use today, but which can now mean something very different — in ways that the average reader is unlikely to be aware of — from what they could mean when the KJV was first translated (and while certain disingenuous types will try to distract from this fact by pointing out that the term “False Friends” has previously been described by saying, “In linguistics, false friends are words in different languages that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning,” this — almost certainly purposely — misses the point entirely by ignoring the fact that the first two words of the explanation were “in linguistics,” not “in theology,” and also ignores the fact that the meaning of words and phrases can change over time, not to mention that words and terms can have multiple meanings, as is the whole point of the theological definition of False Friends in the first place).

You see, the word “study” could mean “to read something over carefully to learn its meaning” back then, but it also had the additional definition of “be diligent” or “endeavour” at the time the KJV was translated, and since that’s exactly what the Greek word σπουδάζω/“spoo-dad’-zo” that it’s translated from in this verse means, it should be clear that this word is indeed a False Friend in the KJV. That’s not to say the word is a mistranslation. It just means that the definition of words can change over time, and if we aren’t careful, we can end up completely misinterpreting the meaning of a passage containing such a word (that said, scriptural studying, as we use the word today, is still a good way to show our diligence, but it isn’t what Paul was getting at in this verse).

The word “study” isn’t the only thing that causes modern readers to misunderstand Paul’s intention for Timothy as being about studying Scripture, however. The phrase “the word of truth” does too. As I’m sure you know, most people assume this is a reference to the Bible, but the fact that the Bible hadn’t been compiled yet at the time Paul wrote this epistle should make it pretty obvious that he couldn’t have been referring to Scripture (or, at the very least, not to Scripture as a whole). And if you use a concordance to look up the various references to “the word of truth,” or “the word of the truth,” in the Greek Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the New Testament”) you’ll quickly discover that it’s basically always a reference to a Gospel when it’s used in the Bible (compare the verse in question to Ephesians 1:13, Colossians 1:5, and James 1:18 and you’ll see why I say that).

And what does it mean to “rightly divide” the Gospel? Well, it means to properly differentiate which part of “the Good News (Gospel) of God” refers to the Gospel of the Circumcision vs the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. I’m not going to get into all the details of what these two Gospels are when they’re rightly divided from one another here, though, because I’ve already done that elsewhere more than once (in both my Things that differ article, as well as in the first 120 or so pages of my free free Rejecting Rome Bible study, so please go read one of those if you aren’t aware of this truth yet).

Of course, this is where some Christians will also (rightly) point out that the Greek word ὀρθοτομέω/“or-thot-om-eh’-o” — a variation of which “rightly dividing” is translated from in the KJV — can also be translated as “making straight” or “correctly handling” or some other similar term, in order to distract from the idea that the Good News about God needs to be divided. But as you read the aforementioned article or Bible study that I just linked to above, it should become pretty obvious to you why “rightly dividing” is indeed a better translation than those other options are when it comes to this verse, so I’m not even going to bother responding to that point here, because you’ll be able to see for yourself by the time you finish that article or Bible study.

So what was Paul instructing Timothy (and, by extension, any other readers of this epistle) to do, exactly? He was simply saying to be careful to make sure to rightly divide the Gospel into its two respective Gospels, and by doing so he’d end up a workman who did not to be ashamed because he’d prove himself to be approved by God because he’d understand what instructions were meant for the church called the Israel of God and what instructions were meant for the church called the body of Christ. And we should all endeavour to do the same as well, which is why, if you aren’t familiar with the scriptural proof that there is more than one Gospel in the Bible after the Good News of God has been rightly divided, please make sure to read that article or Bible study.

There are many good reasons to use the KJV (the King James Version of the Bible), its accuracy compared to most other Bible versions being the main one, and if non-TR (Textus Receptus) manuscripts truly are corrupt (or even if they’re just less accurate than the TR), as many Christians who fall under the label of KJV-Onlyist believe, that would be another good reason for them to prefer it over other non-TR-based Bible translations. Many of these particular Christians have another reason they only use the KJV, however, and that’s because they believe God promised to preserve His words in written form in Psalm 12:6-7, and they then assume the KJV is that set of preserved words in written form.

Now, this is technically two claims (that God promised to preserve His words in written form for ever — although it’s also important to remember that “for ever” rarely, if ever, literally means “without end” in the Bible, as demonstrated from Scripture here — and also that this promise was fulfilled through the KJV), but we’re only going to look at the first claim in this particular article. And while there are various other passages they refer to as well, in order to try to defend this assertion (although, if you look at them in context, you’ll see that many of those other passages are actually referring strictly to prophetic words that had just been spoken immediately beforehand, or else to other specific words within Scripture such as the Mosaic law rather than to Scripture as a whole, particularly in written form), as I already mentioned, they primarily use Psalm 12:6-7 to back this claim, because it says:

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Of course, if you only read those two verses on their own, cherry-picking them out from among the rest of the chapter they’re a part of, it’s easy to see why someone might assume they’re talking about preserving Scripture in written form. Is that actually what those two verses are referring to, though? As the old saying goes, a text read out of context is just a pretext for a “proof text,” so we have to look at the context of the psalm as a whole in order to determine what those two verses near the end of it are really talking about rather than just using them as a “proof text” on their own to prove a specific doctrine. Of course, what most people don’t really notice when reading the psalm is that it consists of three separate parts, so let’s see how the chapter looks when that fact is taken into consideration, in order to discover context of the whole psalm:

Part 1 (verses 1-2), the words of the Psalmist: Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

Part 2 (verses 3-5), the words of the Lord: The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

Part 3 (verses 6-8), the words of the Psalmist: The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

When you break the psalm down into its three respective parts, we can see that it’s talking about three different groups: the wicked, the needy, and God, with:

1) The psalm beginning as a cry for help to God by the psalmist because of wicked men oppressing the needy (albeit, only the needy within the Israel of God, as those who know how to rightly divide should be aware, since the Psalms — like the rest of the books of the Bible not written by Paul — weren’t to or about Gentiles, although that’s a whole other topic).

2) This cry for help then being followed up by the words of the Lord, where He promises to both protect needy people, and also to punish the wicked men who are troubling them. And finally…

3) The psalm is wrapped up by the psalmist acknowledging God’s promise, taking comfort in the fact that the words God spoke there are pure words, and hence that this promise can be trusted, which means he knows that the wicked men he was writing about will not remain exalted permanently as they would if God’s words couldn’t be trusted, and hence that the needy will indeed be preserved by God.

Scripture itself — particularly Scripture in written form — is obviously not the main focus, and hence not the context, of this psalm, and when we consider the context of God promising to deal with those who are harming the needy throughout the rest of the psalm, there’s literally zero reason to assume that the psalmist suddenly began discussing an entirely different topic (scriptural preservation in written form) that hadn’t even been hinted at anywhere in this psalm about saving the needy from the wicked prior to verse 6. And so, to insist that verses 6 and 7 are suddenly talking about a whole other topic altogether from the rest of the chapter, with verse 8 then returning to the original topic (even though that verse makes no sense standing on its own the way it would be without verses 6 and 7 being the connective tissue of God’s promise to preserve the needy and punish the wicked rather than being a random interjection about God promising to preserve Scripture in written form), rather than these verses telling us that God will preserve the needy as He promised in His words which preceded those two verses, just makes no sense whatsoever, and anyone who insists it does is obviously trying to shoehorn their desired meaning into the two verses (this is known as eisegesis) rather than interpreting these two verses based on the context of the rest of the chapter (which is known as exegesis).

To make this even more clear, if we did interpret it the way most KJV-Onlylists do, that would mean the psalm was actually written in four parts rather than just three:

Part 1 (verses 1-2), the words of the Psalmist: Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

Part 2 (verses 3-5), the words of the Lord: The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

Part 3 (verses 6-7), the words of the Psalmist: The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Part 4 (verse 8), follow-up words of the Psalmist: The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

If this were what the psalm was really getting at, it would also mean we’d have to break it down this way instead:

1) The psalm beginning as a cry for help to God by the psalmist because of wicked men oppressing the needy.

2) This cry for help then being followed up by the words of the Lord, where He promises to both protect needy people, and also to punish the wicked men who are troubling them.

3) The psalmist suddenly arbitrarily talking about how God will preserve His words in written form, having nothing to do with the parts of the psalm that came before or after this supposed interjection. And finally…

4) The psalmist returning to talking about the wicked men he’d previously been talking about in the psalm being exalted and walking on every side, for some reason, ending on a down note rather than acknowledging the promise made by God in part 2 to protect the needy.

When you look at it that way, I trust you can see which of those two breakdowns make the most sense, and that this psalm has nothing to do with scriptural preservation in written form at all.

Of course, there’s also a second factor that most people aren’t aware of when reading this psalm, and this is its chiastic structure:

As you can see from that breakdown, the words of the Lord referred to in verse 6 are a chiastic, reverse reflection of the words of the ungodly in verses 2 to 4 (telling us that His promises are pure and can be trusted, unlike the vain words coming from the lips of the wicked), and you can also see from the breakdown that verse 7 (combined with verse 8) is a chiastic, reverse reflection of verse 1 (and not of verses 2 to 4, as it would have to be in order to be talking about words rather than people), revealing yet again that verses 6 and 7 have nothing to do with scriptural preservation in written form at all, but are rather talking about the preservation of the needy as promised by the words of the Lord. Of course, that’s not to say that His words in written form won’t be preserved in some way (whether completely or not, and whether this is done through the KJV or not), but by now it should be clear that this isn’t what those two verses in Psalm 12 are talking about (and this isn’t even considering the Hebrew grammar of the passage itself, which also proves that those two verses don’t mean what most KJV-Onlyists assume they do, although I’m going to leave that fact for others to demonstrate).

Now don’t get me wrong here. Defending the King James Bible is obviously a worthy cause, but we can’t do so by misinterpreting it. We have to be honest, both with the text and with our arguments, and so I’m calling on all King James Bible Believers to stop using this passage to try to defend God’s preservation of Scripture in written form, since it just isn’t saying what so many have assumed it is, and because you aren’t going to convince anybody who does know what this passage is actually talking about by using it to defend scriptural preservation anyway (instead, at best all you’re going to do by using this passage to defend the doctrine is convince them that you don’t understand hermeneutics or what this passage means, and at worst you’re going to convince them that you’re deceptive, and I trust that neither of those conclusions is what you want to convince them of).

Please note that I’m including many of my scriptural references in the links (which are are the underlined words throughout the article), and they also link to studies with extended details that I couldn’t fit into the article, so please be sure to click all the supporting links in order to get the full picture, as well as all the Scripture references. Please also note that some of the writers of the books and articles I linked to in this article do use Bible versions other than the KJB (the King James Bible) themselves, but I still highly recommend reading their articles and books even if you are a King James Bible Believer, in order to learn more details that I didn’t have the time to get into here myself. Speaking of those links, please also keep in mind that just because I link to specific articles or books doesn’t mean that I agree with everything their writers and/or publishers believe and/or teach. In some cases, I link to them for the sole reason that they happen to have better supporting material on a specific point than anybody else I’ve found so far.

A very common assertion by conservative Christians is that being gay (or being a homosexual) is forbidden in the Bible, but the truth is, Scripture says nothing about the topic of being gay at all. That might seem like a strange statement, since I’m sure you can think of plenty of verses which you believe talk about the topic, but like many of the things discussed on this website, this is an assumption based on a misconception. Remember, “homosexuality,” or “being gay,” is simply the state of being attracted (sexually and/or romantically) solely to members of the same sex, and doesn’t inherently have anything to do with actually having sexual intercourse with — or even touching in a romantic or sexual manner — someone of the same sex at all (someone who is gay might never have sex with anyone of the same sex, and someone who is heterosexual or bisexual very well might — in fact, I’ve been told that a lot of gay porn is actually filmed with straight actors, who do it not because they have any attraction whatsoever to people of the same sex but rather do it for the money), and simply being attracted to somebody isn’t a sin, in and of itself (even if same-sex relations were sinful, being tempted is not a sin, since even Jesus was tempted and He never sinned). That said, as far as same-sex relations go, the absolute most one could possibly argue is that the Hebrew Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the Old Testament”) might forbid anal sex between males outside the context of rape and/or idolatrous prostitution (which is always wrong, and quite possibly what it’s actually forbidding according to many scholars, although there are other possible interpretations of the passages generally interpreted as forbidding it too), but even if so, this would only apply to those who are under the Mosaic law since the Hebrew Scriptures are the only part of the Bible where it might have forbidden it on its own outside the context of rape and/or idolatry; it’s never forbidden on its own anywhere in the Greek Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the New Testament”), as I’ll discuss shortly.

And regardless of whether it does forbid anal sex between men, it doesn’t say anything about love, romantic relationships, or other forms of sexuality between males. The passage about a man lying with a man in Leviticus would have to be strictly referring to anal sex — presuming it’s referring simply to sexual intercourse between men at all, and not referring to temple prostitution or something else altogether, as many believe it does (for those who disagree with me here, if it were including other forms of sexuality, such as oral sex, for example, there would have also been a verse forbidding women from lying with other women or from performing oral sex on other women, and since there isn’t, there’s literally no good reason to believe it’s including that particular act between men either). On top of that, the Bible definitely never says anything anywhere about love, romantic relationships, or sexuality between females. The passage in Paul’s epistle to the Romans about idolatry that many mistakenly use to argue against homosexuality does not actually condemn women lying with women as many believe, and is most likely talking about women lying with animals (an action that actually was forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures) when the context of worshipping the creature in that passage is taken into consideration — although some argue that it instead refers to women participating in a certain sort of shrine prostitution, which is also possible, but either way, the idea of women lying with other women hadn’t ever been forbidden in Scripture. You see, the prohibitions for men that most people think literally forbid men from lying with other men don’t include women in the passages, all while being next to other rules which do forbid women from specific sexual actions, so even if the commandment they’re thinking of means what these people assume, it can’t be applied to both sexes without ignoring important hermeneutical principles, which means there’s no justification for claiming it was all of a sudden being forbidden by Paul in Romans (Paul didn’t make up new sins that were never previously mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures). And, of course, there’s also the fact that the actions mentioned in this passage in Romans were actually negative “consequences.” Paul’s point in this passage wasn’t that he was telling people to avoid certain sexual sins, but rather that the sin of idolatry would lead, or more likely led (past tense, probably referring to “sacred orgies” that included same-sex intercourse performed in worship of Baalpeor in “Old Testament” times), certain people to certain negative consequences, such as performing acts that went against their nature. And the fact that the passage talks about men going against their nature is very telling as well. The phrase “leaving the natural use of the woman” implies that these men were, by nature, heterosexual. You see, the word translated as “leaving” in the KJB is ἀφίημι/“af-ee’-ay-mee” in the Greek, which means to leave behind, forsake, neglect, or divorce. Simply put, the men in question divorced themselves from their own heterosexual nature when they were consumed with passion for one another during the idolatrous ceremonies in the past that Paul was almost certainly referring to in that passage in Romans.

As far as the rest of the passages in the Greek Scriptures that people normally use to argue against same-sex relations go, those passages are also terribly misunderstood. I don’t have room to get into all the details here (although others have done a good job of digging deeper on the subject, so I recommend looking at some of their studies on the topic), but when Paul wrote about same-sex relations in his other epistles, it’s very likely only idolatrous prostitution between males that he’s specifically condemning (much like the πορνεία/“por-ni’-ah” issue between men and women was in many cases when he wrote against that sin, as I discussed in my “What Scripture really says about lust, sexuality, and other body-related topics” article, which this article you’re reading now is actually an edited excerpt of). But what about 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Well, if you aren’t aware of the Greek words that passage is translated from, you’re going to get a little confused. You see, the word “fornicators” there is πόρνος/“por’-nos” in the Greek, referring simply to a man who has illicit sex with a woman, specifically a man who has sex with a female temple prostitute (a πόρνη/“por’-nay” in the Greek) in this particular case, based on the context of the latter part of the chapter (the context of a passage is always extremely important to consider when trying to determine the meaning of a part of Scripture, or even of a specific word within it), which is men committing idolatry and worshipping other deities by joining themselves with a temple prostitute (this is why πόρνη is translated as “harlot” in verse 16). With that in mind, and based on the fact that sexual intercourse on its own was never forbidden between unmarried men and women (again, as proven from Scripture in the aforementioned article on sexuality, and please read it if you aren’t aware of this fact), apart from specific circumstances primarily involving idolatry (which tells us there’s basically no reason to assume there’s something wrong with sex between men and other men either; and definitely not between women and other women, which I trust you’ve noticed is not a situation mentioned in this passage, a passage that is very specific about what gender a person committing each sexual sin listed in it is, as is made particularly evident in the original Greek: while certain types of male/female and male/male relations are condemned in it, female/female relations aren’t even hinted at as they certainly would be if they actually were forbidden), it stands to reason that the two Greek words which are used for same-sex relations between men in this passage are also referring to an idolatrous form of same-sex relations between men. When we again consider the context of the rest of the chapter, it suggests that the two words are almost certainly referring to temple prostitution, just like πόρνος and πόρνη are. The first word is μαλακός/“mal-ak-os’,” likely referring, at least in this case, to a male temple prostitute (the word can technically be used to mean other forms of same-sex relations as well, which is likely why it was translated as “effeminate,” but based on the context of the passage it seems pretty likely to be what Paul meant when he used the word in his epistles), and the second word being ἀρσενοκοίτης/“ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace,” which is rendered as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” and is a word some people believe that Paul actually had to make up (it doesn’t appear to occur in any Greek writings prior to Paul’s use of it in his epistles, at least none from before that time have been discovered that I’m aware of as of the time this article was first written) because there didn’t seem to be an equivalent word to πόρνος for a man who slept specifically with male temple prostitutes (and those who want to argue that, because the compound word ἀρσενοκοίτης is made up of two Greek words which when placed next to each other in a sentence would mean something along the lines of “man bedders,” it must simply refer to “men who have sexual relations with one another” — despite the fact that there were already existing Greek words Paul could have used instead, rather than making one up — have to also believe that the insect we call a butterfly is actually either a stick of butter that flies or a fly made out of butter, based on the same logic). So, to break it down, in Paul’s epistles a πόρνος would almost certainly be a male who sleeps with female temple prostitutes, a πόρνη would be said female temple prostitute, an ἀρσενοκοίτης would likely be a male who sleeps with male temple prostitutes, and a μαλακός would then be said male temple prostitute. Bottom line: it’s all about committing idolatry and doesn’t seem to have anything to do with simple sexual desire or same-sex relations outside of temple prostitution and the worship of other deities (at least in the Bible; knowing how some of these words might have been used outside of Scripture can be helpful, but considering consistent context — not only of the specific section a word is used in, but of Scripture as a whole — can be even more important when it comes to biblical interpretation, since words can mean different things in different parts of Scripture, as well as mean different things from the way they were used outside of Scripture at times too).

Even if someone does decide to ignore all of the above, however, they should be warned that Scripture is very clear that it’s the anti-gay conservatives who are actually guilty of “the sin of Sodom” (which, contrary to the popular misunderstanding of the term, had nothing to do with homosexuality at all) today, and I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of these religious conservatives at the final judgement. Even if only indirectly, homophobic (and transphobic) conservatives are responsible for many homeless youth, as well as for numerous suicides, not to mention all the assaults against, and even murders of, people who are different from them when it comes to their sexuality and gender identity, and pretty much each and every conservative (whether they’re religious or not) is going to have to answer for their culpability in these horrors when they’re standing at the Great White Throne Judgement. Because even if they’re only indirectly responsible, they all still have a responsibility for all of this suffering nonetheless.

This is a brief introduction to what “Concordant” theology is, and who we “Concordant” believers are, for those who come across this website and might be wondering.

If you’d prefer a video overview, the Ready to Harvest YouTube channel has published a pretty decent video on the topic, which is also embedded below. (I should say, the Ready to Harvest channel is not a “Concordant” YouTube channel, but it does have excellent, unbiased videos about the various denominations and other movements within Christendom, among other related topics.)

That said, whether you watch the above video or not, I’d still recommend reading the rest of this page for more details on who we are and what we believe (along with links to more information about why we believe what we do) as well.

Basically, those of us who refer to ourselves as “Concordant” believers are members of the church known as the body of Christ who agree with the core doctrines that are listed a little further down on this page. As for the nickname “‘Concordant’ believers” itself, it came about because a large number — perhaps even the majority — of English-speaking members of the body of Christ tend to prefer using the CLV (the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible) at this point in time. That said, we’re not CLV-Onlyists or anything, and I primarily use the KJV (the King James Version) myself, because I personally believe it to be the most accurate translation of Scripture (and even though it’s a less literal Bible translation, the KJV still teaches all the core doctrines we believe, although if does require more careful study to learn the truth from it).

Beyond the tendency of many “Concordant” believers to prefer to use the CLV, we’re very different from your standard denomination within the Christian religion in many other ways as well. In fact, we’re not even really a part of the Christian religion at all, because we’re actually a religionless church, and also because our beliefs tend to be considered “unorthodox,” and even heretical, to most Christians (and, as such, few of us still use the label “Christian” to refer to ourselves anymore).

While we don’t necessarily all agree with each other on every little detail and minutia of doctrine or theology, there are a number of points that those of us known as “Concordant” believers do agree on, and these particular points make up what could be said to be the core doctrines of “Concordant” theology, as mentioned previously:

1. We believe in scriptural inerrancy, and we tend to interpret the Bible as literally as possible (outside of cases where it’s meant to be interpreted figuratively, of course). We’re also very Sola scriptura, rejecting “orthodox” traditions and creeds, and following only what Scripture says when it comes to our doctrines.
2. We recognize that Paul’s Gospel is to be divided from the Gospel to Israel as heralded by the terrestrial Jesus, and by Peter and Jesus’ other disciples, since the glorified Christ gave Paul a new message for the nations.
3. We understand that the doctrines the body of Christ is meant to follow are all contained within the epistles signed by Paul. While all Scripture is true and useful for all of us, the rest of it was written primarily to and about Israel.
4. We believe that God is working out His purpose through a series of time periods known as ages (more often referred to as eons), not to be confused with dispensations, which are simply different spiritual administrations or “economies” that can apply to different groups of people, sometimes even overlapping each other in time.
5. We believe in the complete sovereignty of God, and that all things are predetermined.
6. We understand that death is non-existence, as far as our consciousness goes. This means that the “hell” mentioned in the KJV and other less literal Bible versions isn’t a place the dead can suffer in, and that heaven isn’t a place the dead can go either, at least not in a conscious state. This also means that Jesus Christ did, in fact, cease to exist as a conscious being when He died for our sins and when He was buried, before He rose again the third day.
7. We affirm that, through the cross of Christ, God will save all humanity, and will reconcile all conscious, sapient beings who ever existed, and who need to be reconciled, to Himself. However, while all humanity will experience the general salvation that Paul primarily taught about (which consists of eventually being made immortal and sinless, solely because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, and not because of any choice we make), they won’t all experience the special salvation he also taught about — which includes getting to experience immortality and sinlessness earlier than everyone else, and also joining the body of Christ, among other things — or the type of salvation Jesus spoke about to Israel during His earthly ministry either, because there are different types of salvation, and not everybody experiences every type.

If you’d like to learn the reasons we believe these particular doctrines, among various other common doctrines that many of us also hold to as well, please visit the Actual Good News page of this website, or read the (free) Rejecting Rome book-length Bible study. That said, one doesn’t need to be a “Concordant” believer to be a member of the true body of Christ. To be a member of the body of Christ, one simply has to truly believe Paul’s Gospel as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (which does mean actually understanding what his Gospel means, since one can’t truly believe something they don’t actually understand). For a list of the Primary Doctrines of the true body of Christ (not to be confused with the core doctrines of “Concordant” believers, although there is overlap since, while not all members of the body of Christ are necessarily “Concordant” believers, all “Concordant” believers are members of the body of Christ), as well as some of the doctrines that are occasionally debated amongst those of us within the body of Christ, please see the below chart.

If you’d like to learn more, you can do so by checking out the articles, websites, books, and videos by various members of the body of Christ that are linked to on this page.

Because there are relatively few of us, however, at least in most parts of the world, it’s rare that many of us get to gather in person very often, outside of various conferences that are held every now and then.

Oh, and just as a heads up, if the various websites and YouTube channels linked to on the Home Page ever all stop getting updates at the same time, it means The Rapture has likely occurred, and the final seven years of age 3 are about to begin, and Israel’s Gospel of the Kingdom will once again be the only Gospel to concern yourself with for the time being, so please keep that in mind if that happens.

The vast majority of Christians (at least those who believe in a literal New Heaven and New Earth), and even most members of the body of Christ, believe that there won’t be any death on the New Earth. I can’t agree with this assumption, however, because of what Isaiah 65:17-25 says:

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

Verse 17 of the chapter gives us the context of this passage, which is the New Earth, telling us that, yes, there will still be sin and death on the New Earth, even if a lot less of it.

Now, I know that nearly everybody is going to point to Revelation 21:1-4 in order to try to prove their assumption that there won’t be any death on the New Earth. Those who are making this claim, however, need to go and read that passage over again very carefully, and then consider some facts they likely haven’t thought of before:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

I trust that you can see how the context of these verses seems to be not only the New Earth, but also the New Jerusalem on the New Earth. And so, for those who are thinking that this passage means there won’t be any death on the New Earth at any time, while that technically could be one possible interpretation of the passage, at least if we interpreted that passage on its own (without taking the context of the rest of Scripture into consideration), there are also various other possible interpretations of these verses in Revelation which don’t contradict what Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 65, including the idea that it means only those who get to reside within the walls of the New Jerusalem won’t ever drop dead (or suffer in any way) anymore, not to mention the possibility that Revelation 21:4 might be separated from the first three verses of the chapter by the “Mountain Peaks” of prophecy, setting verse 4 at the end of the age, with verses 1 through 3 being set at the beginning of the New Earth, long before the final age draws to an end.

For those who aren’t familiar with the “Mountain Peaks” aspect of prophecy, it refers to how there can be prophetic “valleys,” meaning events taking place within the same timeframe of a part of a specific prophecy, but which were not explicitly mentioned within said prophecy and which the prophet himself is not necessarily even aware of, yet which are later revealed to us in other prophecies, with these prophetic “valleys” being situated between the prophetic “mountain peaks,” meaning the events that the prophet actually did foresee and foretell within said prophecy; for example, while Jesus’ earthly ministry and reign as King of Israel was foreseen and foretold in various prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the Old Testament”), the church called the body of Christ and the current dispensation of the grace of God were entirely unknown to the prophets recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures — from their perspective, all they could see was one unbroken ministry of a Messiah coming to save and lead Israel during one unbroken period of time on earth, because they couldn’t see the “valley of the church” hidden between the “mountain peaks” of Jesus’ first and second time on earth, with those “mountain peaks” even seeming like one “mountain” to them from their “vantage point” — and this can even happen within a single sentence in a prophecy, as demonstrated in Luke 4:14–21 where Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61:1–2 before the end of the sentence in verse 2, because the part of that prophecy about “the day of vengeance of our God” hadn’t begun at that time yet, since it won’t happen until around the time of His Second Coming.

Of course, most people will now also claim that this passage isn’t talking about what takes place on the New Earth at all (and some also say the same thing about the events mentioned after the reference to the New Earth a chapter later as well), but rather that it’s actually talking about what will take place during the thousand-year kingdom of heaven in Israel on this earth (the time during the fourth age known as the Millennium, in other words). The problem is, these are quite literally the only two references to the New Earth in the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures, so any Israelites who read Isaiah 65 and 66 between the time that book was written and the time that 2 Peter was written would be looking for details about this New Earth which Isaiah had just revealed to them for the first time, and I see no reason to believe they’d read it as saying, “There’s going to be a New Earth, but never mind that, here are some details about what’s going to happen before it’s even created, and we won’t tell you anything at all about that New Earth again anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.” There’s just no reason for God to have inspired Isaiah to have mentioned the New Earth twice in the final two chapters of this book in the first place, after never having mentioned it prior to this, if he was then going to jump back in time to discussing the Millennium (without giving any hint to the readers that this is what was happening) rather than continuing to discuss what’s going to happen on the New Earth that he’d just introduced to everyone for the first time, especially since nobody reading it would ever assume that’s what it meant prior to John writing the book of Revelation.

Regardless, it’s also easy to see that this is about the New Earth, because John basically refers back to Isaiah 65:19 in Revelation 21:4 itself:

And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. — Isaiah 65:19

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. — Revelation 21:4

I think it should be pretty obvious from reading those two verses side by side that the Jerusalem of Isaiah 65:19 is clearly the same Jerusalem that is the context of Revelation 21:4, confirming once again that everything listed in the latter verse has to be about what happens for those in that Jerusalem rather than those outside it.

On top of all that, the passage we began looking at in Isaiah 65 ends by telling us:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. — Isaiah 65:25

Why does this tell us that this passage is talking about the New Earth? Because Isaiah had already discussed this concept of animals residing peacefully together previously in the same book, in Isaiah 11:1-9:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

This passage is talking about Israel during the Millennium, and to mention this detail again 54 chapters later and be referring to the exact same thing would be entirely redundant. Instead, by repeating the beginning of the prophecy about peaceful animals from chapter 11 in chapter 65, right after mentioning the New Earth, confirms that animals will indeed continue to be peaceful on the New Earth just as they will be in Israel during the Millennium (it also confirms that there will be animals on the New Earth, something that wouldn’t necessarily go without saying if this verse hadn’t been included in the chapter, at least not prior to the end of the ages when death is destroyed altogether).

But on top of all that, as we “Concordant” believers should all realize, without sin and death on the New Earth, those new generations born on the New Earth will never get to experience what we call the contrast principle (which refers to the principle that one can’t truly appreciate life without mortality and death, goodness without evil, nor grace without sin) if they too don’t get to experience sin, evil, and death, and there’s no reason that this principle would stop being a principle just because one is born on the New Earth rather than the current earth. Besides, anyone born on the New Earth will still have a human father, and as we know from Romans 5:12, anyone with a human father will eventually give in to sin, as I discussed in this article: Why do we sin and die?

So for these reasons I have to insist that, yes, there will indeed be sin, evil, and death on the New Earth, even if these things are far less prevalent there, at least until the end of the ages when death (and hence sin) is abolished altogether.

A common assertion by Christians who want us to believe that the body of Christ and the Israel of God are one and the same is that Gentile believers have been “grafted into Israel,” as well as that we are now “fellowcitizens of Israel,” based on Romans 11:1-25 and Ephesians 2:11-22.

Now yes, Abraham is indeed said to be the “father” of those who follow the law as well as the “father” of those who simply have faith. However, as many Christians seem to forget, Abraham had many physical descendants who weren’t Israelites, which means that being able to refer to Abraham as one’s “father,” be it physically as in the case of his biological descendants, or even just metaphorically as in the case of the members of the body of Christ, just doesn’t mean someone is also an Israelite. To be an Israelite, someone also has to be a biological descendant of Isaac and Jacob as well (presuming they don’t marry or proselytize into the actual nation of Israel instead, of course).  Paul was reducing the scope of membership within the Israel of God in Romans 2:28–29 to include only certain Jews, not expanding it to include the Gentiles in the body of Christ as well, since “neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile]” doesn’t mean “you’re all Israelites now,” considering there would then still be Jews, even if only Jews, in the body of Christ.

In fact, we can see quite clearly that the Israel of God is a distinct group from the Gentiles in the body of Christ because Israelites are only said to be the natural olive branches in Romans 11, not the whole tree. Remember, not all of the natural olive branches are pruned out of the tree in that figurative explanation of past, present, and future events pertaining to Israel and the other nations (at least it’s still future as of the time this article was written). Instead, some of the natural olive branches remained attached to the tree (with it being these particular branches that refer to Israelites who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision, and not the trunk itself representing them) while the wild olive branch was grafted into the tree next to the remaining branches rather than replacing them. And as Paul made clear in this passage, Israel is not cast away permanently, but is only “cast away,” so to speak, temporarily, until the full complement of the nations may be entering the body of Christ (I say again, entering the body of Christ, and not entering the tree, since the whole wild olive branch is already grafted into the tree), at which point the nation of Israel will become the focus of God’s purposes once again, at the time when the pruned-out branches are grafted back into the tree. If this seems confusing, the phrase “cast away” in verse 1 was translated from a different Greek word in the KJV — ἀπωθέω/“ap-o-theh’-om-ahee” — than the phrase “casting away” in verse 15 was — which was instead translated from ἀποβολή/“ap-ob-ol-ay’” — and is referring to a more forceful and permanent thrusting away in that verse than the temporary placing aside that the hyperbolic “casting away” of verse 15 in the KJV is referring to, for anyone who might be wondering how Israel can be not cast away while also being “cast away” at the same time. This case of being both “cast away” and not cast away at the same time is one of the many examples of how the translators of the KJV seemed to enjoy using the same English word or phrase to refer to contrasting concepts for some reason, and the same goes for how they used the English word “fall” to refer to both “falling” and also not falling at the same time in this very chapter of Romans as well. In verse 11, Paul asked, “Have they stumbled that they should fall?”, then answered his own question by saying, “God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” So we can see that they didn’t literally fall far away and permanently, but they did “fall,” hyperbolically speaking, with the first “fall” being translated from a variation of the verb πίπτω/“pip’-to” in the Greek, referring to falling from a height, being thrust down violently or purposefully, or even to perishing, and the second “fall” being translated from a variation of the noun παράπτωμα/“par-ap’-to-mah” in the Greek, literally referring to simply stumbling and landing gently (or at least less violently than the first word implies) beside or near something else (this word is also translated as “trespasses” in other verses in the KJV, I should add). While this contrasting usage of the same English word in the same passage in the KJV can be confusing to those who don’t understand what’s going on, it seems that the translators were having fun with words in these examples, and that they expected the readers to be able to figure out when the words are being used literally and when they’re being used figuratively in the same passages, based on an understanding that the Bible can’t contradict itself. And so, we know from what Paul wrote in this chapter that, while the nation of Israel as a whole did indeed stumble (“fall”), and has even been “cast away,” so to speak (really just meaning temporarily placed on the back burner), so that Gentiles can have an opportunity to enjoy salvation without having to go through Israel for the time being (when he wrote, “Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles…”, and, “For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world…”), he also told his readers that the nation of Israel will be restored in the future (when he also wrote, “…how much more their fulness?”, and, “…what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?”).

It also helps to understand that this passage has nothing to do with the salvation of individuals, nor does being pruned from the tree have anything to do with the idea of losing one’s salvation, which is made clear by the fact that the pruned-off natural branches were never saved to begin with and yet had to have been a part of the tree at one time in order to be pruned from it. This is also made clear by the fact that it’s a singular wild branch, as opposed to the plural natural branches. Of course, some who read the KJV might be confused by the fact that it says “a wild olive tree” in verse 17, but Paul explained in the same verse that this whole “wild olive tree” was “graffed in among them,” which means he was either referring to a single wild olive branch being grafted into the natural olive tree among the remaining natural olive branches, or to an entire (presumably much smaller) wild olive tree being grafted into the natural olive tree, trunk and all. Either way, that only one whole object — as opposed to multiple, separate wild-olive branches — was grafted into the natural tree is clarified A) by the fact that the Greek ἀγριέλαιος/“ag-ree-el’-ah-yos,” which “a wild olive tree” was translated from in the KJV, is a Singular noun, as well as B) by the fact the KJV also (correctly) uses the Second Person Singular “thou” in both this verse and verse 24, rather than the more catch-all “you” that most English Bible translations used to render the Greek word σύ/“soo” in those verses. This all tells us that the single wild branch (or “wild olive tree”) grafted into the natural tree refers collectively to every single Gentile who will have lived during the entire time that the dispensation (meaning the administration, or economy) of the grace of God is in effect — since Gentiles, both saved and unsaved, are being grouped together as a singular whole in these verses — rather than simply referring to only those Gentiles who join the body of Christ (and also confirms that the “grafting into the tree” only happened one time rather than happens multiple times — as each Gentile gets saved — the way most Christians assume Paul meant). And since the whole wild branch (or “wild olive tree”) will eventually be pruned from the natural tree, as it will have to be in order for the temporarily-removed natural branches to be grafted back “into their own olive tree,” every Gentile member of the body of Christ would lose their salvation if being grafted into and pruned from the tree was connected with being saved.

And so, no, being grafted into the tree doesn’t mean that a Gentile has been grafted into Israel, or that they have become a “spiritual Israelite,” which is a completely unscriptural term anyway. Instead, I would suggest that the “wild olive tree” being temporarily grafted into the natural tree simply refers to the fact that Gentiles currently have access to God (via justification by faith) without needing Israelites to help them do so the way Gentiles will need them for in order to get to know God in the future, after the “wild olive tree” is removed from the natural tree (due to unbelief, since after the body of Christ is taken up to heaven, there will be no more believing Gentiles left in the wild olive tree). This means that Gentiles don’t replace or become a part of the church called the Israel of God at all, but rather are currently able to join the church called the body of Christ instead, at least until the full complement of the nations has entered the body of Christ (meaning until the last person called for membership in the body of Christ has been saved), at which point the dispensation of the grace of God will come to an end, the “wild olive tree” will be removed from the tree, and the only way for Gentiles to approach God again (at least for 1,000 years) will be to go through citizens of the nation of Israel.

And this also all tells us that the same goes for the idea some Christians have that Paul said Gentiles join the “commonwealth of Israel,” or become “fellowcitizens” of the nation of Israel, when they join the body of Christ. Based on everything we’ve just covered, this obviously can’t be what he meant in Ephesians 2. Besides, the word “commonwealth” (translated from πολιτεία/“pol-ee-ti’-ah” in the original Greek) has to do with actual citizenship in an actual nation, and we don’t legally become citizens of the country called Israel when we join the body of Christ (if you’re a Gentile who disagrees, try moving to Israel and telling the government there that you’re now a legal citizen of their nation because you’ve come to believe in Jesus, and let us know how well that goes). Besides, our citizenship is in the heavens, not down here on earth where Israel is located, as we’ve already established, and I don’t see the term “spiritual Israel” anywhere in the chapter (or in the Bible, for that matter), so anyone who tries to claim we’re “spiritual Israelites” is just reading their assumptions into the chapter. Instead, we’ve become “fellowcitizens” of the kingdom of God, and of the household of God (which members of the Israel of God are certainly also members of), and not of the nation of Israel itself, although the nation of Israel will become a part of the kingdom of God after Jesus returns, at which point the land will be known as the kingdom of heaven, but it certainly isn’t a part of the kingdom yet, which means that we Gentiles can’t be said to become citizens of the nation of Israel, or really even a part of Israel in any way, when we believe Paul’s Gospel, but simply become citizens of the kingdom of God.

To learn more about the differences between the body of Christ and the Israel of God and our respective Gospels, please read my Things that differ article, of which this article you just read is actually an edited excerpt.

Most King James Bible Believers assume that God made the Bible so easy to understand that a child could read just the KJB (the King James Bible) and figure out everything He wants us to know in it, and, in fact, that looking at Scripture in the original Hebrew and Koine Greek to learn what a specific word in the KJB means is correcting the Bible. But is this really the case?

Well, while one can learn everything necessary for salvation (and then some) by just reading their King James Bible and nothing else (aside from an English dictionary, perhaps), the idea that that one can figure out everything God laid out in Scripture by reading just the KJB alone, with no study aids of any sort, is nothing more than an assumption they’re making — since the Bible just doesn’t say that anywhere on its pages — and it’s an assumption that is indeed contradicted by the Bible itself too, such as in Proverbs 25:2 which says, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” This tells us that God doesn’t necessarily make it easy to learn every scriptural truth without careful study, so it’s important to stop assuming that we know everything there is to know about the Bible just because we’ve read it in English.

You see, words in the Bible can be quite complicated, and often don’t mean what one might assume they do from a surface level reading. For example, certain words (such as the word “fire,” as just one example of many) are used literally in some passages while also being used figuratively in other passages (with this difference being a form of perspective found in Scripture).

And it isn’t just individual words that are used figuratively in the Bible. Scripture is full of figurative phrases too, including allegories, metaphors, idioms, and other forms of figurative speech that aren’t obvious from just reading the English text, not to mention the fact that many passages are coming from an absolute perspective while others are coming from a relative perspective (as a very simple example of this important hermeneutical principle, Ecclesiastes 11:3 tells us that the rain comes from clouds, while 1 Kings 17:14 says that God actually sends the rain, and we can understand that both of these statements are equally true when we recognize that God is indeed the origin of rain from an absolute perspective — since all is of God — even while the clouds are the origin of rain from a relative perspective). This means that if one isn’t familiar with the existence of a figurative word, expression, or other figure of speech in a specific passage, they can end up completely misunderstanding what that passage actually means.

Of course, none of that has to do with looking at words in their original languages in Scripture, but they are good examples of how the meaning of words and verses in the Bible aren’t always as straightforward as one might assume. As far as why one might want to look up the meaning of a word in the original Hebrew or Koine Greek, though, well, it’s also important to be aware of the fact that words known as False Friends exist in the KJB, which is a term that is sometimes used to refer to English words we still use today, but which can now mean something very different — in ways that the average reader is unlikely to be aware of — from what they could mean when our English Bibles were first translated (and while certain disingenuous types will try to distract from this fact by pointing out that the term “False Friends” has previously been described by saying, “In linguistics, false friends are words in different languages that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning,” this — almost certainly purposely — misses the point entirely by ignoring the fact that the first two words of the explanation were “in linguistics,” not “in theology,” and also ignores the fact that the meaning of words and phrases can change over time, not to mention that words and terms can have multiple meanings, as is the whole point of the theological definition of False Friends in the first place). As a very simple example, “convenient” generally refers to “something which saves one trouble” when the word is used today, but when you read it in Ephesians 5:3-4 in the KJB it actually means “fitting,” because that’s what the word “convenient” meant back in 1611.

Another example that really demonstrates this point is the word “let,” which generally means “allow” or “allowed” when used today (and it often did in the KJB as well). However, when you read Romans 1:13 in the KJB, this word actually means the exact opposite of that. Rather than “allowed,” Paul actually meant “prevented” in that verse. This isn’t a mistranslation, however, but is instead another False Friend, because that was another meaning of the word “let” back in 1611, even if we don’t use that obsolete definition of the word today (and if you aren’t aware of this fact, the verse can be confusing, as many other verses that include False Friends can be as well).

I should add, in addition to being a False Friend, “let” is also an example of how the translators of the KJB often used the exact same English word to translate entirely different words from their original languages — with the first example of “let” we looked at being translated from the Greek ἔστω/“es’-to,” and the second example being translated from κωλύω/“ko-loo’-o” — words which could have the complete opposite meaning from one another in their original languages at times, and cases of this happening weren’t always because they’ve become False Friends in the 21st century either; in many cases, the reason for the translations seemed to be more for the sake of being poetic.

As another important example of a False Friend in the KJB, we have the word “heresy.” Even before getting into this one, however, it’s important to know that there are two different types of “heresies” when the word is used correctly, and that neither of them literally mean “incorrect doctrine” (just as “orthodox” doesn’t mean “correct doctrine” either) the way most people assume they do. The first type of “heresy” is the one that’s mentioned in the Bible, and it’s true that these types of “heresies” aren’t good things (at least when they take place within the body of Christ), but the literal meaning of αἵρεσις/“hah’-ee-res-is” — which is the Greek word that’s transliterated as “heresy” and “heresies” in the KJB — is simply “sect,” as the word is also translated in other verses, meaning “division” or “dissension,” and does not literally mean “incorrect doctrine” at all. In fact, “sect” was a meaning of the English word “heresy” back when the KJB was translated as well, and based on the meaning of the Greek word it was translated from, it becomes obvious that this is the meaning of the word “heresy” in the KJB, and that the word “heresy” is indeed another False Friend. That’s not to say that the specific sects referred to as “heresies” in the Bible aren’t meant to be avoided, of course, any more than it means that said sects aren’t based on incorrect doctrine, because they are on both counts. My point is simply that the word “heresy” just doesn’t mean what most people assume it does when it’s used in the Bible, which demonstrates why it can be important to look up the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words that our English words in the KJB were translated from.

This is also an example, by the way, of how the translators of the KJB sometimes used different English words to translate the exact same word from its original language (these are known as synonyms), and if one isn’t aware of what the Hebrew or Greek word that an English word in the KJB has been translated from is or means, they can get just as confused as when the translators used the same English word to translate different words from Scripture in its original languages (especially when these words have become a False Friend in modern times). And so, while I know that some King James Bible Believers will recoil in horror at this suggestion, and it is true that one often technically can determine when one of these two types of situations is happening simply by the context of a passage — as well as by when a literal (or figurative) interpretation of a specific word would contradict the literal (or figurative) usage of the same word in another place in the KJB — I would still posit that it’s wise to look up every single Hebrew or Koine Greek word when doing a careful study into a passage or topic, since, at the very least, you might miss out on some important nuance that isn’t obvious in the English translation if you don’t, but also because you might even find yourself completely misinterpreting a passage if you avoid doing so, assuming it means the exact opposite of what it actually means (and this happens all the time in real life).

And speaking of heresies, just like it doesn’t literally mean “incorrect doctrine” when it’s used in the Bible, the word “heresy” doesn’t literally mean that outside of the Bible either, just FYI. Instead, when used extrabiblically, it simply means “that which is commonly accepted to be incorrect.” And just as this type of “heresy” doesn’t literally mean “incorrect doctrine” any more than the biblical type does, the word “orthodox” doesn’t mean “correct doctrine” either, but really just means “that which is commonly accepted to be true,” and there’s always been plenty of commonly accepted error out there, just as there’s always been lots of commonly rejected truth (with much of that truth being labelled as “heresy” by Christians).

For example, Galileo was technically a heretic, according to the Roman Catholic Church, because he taught that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe, but he was still quite correct that it wasn’t. Meanwhile, Rome considered their view that our planet was the centre of the universe to be the orthodox one, but they were entirely incorrect, and they even eventually admitted that Galileo’s heresy was true after all, many centuries later (thus proving that “orthodox” doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church can indeed be wrong and that the things they call “heresy” can be right; and it’s important to keep in mind that, if they can be wrong about even one thing when it comes to what they refer to as orthodoxy and heresy, they could then be wrong about anything they teach is either orthodox truth or heresy).

So remember that just because something is called “heretical” by a Christian doesn’t mean it’s necessarily incorrect, and that something being called “orthodox” by a Christian doesn’t necessarily make it true. Of course, even though they refer to something else altogether from what most Christians today mean when they use the word, the things referred to as “heresies” in the English Bible translations which do use the word (sects, in other words) are things to be avoided (although that doesn’t mean sects are inherently a bad thing in and of themselves; it’s only sectarianism within the church that we need to avoid as members of the body of Christ, while sects/“heresies”outside the church might be good or bad, depending on the reason for the division). But outside of those specific things, many of the things that Christians mistakenly refer to as “heresy” or as “heretical” (or even as “heterodox,” which basically means the same thing) are actually quite true. And remember also that Jesus and all of His followers were considered to be heretics by the religious orthodoxy of their day, so consider yourself in good company when someone calls you a heretic or refers to the truths you believe as “heresy.”

There are many more False Friends in the KJB that I could get into (and I did cover a fair number of them in my Rejecting Rome study), but the main thing to keep in mind is that anyone using only the KJB with no study aids definitely holds multiple false doctrines because of this fact. That isn’t to say the KJB is a bad translation. The words its translators used were pretty good for the time it was translated. One just needs to be aware that it’s not a particularly literal translation, but is actually a very figurative — and even poetic — translation in various places (many of which will surprise many of you if you read my Rejecting Rome study), and also of the fact that the definitions of words change over time, which all means that if one isn’t aware of a word’s definition in 1611 when it was first translated (as well as the fact that many of these words were translated figuratively), they’re going to unintentionally end up going astray.

This all means that just because you see a word in one passage, you shouldn’t automatically assume it has to be referring to the exact same thing as it does in another passage, or that you even definitely know what the word means to begin with, because it could be that it actually means something entirely different in that passage from what you’re assuming or have been taught it means. So when you’re studying your Bible, be sure to use all the study tools available to you — such as concordances, an English dictionary (I would personally recommend the Oxford English Dictionary over all others for the sake of discovering the meanings of False Friends in the KJB, because it covers definitions going back to the 17th century and even earlier), Bible dictionaries (including Hebrew and Koine Greek Bible dictionaries), internet search engines, and any other study aids you can get your hands on — in order to determine whether or not the interpretations you’ve always assumed were correct really are.

And don’t mistake any of this for correcting the Bible. Instead, realize that it’s simply studying to shew thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (although, yes, “be diligent,” or “endeavour,” was another definition of the English word “study” in 1611, and since that’s exactly what the Greek word σπουδάζω/“spoo-dad’-zo” that it’s translated from in this verse means, it should be clear that this word is actually another False Friend in the KJB; that said, scriptural studying, as we use the word today, is still a good way to show our diligence).

This list is taken from my Things that differ article. For even more proofs that there are multiple Gospels taught in the Bible, please read that article in full. This page is simply here for quick reference to the list of differences from that article. For a printable version of this list, please click here for a PDF version.

The Israel of God/The Gospel of the Circumcision	The body of Christ/The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
Will keep the law perfectly when the New Covenant finally comes fully into effect and replaces the Old Covenant completely (Jeremiah 31:31–34, Ezekiel 36:26–27, Micah 4:2, Hebrews 8:8–12).	Not only are we not under the law at all, and in fact should not try to keep any of it (Romans 6:14, Galatians 5:3), Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant — which was about Israelites keeping the Mosaic law — to begin with, so we don’t have an Old Covenant to be replaced with by a New Covenant the way Israel does anyway (Exodus 12:43–49, Exodus 19:3–6, Leviticus 26:46, Deuteronomy 4:8, Deuteronomy 28, Nehemiah 9:13–14, Psalm 147:19–20, Malachi 4:4 Romans 2:14–15, Romans 9:3–5, Ephesians 2:12).
Jewish believers within this church were still zealous of the law, even after the Council of Jerusalem, and they were upset that Paul was teaching Jewish members of the body of Christ to avoid practicing the Mosaic law, including circumcising (Acts 21:17–26).	Not only did Paul teach against circumcising — or any law-keeping — for Gentiles in the body of Christ, he taught against it for anyone in the body of Christ, including Jewish members, and if Paul was teaching the same thing that Peter and James and the rest of the Jewish church were, the members of their church in Jerusalem wouldn’t have been so upset at Paul for teaching against circumcising and law-keeping for Jewish members of his church when he visited them later (Acts 15:1–21, Galatians 2:1–3, Acts 21:17–26).
Spoken of by the prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21–25).	A secret until Paul (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:8–10).
Only 12 apostles for this church — a number with much spiritual significance to Israelites — and they were all called inside of Israel (Matthew 4:18–22, Matthew 10:2–4). Even though Judas was replaced by Matthias after being disqualified (Acts 1:12–26), no others out of the 12 were ever replaced because there will only be 12 thrones for them to sit on in the kingdom of heaven, and only 12 foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem to be named after them on the New Earth (Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:14).	The first apostle of our church — who is not one of the 12 apostles of the Israel of God — was called outside of Israel (Acts 9:3). This is spiritually significant because Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).
Are supposed to eventually teach all the nations to obey everything Jesus commanded, and to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:16–20), although — outside of Peter’s visit to Cornelius — Scripture tells us this hasn’t happened yet (Acts 11:19, Galatians 2:8–9).	The fact that Paul is called the apostle of the Gentiles, and that a whole new set of apostles were in fact sent to the Gentiles, is significant because it means the 12 apostles of the Israel of God were not the apostles of (or to) the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, Acts 14:14, 1 Corinthians 4:6–9, Ephesians 4:11), nor were the rest of the members of that church preaching to the Gentiles yet either, since the pillars of their church had agreed to leave the preaching to the Gentiles to Paul and to those with him, for the time being, which means Israel hasn’t even really begun her so-called “Great Commission,” as it’s often referred to, yet (Galatians 2:8–9, Acts 13:2).
Proclaimed among Israelites (James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1).	Proclaimed among the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8).
Called the little flock, and as future citizens of the New Jerusalem, which is referred to as the bride of the lamb itself after it descends to the New Earth, the saints of this church who will inhabit this city can figuratively (albeit only proleptically) also be referred to as the bride of the lamb (Luke 12:32, John 3:29, Revelation 21:9), and are also referred to as the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).	The saints of this church are referred to as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 5:30).
Racial distinctions important (Matthew 15:26, Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:12, Zechariah 8:22-23).	Racial distinctions irrelevant (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28).
Believers known from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8).	Believers known before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).
Believers called first, then chosen (Matthew 22:14).	Believers chosen first, then called (Romans 8:30).
Water baptism required (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38).	Water baptism not required (1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 12:13).
Many types of baptism/immersion: John’s baptism in water unto repentance, the Lord’s baptism in water — obviously not a baptism unto repentance — water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ/the name of the Lord, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and in fire, baptism into Moses, and baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, 13–17, Acts 1:4–5, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Matthew 28:19).	Only one baptism/immersion: not in the Holy Spirit (or in water either), but rather by the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ, including into what He experienced in His body, such as His death (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Romans 6:3–4).
Must have circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16, Acts 7:51, Romans 2:29).	Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11).
Must have works, if possible between conversion and death, since faith without works is dead for them (James 2:20).	Even if we don’t have works, but only have faith, we are still justified, which means faith without works is not dead for us (Romans 4:5).
Must keep His commandments, and live as Jesus did (1 John 2:3–6).	God’s grace motivates us to live well, not the threat of losing our salvation if we don’t, as is the case for Israel (2 Corinthians 5:14–15).
Must forgive others or God will not forgive them (Matthew 6:12-15).	Should forgive one another as God has already forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32) — but even without works, we’re still justified, so we aren’t required to forgive others in order to be saved, even if it’s still good for us to do so (Romans 4:5).
Must not eat things sacrificed to idols (Revelation 2:14, 20).	Are permitted to eat things sacrificed to idols as long as conscience permits it (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8:4).
Must be an overcomer to avoid second death (Revelation 2:11).	Saved from second death by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Hoping for grace, which will be brought to them when Jesus returns to the earth (1 Peter 1:13).	Already standing in grace (Romans 5:2).
Must be waking and watching, not sleeping (Matthew 25:1–13, Luke 12:37, Hebrews 9:28).	Whether waking or sleeping (1 Thessalonians 5:10).
Must be wise, not foolish, or will not be chosen (Matthew 25:1–13).	Few who are wise are chosen, and most who are chosen are foolish (1 Corinthians 1:26–29).
Can be put to shame at His presence if not careful (1 John 2:28).	Will all be changed for the better — meaning given glorified, immortal bodies — at His presence, which is the blessed hope all of us in this church should be looking forward to (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, 1 Corinthians 15:52, Titus 2:13).
Will go through day of wrath (Revelation 6:1–17).	Not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:9).
Will meet Christ on earth (Acts 1:11–12, Zechariah 14:4).	Will meet Christ in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17).
The resurrection of the just, also known as Israel’s “first resurrection” (Luke 14:14, Revelation 20:1–6), occurs 75 days after Jesus steps foot on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4–7, Acts 1:9–12, and compare the numbers in Daniel 12:11–13 to the numbers in Revelation 13:5 to understand the 75 day difference between these two events).	The dead in the body of Christ are first resurrected, then those who are still living will rise with them to meet Christ in the air together when He comes for our church, before He ever even gets close to the Mount of Olives (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17).
Will reign on the earth as a kingdom of priests over the nations (Exodus 19:6, Isaiah 61:6, 1 Peter 2:5–9, Revelation 2:26–27, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 20:6).	Will reign in the heavens (Ephesians 2:6–7, 2 Timothy 2:12).
Will fill earth with knowledge of God’s glory by being a light to the Gentiles and salvation to the ends of the earth (Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 49:6).	Will display God’s wisdom among the principalities and powers in the heavens (Ephesians 3:10–11).
The meek shall inherit the earth, and will live in the land God gave the patriarchs, which is the land of Israel (Matthew 5:5, Ezekiel 36:28).	Our citizenship is in the heavens (Philippians 3:20).
There will still be mortal “flesh and blood” humans living in the part of the kingdom of God that is on the earth, and they will even continue to reproduce, both in the thousand-year kingdom of heaven in Israel, as well as on the New Earth for a time (Zechariah 8:3–4, Isaiah 65:17–25).	Mortal “flesh and blood” is not able to inherit the part of the kingdom of God that is in the heavens (1 Corinthians 15:50–54).
The 12 apostles will judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28).	Paul, not one of the 12 apostles of the church known as the Israel of God, but rather the first apostle of the church known as the body of Christ, will, along with the rest of the body, judge the whole world, as well as judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:2–3).
The cross was only bad news to those hearing the Gospel of the Circumcision — at least in the sermons recorded in Acts — and a shameful thing which needed to be repented of in order to be saved (Acts 2:22–38, Acts 3:13–15, Acts 7:52).	The cross is only good news for those hearing Paul’s Gospel, and is even something to glory in because it’s how we are saved (1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, Galatians 6:14).
As far as their Gospel is concerned, Jesus gave His life as a ransom only for “many” — meaning only for those who obey this Gospel (Matthew 20:28).	As far as our Gospel is concerned, Jesus gave His life as a ransom for all — meaning all humanity (1 Timothy 2:6).
Exhorted to remain in Him, and seem to be able to fall away and not be able to be renewed to repentance, so appear to be able to lose their sort of salvation (1 John 2:28, Hebrews 6:4–6, Hebrews 10:26–27), although since this is not the same sort of salvation that Paul primarily taught about, anyone who doesn’t experience this sort of salvation will still experience the general salvation of Paul’s Gospel (even if not the special salvation connected with his Gospel).	If we died with Christ — and if we did, we can’t un-die — we will live with Him, since He cannot disown His own body. Yes, we can “fall from grace,” so to speak — which basically just means placing oneself under the bondage of religion and rules, such as the law, and, because of doing so, missing out on enjoying the freedom Christ gave us — and it might be that we can also lose out on reigning with Him by denying Him in order to avoid suffering, but either way, we still remain His body, and He won’t amputate and disown His own body parts, and body parts can’t amputate themselves either (Galatians 5:1–4, 2 Timothy 2:11–13). Besides, Paul said that if we’re called, we will be justified and glorified, and didn’t include any qualifications in that verse, so any passages in Paul’s epistles which seem to teach otherwise must be talking about something else (Romans 8:30).
Abraham being justified by works given as an example (James 2:21–23).	Abraham being justified by faith rather than by works given as an example (Romans 4:2–3).
Gentiles will be blessed by Israel’s rise in the future (Isaiah 49:6, Zechariah 8:22-23, Acts 3:25).	Gentiles are currently blessed by Israel’s “fall” (Romans 11:11).

For a fuller explanation of the two Gospels, again, please read my Things that differ article, or even my larger Rejecting Rome study, which also covers these details.