Blog

This is part 15 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 14 is available here: Biblical threats explained

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.

---

Very important: It would be best if you’ve read all of the previous parts of this series — or are at least familiar with everything in them — before reading this article. If you don’t, parts of this article might not make sense, and many people will not be convinced without knowing the details in those articles, so please go read them if you find yourself confused or unconvinced by certain points.

Now that you’ve learned everything one needs to know about what the Bible says regarding salvation itself (or at least you have if you read the first 14 articles in this series), you might be asking yourself, “How should I live now that I truly understand and believe Paul’s Gospel?” And if you happen to be from a Christian background (in fact, even if you’re not), you’ve almost certainly been taught that there are all sorts of things we have to avoid, and even do, as believers (and many Christians think even unbelievers should be doing and avoiding these things too). The truth, however, is that the misinterpretations of Scripture that we covered in the last 14 articles in this series aren’t even close to being the only things that the leaders of the Christian religion make incorrect assumptions about when it comes to what the Bible teaches. Another great example of where they go astray is when it comes to their beliefs regarding the topic of morality, and those who have felt the chains of bondage to religion are going to find the doctrines contained in this article to be very good news indeed (how one is saved isn’t the only good news in the Bible, thus confirming once again that there are multiple Gospels — which is what “good news” means — to be found throughout Scripture, even they’re not all about salvation).

Because so many Christians are under the mistaken impression that the Mosaic law is applicable to the body of Christ (which you now know is not the case if you’ve read all of the articles in this series; and if you haven’t, please go do so), and also because they themselves have been taught that certain things which Scripture never calls sinful actually are sins, they’ve got all sorts of mixed-up ideas about what is right and wrong today. This causes them to teach others to try to be more “moral” than God Himself, acting just like modern-day Pharisees, becoming morality police who teach that any number of actions, many of which are never even mentioned in the Bible, are forbidden.

Before looking at some of the specific actions that the religious mistakenly think we need to avoid, though, it should first be noted that the Bible does tell us plenty of things that God actually would prefer people not do without us needing to add to it (even if the list differs depending on which dispensation, or administration, one is living under; it’s perfectly fine for members of the body of Christ to eat a BLT, for example, even though it would be a sin for those under the Mosaic law). In fact, Scripture even provides a list of things that God actually hates (that’s not the only list, as you’ll soon see, but it’s an important one when it comes to general morality itself), and there’s nothing at all about most of the things the morality police dislike on that list, including some of the biggest hangups religious conservatives have (although there are a number of things on that list which many of them do seem to enjoy). What He does hate, however, is dishonesty, and I suspect that religious lies are the worst sort of dishonesty since they’re lies about God Himself. Basically, if a particular action isn’t on one of those lists, insisting that it’s sinful and making new rules that God Himself never made is really lying about what God wants, just like the religious leaders in Jesus’ time did. And remember, it was those very same people who opposed Jesus, and who conspired to have Him (and, later, His followers) killed. That’s right, it wasn’t the pagans, atheists, or liberal theologians who tried to eliminate Christ and His followers. Rather, it was the religious conservatives of His time who tried to squash Him and His teachings (and any others who taught them as well), just as they do today (as it was then, the greatest enemies of Christ and His true followers are still religious conservatives, even if these supposed “ministers of righteousness” call themselves Christians now).

All of that aside, though, worrying about morality (at least the way conservative Christians understand morality) is a huge red herring. What followers of Churchianity (which is what some of us call the Institutional Church and the “orthodox” religion known as Christianity — as opposed to the “heretical” religionless doctrines that I now believe the Bible teaches are meant for the body of Christ) don’t seem to realize is that all of the “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” cause them to completely miss the point of Paul’s teachings to begin with (since, as we now know, it’s Paul’s teachings that the body of Christ is supposed to concern itself with under the dispensation of the grace of God). Starting with a flawed presupposition about doctrines like sin and grace will cause one to think that they’re supposed to be concerned with religious rules, when being a member of the body of Christ is actually about something else altogether. Basically, Paul’s Gospel isn’t a religious proposition (“do this or else!”); rather, it’s a proclamation (“it’s already been done by Christ, so why not believe this good news and stop trying to please God yourself?”).

While most religions are a set of rules that people need to follow in order to A) live an enjoyable life, B) avoid suffering negative consequences (either imposed by followers of said religions in this life or by their deity or other beings in an afterlife, or by being reincarnated to live another mortal life again on earth after death), and C) make God happy, Paul promised that A) believers of his teachings are less likely to have a fun life than those who don’t believe his message, since they’d be persecuted by those who do prefer religion (including the Christian religion) to the truth, B) explained that we don’t have to do anything to avoid suffering a negative afterlife (or life after resurrection, to be more precise) since we’ve already been justified by faith regardless of what we do, and C) told us that God is already happy (the word “blessed” in 1 Timothy 1:11 literally means “happy” in the original Greek). Instead of following a bunch of rules the way followers of various religions (including the Christian religion) do, members of the body of Christ don’t have to actively try to avoid sinning by our own strength at all (and, in fact, should actually not ever try to), because we’re justified (and living) by faith, and are walking according to spirit and not according to flesh.

To hear most Christians talk about it, you’d think that sins are something we should be actively trying to avoid committing. When the street preachers here in my city give their sermons, the focus is always on sin and how our sinful actions will send us to an afterlife realm called “hell” if we don’t get our sin dealt with by “getting saved” in the manner the preachers believe one needs to do so in (completely missing the fact that Christ’s death for our sins in Paul’s Gospel is a proclamation, not a proposition, and that sin has already been taken care of for everyone whether they believe it or not, as we’ve already learned in the previous articles in this series). And if you talk to them one-on-one, you’ll discover they believe that, even after we “get saved,” we still need to do our best to avoid certain actions the preachers consider to be sinful (as well as do certain things they consider to be commanded of us). Following rules is basically the foundation of their entire religion, and so when they attempt to interpret passages such as the following ones, they’ll tell you Paul was explaining how we need to try to do good, spiritual acts while trying to avoid fleshly, sinful acts:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. — Romans 8:1-10

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. — Galatians 5:16-25

And while Paul is indeed telling his readers they shouldn’t be walking after the flesh — not to mention what the consequences of doing so might be — in those verses, that he isn’t telling people to try to actively avoid sinning should be very obvious to anyone who considers the context of the passages. Unfortunately, most Christians are so obsessed with religious rules that they’ve actually made Sin their lord (anthropomorphically speaking), which keeps them from being able to grasp what Paul actually taught about the topic of sin at all.

So what was Paul talking about in those passages? Well, if you ask any Christian who has studied Paul’s epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, they should be able to tell you that a large part of both books is about how we’re not under the law, and how we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be placed under it at all. The problem is, when they get to passages that talk about ”the flesh,” most Christians immediately forget this fact and proceed to completely ignore the context of the passages, reading their love of religious rules into the passages instead. Following religious rules isn’t even close to what Paul was talking about when he wrote warnings about walking after the flesh, however. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Even though the context of those passages should make it obvious, it can help to read an entirely different passage written by Paul, one which can serve as the key to understanding the other times he writes about the flesh. In Philippians 3:1-11, Paul is warning his readers against having confidence in their flesh — by which he means trying to be righteous by following rules — telling them they should instead be trusting in the faith of Christ for their righteousness rather than in their own actions (or even in their own faith, as discussed in a previous article in this series).

This, along with the context of not being under the law (and the fact that Paul also compares walking after the Spirit with not following the law in that passage from Galatians), should make it clear that Paul was actually telling people to stop trying to follow (and enforce) any religious rules at all, because trying to follow religious rules is what it actually means to walk after the flesh (including trying to follow the 10 Commandments, which are indeed a part of the Mosaic law, as Paul made clear by referencing the 10th commandment when he wrote Romans 7:7 as a part of his teaching that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be placed under any parts of the law). So if you are actively trying to avoid (or even trying to do) specific actions in order to please God, you’re actually walking after the flesh, not to mention ignoring what Paul said about following ordinances and other commandments of men. And, as we know, he contrasted the concept of walking after the flesh with the concept of walking after the Spirit, and if walking after the flesh means trying to follow religious rules, walking after the Spirit must necessarily mean we aren’t trying to follow religious rules, but are instead trusting that Christ will live the life He wants us to live through us, and that He’ll end up doing the things God wants us to do and avoiding the things God wants us to avoid, Himself, through us. It’s only when we start walking after the flesh, meaning we start worrying about religion and trying to follow rules and prohibitions, that we begin doing the very things that God doesn’t want us to do, because trying to follow religious rules (be it the Mosaic law, or any other form of religious rules) only leads to more sin.

At this point most Christians will protest and say that, while we aren’t under the Mosaic law itself, there are still other rules in the Bible we need to follow, but in making such claims they’re ignoring everything Paul taught throughout his epistles. The reason we don’t follow the Mosaic law isn’t because there’s anything wrong with the specific rules in the law themselves. The commandment against murder is not a bad rule in and of itself, for example, which means that it isn’t simply the specific rules in the Mosaic law we aren’t supposed to follow, but rather it’s trying to follow religious rules in general that we aren’t supposed to do.

Which brings us to the next protestation most Christians will make. “What about the long list of sins Paul mentioned in that passage in Galatians we looked at? Wasn’t he telling his readers to do their best to avoid those specific actions?” The answer to this will shock most people, but no, he most certainly wasn’t. If walking after the flesh means trying to follow religious rules, how could Paul possibly then turn around and say, “But make sure you don’t break these specific religious rules, okay?” Instead, if you look at the context, it becomes clear that he’s warning his readers what will happen if they try to avoid sinning. Instead of becoming the holy, righteous people they hope that avoiding those specific actions will make them, those actions are instead exactly what they’ll end up doing. Just as positive attributes like love, joy, and peace are the fruit of walking after the Spirit, the various negative actions Paul listed there are the fruit of walking after the flesh, meaning those actions are the fruit that will come forth from trying to follow religious rules.

And so, Paul’s condemnation in Romans 10:2-3 can equally be applied to Christians today: “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

Bottom line, if you hear someone tell you that one must follow religious rules, especially if they’re a part of the Mosaic law in any way (at least if you’re in the body of Christ), don’t walk; run! It means that they are very likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, trying to lure you into their religious trap. At the very least, they are extremely confused and likely have nothing useful to teach you (at least from a spiritual perspective). Remember that, while not all things are a good idea, all things are technically permitted, and also that to the pure all things are pure (but those unbelievers in Paul’s Gospel who are pretending to be believers — likely lying even to themselves about their faith, not to mention often telling themselves that there’s really only one Gospel while also completely failing to understand what Paul’s Gospel actually means in the first place — have a defiled mind and conscience that causes them to consider pretty much nothing to be pure). Yes, if someone doesn’t have faith that something is allowed, then it would be a sin for them specifically to do it (although not because the action itself is necessarily actually sinful in and of itself), but the corollary of this verse must be true too: if that which is not out of faith is sin, then that which is out of faith is not sin. It is true that Paul used food and holy days as specific examples, but the principle still applies to everything.

Remember also that we should think of our old humanity (or our “old man,” as the KJV puts it) as dead, and that we are to, in fact, reckon ourselves dead to Sin altogether, which means that Sin has no more dominion over us at all — anthropomorphically speaking — because we’re not under law at all, but rather are under grace (and remaining under grace takes away all of Sin’s power over us). To “reckon” isn’t to try make something a fact, meaning to try to avoid sinning in this case, but rather it means to simply look at it as if it’s already a fact, and to stop letting Sin reign over you by trying to avoid sinning. And yes, Paul did say, “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh,” and yes, that is indeed an ongoing process as well, as some will point out (since the word translated as “have crucified” — σταυρόω/“stow-ro’-o” — is in the Aorist tense in that verse in the original Greek), but since he also told us to consider ourselves as already being dead to Sin, he obviously wasn’t telling us to try to stop sinning there, any more than he was when he said, “I die daily,” in another verse. The context of “flesh” in the first verse has to be referring to the same thing as it did in the rest of the passages we just looked at, meaning our self-righteous attempts to please God by following religious rules, and the context of the second verse was just physical death, with Paul simply speaking of how he risked physical death regularly thanks to the various persecutions and perils he faced in his ministry there, as he clarified in the very next verse after he made that statement. And similarly, Jesus’ command to “take up one’s cross daily” doesn’t refer to trying to avoid sinning either. Aside from the fact that this was directed specifically to those under the Gospel of the Circumcision instead of to the body of Christ, even if it could be considered a trans-dispensational truth, it wasn’t talking about avoiding sin, but rather about being willing to face death like He was about to do.

To be fair, as we covered in an earlier article in this series, the Bible does seem to teach that those believers who happen to be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision do have to be careful to avoid rejecting what they’ve believed and falling back into sin so as to not “lose their salvation,” so to speak, or they’ll miss out on the thousand-year kingdom of heaven, if not more (although the “more” just refers to living in the New Jerusalem during the final age, not to the immortality that everyone will eventually experience by the end of the ages, as you now know everyone will experience, or at least you do if you read all the previous articles in this series), and unlike those of us in the body of Christ, they are required to keep the Mosaic law (at least the parts they’re still able to keep without a temple). But as far as those of us in the body of Christ go, while we might not all get to reign, we are safe as far as our special salvation goes, regardless of what we do, because Paul told us in Romans 8 that anyone God calls for membership in the body of Christ will be justified and glorified, and because he told us not to allow ourselves to be placed under the law at all, since to do so is what it means to fall from grace. So at the end of the day, we just don’t have to worry about Sin, or about trying to avoid sinning, if we’re in the body of Christ, because we’re now dead to Sin.

I should say, after reading all that, some (honestly, most) Christians are still going to misunderstand everything I just wrote, thinking that I’m telling people we actually should go out and purposely commit sins, not to mention that we shouldn’t walk worthy of the Lord, but that’s not what I’m saying here at all (although it is imperative to remember that the pace at which we walk is entirely in God’s hands). In fact, you definitely should not be going out and purposely committing sins (at least not actual sins; I’m not talking about the innocent actions that many Christians confuse for sins because they essentially misunderstand the entire Bible). I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t be trying to avoid sinning of our own strength, but rather that we should be trusting God to keep us from sinning instead. This also means that if you aren’t accused of encouraging people to sin, you probably aren’t teaching the same things that Paul taught about sin and grace, since this false accusation seems to have also been levelled against him — which is why he wrote Romans chapter 6 in the first place — and so those who aren’t accused of being “hyper-grace” or antinomian themselves probably aren’t either). And while I need to move on at this point, there’s still a lot more that can be said about this extremely important topic, so I want you to read the articles by Martin Zender — who goes into so much more detail on this topic than I was able to get into here — that I’ve linked to in this sentence.

Still, while worrying about sin is not something those of us in the body of Christ are meant to do, it can be helpful to know why some of the activities that conservative Christians think are sinful really aren’t, and how one responds emotionally to what they read in the rest of this article will be a good test of whether one is walking according to Spirit or walking according to flesh. Those who aren’t walking according to Spirit will feel their pharisaical flesh crawling, and their self-righteous souls getting stirred up against some of the things that are about to be said. And, as such, they would be wise to consider reevaluating themselves, spiritually-speaking, and also question whether they’re more interested in holding fast to the traditions they’ve been taught by their denominations and religious leaders, or in what Scripture actually teaches.

Perhaps the best examples of unscriptural traditions when it comes to morality are the twin topics of sex and lust. You’ve almost certainly been taught that premarital sex is a sin, and the primary reason that most conservative Christians are so against premarital sex is one little word: fornication. Depending on your English Bible translation, you’ll find fornication criticized as a very bad thing that one should flee from, and if you look fornication up in an English dictionary you will indeed find that it can mean sexual intercourse between unmarried partners (although that isn’t its only, or even its original, meaning). The thing is, the word translated as “fornication” in some English versions of the Bible is the Greek word πορνεία/“por-ni’-ah,” which does not literally mean “premarital sex” at all (that’s not to say that premarital sex by certain people can’t fall under the umbrella of πορνεία under very specific circumstances, but that isn’t what the Greek word itself actually means, in and of itself, making “fornication” yet another example of the various False Friends that I mentioned in the first article of this series — although, as a reminder, I’ll explain here too that “False Friend” is a term which 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 older English Bible versions such as the KJV were first translated).

Of course, some English Bible versions use the term “sexual immorality” to translate the word πορνεία instead, but you have to be just as careful with this translation, since it’s really just a broad and general term that doesn’t tell us anything on its own about what sexual acts would actually be considered to be immoral, and to assume “sexual immorality” means “premarital sex” is obviously eisegesis, since it isn’t based on the original Greek at all, considering the fact that πορνεία just didn’t refer to the act of simply having sex outside of marriage at the time the Greek Scriptures were written. And it isn’t what the Hebrew word translated as “fornication” — זָנָה/“zaw-naw’” — meant either, since that word literally just meant “prostitution,” generally referring specifically to temple, or cult, prostitution when used in Scripture, which is why πορνεία and זָנָה are often also translated as “prostitution” or “whoredom.”

In fact, even the English word “fornication” itself originally meant something similar, since the word literally meant “to meet a prostitute under an arch” (the word originated from the Latin word “fornix,” which means “arch” or “vault”; prostitutes used to wait for their customers in ancient Rome under vaulted ceilings where they’d be safe from the elements, and “fornix” became a term for brothels, with the Latin verb “fornicare” referring to a man visiting a brothel). And so, if your English Bible version uses the word “fornication” (or even “sexual immorality”), it’s important to avoid assuming that the term is referring to premarital sex the way most Christians do, since it’s often referring to prostitution of some sort instead. That said, one has to remember to be careful here too, because the words πορνεία and זָנָה don’t necessarily just refer to the concept of trading money for sex as practiced by regular sex-workers, but generally imply a more illicit affair taking place when used in Scripture (it’s important to keep in mind that sex work on its own — not to mention paying for sex — wasn’t always considered to be the shameful act that it’s considered to be by most people today), which is backed up by the fact that it’s generally agreed upon by scholars that the most literal meaning of πορνεία is closer to “illicit sexual intercourse” than anything else.

If we take the term “illicit sexual intercourse” literally, it means sexual intercourse that breaks the law. Generally, here in the western world at least, premarital sex doesn’t break the law, and it certainly wasn’t against the law among the Gentiles Paul wrote to when he told believers to avoid πορνεία either (and this tells us that πορνεία simply can’t be referring to premarital sex on its own, at least not when it’s used in Paul’s epistles; remember, he was primarily writing to Gentiles when he used that word, which means that whatever the Jewish uses of the word might have been at that time was mostly irrelevant in his epistles, outside of very specific cases where he referred to actions performed by certain Israelites as an example of forms of πορνεία to avoid when he used the word). But even if one does dig into the Mosaic Law, they’ll see that it wasn’t ever spelled out as being illegal there either. While there were potential civil consequences for men who had premarital sex with female virgins back in Bible times (note that there’s no indication that the premarital sex itself in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was considered to be a sin, and the woman in question isn’t actually punished at all, as she would have been if premarital sex were a sin, because this was simply a property violation against the woman’s father, since fathers would get less money for selling their daughters to husbands if the daughter wasn’t a virgin; sadly, women were considered to be property in ancient cultures, including that of Israel, and were often basically sold from one “owner,” her father, to a new “owner,” her husband, through marriage), and a woman deceiving her husband into thinking that she was a virgin before marriage when she really wasn’t could also result in harsh penalties (since he would have paid more money for her if he believed she actually was a virgin), premarital sex on its own was never specifically forbidden or called sinful in the Hebrew Scriptures. Of course, premarital sex (or sex outside of marriage) technically could fall under the broad label of πορνεία in some parts of the world (and still can today), but it could (and can) only legitimately do so in regions where this actually was or is considered to be illegal (such as in parts of the Middle East today, for example). Outside of those more conservative regions of the planet, however, it wouldn’t be considered to be wrong by the law and hence wouldn’t be a sin to do so.

So what sexual acts would be considered illicit when the word πορνεία was used in Scripture? Well, it would, of course, cover any of the specific sexual prohibitions that actually were mentioned in the Mosaic Law, or at least it would for those who were required to follow said law (i.e., members of the Israel of God):

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. — Leviticus 18:6-23

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless. — Leviticus 20:10-21

And without even having to go any further, the passages I just quoted prove that premarital sex is not a sin all on their own, because if it were a sin, God wouldn’t have had to have gone to the trouble of forbidding sex with animals — or even with other people’s wives — since all He’d have to have said is, “Don’t have sex with anyone you aren’t married to,” which is a commandment He never actually gave anywhere in Scripture. (I should also quickly point out that you won’t find masturbation, enjoying the way someone’s body looks, or fantasizing about someone in a sexual manner listed anywhere in that list of sexual prohibitions either, which is something important to keep in mind as well.) The fact that God also never forbade men from having concubines, who were not wives but who were women that men had sex with, and in fact never once condemned the many men in the Bible who were considered to be righteous (relatively speaking) yet had concubines, also makes this quite clear, since sex with those concubines would have been “premarital” sex (or really “extramarital” sex, but that’s basically what Christians mean when they refer to “premarital” sex, because otherwise they’d be okay with a divorcee having sex with someone they’re not married to, since that sex would no longer be able to be classified as “premarital”). It also makes it obvious that those Christians who claim having sex with someone means one is automatically married to that person haven’t thought things through particularly well either, I should add, since concubines would have then been called “wives” in Scripture instead, if that was the case, considering the fact that God considered polygamy to be acceptable and men to legitimately be said to have multiple wives in the Bible.

As far as those of us in the body of Christ go, however (since we aren’t under the Mosaic law the way those in the Israel of God are), while the word πορνεία literally means “illicit sexual intercourse,” we have to look at context to determine what sort of sexual activity is being called illicit in Paul’s epistles (and not just automatically jump to the conclusion that it’s premarital sex being referred to, the way most Christians assume it is), and the Hebrew Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible generally referred to as “the Old Testament”) actually do help us here because they reveal that it largely referred to sexual idolatry (meaning sleeping with temple — or cult — prostitutes) when Paul used the term, as demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 10:8 where Paul used the word to refer back to the cult prostitutes of Moab mentioned in Numbers 25:1-9 (who used sex as a part of worshipping other gods since, in Bible times, Satan used sex to lure people into idolatry, although, now that cult prostitution is basically no longer a thing, he now uses avoiding the forms of sexuality that conservative Christians disagree with as a new “circumcision” instead; and just to quickly get the supposed discrepancy between Paul’s 23,000 in 1 Corinthians 10 and the 24,000 in Numbers 25 there out of the way, it’s simply that Paul chose not to include the “heads of the people” of verse 4 who were hung — amounting to 1,000 people — but referenced only the 23,000 common people slain with the sword, as mentioned in verse 5). Paul presumably (or at least hopefully) would have also been speaking against the rape of the women forced to participate in temple prostitution in his time when he spoke against πορνεία, not just the idolatry aspect of it, but the connection to idolatry was a large, if not the largest, part of it.

That said, it could also be used in reference to sexual practices that actually were considered illicit by the culture in question, practices such as incest, for example, which Paul also spoke against in 1 Corinthians 5:1 using the same Greek word. This particular instance of πορνεία also demonstrates quite conclusively that premarital sex was not considered to be a sin. If it were, the Corinthian believers would never have even considered letting things go this far; they would have stopped long before accepting, and seemingly even taking pride in, this relationship happening among their church members if Paul or anyone else had previously taught them that sex outside of marriage fell under the category of πορνεία-based sins, and he also apparently forgot to tell them it was a sin in this epistle as well when he was telling them to avoid such forms of πορνεία, so anyone who claims it is sinful is just eisegeting their own moralistic bias based on their preconceived religious traditions into their interpretation of the word πορνεία in this and other parts of Scripture rather than exegeting what Scripture actually means by the word.

Of course, some try to argue that Paul did tell them to avoid premarital sex a couple chapters later (in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7), when he wrote, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband,” supposedly telling them to get married rather than have premarital sex, but that’s not what he’s actually trying to get at there at all. It would take a much longer study to get all the way into the full meaning of this chapter, but along with actually taking the context of the passage into consideration, there are also idioms in the original Greek text that aren’t obvious if you’re not aware of them (for instance, the phrase “not to touch” was a figure of speech that literally meant “not to have sex with,” and the word “have” was euphemistically referring to having sexual intercourse in that passage as well), so what Paul meant there was essentially: “Now, regarding what you wrote to me — where you said, ‘It is ideal for a man to avoid having sex with a woman’ — well, whether or not that’s true, in order to avoid the temptation that would almost certainly arise to have sex with temple prostitutes instead, let every man continue having sex with the wife he’s already married to, and let every woman continue having sex with the husband she’s already married to.” Basically, this passage is talking about married Corinthian believers who had come to the conclusion that it would be more righteous or holy to avoid sexual intercourse with their spouses altogether (quite possibly because of outside Gnostic influences), but Paul warned them that they should not stop sleeping with their already existing spouses or they could end up inadvertently committing idolatry, as their biological urges would very likely lead the men to sleep with temple prostitutes instead (because they were the easiest people to find sex with aside from with one’s spouse, since people generally didn’t have romantic relationships back then as we do today; marriage was more of a business arrangement until very recently, so outside of marriage and adultery, the easiest and most common way for a man to have sex in that time and place was with a temple prostitute), and the women could even end up committing adultery. Yes, avoiding marriage is honourable if one can handle it (the reason for this isn’t because sex is somehow dirty or less than righteous and something that should be avoided in general, however; it’s simply because it helps one hold lightly to the things of this earth so they can focus solely on the things of God instead of the concerns of a spouse), but as the writer of Hebrews put it (even if this is a Circumcision writing, I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a trans-dispensational truth which applies to those under both Gospels), marriage (and sex in marriage) is just as honourable, and one shouldn’t defile their marriage bed by sleeping with temple prostitutes or by committing adultery (both of which would be temptations if a married couple stopped sleeping with each other in an attempt to keep each other and themselves pure).

Contrary to what most have been taught, Paul wasn’t telling single people to find marriage partners rather than commit the supposed sin of having premarital sex in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 (they generally didn’t have boyfriends and girlfriends like we do today anyway, so the idea of unmarried, romantic “couples” having sex probably wouldn’t have even crossed Paul’s mind); the context of this chapter and the previous chapter makes it pretty clear that he was talking to people who were already married in the first seven verses, telling them that the husbands risked going to temple prostitutes if married couples stopped sleeping with each other (to be clear, it wasn’t visiting sex workers that Paul was concerned with, but the fact that visiting the type of sex workers who would have generally been available in Corinth would result in idolatry since these were temple prostitutes, which would necessarily involve the men visiting them in worshipping other gods in the process; I’ll go into a little more detail on this point shortly, but married men were, in fact, free to have sex with other women as long as it didn’t result in some form of πορνεία-based sin or in adultery with an already married woman).

As for those who were once married and wished to remarry (even if this might also be perfectly valid advice for those who haven’t ever been married yet, the word “unmarried” in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 actually refers specifically to widowers, which — for those who aren’t aware of the patterns in the Greek that makes this even more clear — should really be more obvious to more people, considering the fact that to say, “the unmarried and the widows,” and to be referring to everyone who is currently unmarried, would be entirely redundant, making about as much sense as saying “the dogs and the beagles,” so obviously that can’t be what Paul meant; and if it simply referred to those who have never been married, then widowers would have been left out of this instruction, so the only logical way to interpret this is as meaning “the widowers and the widows,” with “the unmarried” presumably being used as metonymy for “widowers” in the KJV, since the translators should have been aware of this), while he’d prefer for them to remain unmarried like him rather than get re-married, so they can focus on the things of the Lord rather than on a spouse, he does still say that getting married is better than burning with the desire to be married if they can’t control their desire for marriage (it’s basically impossible that he was talking about burning with sexual desire here; based on the context of the topic of marriage in general throughout this part of the chapter, and the fact that he was saying it would be good for them to remain unmarried like him, it seems far more likely that he would have simply been referring to the desire to be married — particularly since sex outside of marriage hadn’t actually been condemned anywhere else in Scripture prior to his writing this, at least as long as it wasn’t illegal or idolatrous, and there’s no reason to believe that Paul would have been suddenly adding a new sin that had never been mentioned previously in Scripture to the list of already existing sins mentioned there, although even if he somehow was talking about burning with sexual desire, remember that they didn’t have romantic relationships back then, so sex with a spouse or sex with a temple prostitute were the two main ways to have sex at the time Paul wrote to this particular audience, and Paul certainly wouldn’t have wanted them to choose the latter option). And as far as those of us in this day and age go, at least here in the western world, there are other ways for unmarried people to have sex without resorting to visiting temple prostitutes, although if they are “burning” to get married, they certainly should.

In addition to these more literal interpretations of πορνεία, there was also a figurative meaning to the word (and its Hebrew equivalents in the Hebrew Scriptures), having nothing to do with physical sex at all, but simply being a metaphor referring to outright idolatry. The one thing it never meant, however, is premarital sex, or at least by now it should be obvious that there’s quite literally zero scriptural basis for claiming it did, despite the fact that your parents and pastor might prefer you believed it did. Of course, they likely only think they want you to. If they understood just how many STDs and unwanted pregnancies this teaching is responsible for, they might change their minds (unless they’re the vindictive sort who want those they consider to be sinners to be punished physically for defying their rules; sadly, there are Christians out there with this mentality). The idea that premarital sex is sinful causes many parents to actively make sure their kids don’t learn about protection and birth control, but since pretty much an equal number of Christians have premarital sex as non-Christians (the religious can’t fight nature and biology any more than the rest of the world can), only without any knowledge of how to minimize the potential risks, young people in conservative areas or with religious parents tend to end up with more diseases and more unwanted pregnancies than those who don’t, and if you’re going to judge a doctrine or religious teacher by its or their fruit, it’s easy to see that the conservative Christian view on sexuality is rotten to the core.

Even with all that being said, many Christians will try to defend their indefensible claims about premarital sex based on Jesus’ comment about “lust” and “committing adultery in one’s heart” in Matthew 5:28, attempting to convince us that this makes premarital sex sinful by default since you wouldn’t have sex without sexual desire (they like to use this argument to condemn masturbation and pornography too). However, because so few understand the difference between the teachings relevant to the body of Christ vs the teachings relevant to the Israel of God, as we learned in the first article in this series, not to mention what Scripture says in its original languages, they don’t realize that He was actually speaking about something else altogether in that passage from what most people assume. In fact, when you discover what “lust” really refers to in Scripture you’ll realize that it’s actually often encouraged, and that it’s also time to reconsider your thoughts on pornography as a general concept as well.

To put it plainly, to “lust,” in Scripture (with ἐπιθυμέω/“ep-ee-thoo-meh’-o” being the verb form of the word in Greek, and ἐπιθυμία/“ep-ee-thoo-mee’-ah” being the noun, as well as חָמַד/“khaw-mad’” being the Hebrew verb), doesn’t simply mean to have sexual attraction to someone the way that most people who read this sort of False Friend of an English word assume it does, but is rather a synonym for coveting something, or strongly desiring to own or obtain something or someone, and sometimes lusting/desiring is a good thing (the Lord’s statutes and judgements are to be lusted for/desired more than gold, and even Jesus “lusted/desired” according to Luke 22:15 — in fact Paul himself encouraged ἐπιθυμέω at times as well, such as in 1 Timothy 3:1, for example; simply put, there’s nothing about sexuality inherent in these Hebrew and Greek words that are sometimes translated as “lust” in Scripture, even though they can refer to a strong desire to obtain someone sexually, of course, depending on the context of the passage they’re included in). What Scripture does condemn when it comes to lust is desiring to take something that already “belongs” (so to speak) to someone else, such as someone else’s property (or wife, since, again, women were considered to be property back then, unfortunately), which is what the 10th Commandment is all about. But to enjoy the way someone looks, or even to fantasize sexually about someone, isn’t what is being criticized when ἐπιθυμέω actually is spoken against in Scripture; intent to take someone else’s “property” without permission also needs to be there for the coveting to be wrong (otherwise, accepting something you desire as a gift, or even finding your own spouse sexually appealing, would also technically be wrong). So for ἐπιθυμέω over a woman to be considered “committing adultery in one’s heart,” in addition to needing to have intent to actually possess her (meaning the man in question would have to intend to follow through with the act if he could), she would have to also belong to someone else already, which is, thankfully, not possible in the western world today since women are no longer considered to be property. And, of course, that passage only applied to Israelites, and even then only to some of them (it was a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which was all about elaborating upon the Mosaic law, something that never applied to Gentiles, and doesn’t apply to Jews saved under Paul’s Gospel either, so even if Jesus did mean what most Christians assume He did here, it wouldn’t apply to most people anyway).

But even if those saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision did somehow fall under this particular point in Jesus’ sermon (which they don’t, but for the sake of argument, let’s pretend they do), the word “adultery” in that passage really tells us everything we need to know about the context of the passage. By definition, a man (even a married man, which should be obvious based on the fact that Scripture allows for Jewish men to have concubines) couldn’t “commit adultery” with a woman who wasn’t married (or at least betrothed) back then, since in Bible times the word translated as “adultery” in our English Bibles (μοιχεύω/“moy-khyoo’-o” in the original Greek, and נָאַף/“naw-af’” in the original Hebrew) didn’t have the same meaning as the English word “adultery” does today, and was actually a property violation rather than a purity violation back then (as also demonstrated by the fact that Jesus didn’t condemn women for lusting after men in that verse, sexually or otherwise, because it wasn’t possible for a woman to do so in the biblical sense of the word, since a wife was always the property of a husband and never the other way around at that time, and hence a woman couldn’t own a man through marriage). In fact, while “adultery” by its modern, English definition is certainly possible to commit (and isn’t something one should do, since it isn’t a loving action), it’s quite impossible for anyone today in the western world to commit adultery in the manner the Bible uses the term, because women are no longer considered to be property. So no Gentile (or Israelite in the body of Christ) has to worry about even accidentally committing this particular sin here in the western world — or anywhere else that women are no longer considered to be property — today. (And just as a quick but related aside, this also means that in most parts of the world today, married couples with “open marriages” technically aren’t committing the sin of μοιχεύω either, since the wives in a modern marriage aren’t “owned” by their husbands, and so as long as it’s completely consensual for everyone, and also not against the secular law where they live, of course, there’s no scriptural reason to say it’s forbidden.)

Few Christians seem to remember, especially when reading passages about sexuality and lust, that it’s extremely important to interpret a passage of Scripture using the definitions of the time it was written rather than basing our interpretations on modern definitions of English words (using modern definitions rather than the definition of a word at the time it was written is how we ended up with all of the confused and unscriptural doctrines of the Christian religion we’ve been discussing throughout this series in the first place). It’s also important to remember that, prior to this sermon by Jesus, neither sexual fantasy nor enjoying the way someone looks (sexually speaking) had ever been condemned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (or anywhere else in the Greek Scriptures either, for that matter; and before someone brings up Job 31:1, they need to remember that this was spoken during his defence of his self-righteousness, which isn’t an example anyone should be bragging that they’re following, and Job’s personal decision there wasn’t based on any rule laid out anywhere in Scripture anyway). When one realizes all this, it becomes apparent that Jesus wasn’t creating a new law for Israelites to follow (or informing them of a sin that God had somehow forgotten to inform them of until that point), but was simply expanding on a rule His audience was already familiar with (the 10th Commandment), pointing out that for a Jewish male to covet his neighbour’s wife with the intention of actually having her would basically be the equivalent of breaking the 7th Commandment as well, but there’s absolutely no reason to believe He was even hinting that finding other people sexually appealing, or admiring their bodies (or even fantasizing about them) was at all wrong.

In fact, those who do try to force sexual desire out of their (and others’) lives are actually demonstrating a symptom of a far more pernicious form of lust than any mentioned already, one which affects (and infects) Christianity to a fatal degree. This, of course, would be the religious lust known as self-righteousness. So if a religious leader tries to convince others that simple sexual attraction and fantasy (or even premarital sex) is sinful, it would be wise to question any and all of their teachings, since they’re demonstrating how little they likely know about Scripture, and it seems unlikely that they’ve even been saved yet (relatively speaking, of course), since they probably don’t even understand the Gospel (considering the fact that they clearly don’t seem to know the difference between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision). Of course, another reason that religious conservatives are so opposed to “lust” (and anything even related to premarital sex) is simply basic erotophobia. Thanks to the harmful purity culture that conservative Christianity has inflicted upon the world, too many people grow up with the idea that sexuality (anything from simple sexual desire to any form of sexual activity itself) is inherently dirty and shameful. Most Christians will deny this and claim that sexual thoughts and acts are only “dirty” or sinful when they’re outside the context of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, but aside from misunderstanding what the Bible says about sexuality in the first place, they also don’t realize just how deeply the effects of purity culture have rooted into their subconscious, eventually blossoming into full-blown erotophobia, which in turn forces them to have to believe that their misinterpretations of Scripture are true because anything else could allow the sexuality they so fear to enter their lives.

It’s also important to keep in mind that something generally has to be spelled out as a sin in the Hebrew Scriptures or else it’s very unlikely to actually be a sin. Neither Jesus nor Paul (nor anyone else writing any of the Greek Scriptures — meaning the books of the Bible generally referred to as “the New Testament” — for that matter) were adding new sins to the list of sins when they wrote or spoke about these topics, nor were they revealing actions that were actually always sinful but which weren’t recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures (if they were, that would mean the Israelites under the Mosaic law had no way of knowing what was actually expected of them until these new sins were first revealed — long after the giving of the law or even the writing of the final book of the Hebrew Scriptures — and that God didn’t tell them how to truly avoid all sins until that time), so these passages in the Greek Scriptures have to be interpreted in light of what came before (and while the cultural context at the time does need to be considered as well, aside from the fact that Paul wouldn’t have been adding new actions to the definition in the first place, especially not without explaining exactly what the precise actions were and why they were sinful, it’s not like premarital sex was considered wrong by the Gentile culture of those he was writing to anyway, so there’s literally no reason to assume it was suddenly being included in the definition of πορνεία in Paul’s epistles). And since the Hebrew Scriptures didn’t call premarital sex a sin, but did call idolatrous sex and incest sins, it stands to reason that one or more of these have to be what Paul was actually talking about (especially since, for Paul to suddenly add new sins that had never been included in the definition of the word πορνεία into its definition would mean he’d have to be very careful to explain what these new sins are, exactly, that were now being included in its definition, if he expected anyone to understand that these actions were now considered to fall under its definition and be sinful, which Christians have to admit is something he didn’t do in any of his epistles, since there’s no verse anywhere in Scripture where Paul says, “premarital sex is included in list of actions referred to as πορνεία”). Likewise, Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden is light, and since we know that A) “lusting” the way religious conservatives interpret the word (enjoying the way someone looks, and even fantasizing about them sexually) had never been condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures, and B) there’s no way that avoiding “lusting” in the manner that today’s religious conservatives understand the concept could ever be considered to be easy, or a burden that is light in any way whatsoever (anyone who isn’t asexual or doesn’t have a hormonal imbalance — and no judgement to anyone who is or does — who is being truly honest with themselves knows I’m right), it has to mean something other than what most people assume (which it does, as I’ve already covered). This also means that those who try to avoid — as well as try to convince others that they need to avoid — their completely normal biological drives are perverting not only what Scripture actually teaches, but the natural instincts God gave us as well, and this is why those who teach the conservative religious perspectives on lust and sexuality are the true perverts.

There is a lot more that can be said about this complex topic (and I recommend digging more into it for yourself to learn other details that I didn’t get into here), but the bottom line is that there’s literally no scriptural reason to assume consensual sexual relations between an unmarried couple today — as long as no worship of other deities is involved, and it isn’t actually illegal where they live — is wrong.

Premarital sex and lust aren’t the only activities that religious leaders incorrectly consider to be immoral and have insisted that people shouldn’t participate in, however. There are so many other traditional religious ideas about supposed sins that aren’t actually in the Bible but which you’ve no doubt been told you must abstain from as well. I’m not going to get into all of them, but I’ll cover some of the most common actions.

Perhaps the action that is most connected with what we’ve just gone over has to do with the biblical False Friend commonly referred to as “modesty.” As you know, most Christians assume that revealing too much skin or the outline of one’s body is both immodest and a sin. Modesty, however, is the opposite of vanity, not nudity. Nudity was extremely common in Bible times, yet never called a sin in the Bible. God did not condemn Adam and Eve for being naked (in fact He created them naked and saw them as “very good,” and if nudity wasn’t inherently sinful before the fall then there’s no reason to claim it suddenly became sinful after the fall), but rather asked them who told them they were naked after they sinned and realized they were. He didn’t say, “Oh no, your nakedness has been exposed! How could this have happened?!” (He made them that way and left them to enjoy the garden in that state, so it would have been strange to suddenly consider their nudity to be wrong just because they’d sinned when He didn’t consider it to be wrong a moment prior to their sin.) The reason they sewed and put on clothing was because they were suddenly ashamed, not because they were suddenly naked (and the reason God made new clothes for them out of animal skins was because the dead animals covering them were a type of Christ covering sin, not because they suddenly needed clothing — they already had clothing at that point, after all).

The truth is that sin distorts our perceptions and makes people feel ashamed of their bodies, just as it makes them feel guilt and shame over all sorts of innocent things. Puritanism over our physical bodies is not a scriptural virtue, but it is a form of gnostic dualism, which is enough to tell us we should be avoiding that kind of prudishness. In fact, God even sent Isaiah out to prophesy naked, so obviously nudity just can’t be considered sinful or else God would have been commanding Isaiah to sin. Modesty is still important, but it’s about not showing off wealth, position, or power, not about not showing skin or curves. When Paul called for modesty in the church called the body of Christ, and asked women to dress modestly, he meant to dress “with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” It had nothing to do with their bodies and everything to do with their attitudes. Basically, he was telling them not to wear fancy outfits that would make them appear more important than those who weren’t able to appear as wealthy as them. Similarly, Peter wrote to the church called the Israel of God telling them that they should not let their adorning be “outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Nobody in their time would have looked twice at somebody showing a bit of skin, or even at being completely naked, and Scripture certainly didn’t condemn it, so neither should we. But the Bible is clear that we should not try to make ourselves look better or more important than those around us with expensive clothing and lavish hairdos, so true modesty (which is based on humility) is something we should certainly aim for. And as for the concern that not dressing like a prude might cause men to lust, we’ve already covered what “lust” really means, and that the idea of “lust,” as religious conservatives understand the concept, isn’t actually a problem at all. So if someone tries to use that argument, they need to go back and learn that.

This all means that there’s no basis for the idea of pornography and masturbation being sinful either, contrary to what many Christians claim (at least publicly). If God was okay with people being naked in public, viewing naked people couldn’t be a sin either, even on paper or on a screen, and we already know that there’s no command against fantasizing sexually about someone, since the form of “lust” that Jesus condemned had nothing to do with that at all, as we’ve now learned. And there’s nothing in Scripture condemning masturbation either (no, the sin of Onan wasn’t masturbation, but was just not providing his dead brother’s wife with a child as God specifically commanded him to do, and which was later also required under the Mosaic law — a law the body of Christ is not under), so the idea that either of these things are sinful is just more extrabiblical conservative puritanism. In fact, not only is masturbation harmless, it’s actually good for one’s health. And it’s definitely the safest form of sex, so Christian leaders should really be recommending it, along with pornography to assist with it for those who find porn useful for such purposes (especially because multiple studies have demonstrated that where porn usage increases, instances of rape and other forms of sexual violence actually decrease). And I know some Christians will point to Romans 13:14, which says, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” But if we’re going to apply this to actions that aren’t actually condemned as sinful anywhere in Scripture, this would really have to apply equally to anything one finds physically pleasurable (from watching a sunset to playing sports to even eating a good meal that one enjoys), so limiting that verse to things which actually are sinful is the only way to go if we want to avoid descending into absurdity and even harmful cult-like behaviour.

Another 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 in this series, 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 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, 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 (again, 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 KJV 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 issue between men and women was in many cases when he wrote against it). Most versions say things like, “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.” That translation from the KJV makes it somewhat confusing if you aren’t aware of the Greek words it’s translated from, since 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 (or a “harlot,” which is what the KJV translates the word πόρνη as). With that in mind, and based on the fact that sexual intercourse on its own was never forbidden between unmarried men and women, apart from specific circumstances primarily involving idolatry, as we learned earlier in this article (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” in the KJV, 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 the KJV 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.

Another common Christian rule when it comes to sexuality is that monogamy is the only acceptable form of romantic relationship, and that polygamy is forbidden, even though nearly every Christian I’ve met is well aware of the fact that polygamy and other forms of non-monogamy were considered to be an acceptable practice for people by God in the Bible, with the possible exception of local church overseers/elders (which are referred to as bishops in the KJV) and deacons (although there’s good reason to believe that the passages about “bishops” and deacons are actually just saying that an elder or deacon should have at least one wife — meaning they should not be single — not that they can’t have more than one wife). God even told David that if he had wanted more wives, rather than taking someone else’s wife, he should have just asked God for more, and if polygamy is a sin, that would mean God would have been offering to help David sin, which is not something God would have done. So basically, those religious conservatives who claim they’re fighting to promote “traditional marriage” really aren’t (if they were, they’d be promoting polygamy at the very least), and if monogamy was actually natural, cheating wouldn’t be so common in so many relationships (yes, even in Christian relationships).

Whether a Christian sees this next prohibition as sinful depends a lot on where one lives, but many Christians believe that swearing is indeed a sin as well. The only thing that looking down on profanity does, however, is demonstrate what an unspiritual (and likely hypocritical) snob one is. I’m not going to exegete all the passages in the Bible about language, though I will quickly point out that saying “oh, my God” isn’t taking the Lord’s name in vain, since “God” isn’t even close to being the Lord’s name (His actual name is likely pronounced as either Yahweh or Jehovah in English, or something along those lines anyway), but is actually just a title, similar to the title of “President” (and the commandment in question — which is technically a part of the 10 Commandments, and as such isn’t directed to the body of Christ anyway, although taking the Lord’s name in vain is still good to avoid doing — isn’t even talking about profanity; it’s basically referring to perjury after swearing not to while using the Lord’s name in your oath). Instead I’ll point out the hypocrisy, not to mention haughtiness, of having trouble with profanity. All profanity means is “outside the temple,” i.e., anything that isn’t sacred. I won’t get into the problems with the secular/sacred dualism most Christians hold to (which is essentially Gnosticism), but technically anything non-religious (such as eating a hamburger) is, by definition, “profane,” not just certain words.

However, pretending for a moment that certain words somehow are more “profane” than others, the idea that words can be bad in the first place quickly becomes comical when you begin to deconstruct the idea. I mean, it’s not like the Bible has a specific list of “forbidden words” included anywhere in it, so what makes a specific word wrong to say? Is it the particular combination of letters, or the specific sound the word makes when spoken, that makes a word wrong to use? It’s obviously ridiculous to think so, since otherwise the words “damn,” “hell,” and “ass” shouldn’t be read in the Bible, or spoken aloud in a sermon, as they’d be just as inherently bad in Scripture or sermon as when used in everyday parlance. But maybe it’s the meaning behind the word that makes it wrong? Well, if so, simply saying “have sexual intercourse” or “sleep with” (or “rats” or “ouch” any other number of expressions) would be just as bad as saying “fuck”; and saying “crap” or “faeces” would be just as bad as saying “shit,” as would saying the word “droppings,” or even “dung” (which is a word actually used in the KJV itself). But maybe it’s the intent behind the words. For instance, is it okay to say “fuck” if you’re referring to sex with your partner, or just using it as a playful adjective, but wrong to use in anger against another person? I’m okay with this, but only inasmuch as I am with the idea that we shouldn’t be saying anything with the intention of hurting another person (whether in anger or not), regardless of what words we’re using (in fact, this is a biblical principle).

And on top of all this, there are many words that are considered “swearing” in one part of the world that wouldn’t even be blinked at in others (or that are considered to be “swearing” today when they weren’t necessarily seen that way in the past), so is it wrong to use a word in one location simply because it’s traditionally considered “vulgar” in that area and time period, while not wrong to use it in other parts of the world where nobody is currently offended by the word? If so, that means it’s the act of offending people that would be the actual sin there, and we could never do anything that might offend another person (including evangelism, which offends all sorts of people). Just as the existence of so-called “swear words” in our English Bibles proves, this also means that no word is inherently wrong to use in and of itself, but is instead only considered wrong by certain people because they’ve decided the words are wrong, meaning these people have created an extrabiblical doctrine making it immoral to use words they don’t like. The reality is, getting offended by these “vulgar” words implies that you think you’re too good to hear everyday, common language, and that you probably need to be brought down a peg or two. Honestly, the old childhood saying about sticks and stones is true, and words can only hurt you if you allow them to. But, if you really insist on being offended by certain words, how about choosing to be offended by those words intended to hurt people who don’t happen to share your particular values or preferences or skin colour instead of words that simply add a bit of colour to everyday speech. However, I’ll make a compromise. Get offended by the many injustices and atrocities being committed not only around the world but even in your own backyard, and I mean offended enough to actually do something about it, and I’ll try to pretend you’re not a snob when you turn up your nose at everyday language. In fact, I won’t even say the word uterus around you if that helps.

Many Christians also believe that drinking alcohol is not allowed. And while it might not be pro-drunkenness or in favour of over-drinking, the Bible actually recommends, and in some places even commands, the consumption of alcohol for certain people (and God certainly wouldn’t have commanded it if it were a sin). And in fact, under the Old Covenant, wine was considered to be a blessing, with the absence of wine being considered to be a curse. Besides, as we all know, Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine (and yes, it was wine, not grape juice, as John 2:10 makes pretty obvious, not to mention as the fact that the Greek word for wine in this account — οἶνος/“oy’-nos” — is the exact same word used in Ephesians 5:18 where Paul warns against getting drunk on wine also makes clear, unless you think he was warning against getting drunk on grape juice). And, of course, Jesus used wine to represent the new covenant in His blood, so it should be pretty obvious that drinking alcohol in moderation is certainly allowed.

And finally, most Christians definitely believe that abortion is condemned in the Bible as murder, and hence is a sin. Regardless of one’s feelings on abortion, however, and even whether abortion actually is a sin or not, it’s important to know that, because murder is a legal term, abortion can’t legitimately be defined as murder in any place where it’s not illegal. Yes, abortion might involve killing, and the killing could even theoretically be a sin — I’m not making a definitive judgement one way or the other as to the morality of the act at this point — but regardless of whether or not abortion is a sin, killing can only be classified as murder if the killing is unlawful under one’s secular, human government, because otherwise capital punishment and the killing of enemy combatants in war would also have to be called murder, as would killing in self-defence, and so the claim of many anti-abortionists that abortion is murder (at least in most of the western world, or at least as of the time this article was first written) isn’t something even worth taking into consideration. Now, some have tried to get around this fact by saying, “It doesn’t matter how humans define the word. The only thing that matters is how God defines it.” Well, “murder” is an English word, and like all words, if we aren’t all using the same definition when we use it, the word becomes entirely meaningless as far as a discussion goes, and there’s no point in even using that word to begin with.

That said, even if we were going to redefine the word based on what Scripture says about the topic, something most Christians aren’t aware of is that abortion isn’t actually condemned, or even ever discussed, in the Bible at all, which means the idea that God calls it murder doesn’t appear to be true anyway. Of course, most Christians believe the Bible does condemn abortion, so we should quickly take a look at the passages which they use to defend this claim:

Thou shalt not kill. — Exodus 20:13

That verse isn’t going to work if we’re going to support the death penalty and war and cops carrying guns in the line of duty, as we’ve already discussed. Other translations render this verse along the lines of, “You shall not murder,” which is what the passage had to have meant because otherwise God would have been telling the Israelites to sin when He commanded them to kill various people back in “Old Testament” times, and since murder technically means “illegal killing,” if abortion is legal, again, it then can’t actually be labelled as murder.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. — Jeremiah 1:5

All this verse really tells us is that God knew Jeremiah before he was born. And unless this mean we exist as spirit babies before we’re born, all it does for those of us who aren’t Mormons is explain that God foreknew Jeremiah’s existence and planned for him to become a prophet beforehand (and what God plans for will happen, as we’ve now learned).

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. — Psalm 139:13-16

This passage is just more of Jeremiah 1:5, explaining God’s foreknowledge and predestination, and doesn’t mention abortion at all.

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. — Luke 1:39-42

Apparently fetuses in the womb (the Greek word βρέφος/“bref’-os,” referred to as “babes” in this passage in the KJV, doesn’t strictly mean “baby,” as it’s also used for embryos and fetuses) can leap when the Holy Spirit causes them to do so, although what that has to do with abortion being wrong I’m not sure.

And with that, I’m out of passages, unless there’s been some new ones brought up that I’m unaware of since I last studied the topic. Still, at least we know that God loves children (already born or otherwise) and would never do anything to harm them:

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. — Genesis 7:17-23

Huh. It seems that God Himself kills babies (and there’s no way there weren’t any pregnant women alive at the time of the flood, so fetuses too, it seems). But that’s different; God can kill whoever He wants, right? At least He’d never want humans to kill fetuses or children.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. — 1 Samuel 15:3

Well, apparently God not only kills children, He commanded humans to kill children in the past as well (and, again, there’s no way there weren’t any pregnant women among that group of people, meaning He commanded certain pregnancies to be aborted in the past, which means abortion can’t be a sin or else He’d have been commanding the Israelites to sin). So the idea that God believes all fetuses have “a right to life” and wants them all to be born just isn’t a defensible claim, at least not based on the Bible, which means the idea that God calls abortion murder doesn’t appear to be true anyway. And so, whatever conclusions one comes to about abortion, it seems that people will have to decide for themselves based on an entirely extrabiblical perspective (if you disagree, however, please let me know what passages I missed that prove otherwise), outside of one very telling verse that we haven’t looked at yet (at least in this article, although we have considered it already in a different — yet still somewhat related — context, earlier in this series):

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. — Genesis 2:7

This verse tells us that it was when God breathed the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils that he became conscious, figuratively referred to as becoming “a living soul” in this verse (keeping in mind that “souls” don’t exist as ontological objects, but rather that the word is used as metonymy for a human existing as a conscious being in this verse). Now, I can’t definitively prove that the time every subsequent human became “a living soul” was at the time they breathed their first breath on their own, the way it was for Adam, but this is far more scriptural of an assertion than any of the arguments against abortion based on the Bible are, so I’ll just leave that there for you to consider. (And to quickly get the inevitable questions about how fetuses seems to be able to react to outside noises, songs, voices, and such out of the way, if it’s true that babies become “living souls” upon their first breath, these would then simply have to be unconscious, autonomic reflexes programmed into developing fetuses; most of us believers would say that, in reality, the “life” of the yet-unborn fetus is the life of the mother, and that it “lives” its mother’s life, so to speak, rather than its own — and this applies to the oxygen it receives as well, since it receives its mother’s breath through its umbilical cord while gestating rather than having its own breath of life prior to birth.)

Still, based on other doctrines they hold to, it’s surprising that most Christians aren’t the most pro-abortion group of people out there. Why? Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called “the age of accountability.” A child supposedly reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die supposedly go to heaven as ghosts (or so the doctrine goes, although we now know that the dead cease to exist as conscious beings) because they’re too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in an inescapable place called hell if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian (or they would if the popular doctrine were scriptural).

Now, I’d estimate that 90% or more of the human population would suffer in hell without end, if the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins were true, so if never-ending torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability did happen to be true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are since they’d probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn’t those Christians who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they’re willing to risk the souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? If there was a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (the odds might vary depending on where and when you happen to live, but they’re still pretty grim), wouldn’t you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in never-ending torment for those past this age, then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you’re still alive, and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven, or so the logic should go if these traditionalists are correct (especially since we’ve already determined that abortion can’t legitimately be considered to be murder in most cases).

If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children’s soul with a fate far worse, and infinitely longer, than simple death or injury? And as we’ve already learned, abortion generally can’t be classified as murder, so, again, women who have abortions, and even the doctors who perform them, should be seen by Christians who believe in never-ending torment as the greatest heroes ever for saving so many souls.

No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I’m wrong. I’ve made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don’t expect to have it happen anytime soon either.

That said, since I believe in the salvation of all mankind because of what Christ accomplished, I obviously don’t believe that anyone ends up suffering in hell without end, so I am not suggesting anyone actually kill their children here. I’m simply making this point to challenge yet another inconsistency in Christian ideology.

Of course, most people today also aren’t aware that abortion (at least if performed during much of the first two trimesters) was not actually considered to be immoral by most Christians throughout much of history either (at least among Christians who hold to Sola scriptura, and the theological perspectives of those who don’t hold to Sola scriptura are rarely even worth considering). This doesn’t necessarily matter as far as one’s consideration of the morality of abortion goes, since those of us in the body of Christ don’t base our theology on what Christians have historically considered to fall under the purview of “orthodoxy” or “orthopraxy” anyway (because we consider the doctrines of the Christian religion to be entirely wrong about nearly everything), but it is still useful for us to know that, until relatively recently, evangelicals and other Protestants have actually been mostly okay with abortion, and that it was only due to the machinations of certain politically-minded evangelicals — who decided to join forces with the Roman Catholics in their fight against abortion (although it appears that even Catholic opinions on abortion have changed over the years) in order to create the movement sometimes known as the Religious Right so they could gain political power (mostly so they could fight against desegregation and continue to promote racism, at least in the United States, although the rest of the evangelical world tends to follow what American evangelicals do) — that nearly everyone has been swayed into incorrectly assuming abortion has always been thought to be a sin by all Christians.

And it’s also important to note that a large number of Christians who today claim the “Pro-Life” label are only actually against abortion when it comes to other people’s abortions, thinking that the abortions they themselves have had are somehow okay, but that everyone else’s abortions are wrong and should be illegal, basically telling us that they believe the only moral abortions are the abortions they have, as well as that a large reason they’re fighting against abortion is actually because they want to punish other women for enjoying sex, and to ensure that those women suffer long-lasting consequences for their actions (they’ll argue that it’s actually because they think abortion is immoral and that they believe in “the sanctity of life,” but their hypocrisy, along with the way they treat those who have been born — especially in the United States, where religious conservatives only appear to care about the unborn until they’re born, after which it’s up to those who are born to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, as far as they seem to be concerned — reveals the real truth about them to the rest of us: that they don’t actually believe in “the sanctity of life,” or in ethical practices at all, for that matter). In fact, this quote on Facebook by a Christian pastor named Dave Barnhart explains the real reason most conservative politicians and religious leaders fight against abortion:

“‘The unborn’ are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without reimagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

But what are the scientific facts when it comes to abortion? Well, from what I’ve been able to determine, the brain physically can’t have consciousness until at least 24 weeks of gestation have passed (and likely more; maybe much more) because it doesn’t have the structures necessary to develop consciousness or sentience (at least based on what I could find when researching for this article). Therefore, since only about 1% of abortions take place after the 21st week, abortion in the overwhelming majority of cases doesn’t seem to kill something that was ever a conscious being, and hence doesn’t seem to be the killing of something that was ever a “person.” Sure, it might kill something that has human DNA, but the root of a human hair that has been plucked from a human head also has human DNA and nobody would call its removal from someone’s head the killing of a human person because it was never a conscious human itself, and if a fetus was never a conscious being either, there’s no legitimate way that I’m aware of to say a “person” is being killed in an abortion performed within that timeframe (in addition, scientists believe that it takes even longer than that — not until at least the 29th week — before a fetus could feel pain, in case that’s a concern you might have). And yes, at this point, many people will try to argue that Jews and many slaves weren’t considered to be legal “persons” by the Nazis and certain slaveholders in the past either, but this is just an attempt to distract from the point that most fetuses were never conscious beings even once prior to an abortion, whereas the Jews and slaves in question were, which means this is nothing more than a bad faith argument with no bearing on the topic at all.

It’s also important to note that abortions in the third trimester basically only ever take place because something has gone horribly wrong and the baby is going to die anyway (often in an extremely painful manner), and many times because the pregnant mother will jeopardize her health (and even her life) if she continues with the pregnancy as well. No woman goes through months of pregnancy only to abort it near the end unless something is very wrong, and it’s almost certain that no doctor would do so for any other reason either (and no, the mythical “post-birth abortions” that some people bring up in order to win elections aren’t actually a real thing either), so these are all facts to keep in mind whenever someone insists that abortion is definitely wrong.

Now, some like to argue that a fetus has a soul, and that killing a “living soul” would be wrong. Well, whether or not fetuses have souls, killing someone or something that has a soul isn’t necessarily wrong anyway. We kill animals for food (and animals obviously have souls — or, to be more precise, are “living souls” — which is a fact the Bible clearly agrees with as well, I might add, since the word translated as “life” in Genesis 1:30 is the same Hebrew word — נֶפֶשׁ/“neh’-fesh” — which is translated as “soul” in other passages), and God commanded the killing of lots of people in Bible times, as we’ve already discussed, not to mention killed plenty of them Himself, so killing “living souls” is obviously not something God forbids, nor considers to be inherently wrong. So even if fetuses actually were “living souls,” it wouldn’t necessarily even matter.

All that said, I’m still not here to tell you that you should (or should not) have or perform abortions. This is a very personal matter, and one that people have very strong feelings about. The only thing I’m here to do is to remind you that, regardless of the conclusions you’ve come to as far as the sinfulness of abortion would be for you, if you’re in the body of Christ, you aren’t called to condemn the rest of the world for what they do, or to try to influence it to straighten up their walk (as I’ll go into more detail on shortly). All you’re called to do is walk after the Spirit, and let the rest of the world make their own decisions about morality, and that goes for all the topics we went through in this article, not to mention the many other actions that certain Christians believe should be avoided (including listening to certain types of music, watching certain movies or television shows, playing cards or various other types of games, viewing or participating in sports, gambling, or even dancing, to name just a few of the various things the religious think we should avoid, despite not being forbidden anywhere in Scripture).

Still, if you really want a general principle of morality to live by under the dispensation of the grace of God, I can give you the philosophy of morality I myself live by (just don’t take this as a rule; it’s simply my own principles that my conscience, faith, and common sense led me to). In no particular order, I ask myself a number of questions, such as, “Is it loving to do so?” If it’s done (or avoided) out of actual love or compassion, odds are high that it’s fine to do. I’ll also consider whether it’s harming anybody unnecessarily against their will. This is because certain actions can harm people without being sinful, actions such as defending someone against an attacker, for example, or a doctor amputating a limb to protect against the spread of a disease, as already discussed earlier in this series, so sometimes harmful/evil actions are necessary (and the “against their will” part is because something such as piercing someone’s ears when they want it done is technically causing them “harm,” or is at least damaging their body — even if only the tiniest bit — but it’s not to a fatal or even serious degree, and it’s their desire to have it done, so a professional piercer can rest assured that they aren’t sinning by causing this sort of harm or damage). But if an action would result in unnecessary harm to somebody against their will, it should likely be avoided. Another consideration is whether an action would get one in trouble with the police or break a secular law of the land. If it would, it’s probably best to do something else instead, since Paul advises us to obey the government. Of course, I also look to Scripture to see whether Paul has spoken against a specific action I might be wanting to do. While his teachings were exhortations rather than commandments (meaning they were good ideas to follow, but not required of us, for the most part), it’s still a good idea to see what he had to say about things if you’re in the body of Christ (and as for those who are members of the Israel of God instead, they should be looking to what the Circumcision writings say they should do and not do). And last (but definitely not least), I think about whether it’s an idolatrous action that would result in the worship of another deity (or the worship of anything/anyone other than God). If so, I definitely don’t do it. But if something is loving, isn’t harming others unnecessarily against their will, isn’t illegal, doesn’t go against (properly translated and interpreted) Scripture, and isn’t idolatrous, I have the faith that it’s generally perfectly fine to do so. If you don’t have the same sort of faith about a specific action, however, it would be a sin for you to do it, and you should avoid any actions that would go against your own conscience until you have legitimately changed your mind about them being wrong (just don’t judge another person for their actions — presuming these aren’t actions that harm others unnecessarily against their will, aren’t illegal, and aren’t idolatrous — if it isn’t going against their conscience).

At this point, I should probably say that when Christians learn about my theology as it pertains to issues of morality, they often accuse me of moral relativism. While the reason they make this accusation is generally due to not having actually dug into why I believe what I do (since they assume I’m ignoring what the Bible teaches, when in reality I believe what I do about morality 100% because of what I believe the Bible really teaches), they are right about one thing: I am indeed a moral relativist. And if they truly recognized God as God, they would be moral relativists themselves.

Of course, just as with nearly everything I’ve written in this series, this probably sounds strange to most people who read this assertion for the first time. But as always, if you think it over carefully you should realize that it’s the truth. I mean, think about it: If morality is absolute rather than relative, it means that there are certain actions which are always inherently wrong to do, no matter who the person is, and that would have to include God if the action is inherently wrong in-and-of-itself (this would apply to avoiding actions which are always wrong to abstain from as well, I should add). In fact, if any actions were always wrong from an absolute perspective (which would be the case if morality wasn’t relative), it would mean there’s a “moral law” (for lack of a better term) which is greater than God Himself, a law which even God would be obligated to follow. And if there is something greater than God (even a “law”), then God would not truly be sovereign because He’d be obligated to follow said “moral law,” and couldn’t decide not to do so.

It’s only when morality is relative to what God decides it is that He maintains His sovereignty. Ironically, most Christians who protest moral relativism actually already believe that God is the basis for morality, not realizing that they’re actually teaching moral relativism when they say this. If this still doesn’t sound right, though, let’s take a look at an example to really demonstrate the fact that most Christians are already moral relativists (even without realizing that they are).

Perhaps the best example of the moral relativism that pretty much all Christians hold to is the topic of killing other human beings. Is killing always morally wrong, in-and-of-itself, or is it relative to the situation one finds themselves in? Well, if killing humans is always wrong, with no exceptions, then killing people in war, or in the defence of others, or even in self-defence, would, by definition, be immoral. And not only that, it would be wrong for God to ever kill anyone as well, if killing humans is always wrong, with no exceptions, which means that all the times God is said to have killed people in the Bible, not to mention all the times He commanded the Israelites to do so, would have been examples of God sinning (or commanding others to sin). So I trust it’s now clear that killing is only “wrong” under the specific circumstances that God tells us it’s wrong to do so, which means that the morality of killing humans is relative to God’s desire and commands rather than being absolutely wrong (and that the Bible actually does support situational ethics). And if you agree with me on that, welcome to the world of moral relativism.

Before moving on, though, I should reiterate something I wrote earlier in the article, which is that some people who have made it this far will have felt their pharisaical flesh crawling, and their self-righteous souls getting stirred up against some of the things they’ve just read. If that’s the case for you, it means you really need to reevaluate whether you’re more interested in holding fast to the traditions you’ve been taught by your denomination and religious leaders, so that you can continue walking in accord with flesh, or in what Scripture actually says, so that you can begin walking in accord with Spirit instead.

Walking in accord with Spirit also helps us stop trying to condemn the rest of the world for what they do, not to mention trying to influence it to straighten up their walk, as many of the more political Christians often try to do. These Christians think that judging and changing the world is their job, but as Paul essentially asked in 1 Corinthians 5:12, what business is it of ours to judge those outside the church? And so, regardless of one’s views on morality, whatever the Bible might actually say about the topic as it applies the body of Christ, it’s limited to the body of Christ, contrary to what so many in the Institutional Church seem to believe (although most of the members of the Institutional Church are technically a part of the very world they condemn, since they’re not in the body of Christ due to having believed a false “gospel,” as we’ve now learned from this series, so it actually might make sense for them to judge the world they’re a part of, but they’re judging it based on misinterpretations of Scripture, which doesn’t help). Trying to force those who are not a part of the body of Christ to live a supposedly “righteous life,” by legal means or otherwise, is not even slightly justifiable, since nowhere in the Bible is it even hinted at that the body of Christ is called to influence (or force) our cultures to become more conservative or to follow religious laws. In fact, the only thing we’re asked to do regarding our governments is to obey the secular laws and to pay our taxes (even when these laws harm us and should not exist in the first place). Slavery is a good example of this. Contrary to what many people think, when Paul told slaves in the body of Christ to obey their masters, since he was all for trying to gain freedom if it could be done legally, and this exhortation was only for members of the body of Christ anyway (like most of his exhortations, it didn’t apply to anyone outside the church), he obviously wasn’t promoting slavery as a good thing. It’s simply that he was exhorting believers to obey the law, whether it’s an unpleasant law, whether the authorities making said laws are ungodly, and even whether we might think the laws themselves might be ungodly (which isn’t to say that those who are not members of the body of Christ shouldn’t do what they can to make the world a better place where possible, including fighting to completely eliminate slavery; and if that’s something you really want to do as a member of the body of Christ, you technically can, but it isn’t something we’re called to do in Scripture).

Yes, it is true that, in a democracy, “we the people” technically help determine the secular laws to a certain (in practice, extremely limited) extent, but there’s still zero excuse for trying to create laws based on religious morality (especially when we consider the fact that most religious morality isn’t at all scriptural, as we’ve now learned), or for trying to turn one’s nation into a theocracy (the world will be a theocracy in the future, but not until Jesus returns to the earth, and no attempt to create a theocracy in the meantime will ever provide anything other than horrific results). And culturally, there also isn’t any reason to go around putting down non-believers for doing things that go against one’s moralistic sensibilities (particularly, again, since most of the things that religious conservatives think are sinful aren’t actually even slightly sinful to begin with), for trying to pressure the rest of the world into acting the way religious conservatives want them to, or for any number of the cruel or unnecessary actions that too many of those who are religious conservatives seem to feel obligated to perform against those in their communities and countries — actions such as trying to get people fired, kicking people out of their homes, or not being willing to sell things to people, all based simply on who they happen to be attracted to or what gender they identify as, for example; or actions such as trying to enforce prohibitions against consuming certain beverages or plants that God Himself made, or at least enforcing prohibitions against purchasing such things on certain days of the week (to name just a few of many examples).

Really, all that attempting to legislate religious morality, or even to pressure the rest of the world into following one’s religious leanings, will do nothing but drive people even further away from the faith one no doubt wants them to embrace, and will also continue to cause everyone to misunderstand what the Gospel is actually about (hint: it’s not about trying to be as big of an asshole as possible towards those who don’t believe and act the way you do, as so many conservative Christians act like they think it is).

This is an important factor for parents to keep in mind too, by the way. Raising your kids to be good citizens who live loving, quiet, respectful, and peaceable lives is important, and they should certainly be brought up with the training and instruction of the Lord so that they’ll understand what they need to know about God and Scripture, but trying to force people to live “godly lives” misses the entire point of Paul’s teachings. You can’t stuff the Holy Spirit into somebody (and if God hasn’t elected your child for “eternal life,” you aren’t going to be able to convince them to believe the Gospel — either Gospel — and get saved now anyway), and trying to make people (children or grown adults) live according to religious rules will only cause them to sin and rebel all the more, as Paul makes quite clear (that was the purpose of the existence of the Mosaic law, after all). And even if those within Churchianity were correct about what is right and wrong (which they definitely aren’t), getting people who aren’t already saved (relatively speaking) to live “righteous” lives and stop sinning isn’t going to get them saved, or make them any less lost, unless you believe that salvation actually is by works, so it just doesn’t make any sense to begin with to try to force the rest of the world to live by religious standards since it won’t help them in the long run anyway (at least not according to the most common soteriology of Churchianity).

History is very clear about all of this as well, of course. When religious “morality” gains control of government, people suffer. There’s almost nothing scarier, or more antithetical to freedom, than a theocracy or theonomy run by mortal humans (remember, it is for freedom that we have been set free, as Galatians 5:1 is telling us; it wasn’t so we would put ourselves back under religious bondage). When religious conservatives run governments without a liberal and secular hand to balance their policies out, people are censored, fired, expelled from their homes, imprisoned, tortured, and even executed simply for their beliefs (or lack thereof), as well as for the most innocent of actions. If someone challenges the religious status quo or does things considered sinful in a theocratic society, religious conservatives become extremely evil towards such heretics, apostates, and infidels (and even today in more secular countries you find religious conservatives trying to take or keep civil rights away from people who might live differently from them for no reason other than the fact that these differences might not line up with their religious beliefs).

This is one reason I like to stay far away from religious conservatives in general (or at least only meet with them in public places). Perjury, assault, torture, theft, and killing are a major part of the heritage of nearly all conservative religions, including the Christian religion, and I have no doubt that many of them would bring that legacy back into practice if they could. That’s not to say all religious conservatives would do this if they had the opportunity, but I still wouldn’t want to take that chance. And regardless of their propensity towards violence, it goes without saying that most of them would definitely (and happily) fight against freedoms and civil rights for people who are different from them in various ways, particularly when it comes to sexuality and gender, and I see no good reason to have much to do with people who would be so heartless and cruel.

Religious conservatives sometimes talk about a culture war, and they are right, there is one happening. The problem is, they’re on the wrong side of this battle, having exchanged the truth for an attempt at holding political power (although Daniel warned us that the Christian religion, along with all of the world’s other false religions — based on Daniel chapter 7, presuming A.E. Knoch interpreted the prophecy correctly in pages 162 to 179 of his commentary on the book of Daniel, which I personally do believe he did — will be utterly destroyed eventually, and that God will kill many within this religion during the Great Tribulation, so they do this at their own peril).

Now, some members of the body of Christ will disagree with me on this next part, because there are a fair number of believers within the body who lean more towards conservatism when it comes to their political preferences, so please keep in mind that this paragraph is simply my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the majority of the members of the body of Christ, but in my personal experience (at least as a North American), conservatism appears to basically be about selfishness, greed, hunger for power, paranoia, racism, sexism, homophobia (among other forms of erotophobia), transphobia, and just having a lack of empathy towards one’s neighbours in general, rather than loving one’s neighbour. All of this ultimately leads to people trying to control the lives and actions of those who might be a little different from what they consider to be “the norm,” and religion only makes conservatism worse since it leads people to believe their harmful mindsets and actions are sanctioned (or even commanded) by God. So if you’ve ever wondered why some people remain wary of religious (and even political) conservatives, it should be pretty obvious at this point. All that being said, I should add that I’m not claiming political liberalism will save the world (or even your country). Scripture is quite clear that no human government can ever do that. Still, true liberalism is actually about compassion, empathy, and taking care of those in need (basically, the exact opposite of what conservatism seems to be about, at least as far as I’ve ever been able to see), and those living under truly liberal governments (and not just liberal governments in name only) tend to have much better lives in general than those living under more conservative governments do, so I’d much rather be in a more liberal part of the world any day of the week (which as a Canadian, thankfully, I am, at least at present).

But regardless, as you’ve already learned from this and the other articles in this series, and as you’ll continue to learn as you read the rest of this article, members of the Christian religion are wrong about basically everything anyway, and since the vast majority of the members of the Christian religion are conservative, it stands to reason (at least in my mind) that there’s literally no way conservatism can possibly be correct if nearly every single member of this religion holds to it. At the end of the day, however, members of the body of Christ are aliens here on this planet, since our citizenship is in the heavens, so the politics of earth really aren’t meant for us to begin with.

It isn’t only that religious leaders tell us certain things are forbidden and that we need to avoid these actions, though. They also try to convince us that certain things are required. If you do attend the traditional church services of the Christian religion and become a member of a particular local assembly, you’ll likely sit through a number of sermons meant to make you feel guilty if you don’t give them a percentage of your money on a regular basis, sermons which completely ignore the fact that the tithe was meant solely for followers of the Mosaic law. Members of the body of Christ (whether Jewish or Gentile) are not supposed to follow the law of Moses, and those who do try to follow any of it are under a curse of being obligated to follow all of it, according to Paul (that means no more bacon or shrimp, or clothes with certain mixed fabrics, or doing chores or running errands on Saturday).

Of course, a truly biblical tithe is actually in the form of food, drink, or livestock, and only goes to the Levitical priests or to the needy (with the exception of the tithe that wasn’t given away at all, but was rather consumed by the tithers themselves). Unless your pastors are Levites who perform animal sacrifices, they have no scriptural basis for demanding it from anyone (no, not even Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek helps their case, unless perhaps one’s pastor is the king of Salem and they’re tithing of the spoils they took from their enemies in battle). There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible about the body of Christ having to give a tenth (or any amount) of their money to their religious leaders or organizations.

Still, while tithing isn’t a biblical idea for members of the body of Christ, what is recorded as having happened during Paul’s time is members of local church assemblies giving financial gifts to those in need. And while this seems to have only been done for the sake of helping members of the Israel of God who were living in Jerusalem (perhaps because they were struggling due to a famine at that time), it is still good for us to help the poor. What believers didn’t do at that time, however, was just give money to pastors who simply wanted to live off church members’ hard-earned money or keep the power running in a church building.

Those church buildings and pastors themselves, by the way, are also a big problem, since modern church services and the buildings they take place in don’t have any biblical justification for existing in the first place. The church known as the body of Christ in Paul’s time didn’t gather in chapels or temples. Instead, they met in the homes of members of their local assemblies. And a gathering wasn’t a few songs and then a sermon by a pastor. There might have been songs, and even a speech or two, but the early church gatherings apparently included a meal and discussions, not just a bite of bread, a sip of wine (or grape juice), and a sermon.

“The Lord’s Supper” for example, appears to have been a part of a real dinner meant to demonstrate the communion, meaning the unity, of the members of the body of Christ — at least as it was partaken of by those in the body of Christ — and so it wasn’t just a tiny snack they were partaking of. The idea that this was a ritual or ordinance which believers had to participate in for salvation or otherwise is a concept that arose later among those who apostatized from Paul’s teachings by merging his Gospel with Israel’s Gospel (thus creating the false “gospel” of the Christian religion), likely because they misunderstood certain things that Jesus was recorded as saying in John 6. Of course, even if Jesus did literally mean for His listeners to eat His flesh, what He said there was only for members of the Israel of God, not the body of Christ, as we learned earlier in this series. As we now know, our salvation is based 100% on what Christ accomplished, and not on any actions we take, so the idea of partaking in rituals related to the bread and wine would contradict everything Paul taught us about salvation. And since our dispensation has no rudiments (meaning elements) or ordinances, because we are complete in Christ (who is the end of all religion for those in His body), returning to the shadows and types of rituals and rites in any way whatsoever would rob us of the full enjoyment of both our possessions and freedom in Christ. (That said, the idea that Jesus was literally referring to eating His flesh when He spoke to Israelites is a misunderstanding of His words, as He made clear by using the exact same Greek phrase translated as “hath everlasting life” in verse 47 of the same chapter to say they gain it by believing on Him, and as “hath eternal life” in verse 54 to say they gain it by “eating His flesh,” telling us that these are one and the same action, only stated metaphorically the second time He says it, in order to scare away those who were not among the elect, since they also missed this fact, after which Peter, who was among the elect, confirmed that Jesus really was just referring to believing on Him, which for them meant to believe that He’s their Messiah and the Son of God.)

Very few members of the body of Christ actually do partake of this meal anymore, though, partly due to the fact that many actually believe — for reasons that I don’t have the time to get into here — that it was meant to end around the time of Paul’s imprisonment, and partly due to the fact that there are so few members of the body of Christ alive today that it’s difficult to actually gather together in person anymore anyway. Still, while practicing the Lord’s Supper as a ceremony would not be at all scriptural, choosing to share a meal together in a manner that demonstrates our communion with one another (so long as it isn’t a practice that’s enforced upon us, and we’re actually sharing the meal with everyone in the church rather than selfishly consuming it all before everyone has arrived), meaning that it helps us recognize that we’re all members of the same body, seems like the exact opposite of a religious ritual to me, and I see no problem with doing just that when gathering as a local church in one’s home (if one is able to find such a church) if the group so desires.

As far as the rest of the “church service” goes, it appears they had actual conversations and dialogues rather than just a monologue by one preacher. This is demonstrated by how, when Paul spoke to the believers at Troas in Acts 20:7, the Greek word translated as “preached” in the KJV there is διαλέγομαι/“dee-al-eg’-om-ahee,” which literally means “to converse with someone,” or “to argue or discuss something with someone,” as is also made clear by the way the KJV translated this word as “disputing” in Acts 19:8. Still, this isn’t to say that the occasional lesson or presentation isn’t helpful, and there are plenty of great messages preached at our various conferences, but it wasn’t why the original members of the body of Christ were gathering together in the first century.

Just remember that church buildings and the current structure of the Institutional Church’s weekend “services” didn’t exist until some time later (in fact, the word “church” is translated from the Greek ἐκκλησία/“ek-klay-see’-ah,” which is why it’s sometimes also transliterated as “ecclesia” in certain Bible versions, and which is a word that simply refers to a “group” or “assembly” of people, by the way; it never referred to a building in the Bible). To be fair, though, it’s not the buildings themselves that are the real problem; it’s the “organization” and lack of real, spontaneous, Spirit-led fellowship, not to mention theological and spiritual dialogue between members. Yes, you will almost certainly hear the word “fellowship” in most traditional church meetings, but you also almost as certainly won’t experience much (if any) there, despite how much so many pastors seem to love the word (it’s hard to fellowship with the back of someone’s head while sitting in pews listening to a sermon). But you can technically meet in a home and still be an Institutional Church, or rent a room in a building other than a home and be a relational, open church (as church gatherings that follow the pattern of the first assemblies are sometimes called). As nice as a home gathering is, it’s really the openness and fellowship and discussions about Scripture that are the important factors. That said, if a local assembly owns a whole building that they meet in — even if they just call it a chapel or a hall — you should probably stay far away. Perhaps there’s a slim possibility of the rare exception existing, but in general, owning a building for worship and sermons seems to be a good litmus test for a local church, demonstrating that they likely know extremely little about biblical theology and what Scripture actually says. In fact, you’d be much better off spiritually (and even physically) in a strip club than in a so-called “house of God” (as many mistakenly call these buildings). At least in a strip club nobody is deceiving you about what Scripture teaches when they try to take a percentage of your money, considering the fact that most Institutional Churches teach horribly unscriptural doctrines such as never-ending punishment for unbelievers, “free will,” the immortality of the soul, and the Trinity, among the many other false doctrines we’ve discussed throughout this series of articles.

Speaking of teaching, the idea of a pastor or priest or any professional preacher who rules over a church isn’t in the Bible either. Local churches were overseen by a group of unpaid elders or overseers (or “bishops,” depending on your translation), not run by one paid man (that’s not to say that evangelists shouldn’t be paid to evangelize, but elders and evangelists aren’t necessarily always the same people). If you have one person leading (and basically performing the entire ministry in) a local gathering of believers, I would suggest not having much of anything to do with their gatherings if you value your spiritual well-being (and while not all clergy are dangerous or are con-artists — many are just confused — I’d suggest you do play it safe and be cautious when interacting with them, just in case, since a lot still are).

Also, just as a quick aside on the topic of spiritual things, the “charismatic” spiritual gifts that some pastors say one should have really aren’t meant for those under the dispensation of the grace of God today either (meaning for those in the body of Christ). They might still be active for some people saved in connection with the Gospel of the Circumcision, I should say (and based on certain testimonies I’ve heard from some people who I suspect are members of the Israel of God — even if they don’t necessarily realize it themselves, not being aware of the difference between the two churches and their two respective Gospels — this very well might be the case), since these gifts were basically meant as a sign for Jews anyway. Even those in the body of Christ in the first century were mostly “speaking in tongues” as a sign for unbelieving Jews (who often required a sign to accept Jesus as their Messiah), but for those of saved in connection with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, these gifts appear to have come to an end when Israel as a whole fully rejected the Messiah, quite possibly around the time recorded in Acts 28 (although, for the record, I should state here that I’m a Mid-Acts “Hyperdispensationalist,” to use the theological label, and not an Acts 28 “Ultradispensationalist”), as evidenced by the fact that even Paul, whose simple handkerchiefs could heal those who touched them at one time, could no longer heal people by the end of his ministry, and even suggested that Timothy take some wine for his stomach and other ailments rather than seek the gift of healing as those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision were instructed to do. That’s not to say God can’t or doesn’t ever do miracles for those of us in the body of Christ anymore (and it definitely doesn’t mean that God doesn’t still guide us through His Spirit), just that they’re the exception rather than the rule while the reason for the sign gifts has been mostly paused for the time being (so, until the final Gentile meant to enter the body of Christ does so, and God’s focus returns to Israel and the Gospel of the Kingdom becomes the preeminent Gospel to be proclaimed on earth once again).

Aside from tithing (and “speaking in tongues,” depending on one’s denomination), there’s one more unbiblical tradition that religious leaders will condemn you for if you don’t do it on a regular basis, and that is regularly attending their gatherings, particularly on the day they believe to be the Sabbath.

Almost anybody who has ever suggested they might stop “going to church” for any length of time has been given a guilt trip and has been told that we aren’t supposed to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, completely misrepresenting the meaning of the passage in Hebrews 10:25 (while also ignoring the fact that the book of Hebrews wasn’t written to the body of Christ anyway, but was written to those referred to as Hebrews, aka Israelites). The Greek word ἐπισυναγωγή/“ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay’,” translated as “assembling” in this verse, is never used to refer to “gathering” in the sense that one would use when speaking of “going to church” when it’s used in the Bible. In fact, the only other place in Scripture where ἐπισυναγωγή is used is when Paul was talking about the gathering of the saints to Christ in the air when he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians, which tells us that the writer was warning his readers against forsaking the hope of being assembled together to Christ when He returns (also confirmed by the context, as told to us by the words “as ye see the day approaching” at the end of the verse), and wasn’t speaking of “going to church” at all (although, while the writer of Hebrews and Paul were both speaking about being gathered to Christ around the time of His return, it is important to remember that there is a difference between the time the members of the body of Christ are gathered to Him in the air at the Snatching Away and the time the members of the Israel of God are gathered to Him in Israel at His Second Coming). That said, gathering with like minded believers, if you can find them, is still beneficial, so please don’t think I’m saying that one shouldn’t gather with the body if one can find other members nearby, be it on the Sabbath or on any other day.

As far as what day the Sabbath is goes, this is one where various sabbatarian denominations are partially correct, while also being quite wrong about it at the same time. The Sabbath is indeed Saturday, as they claim; nowhere in Scripture does it say that it was changed to Sunday (and Sunday is not the Lord’s Day either; the Lord’s Day — which anyone who understands how possessive apostrophes work should be aware is also known as the Day of the Lord — is an event that hasn’t happened yet, at least not as of the time this series of articles were written). But since those saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision are not under the Mosaic law in any way whatsoever, it doesn’t really matter to us what day the Sabbath is. In the very beginning of the church, believers didn’t pick one specific day to gather together when they did get together for fellowship; they could meet any day of the week (possibly doing so more than one day a week, and very likely often happening later in the afternoon or evening after work rather than first thing in the morning, based on the fact that some were eating all the food and getting drunk before the poor could arrive at their gatherings, presumably due to having to work later into the day than the rich had to). That said, there’s nothing technically wrong with meeting on a Sunday. In fact it’s often the most convenient day to do so on at this point in history, since the Institutional Church has managed to convince most people that it is the new Sabbath thanks to the influence it’s had over our society, but it’s really not any different from any other day of the week so don’t feel any obligation to treat it like a special day.

And on the topic of esteeming certain days above others, be they new holidays invented by (or pagan holidays that were “Christianized” by) the Institutional Church (such as Lent, such as Easter, and such as Christmas, to name just three) or days that are observed by Jewish followers of the Mosaic law, while it might not always be a great idea, it’s not necessarily wrong to celebrate a specific day if it’s something one enjoys doing just for the fun of it (or if it’s something one who is weak in faith still feels they need to do). Just realize that none of these days are required for the body of Christ any more than the Sabbath is (you won’t find any commandments, or even exhortations, in Scripture for the body of Christ to celebrate any of these days), and that nobody should be looked down upon for not participating in these “holy days.” And, of course, please be aware of the fact that Jesus didn’t actually die on a Friday, wasn’t resurrected on the day we call Easter on our modern calendars (which should be more obvious than it seems to be to most people, considering the fact that it’s on a different day each year), and wasn’t born on December 25th either (while it doesn’t really matter when He was born, since we aren’t told to celebrate His birthday in Scripture, there’s good reason to believe it was actually in September or October on our modern calendar). That said, if you’re going to celebrate Christmas or Easter, consider doing so mostly from a secular perspective, focusing on the chocolates and eggs and gifts and such. To do otherwise (meaning, to celebrate them as remembrances of Jesus’ birth and death) is to know Christ after the flesh, which is something the body of Christ is called to move past.

Now, I could go on and on about the multitude of ideas that those within the Christian religion are confused about thanks to the flawed assumptions they begin with, and a lack of desire to actually take the time to dig into what the Bible really says, preferring to simply accept what their religious leaders teach instead, but that should be more than enough to explain why I couldn’t ever return to Christianity and why I no longer “go to church.” Of course, at this point the real question isn’t why I couldn’t return to the Christian religion, but why you yourself might still consider having anything to do with such an unscriptural, not to mention harmful, institution (and why you would risk your soul within its “sanctuaries”).

Of course, with the rise of Christian Nationalism in certain parts of the world, there is a chance that a Christian theocracy could take control of one or more countries somewhere in the world at some point and mandate church attendance and participation. And if things ever doget that bad, as we already learned, it’s best to obey the law, so in that case it might be advisable to play along and attend a Christian church as required by the law. Because ours isn’t a religion, it’s a faith, which means it takes place entirely within, and what happens outside (church attendance and participation) can’t affect what you already know to be true, nor will it affect your salvation or how God feels about you (especially considering the fact that He’s in charge of everything that happens, at least from an absolute perspective).

But either way, nearly everything in this series of articles really should be considered “Scripture 101,” and everyone who has read through the Word of God should already be completely familiar with most of what I’ve covered. However, I suspect that most of what I’ve written here is brand new for many who are reading it for the first time. Sadly, Satan’s false apostles, deceitful workers, and ministers of righteousness within Churchianity (aka the vain talkers and deceivers who are leading and teaching the followers of the Christian religion today) have hijacked the Bible, convincing billions that Scripture is actually a much more conservative set of documents than it really is (not to mention convincing them that it’s a rulebook which every human alive is expected to follow in its entirety), and have also managed to deceive billions into thinking that God is capable of allowing never-ending torture to occur, or is at least willing to leave the majority of humans to remain dead permanently (with both false teachings causing people to reject God altogether thanks to the monstrous false image of God we’ve been told is the real God). These lies, along with the other errors that seem to keep the majority of humanity (including most Christians) from experiencing “everlasting” (meaning “age-pertaining”) life, making the Christian religion the most nefarious cult there is (yes, that’s what the Christian religion really is). The actual truths of Scripture set people completely free, but the traditional, “orthodox” teachings of Christianity only enslave people through its unscriptural rules, unnecessary shame, unloving discrimination, and threats of unending punishment (although it’s important to also keep in mind that, at least from an absolute perspective, it’s not ultimately the fault of those people who are leading the Christian religion that this is so).

Unfortunately, this means that some who have made it all the way through this series of articles might not be sure what to believe, or will think it’s so foreign to what they were taught growing up that they’ll simply reject it out of hand, which could just mean that God hasn’t chosen them to be a member of the body of Christ, or at least perhaps hasn’t called them yet. However, for those chosen few of you who do dig deeper and then realize that you need to reject organized religion and the teachings and practices of Christianity, you’ll be left wondering what you should do instead. Well, first of all, it means that you get to sleep in on Sunday (or Saturday) mornings if you want to (at least as of the time this article was written anyway, since we don’t live under a Christian theocracy at present). Beyond that, however, if you can find a nearby church that actually believes what Scripture says, it might be a good group to check out. That said, many, if not most, of the members of the body of Christ have to go it fairly alone, or at least without a local church to fellowship with, since it seems there are very few members of the body of Christ in any particular area. I should say that this is not a new problem; the church made up of the body of Christ has been extremely small from almost the beginning, and I’d be surprised to see this change before Jesus comes for His body. It fell into apostasy and people separated from it very early on, some of these divisions and separations from Paul’s Gospel and the actual body of Christ becoming the so-called Orthodox and Catholic denominations we know today (a number of the so-called “Early Church Fathers” of these denominations, Polycarp and Irenaeus for example, were from the very province that Paul said “all” had turned away from him in during his imprisonment, which makes any of their teachings, and then any of the later teachings by those who accepted their teachings, suspect to begin with), and it seems to have never regained its original size.

This means that, if you can’t find any fellow members to fellowship with where you live, you should just keep studying the Scriptures. You’re far better off not participating in any church gathering than you are participating in Churchianity, so I’d suggest leaving the Institutional Church behind completely if you’re able to. Yes, it’s beneficial to fellowship with like-minded believers if you can find them, but you won’t find many, if any, of them in the Christian denominations, at least not if you happen to agree with the conclusions I’ve come to in this series. That said, gathering with like minded believers, if you can find them, is still beneficial, so please don’t think I’m saying that one shouldn’t gather with the body if one can find other members nearby, be it on the Sabbath or on any other day.

But bottom line, as I said in Part 1 of this series, at least for those of you who are inspired to do so, pull out your Bibles, concordances, and English, Hebrew, and Koine Greek dictionaries, fire up your search engines, and start studying to “shew thyself approved” (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 KJV; that said, scriptural studying, as we use the word today, is still a good way to show our diligence). And while digging into what Scripture actually means, remember that “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him,” so just because the assumptions Christians make about what the Bible means might sound correct to you at first, investigate carefully as to whether what they’re saying actually is right, because, as I also mentioned in Part 1, “it is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Be warned, however, that if you do come to the conclusions I have about Scripture, you’ll likely be called a heretic by the “orthodox” members of Christianity, and even shunned (if not worse) by many of them. But to that threat I simply repeat the words of A. E. Knoch: “Heretic” is the highest earthly title which can be bestowed at this time.

This is part 14 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 13 is available here: Objections answered

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.

---

Very important: Please be sure you’ve read all of the previous parts of this series — or are at least familiar with everything in them — before reading this article. If you don’t, parts of this article will make no sense, and you will likely remain unconvinced without knowing the details in those articles.

It’s finally time to look at the so-called “proof texts” that we’ve all heard used to support the doctrine of never-ending punishment in hell, in order to finally determine what they’re actually talking about once and for all.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. — Matthew 18:8–9

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. — Mark 9:43–48

I already covered both of these passage extensively in Part 2 of this series, which you should have already read before this one, so please go read it (and the rest of the articles in this series) before continuing if you haven’t already.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. — Daniel 12:1–3

Now, the events of this passage do take place at least partly around the time of the Great White Throne Judgement (at least the negative part of it; the positive part is separated from the negative part by a thousand-year “Mountain Peak” of prophecy, taking place long before the negative part), but all it says is that some people will be resurrected to shame and “everlasting” contempt (this also means that nobody is dead in this passage, at least at first, since they’ve just been resurrected, so it can’t be talking about the “hell” one’s soul is figuratively said to be in after they’ve died that we discussed in a previous article in this series), and shame and contempt aren’t even remotely close to the same thing as torture in fire. Besides, aside from the fact that “everlasting” has to be meant to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally here anyway, based on everything we’ve already covered about the salvation and reconciliation of all humanity, as well as what we’ve covered about how the word is generally meant to be read qualitatively rather than quantitatively in the KJV and other less literal Bible translations, it’s also only the contempt that is said to be “everlasting,” not the shame (and the contempt is experienced by others rather than by the ones being judged in this passage themselves). This tells us that, when they’re resurrected, many people will feel shame while being judged at the Great White Throne, and then, after they die a second time in the lake of fire, their corpses will be looked upon with “everlasting” contempt (meaning age-pertaining contempt, as we now know) by those who see them being consumed on the New Earth (this is referring to the contempt, or abhorrence, that those spoken of in Isaiah 66:24 will feel when looking upon the carcases — meaning the dead bodies — of those in the lake of fire, being translated from the same Hebrew word — דְּרָאוֹן/“der-aw-one’” — in both verses). But at the end of the ages, when everyone who died a second time has been resurrected and quickened (meaning made immortal, which will have to happen in order for death to be destroyed as promised), this “everlasting” contempt will finally end.

Before moving on, though, this seems like a good time to remind you that not once did the Hebrew Scriptures ever threaten any human with never-ending torture (much less torture in fire), either while dead or after one is resurrected, as a punishment for breaking the Mosaic law (or even for sin in general). At most, they threatened physical death for certain capital crimes. And even if this passage in the book of Daniel had actually said that certain people will be tortured in fire without end while they’re dead (which isn’t what it says at all), or even after they’ve been resurrected, there’d never been a threat of a never-ending conscious punishment before that passage, so there’s no good reason to assume it was suddenly being proclaimed here, centuries after the giving of the Mosaic law, when no Israelite had ever heard of it before, and when the readers of Daniel clearly couldn’t have possibly understood it to mean that prior to Jesus’ statements about “hell” anyway (presuming we ignored the context of those warnings, which we learned from Isaiah and Jeremiah, of course, as discussed earlier in this series). You’d think that, at the very least, God’s chosen people would have been given a warning about something as horrific as never-ending torture (in fire, no less), not to mention be told who would be experiencing such a thing or why, or how to avoid it, for that matter, prior to Jesus (or even prior to Daniel) supposedly doing so. The fact is, not only was no Israelite ever warned about it (at least not that we see in Scripture, and we need to base our doctrines on what Scripture says), nobody prior to Israel was ever warned about it either, at least that we’re told of. Not even Adam and Eve were warned about suffering without end in a fiery place if they sinned, much less anyone who lived from their time to the time Daniel was supposedly warned about it.

And even if to “surely die” (which was obviously a figurative translation in the KJV, as we’ve already learned, since Adam didn’t physically drop dead the day he sinned) was referring to the so-called “spiritual death” that many Christians mistakenly believe in, there’s no hint of being tortured in fire without end in that expression anyway. I say “mistakenly,” of course, because “spiritual death” is actually a completely unscriptural and meaningless term (at least outside of the fact that those in the body of Christ can be said to have died with Christ when He died, but that isn’t what Christians mean when they talk about the so-called “spiritual death” of sinners) since, if our spirits could die, we’d drop dead ourselves (considering the fact that a body requires a spirit to remain alive, and I can’t imagine that a spirit which had somehow dropped dead, however that’s supposed to even work, would still be able to sustain life in a body). And if the term is simply a metaphor, then it isn’t actually “spiritual death” so much as “metaphorical death”; and if it really is just a metaphor, it can’t be a metaphor for being separated from God, as some assume, because “in Him we live, and move, and have our being,” as Paul explained, so to be separated from God would mean to cease to exist, if it were even possible to be separated from Him at all (which it isn’t, since to actually be separated from God would require a “universe” that exists “outside” of Him, so to speak — for those who are separated from Him to end up in — but to have anything “outside” of Him would mean there’s another “universe” that’s somehow “larger” than God, requiring an even “higher” God than ours to create that universe, so the entire idea is actually quite blasphemous). And it can’t be a metaphor for ending up in the lake of fire either, because Adam didn’t end up in the lake of fire on the day he ate the fruit. Besides, if Adam did only die metaphorically, then we’ll also only die metaphorically as well (and Christ would have also only died and risen metaphorically too), which we know isn’t the case, so there’s just no good scriptural basis for interpreting these things the way most Christians have been taught to interpret them, and it should really be clear that this figurative warning in the KJV should simply be interpreted as meaning Adam would gain mortality leading to eventual physical death, as we’ve previously discussed.

That’s not to say death isn’t ever used as a metaphor in the Bible. But even Ephesians 2:1-7 (which is often quoted to try to prove the idea of “spiritual death”) has to be interpreted carefully so as to not to descend into absurdity, because it simply can’t be saying that people are literally “spiritually dead,” for the reasons we just covered, especially since it also says we’ve been quickened in that passage, despite the fact that we haven’t literally been quickened, since we’re clearly still mortal (at least as of the time I wrote this study), and we aren’t literally sitting in heavenly places right now either, which it says we are if we interpret it literally. The key to the part about being quickened, of course, is partly found in verse 7 (where we can see that this is indeed figurative, since this verse tells us that Paul is referring to the ages to come, which means the references to having been raised together and seated in heavenly places in verse 6, and having been quickened in verses 1 and 5, have to be mostly proleptic, meaning they’re a guarantee of our future immortality, sinlessness, and position when we’re finally in heaven), and also partly found in Colossians 2:10-13 (which tells us we’ve been baptized into not only Christ’s death and resurrection, but into His quickening/immortality as well, although it obviously isn’t physical for us yet as it one day will be when we’re literally in heaven). And so, everything else we’ve covered still proves that it can’t be referring to a “spiritual death” without contradicting the rest of the Bible, which means that the words “who were dead in trespasses and sins” and “even when we were dead in sins” in verses 1 and 5 would have to be interpreted metaphorically rather than “spiritually.”

That tangent about “spiritual death” aside, though, as I already mentioned, the passage in Daniel is talking about a physical resurrection on earth anyway. It wasn’t referring to a spiritual existence in an afterlife realm while dead at all. The negative part of this passage is referring to those resurrected to life at the Great White Throne Judgement before they’re either sent off to their second death — when they’re tossed into the lake of fire to die a second time for a while — or to their time paying off “the uttermost farthing” on the New Earth (which is a whole other topic that most Christians aren’t familiar with at all, and which has nothing to do with “earning salvation,” as Christians assume would be the case if it means what some of us believe it means, because nobody gets saved by paying off their debt, since that doesn’t gain anyone any of the types of salvation we’ve already covered), so it seems safe to say that this isn’t actually talking about what most people have read into it, and that we should move on to the next passage.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. — Matthew 5:29–30

This is just an earlier telling of the same warning Jesus gave in Matthew 18 that we covered near the beginning of Part 2 of this series. The reason I didn’t include it along with that passage is because this one doesn’t refer to the duration of one’s time spent in hell (or, more accurately put, the duration of the existence of this particular “hell” — which is the Valley of Hinnom, being translated from the Greek word γέεννα/“gheh’-en-nah” — since the other passage technically didn’t mention the duration of one’s time spent there either), but everything I already said about that passage applies to this one too, so there isn’t really much to add to those comments here, although perhaps I should point out that Jesus said “thy whole body” could be cast into this particular “hell,” so His warning can only be referring to something that happens to physical bodies in a geographic location here on earth rather than to ghosts trapped in an afterlife dimension, which lines up perfectly with what we’ve already learned from that prophecy about carcases in the book of Isaiah and from that prophecy about the Valley of the Son of Hinnom in the book of Jeremiah that Jesus was referencing with this warning.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. — Matthew 5:21–22

Jesus said this shortly before the last passage we just looked at, but you’ll notice that he didn’t say anything about being conscious in hell, or being there without end, so the same comments apply to this warning as well. And for those Christians who want to insist that never-ending punishment is implied by all of these references to “hell,” well, they’d have to demonstrate how everything we’ve already covered in this series has been incorrect, not to mention prove that this assertion of theirs is indeed the case, in order for it to be anything other than an assumption they’re reading into Scripture.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Matthew 18:6

This passage doesn’t actually mention any version of “hell” by name, but it precedes one of Jesus’ suggestions that people amputate body parts in order to avoid the hell known as the Valley of Hinnom, so I wanted to mention it because these verses all seem to suggest that if people either kill themselves (or allow themselves to be killed) after (or perhaps rather than) committing a certain type of sin, or mutilate their bodies in order to avoid committing certain types of sins, they can avoid being punished in hell, which really doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Christian doctrine of salvation, at least not that of most Protestants. And if they aren’t taking the methods of avoiding being punished in hell in these passages literally (or at least interpreting the methods figuratively to mean that one must do whatever they can to avoid sinning in order to avoid hell, which also doesn’t fit with the popular doctrine, because most Protestants don’t believe we can avoid hell by avoiding sinning, considering the fact that by the time anyone had heard or read these warnings they’d already have sinned at least once in their life, guaranteeing them a one-way trip to their version of “hell,” if they were right, and so these warnings would have come far too late to be useful to anyone if they happened to be correct in the rest of their theology), then they can’t really use these passages to defend their assumptions either, if they want to remain consistent.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. — Matthew 12:31–32

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. — Mark 3:28–29

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. — Luke 12:10

These are parallel passages that are all talking about the same thing: the so-called “unforgivable sin.” The first thing it’s important to note when reading them is how long the penalty for this sin will actually last, because contrary to what most people assume, it isn’t a never-ending punishment. You see, while the passage in Mark tells us (at least in less literal Bible translations such as the KJV), “he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,” the passage in Matthew tells us how long that “never” (which is a figurative translation in the KJV) will actually last: for the duration of this “world” and the “world” to come. This is another case of the word “world” being used as metonymy for “age” in the KJV (having again been translated from the Greek word αἰών/“ahee-ohn’” in this verse), and there are at least two “ages” or “worlds” to come still, as we just learned when we looked at Ephesians 2:7 (note the plural “ages” in the verse — and I should also mention that those who understand the Doctrine of the Ages/Eons do believe we’re still living in the same age, or eon, that Jesus was living in when He spoke the words we’ve been looking at). This means that, while someone who is guilty of this sin won’t be forgiven in this world/age/eon, or even the next world/age/eon, they could theoretically be forgiven during the world/age/eon after that (which, as those who are familiar with the Doctrine of the Eons believe, will be the final world/age/eon, on the New Earth, prior to the time Christ destroys death), not to mention after the final world/age/eon has concluded (as all ages will have to do, based on the definition of the word “age”). This also once again supports the fact that the word “everlasting” generally just means “age-pertaining” when it’s used in the Bible, since we can see from what we just covered from Matthew 12 that the “everlasting” damnation of Mark 3 will only last for two ages (the age that Jesus lived in while He walked the earth, and the age after that one).

But what is this “everlasting” damnation, specifically? Well, it’s important to note that time spent in the lake of fire is not implicitly meant by the word “damnation” there (the word “damnation” in this passage in Mark — translated from the Greek word κρίσις/“kree’-sis” — basically only means “judgement,” “sentence,” or “penalty,” referring to the fact that there is indeed going to be an “everlasting” penalty, figuratively speaking), and since neither hell nor the lake of fire are mentioned in any of these passages, to read punishment in the lake of fire into those passages without a good reason to do so is simply an assumption one has to make in order to support their soteriology. And while the less literal Bible versions such as the KJV don’t make it quite as obvious what the penalty is, the way the original Greek and the more literal Bible translations do, anyone who has made it this far in the series should really be able to figure it out on their own.

Before I explain it, however, I should really point out that, even if “hath never forgiveness” in Mark in the KJV was meant to be taken literally and actually meant they wouldn’t eventually be forgiven, people don’t necessarily need forgiveness in order to be saved anyway. That might sound like a strange statement, but there are two factors to consider here. The first is simply that someone who is condemned to some form of punishment doesn’t require forgiveness in order for their punishment to end, because even when someone is found guilty of a crime and sentenced to a certain number of years in prison today, they still leave the prison once they’ve served their time, even if they are never forgiven or pardoned (and to assume that the sentence of those who commit the so-called “unforgivable sin” has to be without end is also nothing more than eisegesis, especially since we already know from Matthew that it only lasts until the conclusion of the world/age after the one Jesus lived in during His earthly ministry, and that there’s at least one world/age to come after that next one ends, based on what Paul wrote in that verse in Ephesians 2:7 we just looked at, which means that “will have no forgiveness for the age” is what the figurative translation in Mark is really saying — which is backed up by the fact that it’s a legitimate literal translation of the original Greek, as various literal Bible versions also confirm by the way they render this verse — simply telling us that they won’t be forgiven during the current age, or during the thousand-year period of time known as “the age,” also known as “the kingdom of heaven,” and sometimes also as “the eon,” depending on your Bible translation). And the second thing to consider is that there’s actually something even better than forgiveness, and that’s justification. Forgiveness implies guilt, and just means that the forgiver is overlooking the guilt of the one being forgiven by not punishing them for their crime (and said forgiveness can be revoked as well), whereas justification means “not guilty” to begin with, or “declared to be righteous” (it’s sometimes well defined as: “just as if I’d never sinned at all”; and it’s important to note that justification can’t be revoked the way forgiveness can be — at least not the sort of justification Paul wrote about, anyway — and there’s no reason to believe that a “not guilty” verdict by God could suddenly become a “guilty” verdict), so even if somebody does miss out on forgiveness entirely, justification is far superior to it anyway, and that passage doesn’t even hint at the idea that they won’t eventually be declared justified (which it seems they eventually will have to be, based on everything we already went over from Paul’s epistles).

So, with all that being said, what is the punishment for the sin that these passages are referring to? Well, there were various reasons one might end up experiencing this sentence, but there was basically only one ultimate punishment that Jesus ever threatened His Jewish audience with: missing out on getting to live in Israel during “the age” when the kingdom exists there for 1,000 years (regardless of whether the cause of missing out on “everlasting,” aka “age-pertaining,” life in the kingdom is because one has not been roused from the dead at the resurrection of the just, is because one has been executed and had their corpse burned up in the Valley of Hinnom, or is simply because one has been exiled from Israel to live in the “outer darkness” at that time, missing out on living in Israel during that thousand-year age was basically the bottom line when it came to the punishments Jesus spoke about), and since a more literal translation of the Greek text that Mark 3:28-29 is translated from is, “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall not have forgiveness for the age, but is worthy of an age-pertaining sentence,” and also since one needs forgiveness in order to live in Israel during “the age,” we can determine that the “age-pertaining” sentence must simply be to miss out on getting to live in the kingdom of heaven during that thousand-year age because they won’t have been forgiven during that period of time.

But as big and bad a threat as that was for Jesus’ audience (and it was a pretty major threat for them), missing out on getting to enjoy life in Israel for that thousand-year age wasn’t the final word. Jesus said that “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” to the chief priests and the elders of the people, but that doesn’t mean the chief priests and elders won’t ever go into the kingdom of God themselves (even if they missed out on the part of the kingdom of God known as the kingdom of heaven, since that part only lasts for 1,000 years). In fact, they indeed will, just not until a point in time after the first group has already done so (Jesus said “before you,” not “instead of you”), and since both groups are currently dead, with the first group not even having enjoyed life in the thousand-year kingdom yet, the only time and place left for the second group to possibly enter the kingdom of God will be on the New Earth, after the Great White Throne Judgement has ended (since they won’t be resurrected until after the thousand years are over), which proves that people who miss out on the salvation Jesus spoke about can still make it to the New Earth. Please note that I’m not saying they’ll definitely have been forgiven at this point, though. In fact, I’m willing to concede that they very well might not be forgiven at that time, and they certainly won’t have been saved at that point (at least not when it comes to the sort of salvation Jesus primarily spoke about, since they’ll have been dead during the thousand years, or at least for most of that period of time; and they won’t be made immortal at that time, so they won’t enjoy the salvation Paul taught about at that time either). But that’s okay because, as we’ve already covered, one doesn’t need to be forgiven (or “pardoned,” which might be a more precise translation than “forgiven”) once they’ve paid the penalty for a crime, and the penalty for this particular crime was simply to miss out on life in Israel for the thousand years that the kingdom of heaven will exist there (simply put, forgiveness is quite possibly only necessary for getting to live in the kingdom of heaven during the thousand-year period of time it exists on this planet, or for getting to live in heaven itself during the same time period, although the forgiveness that the Israel of God experiences is conditional, whereas the “forgiveness” that those of us in the body of Christ experience was given to us by God without us having to do a single thing to enjoy it, simply because He chose to bless us more than anyone else, and the word “forgiveness” when it comes to us is mostly just referring to being dealt with graciously by God, but that’s a much bigger discussion than I have the room to get into here, although it really should be pretty evident based on everything else I’ve covered about our salvation in this series).

To reiterate all that, there are people who will get to enjoy the kingdom of God when it begins on earth shortly after Jesus’ Second Coming, in the next world/age (this would include the tax collectors and prostitutes Jesus spoke of, among others). But after the Great White Throne Judgement, during the final world/age (which will be the world/age after the one Jesus referred to as “the world to come”), the kingdom will be located (at least to begin with) in the massive city known as the New Jerusalem, and it’s during this world/age that people such as the chief priests and elders, as well as those who are said to “hath never forgiveness,” will get a chance to enter the kingdom (which refers to getting to enter the New Jerusalem; it isn’t a reference to simply living on the New Earth, since there will be plenty of people living on the New Earth who aren’t living in the New Jerusalem). Not everyone will get to do so until they’ve paid off “the uttermost farthing,” however (which I personally suspect means, at least in part, paying the people they wronged in this lifetime back in some way while on the New Earth). But when they have, they’ll also get to enjoy life in the kingdom of God (even if they missed out on the salvation Jesus spoke about, since they didn’t get to live in Israel when Jesus first returned). This doesn’t mean the salvation we’re concerned with is through works, though, because this has nothing to do with the salvation Paul wrote about at all. Nobody who goes to live in the New Jerusalem after paying off their debt on the New Earth will be made immortal at that time, which is what the salvation Paul wrote about was largely referring to (although it seems likely that they’ll remain alive, thanks to the fruit and leaves of the tree of life, but it seems they’ll need to continue consuming the tree’s products regularly in order to remain healthy and alive — presumably on a monthly basis, based on Revelation 22:2 — as already discussed, and so while they won’t technically be mortals at this time, since the tree’s produce will protect them from death by aging or illness, they’ll be in that state I refer to as being “semi-mortal” rather than being truly immortal, since true immortality refers to being incapable of dying, which means they wouldn’t need the produce of the tree of life to remain alive, and hence this isn’t the salvation Paul wrote about).

I should also quickly add that, being recorded only in Circumcision writings, and based on the fact that members of the body of Christ are guaranteed our special salvation regardless of what we do, this particular sin isn’t something we need to concern ourselves with (even if blaspheming the Holy Spirit is still a good thing to avoid). Basically, this warning is really only applicable to Israelites who are hoping to live in Israel during “the age.”

For when he dieth he shall carry nothing away: his glory shall not descend after him. Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself. He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light. — Psalm 49:17-19

Of course, “hell” isn’t mentioned in this passage, but regardless, the reference to the one who dies in this passage never again seeing light is sometimes still used to try to defend the popular doctrine. However, by this point, I trust you can see that the reference is obvious hyperbole, since we already know that they will see light when they’re resurrected to be judged. This is simply poetic terminology being used in a book of poems and other figurative language, in this case to say that those who do evil can’t rely on their wealth to save themselves, and that they’ll wind up in the dust along with the animals who have died, during the time that the writer gets to enjoy his salvation, which we now know will be in the kingdom of heaven on earth. But we also now know that this isn’t going to be the last word on their final outcome, even if the writer of the Psalm himself wasn’t aware of this fact.

For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life. — Proverbs 2:18-19

Similar to the part of the Psalm we just looked at, this Proverb is obviously also using hyperbole for the exact same reasons, so I trust I don’t have to go into any detail actually explaining it, since what I said in that explanation about future resurrection would also apply equally here.

Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. — Isaiah 55:6-7

Some Christians will quote this verse in order to suggest that one can’t find the Lord or be saved after the time that “he may be found”or “is near.” This passage was written specifically to the Circumcision (Israelites), however, and we already know that not everyone will be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision, so it doesn’t cause any problems for the doctrine of the salvation of all, because anyone who misses out on salvation under that Gospel will eventually experience salvation under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, as we’ve already learned, so this passage doesn’t actually help the popular doctrine either.

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) — 2 Corinthians 6:2

This reference of Paul to Isaiah 49:8 is obviously just talking about the special salvation of the body of Christ (and perhaps also the salvation of Israelites under their Gospel), not the general salvation of all humanity, so even if someone doesn’t get to experience the special salvation during “the day of salvation,” they’ll still get to enjoy general salvation in the future as Paul also promised elsewhere in his epistles.

The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? — Isaiah 33:14

I’m sure it should go without saying, by this point, that the “devouring fire” and “everlasting burnings” can’t be referring to any version of “hell.” For one thing, as we’ve already covered, nobody who heard or read this warning at the time it was given could have possibly interpreted it as referring to any version of “hell,” since no location referred to as “hell” in any English version of the Bible had ever been described that way in Scripture yet, and this verse doesn’t mention “hell” either, so there’s no way anyone could have made a connection between this particular “fire” and any version of “hell” back then (and there’s nothing in the verse that even hints at an afterlife, so there’s no way it could have been interpreted as referring to an afterlife punishment either). So what was this talking about? Well, the first thing to note is that it’s a reference to specific sinners in a specific location — Zion — telling us that this is a judgement specifically meant for Israel, and the fire is simply a figure of speech for certain judgements of God against Israel. Why does God use fire as a symbol of judgement? Because the judgement comes directly from God, Who is referred to as a consuming fire Himself in various parts of Scripture (and I hope you don’t believe that God is “hell,” or the lake of fire, Himself, which He can’t be since we already know that that the lake of fire will be located in a valley in Israel). The Hebrew Scriptures are full of examples of this symbolism being used to refer to judgements of Israel, so to assume this one verse is a reference to the lake of fire is just reading one’s preconceived doctrinal bias into the text. But the question does remain, who among Israel shall be able to dwell in the “fire” when God judges Israel? Well, the answer to that question is given in the very next verse (in Isaiah 33:15): “He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.” Those Israelites who walk righteously will be able to dwell among the fiery judgements themselves without being devoured, yet we know the righteous won’t be cast into the lake of fire (only certain unrighteousness people are said to end up there), so it should go without saying that this verse was never talking about the lake of fire to begin with. This also serves as a good reminder when reading the rest of the Bible that, just because you see the word “fire” in a passage (even if it’s a passage about judgement), it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s referring to the lake of fire or any other “hell,” but rather that it might simply refer figuratively to someone being judged in some way without ending up in the version of “hell” known as the lake of fire (especially if you don’t specifically see the words “hell” or “the lake of fire” in the passage in question).

In addition, it’s also important to remember that, when we see a passage about judgement, being judged doesn’t imply that someone will be punished without end anyway (or even that they’ll be punished at all). First of all, judgement can be a good thing (as the judgement of the body of Christ at the judgement seat of Christ, among other scriptural judgements, should make clear). But second of all, many of the punishments based on negative judgements throughout the Bible eventually ended (or were promised to be reversed in the future), so we’d have no basis for simply assuming that doesn’t apply to the judgement referred to in this verse in Isaiah either, even if we didn’t already know what Paul wrote about the salvation of all humanity, which proves it would have to anyway.

For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. — Isaiah 34:8-10

This is, of course, typical figurative, prophetic language, just like in the last passage we looked at (which was in the chapter immediately before this one in the book of Isaiah), and aside from the fact that neither “hell” nor the lake of fire are mentioned anywhere in this chapter either, the reference to the dust becoming “brimstone” and the land becoming “burning pitch” which “shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof” which “shall go up for ever,” not to mention the part of the passage saying, “from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever,” isn’t even talking about people burning at all, but rather is talking about land (at least in a figurative manner, if not literally). This passage, at least if read literally, is basically a prophecy about the judgement awaiting the land the nations live in during the Day of the Lord’s Vengeance, as the passage says, which is referring to the Tribulation. Yes, the land of Idumea (meaning Edom) is mentioned specifically in verses 5 and 6, but the Edomites have pretty much been lost to history at this point, with no particular land left belonging to them, so Idumea is generally assumed to be have been used there as a single example of the judgement which will come upon all the nations of the world who stand against Israel during the Tribulation, as Edomites often did when they were still around, since they hated Israel more than any other nation (although it does also seem to be true that what was once the land of Edom will be “a desolation” at that time as well, presuming this itself isn’t simply figurative language for the utter destruction that did fall upon the Edomites in the past). And since we know that the rest of the world which isn’t Israel isn’t going to be a desolate, burning wasteland for the entire 1,000 years that the kingdom of heaven exists in Israel (because we already know people will be living out there in the “outer darkness” during that time period, or else nobody would exist to rise up against Israel at the end of the thousand years one last time, as Revelation tells us will happen), not to mention the fact that this entire planet is going to be destroyed after the thousand-year kingdom of heaven in Israel ends and will be replaced with a New Earth, we know that this isn’t meant to be taken any more literally than the “everlasting burnings” in chapter 33 are meant to be, since the smoke which is going to “go up for ever”would have to eventually stop rising, if it were literal smoke, because there won’t be any land left to burn after this earth is destroyed and replaced with by the New Earth, and that the “for ever and ever” of this entire judgement takes place for no longer than 1,000 years, give or take. This is all just telling us that either the land the nations live in will be judged harshly for a period of time, or that the people living in said land will be instead, but we know that the “burning” language in this prophecy is purely figurative based on what else we know about the state of the rest of the world during the thousand year period of time that the kingdom of heaven will exist in Israel. But either way, there isn’t anything in this passage which even implies that any humans will suffer without end.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. — Matthew 13:24–30

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. — Matthew 13:47–50

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. — Matthew 25:31–46

I’m covering all three of these passages together because I believe they’re talking about similar judgements which occur around the same time. And since pretty much every Christian I’ve ever spoken with also believes these are either similar judgements which take place around the same time, or are even perhaps referring to the exact same judgement, it seems safe to do so (although, if you believe these are actually referring to separate judgements that don’t take place around the same time, I’d be curious to hear how you do happen to interpret these passages).

If someone reads those passages over without taking the time to break them down, and ignores the fact that no version of “hell,” nor the lake of fire, is mentioned by name anywhere in any of these parabolic prophecies, it’s sort of easy to see why someone might assume they’re talking about true believers going to heaven and non-believers ending up trapped in hell (especially if they aren’t aware of what we’ve now learned about what both heaven and the various “hells” are when referred to in the Bible, not to mention what we’ve now learned about Paul’s teachings regarding the salvation of all humanity). But whatever the cause of the outcome mentioned in these passages is, I hope it’s obvious by now to anyone who has made it this far into the series that Jesus’ main point here had to be about getting to enjoy life in the kingdom of heaven on earth vs not getting to do so, just as pretty much all of His judgement teachings were about. As I mentioned in an earlier article in this series, at the end of His explanation of the first parable, Jesus says the angels “shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” and we now know that the kingdom of heaven is going to be here on earth, not in an afterlife realm, which means the identity of the “righteous/just/sheep” and the “wicked/them which do iniquity/goats” can’t be what most Christians have assumed either. Of course, most Christians assume that the sheep, or the righteous, represent true believers, and that the goats, or the wicked, are everyone else, and while neither hell nor the lake of fire are actually mentioned by name in any of these passages, if people are being judged and going into fire for eternity, as the passages seem to imply when one doesn’t consider the context and recognize the figurative language, most also assume that it must be talking about the Great White Throne Judgement and the lake of fire. Of course, as most Christians are aware, but seem to forget when they read these passages for some reason, there won’t be any true believers being judged at the Great White Throne, which means the sheep can’t actually represent true believers at all if Jesus was talking about that particular judgement (those in the body of Christ will have already been “judged,” so to speak, over 1,000 years earlier, at the Judgement Seat of Christ — or the dais of Christ, as it’s referred to in certain more literal Bible translations — and will have been living in the heavens for all that time, while those in the Israel of God will have been living on, and reigning over, the earth that they inherited for the thousand years before this occurs, and there’s no reason to think that either group would be judged after that period of time ends, especially since most of them will have been made immortal at this time, and immortality for humans is always connected with salvation in Scripture, as we now also know; besides, believers within the body of Christ will likely participate in judging those at the Great White Throne Judgement — Christ is the judge at that judgement, and it would take a very long time for one person to judge every single human being who ever lived, even if one excludes all those who have already experienced salvation, so it makes sense that the rest of His body will assist Him here — and no, the Great White Throne Judgement doesn’t take place outside of space and time, but rather takes place in our physical universe after the dead have been physically resurrected into mortal bodies, which should be more obvious than it is to some, considering the fact that it’s technically impossible for anyone who isn’t God to be outside of space and time anyway, as well as that nothing can occur without space and time, so nobody could experience being judged if they weren’t existing within space and time, considering the fact that movement requires one to exist within space and change requires one to exist within time). Not to mention, there’s no reference to a resurrection in any of these passages, which would be necessary to occur if these are about a judgement of everyone who has ever lived. Instead, all one needs to do is take a look at the verse in Matthew 25 which says it takes place “when the Son of man shall come in his glory,” and look at the context of the rest of the chapter, as well as the chapter before it, which makes it obvious that it’s talking about the time that Jesus returns to the earth at His Second Coming, telling us that these passages must be talking about a judgement (or judgements) which takes place on earth shortly after the Great Tribulation ends, rather than the Great White Throne Judgement which takes place about a thousand years after this judgement.

Of course, if “life eternal” and “everlasting punishment” literally meant that every single human living on earth were going to be judged and sent to afterlife realms called heaven or hell for eternity, as most Christians have always assumed would happen at the time the judgement in these parables takes place, that would cause other obvious problems. For example, it would leave nobody living on the earth for the next thousand years to reproduce, as Scripture says will happen in Israel when the kingdom begins there (as well as on the New Earth, after the thousand-year age ends and our current planet is destroyed). As I’ve mentioned in previous articles in this series, the Bible teaches that those who have been made immortal will be like the angels and will no longer marry or reproduce at that time, and if all the non-believers are going to be sent to the lake of fire to die a second time at that point, with everyone else being given their immortality at that time, that doesn’t leave anybody else to fulfill the prophecies about the New Covenant, or even the New Earth, that are supposed to take place after the Tribulation ends. Not only that, it also wouldn’t leave any Gentiles to fulfill the many prophecies about the nations during the thousand years, not to mention the fact that no Gentiles would be left to rise up against Israel at the end of the thousand years one last time if all the non-believers are cast into the lake of fire at this point, as I’ve already mentioned.

Hopefully you’ve also asked yourself why there’s nothing in there about the sheep “asking Jesus into their hearts” or “accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour” in these passages, if you’re still assuming this is talking about the salvation Paul wrote about (not that either of those are actually scriptural ways to be saved), or even about them believing that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, and why it seems like the positive outcomes in these parables appears to be dependent upon being just or doing good works rather than being said to be by grace through faith. Most people just brush those concerns aside, of course, because they “know” these passages have to be talking about what they’ve always been taught by their religious leaders that they are, and decide to believe, even though it doesn’t actually say so in the passages, that the reason for the positive outcomes in these passages (especially during the judgement of the sheep and the goats) has to be figurative and has to be talking about these good works as proof of faith rather than good works being the actual cause of the sheep’s reward as that passage says they are when interpreted literally (and then push the thought that “many non-Christians do the very things Jesus seemed to say would result in everlasting life while many Christians don’t” to the back of their minds and try to forget that fact as well), because if one were to read it literally it would become obvious pretty quickly that it just can’t be talking about what one has always assumed it is at all (although one is then also forced to push the thought that, “if the cause of the rewards and punishments referred to as ‘life eternal’ and ‘everlasting fire’ is figurative, then there’s no reason to believe that these rewards and punishments, or even their durations, aren’t also figurative in this passage, especially based on the meaning of the English words ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal’ in other parts of the KJV and the words they’re translated from in Scripture,” to the back of their mind as well, but most successfully do so). But even if this could all somehow be twisted into meaning the sheep are true believers who will go to heaven, and the goats are non-believers who will go to the lake of fire, we already know from what we’ve previously covered that there’s no basis for believing that any human is going to remain in the lake of fire without end (and that there’s no reason to believe any human is conscious in it either), and we in fact know that everyone who dies a second time will have to be resurrected and quickened in order for death to actually be destroyed as Paul said it will be, so mangling the passage in such a manner doesn’t actually help defend the traditional doctrine anyway.

But as for what these passages are actually talking about, in order to figure this out, one needs to first be aware of certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which are the key to understanding the biblical meaning of being in a “furnace,” because this isn’t talking about the lake of fire at all. Instead, if you look at passages such as Deuteronomy 4:20, which says, “But the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day,” or Jeremiah 11:4, which says, “Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God,”among various other references in the Hebrew Scriptures to being in a “furnace,” it should be obvious that none of these passages refer to spending time burning in literal fire in an actual furnace made of iron, but are basically talking about time spent in parts of the world that aren’t Israel (no Christian believes the “furnace” part of the parable is literal anyway, and if the “furnace” in the warning isn’t a literal structure with fire burning inside of it, it stands to reason that the “fire” in the figurative “furnace” in this warning isn’t literal fire either, but is simply a symbolic reference to judgement, as we’ve now learned that mentions of “fire” and “burning” very often are in the Bible). And so, what the first two parables are actually saying is that there will be righteous Israelites and unrighteous Israelites when Jesus returns, and some will wail and gnash their teeth (which is a figure of speech used in various parts of the Bible to refer to the extreme negative emotions of the living rather than the dead) because they’ve been forced to live in parts of the world that aren’t the kingdom of heaven/Israel (these parts of the world being referred to parabolically as “the furnace of fire,” also referred to in other passages as the “outer darkness,” which we’ve already learned can’t refer to the lake of fire, since it will be located in a valley inside the kingdom, and since Israel is where the kingdom of heaven will be located when it begins on the earth, those parts of the world far from the light of the King and His kingdom will be in “outer darkness,” also referred to in Isaiah 34 as a figurative “burning pitch” which “shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof” going up “for ever”), unlike the righteous Jews who will get to live in the kingdom of heaven/Israel at that time (which is where everyone who heard Jesus when He spoke wanted to live when the kingdom fully arrives on earth in the future). It’s actually very simple to grasp once you come to understand who Jesus’ audience was and what His message was all about, especially when you also take all of Paul’s references to the salvation of all humanity in his epistles into consideration. But when you assume that Jesus was talking about an afterlife for ghosts in another dimension rather than the life and death which physical bodies on this planet will go through, and think that Jesus was directing His message to everyone rather than specifically to Israelites, it’s easy to get extremely confused about all of His sayings.

As for the parable of the sheep and the goats, this judgement simply refers to certain Gentiles of the nations (based on Jesus’ statement that “before him shall be gathered all nations”) being cursed for not being a blessing unto the least of Jesus’ brethren during the Tribulation period, which this judgement takes place immediately after (Jesus’ “brethren” obviously being a reference to faithful Israelites, presumably those who will be taken into captivity among the nations during the Tribulation, and not simply to random people who are suffering today), by being forced to reside outside the kingdom of heaven, as well as to other Gentiles of the nations getting to live in the kingdom in Israel at that time as a reward for blessing the faithful Israelites who were persecuted during the Tribulation. We know from Zechariah 14:16–21 that there will be Gentiles not living in the kingdom of heaven at this time, consisting of “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem” at the end of the Tribulation, meaning the Gentiles who didn’t support Israelites during the Tribulation and hence won’t get to enjoy 1,000 years of “life eternal” in Israel at that time, but who didn’t die at Armageddon because they weren’t a part of the army that gathered against Jerusalem there. So we know from this passage that the goats definitely won’t actually be killed in the lake of fire at this judgement, because if they were, there wouldn’t be anyone left to fulfill that prophecy, not to mention the prophecy in Revelation which tells us that every nation will be involved in rising up against Israel one more time in the future, long after this judgement, as well. This, of course, also means that the fire prepared for the devil and his angels isn’t any more literal than the “furnace of fire” is, but rather that it’s simply a figurative reference to the parts of the planet outside the kingdom of heaven where these people are sent to live as their punishment (the parts of the planet that are referred to as a “furnace” for exiled Israelites at that time, or, again, as the land which was referred to as a figurative “burning pitch” which “shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof” going up “for ever,” which makes sense, considering the fact that what we’ve seen so far tells us that “fire” rarely, if ever, speaks of the “hell” known as the lake of fire when either that specific location isn’t also referred to by name in a passage using the word, or the word “hell” itself isn’t used in the passage in the KJV), since people living in those parts of the world — or at least their descendants who don’t get saved during that time, one thousand years later — will give in to temptation by Satan to rise up against Israel one last time at the end of the thousand years, having been “prepared for the devil and his angels” so they can to tempt these people to do so (keeping in mind the “Mountain Peaks” aspect of prophecy when reading this passage if it sounds confusing that it could be talking about the distant offspring of those who didn’t help Israelites during the Tribulation who are ultimately the ones “prepared for the devil and his angels”). This also means that the urban legend which many Christians repeat, that “God created hell for the devil, not for humans, but humans sinned so He had to punish them in hell too,” is based on a complete misunderstanding of this passage, and actually has no scriptural basis at all, since this passage isn’t even talking about hell, or about it being prepared for the devil, to begin with. Simply put, those labelled as “goats” in this prophecy will spend the rest of the impending thousand-year age that the kingdom of heaven exists in Israel (or at least the rest of the time they’re alive during that age, although their descendants are also included in this age-pertaining punishment, figuratively translated as “everlasting punishment” in the KJV) in the age-pertaining “fire,” meaning the parts of the world outside of Israel. And at the end of the thousand years, the descendants of the original “goats” will be tempted by the devil to rise up and attack Israel one last time, just prior to the Great White Throne Judgement.

And don’t worry, this interpretation of the judgement of the sheep and the goats isn’t teaching salvation by works either. In fact, it isn’t technically talking about salvation at all — because the sheep won’t be quickened at the time they enter the kingdom they were predestined by God to enter — but is just talking about a reward for blessing Israelites.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. — 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10

This passage is obviously also talking about Christ’s Second Coming (compare the details of verse 7 here to the details mentioned in Matthew 25:31 if there’s any doubt in your mind), which means that what I’ve already written about “fire” in the parables we just looked at applies to this passage as well. Paul was simply pointing out the sort of punishment some of those who will be alive at the time Jesus returns will have to endure, and it’s just as figurative as when Jesus spoke about it (referring to not getting to live in the kingdom of heaven when it begins on earth, including both “them that know not God,” meaning the Gentile “goats” of Matthew 25, as well as them “that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” meaning Israelites who are not a part of the Israel of God and are exiled to live in the figurative “furnace of fire” at that time). Besides, almost no Christian takes the word “destruction” in this verse literally (since most somehow manage to interpret this word as a figure of speech referring to being tortured in the lake of fire without end), and if that word is figurative and not literal, there’s no good reason to believe that the word “everlasting” before it is any more literal than it is (and based on everything we’ve already learned from Paul’s epistles about the salvation of all, as well as what we now know about the meaning of “everlasting” in the Bible versions that use the word, we know it can’t be anyway).

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) — Philippians 3:18-19

We know that anyone who experiences “destruction” will still eventually also experience salvation, based on what Paul taught in the rest of his epistles. This means that the “end” which the enemies of the cross of Christ that Paul is condemning here can only be an “end” from a relative perspective, since we know the “end” they’ll experience at the end of the ages will ultimately be salvation.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. — Matthew 10:28

Notice the word “destroy” there, which, just like the word “destruction” in the last couple passages we looked at, we have no basis for interpreting figuratively in the manner most Christians do either (in the sense that to be “destroyed” somehow figuratively refers to suffering without end in the lake of fire). Even if we didn’t know about all of Paul’s teachings on the eventual salvation of all humanity, I’d still argue that it would make far more sense to interpret it in a way that lines up with what Jesus was actually teaching throughout His earthly ministry: about the kingdom of heaven beginning in Israel in the future, and how to either get to live there when it begins, or end up missing out on it at that time. With that in mind, I’d suggest that this verse is simply saying that Jesus’ Jewish audience at the time He gave the warning (along with those Israelites who live through the Tribulation, and even any who live between those two periods of time) should not fear men who might kill them for their faith in Jesus, because God will still resurrect them to live in the kingdom of heaven when it begins on earth if they’re martyred. But if they die without that faith, on the other hand, or have rejected Jesus in order to temporarily save their lives, God will not resurrect them at that time, and they’ll presumably even die a second time in the lake of fire, which means they’d miss out on the greatest desire of their soul (this is what the figurative language of having one’s “soul destroyed in hell” means, or at least this is a far more scripturally consistent interpretation of the phrase than what most Christians assume it means, as should be obvious by this point), which for anyone listening to Jesus would have been (or at least should have been) to get to live in that kingdom when it begins in Israel in the future. Like Judas, it would have been far better for them to have died in the womb or in childbirth than to have been born at all, since babies who die in childbirth will at least be resurrected at the Great White Throne Judgement so they can grow up on the New Earth, while Judas will likely end up in the lake of fire when he’s resurrected, at least prior to the time Christ destroys death (yes, even Judas will have been resurrected and quickened at that time, but he’ll have missed out on so much in the meantime).

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. — Matthew 10:32–33

This statement almost certainly has to do with who will get to be resurrected to live in Israel when the kingdom begins there vs who won’t be, based on the last passage we just looked at (which was stated just moments before this one), as well as about any Israelites who will be living when Jesus returns and whether they get to enter the kingdom or don’t get to, and doesn’t tell us anything about what happens to anyone after the thousand years come to an end, so it doesn’t really help support the popular doctrine.

When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever. — Psalm 92:7

Just like the other passages referring to being destroyed that we’ve looked at, we know that being “destroyed for ever” in this verse can’t be referring to never-ending torment in hell without reading one’s doctrinal bias into the phrase, and we also know from everything we’ve learned from Paul’s epistles about the salvation of all that nobody remains dead (or even dying) at the end of the ages, so the “for ever” here has to be as figurative as it is in any other passage we’ve already looked at, and by now it should be clear that this just means they’ll miss out on getting to live in the kingdom of heaven, but not that they won’t eventually experience salvation at the end of the ages, when the figurative “for ever” comes to an end.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? — Matthew 23:33

All this verse says is that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking at the time would be sentenced to have their corpses destroyed in the Valley of Hinnom, and they almost certainly did in AD 70 after being killed by the Romans (presuming this wasn’t a reference to the lake of fire after the Great White Throne Judgement; while the prophecies about having one’s corpse consumed in the Valley of Hinnom are referring to dead bodies being destroyed in a literal, geographical location, we do have to take the “Mountain Peaks” of prophecy into consideration with such references as well, because they are sometimes referring to a location on our current planet, and sometimes referring to a location that will exist on the New Earth instead, if not referring to it happening in both locations, depending on the person). It doesn’t say they’ll be in this particular hell without end, however, nor does it say they’ll be conscious while they’re in it (and we know from what we’ve already learned that they won’t be), so this really isn’t a helpful verse for anyone trying to teach never-ending torment in hell.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. — Matthew 7:13–14

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. — Matthew 7:21–23

Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. — Luke 13:23–30

Of course, there’s nothing about hell or the lake of fire in these passages, but they’re quoted so often to defend never-ending punishment that I thought I should include them regardless. That said, based on everything we’ve covered so far, you should really be able to interpret these for yourself by now. But for those who do need an explanation, Jesus is simply talking about certain people who won’t be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven after He returns, because they’ve continued to live particularly sinful lives (this also makes it clear that this isn’t a warning for members of the body of Christ, because there is no condemnation for us, and nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even sin, since where sin abounds, grace much more abounds). He obviously isn’t talking about ghosts not being allowed to live in an ethereal afterlife realm called heaven when they die, based on everything we’ve already covered, and He likely isn’t even talking about unbelievers (I’d think that anyone who can do the things in His name that the people He was condemning were able to do are probably Jewish believers, but it wasn’t lack of belief He condemned them for anyway; rather, it was for their iniquity). Jesus’ statement that many “shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God” in the passage in Luke also confirms that this all takes place on earth. So, in answer to the disciple’s question, yes, there are relatively few that will be saved, at least when it comes to the sort of salvation Jesus preached about during His earthly ministry. This doesn’t mean they can’t later experience the sort of salvation Paul taught about, however, because it’s an entirely different sort of salvation, as I’ve already explained.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. — John 14:6

Like the last passage, this one doesn’t mention hell or the lake of fire either, but I thought I should quickly cover it as well, since many Christians like to use it to prove that non-Christians are going to be permanently punished in hell. Aside from the fact that Jesus was talking to Jews in this verse, which tells us that it’s technically about the sort of salvation Israelites were looking forward to (which, again, involves getting to live in Israel after He returns, not “going to heaven” as ghosts after one dies), if anybody comes to the Father after the thousand years are finished, as Paul promised everyone eventually will, it would still be “by” (or “through,” meaning “because of”) Christ.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. — Acts 4:12

Once again, there’s nothing about “hell” or the lake of fire in this verse, and this statement was made by Peter to the religious leaders of Israel, so we already know it can only refer to the sort of salvation that pertains to Israelites (getting to live in the kingdom in Israel after Jesus returns, in other words), and has nothing at all to do with the sort of salvation Paul later taught about to the nations.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. — John 3:16

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. — John 3:36

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. — 1 John 5:12

Pretty much every single Christian out there already interprets basically every part of these passages extremely figuratively, reading “going to heaven” into the word “life,” and “being punished without end in hell” into the word “perish,” for example. Based on everything I’ve written in this series, though, it should really be quite clear by now to anyone who has been paying attention that these verses are simply saying that those Israelites who “believeth not the Son” won’t get to enjoy life in Israel after Jesus returns (and while it’s too big of a tangent to dig into the details of it right now, references to “the world” in the writings of John that aren’t talking about specific ages/eons are generally, if not always, referring to “the world” of Israelites, not the whole planet or every human to ever live, based on who Jesus said the intended audience of his earthly ministry was: the lost sheep of the house of Israel). And how does an Israelite “believeth on the Son,”as the KJV puts it? Well, it simply means they believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah (or Christ) and the Son of God, as John wrote at the end of the same book: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Now, I trust you noticed what John didn’twrite in that verse. You see, if the people John was writing to are required to believe that Christ’s death was “for our sins,” and if they have to trust in His death “for our sins” in order for them to have “life through his name,” then John left out a very crucial piece of information for them in that verse where he told his Jewish readers exactly what they have to believe in order to have “life through his name.” Because, yes, his book did explain that Christ died, but A) it didn’t explain that His death was “for our sins,” and B) it also didn’t explain that this aspect of His death (the “for our sins” aspect) was necessary to be trusted in the way it is for those who are saved when they believe Paul’s Gospel. So I hope you’ve figured out that this is because that particular belief wasn’t necessary to experience the sort of salvation Jesus spoke about during His earthly ministry, realizing that John certainly would have included it in that list of things they have to believe in order to experience the sort of salvation that John was writing about if it actually was a necessary thing for his readers to believe in order to experience the sort of salvation that he was writing about, since it wouldn’t make sense for him to leave out such important information about what his readers needed to believe in order to “have life” if that was the main reason he wrote the book, as he claimed it was in John 20:31 (especially since John wrote this after Jesus’ death and resurrection).

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. — John 6:53-55

Of course, even if Jesus did literally mean for His listeners to eat His flesh, what He said there would have only been for members of the Israel of God, not the body of Christ, since it’s a statement He made during His earthly ministry. As we now know, our salvation is based 100% on what Christ accomplished, and not on any actions we take, so the idea of partaking in rituals related to the bread and wine would contradict everything Paul taught us about salvation (general orspecial). And since our dispensation has no rudiments (meaning elements) or ordinances, because we are complete in Christ (who is the end of all religion for those in His body), returning to the shadows and types of rituals and rites in any way whatsoever would rob us of the full enjoyment of both our possessions and freedom in Christ. That said, the idea that Jesus was literally referring to eating His flesh when He spoke to Israelites is obviously a misunderstanding of His words, as He made clear by using the exact same Greek phrasetranslated as “hath everlasting life” in verse 47 of the same chapter to say they gain it by believing on Him, and as “hath eternal life” in verse 54 to say they gain it by “eating His flesh,” telling us that these are one and the same action, only stated metaphorically the second time He says it, in order to scare away those who were not among the elect, since they also missed this fact, after which Peter, who wasamong the elect, confirmed that Jesus really was just referring to believing on Him, which for them meant to believe that He’s their Messiah and the Son of God. It seems that interpreting Jesus’ statements too literally is a pattern in the book of John, and not just something Nicodemus did.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. — Romans 10:9–10

Similar to the above passages written by John, misunderstanding what Paul wrote in this passage has caused a lot of confusion and consternation among many people, and has also led to some pretty bad doctrines (such as the idea that “Lordship Salvation” is meant for members of the body of Christ, as just one example). As we learned in the first article of this series, however, there are different types of salvation referred to in Scripture, and different ways of experiencing “everlasting life.” By now you should be well aware that anyone to whom God has given the faith to truly believe that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day will experience “everlasting life” in the heavens (rather than in Israel, which is where those who experience the salvation Jesus preached about will enjoy their “everlasting life”). This means that, while it isn’t the choice to believe in Christ’s death for our sins, as well as His subsequent burial and resurrection, that saves someone (our special salvation to “everlasting life” is based on God’s sovereign election of those of us in the body of Christ long before we were even born, and has nothing to do with any decisions we make at all, as we’ve already determined), if someone does truly understand what it means, and also believes, that He did die for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, they are among those whom God has chosen for membership in the body of Christ, and will get to enjoy “everlasting life” in the heavens after they’re caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. One thing you’ll notice that Paul didn’t say his readers did when they were saved, however, is confess Jesus as Lord (or “confess the Lord Jesus”), and yet verse 10 of Romans 10 seems to make it clear that the salvation written about there is at least partly based on confession. Now, this doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t Lord to us, of course, since we’re told elsewhere that He is, but His Lordship isn’t something Paul said his readers confessed at the time they were brought into membership in the body when he explained what they did when they were saved (nor did he say it’s something that they or we have to confess in order to be brought into the body; in fact, it’s simply having faith that he considers to be the important thing we do, as he makes clear all throughout the rest of his epistles, so there’s no good reason to take this one reference to confession being necessary for salvation that happens to be sitting in the middle of a series of chapters which were primarily about Israel and their salvation and applying it to us, especially when it would contradict everything else we know about our salvation).

Likewise, while Romans 10:9–10 says that someone who experiences the salvation that confessing the Lord Jesus and believing God raised Him from the dead brings will indeed believe God resurrected Jesus (just as those in the body of Christ believe), which means they would obviously also have to believe that He died (just as those in the body of Christ also believe), there isn’t anything in that verse about His death being “for our sins” or about that fact being something one has to trust in for their salvation, which is a crucial part of what we believe when we’re saved (there’s nothing about His burial there either, I should add, which was also an important element of Paul’s Gospel, as we now know). The most important part of the belief connected to the sort of salvation Paul is talking about in Romans 10 is Jesus’ resurrection, not His death for our sins. It might not seem like it to most, the first time they read this passage, but these are important distinctions between these two different sets of belief connected with two different types of salvation.

As I’ve already alluded to, something we need to keep in mind is that Romans chapters 9 through 11 are primarily about Israelites (they aren’t 100% about Israelites, but a focus on Israelites is a large part of those chapters, including in the passage in question), and Paul’s point about confessing and believing in that passage was connected to what Israelites have to believe in order experience the sort of salvation John wrote about, which is that Jesus is the Christ, meaning Israel’s Messiah, and that He’s the Son of God. This sort of salvation/“everlasting life” has nothing to do with the salvations Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, nor does it have anything to do with residing in the heavens during the impending ages, but is actually about getting to live in the part of the kingdom of God that will be on planet earth, meaning living in Israel after Jesus returns. Belief that Christ’s death was “for our sins” wasn’t a requirement for salvation in any message that Jesus or anyone else preached prior to Paul proclaiming that it was necessary to be believed to be considered a member of the body of Christ, as we’ve already discussed (it couldn’t have been, since even Jesus’ disciples didn’t understand that He was going to die or be resurrected until after it had all taken place, which means they also couldn’t have known all that His death would accomplish prior to Paul trying to explain it to them), and Jesus’ resurrection was only an important part of what they had to believe inasmuch as it proves He’s still able to be their Messiah because He’s no longer dead (with the confession part being connected to Him being the Son of God).

Of course, most Christians mistakenly assume that the whole Bible is to and about everyone, but by now it should be pretty clear to anyone who has made it this far into this series of articles that there are two entirely different sets of messages for two entirely different groups of people in the Bible (one for the body of Christ and one for the Israel of God), as well as multiple different types of salvation written about in there, so don’t worry if you haven’t verbally spoken the words “Jesus is Lord,” or “confessed the Lord Jesus” with your mouth (especially if you have a disability making it so you physically aren’t able to speak and, as such, can’t verbally confess anything). One day you, and everyone else, will, of course. But in the meantime, the only way to experience the special form of salvation Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:2 is for God to choose you for membership in the body of Christ; and if He has, He’ll give you the faith to understand and believe what it means that Christ died for our sins, that He Himself was buried, and that He rose again the third day, at some point prior to your death or to the time Christ comes for His body.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. — Romans 9:1-5

I’m including this passage because I’ve heard it asked, “How could Paul be willing to give up his salvation in exchange for the salvation of his kinsmen — if it actually was possible to make such a trade — if everyone will be saved?” Of course, based on everything we’ve already covered, we now know that Paul taught about different types of salvation at different times, and it should be obvious that this passage can only be referring to the special form of salvation which only a few will experience, meaning he’d be willing to give up his position as a member of the body of Christ if it meant all Israelites could join the Israel of God (remember, this is in Romans 9, which is largely about Israelites and their sort of salvation, as we just discussed when looking at the last passage), because he cared about his kinsmen that much. And since we already know that not everyone will experience either of those types of salvation, this passage isn’t actually problematic at all when it comes to the type of salvation everyone experiences because of what Christ accomplished. But on top of that, few seem to consider the question of, if Paul actually did believe in never-ending torment, do you actually think he’d really wish to lose his salvation, even if it meant that every other Israelite would be saved? Can you imagine that anyone would be willing to suffer fiery torture without end for any reason at all whatsoever? Anyone who has burned themselves even for a moment would know the answer to that question is a resounding “no” (those who believe in never-ending torment have to admit that not even Jesus was willing to make that sort of trade, yet some want to suggest that Paul was more generous than Him, or at least would be if their soteriological assumptions were correct), but they might be willing to trade their future glorified position in heaven for the benefit of those they care about, knowing that they’d still experience immortality on the New Earth eventually, so this passage actually tells us quite definitively that Paul did not believe in the idea of never-ending torment. And since it’s also pretty unlikely that someone would give up their existence altogether, never to be resurrected again, this is yet another passage supporting the idea that Paul believed in the salvation of all. This also tells us that the common Christian assertion that “God doesn’t send people to hell, but rather people ‘choose to go to hell’ themselves” can’t be true either, at least not when it comes to the inescapable torture-chamber version of “hell” most Christians believe in, because nobody would actually choose to allow themselves to be burned without end. And those who would then reply to this by saying, “they choose to go to hell by rejecting Christ,” aren’t thinking things through, because unless someone can choose to avoid the Christian version of “hell” after their judgement as well, it would still be God forcing them into the mythical torture chamber against their will, if such a place existed, so this attempt to absolve God of being responsible for forcing untold billions into an inescapable place of suffering really doesn’t work the way they think it does at all.

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. — 1 Thessalonians 4:13

I’ve heard Christians use the line about those who have “no hope” here to try to prove that these people without hope can’t ever be saved, but Paul was simply referring to people having no expectation in their minds (which is what the Greek word ἐλπίς/“el-pece’,” translated as “hope” in this passage, means) of a future resurrection and salvation, not to having no possibility of resurrection and salvation. And he was referring to the sorrow of living people due to them not expecting their dead loved ones (who could be deceased members of the body of Christ even) to be resurrected, because they didn’t believe in a future resurrection of their dead loved ones. He wasn’t talking about the sorrow of people who were already dead at all, or how they have no hope/expectation in their minds (which they can’t have, because they’re dead and can’t have any thoughts at all), so anyone who tries to use this verse to prove never-ending punishment isn’t reading the text very carefully.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 18:3

Just like all the other passages we’ve covered, there should be no reason for me to point out that there’s no mention of hell or the lake of fire in this verse either, and I shouldn’t have to repeat that Jesus was simply talking about not getting to live in Israel after He returns when He said certain people would not enter the kingdom of heaven unless they’ve been converted, so I’ll just leave it at that.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Romans 6:23

Just like the last few passages we looked at, this verse doesn’t mention hell or the lake of fire directly, so one has to read the idea of never-ending torment in hell into the word “death” here if they want to continue believing in such a thing, which by now should be obvious that there’s no basis for doing, since the concept doesn’t even exist in the Bible to begin with, at least not in any of the passages we’ve looked at so far (and is clearly contradicted by Paul’s writings about the salvation of all humanity anyway). All Paul is saying in this summarization of chapter 6 of the book of Romans is that the consequence of sin is mortality leading to eventually remaining dead permanently (the mortality being a consequence of Adam’s sin, and the permanent death state being the consequence of the sins we ourselves commit thanks to the mortality we inherited from Adam, as we learned from chapter 5 of Romans), or at least it would be if Christ hadn’t died for our sins. Because He did, however, instead of experiencing that permanent death state, members of the body of Christ will instead get to enjoy what is figuratively referred to as “eternal” life during the impending ages, although the life technically will be literally eternal for believers from that point on, since we won’t ever die again, having been made immortal at the time we begin our “eternal” life when we’re caught up in the air to be with Christ in the heavens, even if Paul technically was referring to the life we’ll get to enjoy during the final two ages when he wrote that (and yes, everyone else will also eventually get to enjoy immortality too, at a later time, also thanks to Christ’s death for our sins, but Paul was talking specifically about members of the body of Christ in that chapter, which is why he spoke of “eternal” life there rather than simply mentioning immortality instead, because “eternal” life has other benefits as well, benefits that unbelievers don’t get to enjoy).

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. — Acts 16:31

A common question I’ve heard asked is, “How can Paul have been teaching the salvation of all humanity if he said that someone has to ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ in order to be saved?” Of course, by now it should be obvious that Paul had to have been referring to the special form of salvation which involves being a member of the body of Christ, and not to the salvation which all humanity will experience because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, so this verse doesn’t actually cause any problems for the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity at all. (And for anyone who thinks Paul’s statement there was meant to be instructive to anyone reading the book of Acts as far as salvation goes, imagine only telling someone who didn’t even know who Jesus really was to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” with no further explanation of what that even means, and then ask yourself if that could possibly be enough for them to do in order for them to be considered saved; as I mentioned in a previous article in this series, it’s important to remember that the book of Acts was a Circumcision writing primarily concerned with letting the Israel of God know why the kingdom temporarily ended up getting put on hold for them, and that Paul’s Gospel was never fully fleshed out anywhere in the book since it wasn’t meant for the book’s original audience to believe, which is why the writer left the full explanation of what Paul meant, which he would have later given to the Philippian jailor when he arrived at the jailor’s house, out of the book.)

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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9–10

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. — Galatians 5:19–21

Inheriting the kingdom of God in these passages should not be confused with salvation. Paul was writing to members of the body of Christ who were already saved, and who couldn’t lose their salvation no matter how hard they tried (as Paul said in that passage in Romans, if you’re called for membership in the body of Christ, you will be justified, with no other qualifications included in that passage), so the inheritance here was simply about reigning with Christ. It couldn’t have been about salvation for those in the body of Christ because our special salvation isn’t based on our actions — even if we stop believing in Him for some reason, He’ll remain faithful to us from a salvation perspective since He can’t disown, or deny, Himself, and the body of Christ is now a part of Himself. Now, it might be that we can lose out on reigning with Him by denying Him in order to avoid suffering, but whether we can or not, we still remain His body, and He won’t amputate and disown His own body parts, and body parts can’t amputate themselves either. So even if a member of the body of Christ doesn’t “inherit the kingdom of God” (or doesn’t get to “receive an allotment of the kingdom of God,” referring to gaining ownership or rulership over a specific portion of the kingdom of God, which is what verse 21 of Galatians 5 is presumably saying, and which is how that part of the verse can also legitimately be translated from the original Greek), they’ll still experience their quickening at the same time the rest of the body does.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. — Philippians 2:12

This verse is used not only to try to defend salvation by works, but also to claim that, if someone has to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, the possibility exists that they might end up not being saved in the end. My personal suspicion as to what this verse means is that Paul was instructing his readers to make sure — or to work out in their minds whether — they’ve truly believed his Gospel and hence really are saved (referring, of course, to the special “eternal life” sort of salvation which is only for the body of Christ, not the general salvation that everyone will experience). However, whether or not this is the actual meaning of the verse, whatever it does mean, just as it can’t be telling people to do works in order to be saved, because that would contradict all the passages where Paul explained that salvation under his Gospel isn’t based on works (and that anyone who does try to be saved by works under his Gospel will be accursed), it also can’t mean that anyone will miss out on the general salvation he taught about, because that would contradict everything else he taught about his Gospel we’ve already covered in this series.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. — Revelation 3:14–19

A lot of people worry that they’re a “lukewarm” believer, and that God will “spue” them out of His mouth, sending them to hell to suffer without end. Of course, we already know what “hell” refers to in Scripture now (in fact we now know what all of the “hells” mentioned in the KJV are), and that it isn’t what most people have always assumed it is, but something else important to note is that this passage is referring to a whole local church, not to any individual, so it’s that local church itself that’s at risk of judgement, and isn’t talking about any individuals being at risk of “hell” to begin with (and I personally believe it’s a local church that will exist during the Tribulation, although that’s a discussion for another time; but regardless, since Revelation wasn’t written by Paul, the local churches John wrote to have to be a part of the Israel of God rather than the body of Christ, so it isn’t relevant to most of us anyway).

These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. — 2 Peter 2:17

I’m not going to get into all the details of this particular passage, because it’s enough to point out that the sinners in question aren’t literally wells, nor are they literally clouds, so the “for ever” here should be taken about as literally as the rest of the verse (and about as literally as the other times it’s used in judgement passages in the Bible that we’ve covered as well), which means we can’t really use this verse to prove any particular soteriological perspective when it comes to the duration of one’s judgement.

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. — Jude 1:5–13

The “everlasting” chains in this passage don’t help defend any specific doctrine of salvation either, because this passage tells us they only lock up the fallen angels until (“unto”) their judgement (the “everlasting” in “everlasting chains” is translated from a whole other Greek word — ἀΐδιος/“ah-id’-ee-os” — rather than the typical αἰωνίων/“ahee-o’-nee-ohn” that “everlasting” is normally translated from in the KJV as well, which doesn’t actually change anything as far as anyone’s soteriology goes, but I thought I’d mention it because it’s one of the two cases of this word being used in the Greek Scriptures, with the other being used — and translated as “eternal” in the KJV — in Romans 1:20). And the reference to Sodom and Gomorrha suffering the vengeance of “eternal” fire doesn’t help either because neither of these cities are currently still burning, and we already know that Sodom will also eventually be returned to her “former estate” anyway (and if Jude was just referring to the citizens of the city, Ezekiel 16:55 would then likely also have to be referring to its citizens). And as far as the “wandering stars” go, the lake of fire doesn’t seem like it could be described as a place of “blackness of darkness” (aside from the fact that it will be in a valley in the open air in Israel, underneath the sun and moon, the lake of fire would be anything but dark unless we aren’t taking the “fire” part of its title literally, and if one chooses to interpret the “fire” part figuratively, there’s no reason to interpret the supposed duration of the punishment, as the KJV translates it, literally either), and I’m assuming I don’t have to point out that they aren’t literally clouds or trees or waves or stars, which means we’re outside the territory of literalism to begin with here, telling us that we once again have no basis for interpreting “for ever” any less figuratively than we would these words either (and reminding us that, at least based on everything else we’ve covered so far, we seem to have no reason to ever interpret “for ever” as literally meaning “without end” in the Bible versions that use the phrase), nor do we have any way to use this passage in the KJV to support any particular soteriological perspective when it comes to the duration of one’s judgement either.

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. — Revelation 14:9–11

This passage is obviously extremely figurative. It can’t simply be about being cast into the lake of fire because the lake of fire will be located in a valley down here on earth after the Tribulation ends, not up in heaven where it would presumably have to be in order to be tormented in the presence of “the holy angels” and the Lamb, if we were taking it literally. And for those who would suggest, for some reason, that it’s about those who worship the beast during the Tribulation getting cast into the lake of fire after the Great White Throne Judgement, 1,000 years later rather than immediately after the Tribulation, the lake of fire will be outside the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, not inside it where it would have to be for those words to make sense from a literal perspective. Plus, we know from Isaiah that no humans will be alive in the lake of fire anyway, so the reference to torment here tells us it can’t be about suffering consciously in the lake of fire, but that it must be referring to something else altogether. As for what it means, considering everything we’ve already learned about the word “fire” when it’s used in passages that don’t also specifically refer to “hell” or the lake of fire by name (and this passage doesn’t use either of those names), it makes far more sense to interpret this passage in the KJV as simply being extreme hyperbole (since Revelation is an extremely figurative book) about the judgement of those who take the mark and worship the beast, and the intense suffering they’ll go through while still alive during the Tribulation for doing so, as described just two chapters later. This is similar to the way that when the great whore of Babylon is judged — which I don’t believe any Christian interprets as referring to an actual human suffering or even being burned in actual fire, but rather as a satanic religious, political, and/or economic system being utterly destroyed — and when “her” smoke rises up “for ever and ever,” we know there isn’t going to be any literal smoke rising because there’s nothing literally even being burned, so the concept of smoke rising “for ever and ever,” as the KJV renders the particular Greek phrase it’s translated from, seems to simply be apocalyptic language referring to an intense judgement in whatever manner it might happen to occur in.

Either way, though, that was quite literally the only passage we’ve looked at which even suggests that any human might be conscious while being punished “for ever and ever” (since the only other passage to mention a judgement of conscious beings for that particular “duration” in the KJV was referring to the punishment of spiritual beings, not humans, and we now know that even those particular beings will have to be set free in order to be reconciled to God the way Paul said they will be, so there’s no reason to assume the “for ever and ever” in this passage in the KJV is any more literal than the one that talks about how long their punishment will last, not to mention any longer than the limited number of years the “for ever and ever” mentioned in the judgement of the land the nations will be located in after the Tribulation ends will last in the future either; and unless one decides to read their theological assumptions into the text, in order to apply it to more people than are actually mentioned in it, this passage can really only be applied to humans who worship the beast and take his mark anyway, which is an extremely small percentage of every non-believer to ever live, so it doesn’t help support the idea that anyone else who doesn’t choose to get saved will suffer without end either — not to mention the fact that the same passage which tells us that even the evil spiritual beings who will be tormented “for ever and ever” will eventually be reconciled to God has to mean that all humans, even those who take the mark of the beast, will have to be reconciled to God some day too, in order to not contradict that passage in Colossians, along with all the other passages about the salvation of all humanity that Paul included in the rest of his epistles which we’ve now looked at as well), and this is quite problematic for the popular doctrine of never-ending torment in hell, because that’s it. No other passage I’m aware of that one might think is talking about the “hell” known as the lake of fire implies that they’ll actually be alive and suffering while in said location, so they don’t actually help defend the popular doctrine (although please correct me if I’m wrong and missed one, but please also first consider whether anything I wrote in this series of articles would apply to it as well), and to interpret this extremely figurative reference to the judgement that a very specific — and relatively small — group of people (those who took the mark) will experience as referring to suffering consciously in the lake of fire makes no sense either.

In fact, prior to reading this single passage in John’s book describing his vision on Patmos, nobody who was reading the books of the Bible in order would have ever had any scriptural reason to interpret any of the other passages we’ve looked at as meaning that any humans would be conscious in the lake of fire — especially in light of what Isaiah wrote about carcases in that location — or even that their corpse could never be resurrected from their second death and be quickened (and hence saved) after burning up in it, since no passage which mentioned either “hell” or the lake of fire by name in the KJV said anything of the sort. And so, somebody studying the Bible carefully from beginning to end who had never actually heard of the doctrine of never-ending torment in hell for non-believers couldn’t possibly come to the conclusion that any humans would be conscious or suffering while in the lake of fire, at least not before reaching this particular passage more than halfway through the final book in the Bible. And if they’re being honest with themselves and taking the rest of Scripture into consideration when they get to this passage, they’d realize that it would make no sense to think this passage was referring to that either, since no other passage we’ve looked at even hinted at such a fate, and because it would contradict everything else they’d already learned as well, which means that to use this one extremely figurative passage located near the very end of the Bible to reinterpret all the references to judgement that came before it in Scripture into meaning all unbelievers (or really anyone at all) will be suffering without end in hell ignores basically every hermeneutical principle I’m aware of, and would contradict too many other things in Scripture we’ve already looked as well, so there’s just no good scriptural excuse for doing that (especially because nobody prior to the writing of the book of Revelation could have ever understood any of the other judgement passages to actually mean that anyone would be tormented without end, based on what we’ve now learned). And so, even though some people will miss out on “everlasting life,” and might even end up in “everlasting” hell fire (or perhaps simply end up experiencing some other form of judgement, figuratively spoken of using the word “fire,” as often happened in the Bible), we now know that they, and everyone else, will eventually leave hell (whichever hell or hells they might end up in) and experience salvation, thanks to God and Christ.

But the fact that not everyone gets to enjoy “everlasting life” is also something that should concern my readers, because there are certain qualifications for getting to do so. There are, of course, various types of “everlasting life” available to be experienced, depending on when one lives, anyway. You might get to enjoy the “everlasting life” that involves living in Israel after Jesus returns if you happen to live through the Tribulation and take care of Israelites who are persecuted during the second half of it. This isn’t in an immortal body, however, although I think it stands to reason that whoever does get to enjoy this sort of “everlasting life” will likely be given access to the tree of life and will never die. The members of the Israel of God will also be given “everlasting life” after Jesus returns (and will get to reign over the rest of the world from Israel), and those of them who died prior to — and are resurrected 75 days after — the end of the Tribulation will even get to enjoy their “everlasting life” in immortal bodies upon their resurrection (while those who “endure to the end” of the Tribulation will get to remain alive in a semi-mortal state thanks to the tree of life, although they, as well as those who helped persecuted Jews during the Tribulation, will eventually be made truly immortal too, along with everyone else, at the end of the ages, when Christ finally destroys death completely).

However, there’s a final group of people who also get to experience “everlasting life,” and this entire group will get to enjoy it in immortal bodies (and these bodies will be even more glorious than the immortal bodies of those in the Israel of God). These people, of course, are the members of the body of Christ. This is an extremely small group of people, though, and technically only those relatively few people who have been ordained to “eternal life,” meaning those to whom God has elected to give the understanding of what it means and the faith to believe that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, will actually be immersed into His body. However, while whether we experience this sort of “everlasting life” or not isn’t something we ultimately get to decide for ourselves (nobody chooses what they believe — they either hear or read something and believe it, or they hear or read it and don’t believe it, and nobody can choose to force themselves to believe something that they think isn’t true, at least not without some serious self-induced brainwashing, likely requiring powerful drugs; although, if they didn’t think it was true, they’d have no reason to try to force themselves to believe it in the first place, so we couldn’t really blame them for not believing it anyway), at some point in their life, anyone included in this group will have believed (which first requires actually understanding) all the elements of what it is Paul said that members of the body of Christ believe when they’re saved, which means God will have given them an understanding of, and belief in, the following facts before they die or before Christ comes for His body: 1) That “Christ died for our sins” means that sin has now been dealt with for everyone, and so nobody’s sins are being held against them at all anymore (the good and evil works of non-believers will still be judged at the Great White Throne, of course, but sin and evil are two entirely different concepts, as I’ve already mentioned, and should never be confused as being the same thing, although it is true that a lot of evil actions are indeed sinful), and everyone will eventually experience salvation because of this, and entirely apart from anything they do on their own at that, including even believing this good news. 2) That “He was buried” means Christ Jesus literally ceased to exist as a conscious being when He died, and that He Himself was placed in the tomb (and not just His body while He Himself went somewhere else, which also means that He can’t be Almighty God Himself). And 3) that “He rose again the third day” means, after spending three days truly dead, God resurrected Christ Jesus into a physical (albeit “spiritual”) body, and not that Jesus simply now exists as a glorified ghost in another dimension (this final point was the whole reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15, after all). And so, if you’ve come to truly understand and believe the details I’ve just explained, then you can rest assured that you are indeed among the elect and have joined the body of Christ.

If you’ve made it this far and disagree with basically everything I’ve written, however (although I’d be very surprised if that ever happens, because at the time of the latest revision of this series, at least, literally every single person who has read all of the articles in it up to this one without skipping over anything in them and has gotten back to me has told me they’re now convinced that everyone indeed will eventually experience salvation), I’m sorry to say that there’s a good chance you’ll have to wait until the end of the ages to experience your own salvation, since you likely aren’t among those whom God has elected for membership in the body of Christ (although I’d like to hear how you answered all the questions throughout this series of articles that I asked those who disagree with us, so please get in touch with me to let me know those answers, or at least let the person who sent you the link to this article, or series of articles, know your answers). But, just like everyone else, even you’ll get to enjoy salvation at that time (and if you happen to be alive at the time the Tribulation begins, maybe you’ll actually be among those who get to experience “life eternal” by being a member of the Israel of God, or perhaps even by helping the least of Jesus’ brethren at that time, instead). This also means that, if you want those of us who have come to understand and believe what I’ve written in this series so far to change our minds and believe what you do about the topics I’ve covered instead, you’re going to have to do a good job of breaking down exactly where I went wrong in my scriptural interpretations throughout this series of articles. You can’t just expect those of us who have come to believe the doctrines I’ve covered in this series to take your word for it that they’re wrong simply because you say they are, so you’ll have to actually do the work of explaining how we’ve misinterpreted all of the passages of Scripture that I’ve exegeted in this series in order to prove us wrong if you want us to change our minds and believe what you believe instead (which doesn’t mean just presenting us with various philosophical arguments, or appealing to our emotions, as Christians who don’t want to let go of their beloved doctrine of never-ending punishment tend to do when they realize they have no scriptural foundation for their assumptions, at least in my experience). So the ball’s in your court, but I’m not going to hold my breath, because, as I’ve mentioned already, thus far literally nobody has ever even attempted to refute the arguments I’ve laid out in this series about the topics we just covered (although a few people I’ve shared these interpretations with have been given the faith to believe the truth and are now in the body of Christ, and I pray that now includes you too).

But why did God seem to hide all this truth from so many, as seems to be the case when we consider the fact that so few people appear to be able to see much of it at all when they read their Bibles? To that I simply repeat the words of Proverbs 25:2 once again, in which we’re told, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter,” and then suggest that perhaps God did this to reveal the true nature of our hearts to us when we’re finally judged, so that we’ll be able to see just how evil our preferences for how others end up spending eternity can be (although it’s also true that those who aren’t among the elect can’t believe most of what I’ve written anyway, because their minds have been blinded, and only God can open the eyes of their minds and get them to believe the truth, which won’t happen for most people until they’re standing before the Great White Throne). And your reaction to everything you’ve just read almost certainly will be used to reveal the truth about the state of your own heart during your years as a mortal here on earth to you at that time.

Part 15: How, then, should we live?

This is part 13 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 12 is available here: In Christ shall all be made alive

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.

---

Even though the last article in this series proved definitively that everyone will eventually experience salvation and reconciliation, there are still a number of objections to the doctrine which you’ve no doubt heard, or perhaps even raised yourself at some point, and we‘re now going to take a look some of them so you can know how to answer them whenever they’re used to try to argue against what Scripture actually says about salvation.

For example, one common objection is: “If it’s true that everyone will get saved, why is it that almost no churches teach this?” Well, while it’s technically a statement connected with Israel’s specific type of salvation, I would suggest that Jesus’ reference to the strait and narrow can be seen as a trans-dispensational (or trans-administrational) truth. Because, honestly, there’s no way that a religion with as many followers as the traditional Christian religion has — about a third of the human population of the planet at the time this article was written — can possibly be the “narrow way” that few find, so a better question would be: “If never-ending torment in hell is true, why is it that almost all churches teach it?” (And I’d also suggest that this goes for nearly every other popular, “orthodox” teaching within the Christian religion as well.)

Another extremely common objection is simply that the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity has been declared to be a heresy, thus it can’t be true, but this is largely based not only on the assumption that the council which supposedly declared this had the authority to make such a declaration, but also on the assumption that it actually didmake such a declaration to begin with, and many people believe it actually didn’t make such a declaration at all, but rather condemned something else altogether, and that the idea that the doctrine of the salvation of all was condemned at that time is based on a misunderstanding of what was actually condemned (although I’m not going to get into the details of that debate here because it doesn’t matter to those of us in the body of Christ, since we base our theology entirely on what the Bible says rather than on council meetings of Christian denominations we’re not a part of and that weren’t recorded in Scripture, but there are Christians who have gone into detail on it if you’re curious to learn more about this assertion). All that said, as I discussed in the first part of this series, the actual definition of “heresy” isn’t “false teaching” anyway, just as the word “orthodoxy” doesn’t mean “truth.” In fact, as I explained there, the meaning of the Greek word which is transliterated as “heresies” in the KJV is simply “sects” (or “divisions”), and not “incorrect doctrine” at all, and “orthodox” only means “that which is commonly accepted,” and there’s always been plenty of commonly accepted error out there. As I mentioned in that article, Galileo was technically put on trial as a heretic by the very religious organization (the Roman Catholic Church) that supposedly also condemned the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity as a heresy, because he taught that the earth isn’t the centre of the universe, but he was still quite correct that it isn’t. Meanwhile, Rome considered their view that our planet is the centre of the universe to be the orthodox one, but they were entirely incorrect. And if they could be wrong about that official teaching and declaration of heresy, they could be wrong about any official doctrine they teach, which really means that everything they consider to be “orthodox” should be considered suspect. It’s also important to keep in mind that, if you’re an evangelical or some other form of Protestant Christian, the entire existence of your denomination has been officially declared to be heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. But even if your own denomination has also declared the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity to be heretical, the fact that it is true, as already proven from what we’ve covered in this series so far, once again reminds us that just because something is “heretical” doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, and something being “orthodox” doesn’t make it true. And again, never forget that both Jesus and Paul were considered to be heretics by the orthodoxy of their day, so consider yourself to be in good company whenever someone calls you a heretic.

It’s also often asserted that, “If everyone gets saved, then Jesus died in vain.” This is a very strange, yet also extremely common, claim you’ll hear from many Christians who just aren’t thinking things through particularly carefully. Because the truth is, if Jesus didn’t die, then nobody would get saved. Really, this assertion is no different from saying, “If only a few people get saved, then Jesus died in vain since some people will not suffer without end in hell.” Either way, we (should) all realize it’s what Christ did that saves us, and recognize that this statement is a sign of lazy thinking.

Some Christians will also claim that a sin against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, because sin would affect an infinite being more than it would affect a mere human. This assumption isn’t made anywhere in Scripture, however, which means they have no basis for believing it in the first place, especially because Scripture actually appears to say the exact opposite, in Job 35:5-8 where Elihu (the one friend of Job who wasn’t condemned by God for his words) said, “Look unto the heavens, and see; and behold the clouds which are higher than thou. If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him? If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.” So no, our sin doesn’t actually affect God — who is far above being able to be harmed by anything we can do — at all.

Many Christians also like to object to the salvation of all by saying things along the lines of, “You’re putting too much of an emphasis on God’s love, all the while forgetting His judgement, justice, and wrath. The justice of God demands that the wicked be punished for their sins without end, which means that if people who don’t choose to receive the gift of Christ’s sacrifice in order to experience salvation aren’t punished without end, then God’s justice hasn’t been satisfied.” There are a number of problems with this assertion, however, the first of which is simply that none of us have forgotten about the judgement, justice, and wrath of God at all (as everything you’ve read in this series so far should really make pretty obvious). It’s just that we also understand that an attribute such as His justice and wrath can never outweigh His very essence, which is love. And if love is His very essence, then, at least in the long run, everything He does must ultimately be beneficial for (and work out in the best interests of) all the creation He loves, which means His love can’t ever take a back seat to an attribute like His justice or wrath, but rather they will always have to be influenced by His love (which always perseveres and never fails, if it’s a scriptural form of love) for all of His creation. And since allowing any of His creation to suffer without end in fire with no hope of escape could not be said to be an expression of His love for said creation (except in the most horrifically twisted of religious minds), we know that His justice could not allow this to happen because it would conflict with His love towards all of His creation. Of course, some Christians will try to argue here that God defines words such as “love” differently than we do, since “His ways are higher than ours,” but A) Scripture already defines “love” for us, and B) if we aren’t using words in a way that we can actually all understand them, there’s no point in even using these words in the first place, and we might as well just stop studying Scripture altogether. And really, if “love” can somehow actually include never-ending torture in a fiery “hell” for some of those it’s directed towards, I don’t even want to begin to think about what “heaven” might actually include for those of us who are headed there instead, but to say it might not be pleasant would likely be an understatement. There’s a second major problem with the popular claim that God’s justice isn’t satisfied if we don’t have to choose to receive the gift of Christ’s sacrifice in order to experience salvation as well, though. You see, if someone claims that our salvation is dependent upon God’s justice being satisfied (which it indeed is), then when His justice is satisfied, we’d also have to be guaranteed salvation, since it would be unjust of Him to punish someone without end if His justice has been satisfied. And since we now know from what we’ve learned in the last article that Christ died in order that the penalty for our sins would be justly set aside by God, meaning so that everyone will be justified, resurrected (if they’ve died), and even made free from ever being able to die or sin again, all apart from anything that we ourselves have to do (and not so that the penalty could potentially be set aside, but only if we ourselves choose to believe that His sacrifice was enough to satisfy God’s justice, which is essentially what most Christians insist we have to believe in order to be saved), if someone insists that the salvation of all humanity isn’t guaranteed simply because of Christ’s sacrifice, they’re ultimately telling us that they themselves really don’t believe Christ’s sacrifice actually was enough to satisfy God’s justice after all, but rather that an action on our part is also required on top of Christ’s sacrifice in order to satisfy God’s justice. The problem is, this would mean that they want us to choose to believe something they themselves think isn’t even actually true, in and of itself, somehow making what they believe to actually be a lie become true by choosing to believe it to be true (since the idea that what Christ did was enough to satisfy God’s justice would be a lie if it isn’t true on its own, meaning enough to guarantee us salvation apart from us having to also do something to make it true). Basically, what they really believe (even if they don’t realize it and will likely deny it) is that justice is actually served by us doing the right thing (such as choosing to believe the right thing) rather than by Christ’s death for our sins, which means that we must provide our own justice — either by being punished without end ourselves or by doing that right thing which they believe is required to satisfy God’s justice ourselves — because apparently what Christ accomplished didn’t actually satisfy God’s justice at all, at least as far as their theology is concerned. And if any of them do happen to admit that God’s justice actually was satisfied by what Christ accomplished, but then also try to insist that people still have to choose to believe it in order to experience salvation anyway, it would mean that their objection isn’t actually about God’s justice at all, and that they’re simply using claims about God’s justice as a distraction from the real issue, which is that they want people to have to at least do something in order to gain salvation, even if it’s just something as seemingly simple as having to choose to believe the right thing. But the truth is, if anyone at all doesn’t get saved simply because of what Christ earned through His death — which is the general salvation of anyone who has ever sinned or who will ever sin — then God actually would be unjust, because He wouldn’t be giving His Son what He now deserves (and He’d also be treating us unjustly as well, because if His justice has been satisfied, there’s no basis for inflicting the penalty — which we now know is actually just permanent death, and not inescapable torture in fire — upon us any longer). So if anyone ever tries to use the excuse that, “God is love, but He’s also just,” in order to try to object to the idea that everyone will be saved, you can agree with them, and then explain that it’s because He’s just that everyone has to eventually be saved.

Some also argue that teaching the salvation of all humanity undermines evangelism — saying things like, “If the salvation of all is true, it doesn’t matter whether you believe now or not, so why bother to evangelize at all?” — as well as undermines the necessity of believing the Gospel — making similar statements along the lines of, “If the salvation of all is true, it doesn’t matter whether you believe now or not, so why bother to become a Christian?” From one perspective (the most narrow of perspectives), yes, that could be said to technically be true. But from a broader perspective there are still very good reasons to believe now, as well as to evangelize. For one thing, if it is true, isn’t it better to believe (and teach) the truth rather than a lie (especially since the Bible so heavily condemns false teachers who teach lies)? Even beyond that, though, belief in this doctrine helps bring serious peace of mind that almost no Christians truly have (over the years I’ve interacted with many Christians who are still terrified that they’re going to suffer without end in a place called hell). But on top of all that, there’s another really good reason to believe this, and this is the fact that only those who do believe it get to join the body of Christ (since, if you don’t truly understand what it means that “Christ died for our sins,” can it be said that you actually believe it, and if you don’t actually believe it, how can it be said that you’ve joined the body of Christ?). However, I suppose someone who says this is implying that, if it’s true that everyone gets saved, then there’s less urgency to preach the Gospel, or even for people to become Christians. Whether this is true or not comes down to what one means by evangelism, as well as whether “becoming a Christian” is really all that important in the first place, and, really, what the Gospel about how we’re saved actually even is. From the perspective of those of us who believe what I’ve written in this series, we see the idea of having to become a Christian in order to be saved as religion rather than good news. To put it simply, we see religion as anything which teaches that God will only look kindly upon us if we do the right thing(s) before we die. The good news which Paul primarily taught, on the other hand (that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day), is not a religion at all, but is instead the announcement of the end of religion (simply put, it’s a proclamation, not a proposition). Religion, at least to those of us in the body of Christ, consists of all the things (believing, behaving, worshipping, sacrificing, etc.) that the religious think they have to choose to do (and then actually do) in order to get right with God, but no action (which would include choosing to believe something specific, and then actually believing it) on our part can ever take away our sins or make us immortal. Thankfully, everything necessary for salvation from sin and death has already been done, once and for all, by God through Christ. And while God calls members of the body of Christ to proclaim Paul’s Gospel to those He calls us to proclaim it to, believing it has no effect on one’s ultimate salvation, because our ultimate salvation was already guaranteed some 2,000 years ago by Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection, and God doesn’t intend to bring everyone to a knowledge of the truth in this lifetime anyway (while He’s guaranteed salvation for everyone through Christ’s actions, He only elects certain people to join the body of Christ — or perhaps to join the Israel of God instead — in this lifetime). So if someone doesn’t believe the Gospel, they won’t have the peace of mind we have that God in Christ did indeed save all of us already (at least proleptically speaking, or from an absolute perspective), and they might also miss out on living in the kingdom of God during one or two of the impending ages (missing out on “everlasting” — meaning age-pertaining, or eonian — life, in other words), but I’d also suggest that one’s concern that they might not become believers if they think the good news I just presented is true is actually not a concern at all because, if someone truly believes that they don’t have to become Christians simply because of what Christ accomplished, not only have they already believed the actual Gospel Paul taught (since, if they actually believed they could avoid “converting,” so to speak, because the above is true, then they’ve technically actually already believed Paul’s Gospel before they even realized it, at least presuming they also understand what death actually is) rather than the “gospel” the Christian religion teaches, but they’re now in the body of Christ as well. So, perhaps that does undermine “evangelism” from a traditional Christian perspective, but not from the scriptural perspective that those of us in the body of Christ come at things from. And, of course, there may also be certain rewards to be had in heaven for evangelism after Christ comes for His body, which would also be incentive to evangelize. That said, wanting to share good news is human nature. There’s a reason I wrote this series of articles in the first place, after all (not to mention why I share it so widely and never charge for it), and belief in the salvation of all humanity has never stopped any of us from wanting to let everyone know this good news, or from actually sharing it.

Another variation of that objection is, “If you’re right, then I’ll miss out on some stuff, but I’ll be okay in the end,” and some even add, “However, if I’m right, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity.” It’s interesting how some Christians believe it’s more important to accept a doctrine because it might have a worse possible outcome than accepting its alternative might have, regardless of whether that doctrine is correct or not, but I’m far more interested in truth than I am in worrying about unfounded threats (and if we needed to choose a theology based on it having the worst possible outcome if we don’t believe or follow it, some religions have even worse end results for those who don’t follow them than the traditional version of Christianity does, so this argument doesn’t help their case the way they might think it does). The real truth, however, is that, if I’m wrong, I’ve still believed the Gospel (since the facts still remain that A) I believe there’s nothing I can possibly do to save myself from sin and death, and B) my faith is solely in Christ’s death for our sins, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection on the third day, for salvation), so that isn’t actually the case at all. And so, if I’m wrong, I’ve actually only been teaching that God is better than He really is, since I’m claiming He’ll actually succeed when it comes to accomplishing His will that everyone be saved; whereas if I’m right, those who make this claim have actually spoken terrible blasphemy, accusing God of doing horrible things to the creation He supposedly loves by torturing them in fire with no chance of escape (or at least of giving up on the majority of them, letting nearly everyone cease to exist completely, never to enjoy consciousness again, if certain other Christians are correct). This truth is lost on those who are lost, however, thanks to their slavery to the demonic teachings of the modern Christian religion, because if most of humanity were to suffer consciously in the lake of fire without end, all this judgement would do is torture the majority of people who ever existed nonstop, which would serve no purpose at all other than to stand as a never-ending reminder that Satan, death, and “hell” won the ultimate victory after all (a Pyrrhic victory though it might be for Satan, a defeat of God in the battle over souls it would remain nonetheless — and the same would go if those who understand that the punishment is simply permanently ceasing to exist but who also believe that some people will “experience” that punishment were right, by the way; it would mean God still lost to Satan, death, and “the grave” in the struggle for souls), and that God was a failure in ridding creation of sin and evil (simply quarantining sin and evil to a small corner of the universe does nothing to eliminate sin and evil from existence, and the only thing it would really change is to add infinitely more suffering to the universe than it currently has, just in a more compressed area, which would actually be far worse than what we have today), ultimately making Him and Jesus A) monsters (only the most horrific of monsters could force, or even allow, someone to be tortured without the possibility of escape; the worst person to ever live could never do anything like that, but many religious Christians want to accuse God of doing something that would make Hitler look like a saint in comparison, since all he was able to accomplish was temporarily torturing and killing millions of people, but even he couldn’t torture anyone without end), and B) the biggest sinners of all for “missing the mark” (which is literally what the word “sin” means, as we learned in an earlier article in this series) by failing to accomplish their goals. (And don’t try to bring up satisfying God’s justice as a possible purpose, because we’ve already determined that Christ’s death for our sins was all that God’s justice required, and for Him to require anyone else to suffer too wouldn’t be about justice at all, since His justice was satisfied by Christ’s death, regardless of whether someone believes it before they die or not.) And honestly, if we’re going to worry about a “Pascal’s Wager” sort of scenario here, I’d much rather err on the side of accusing God of being too good and too loving and too successful than accusing Him of being the exact opposite.

Some Christians also like to say, “Those who believe everyone will be saved just want an excuse to sin,” but if someone truly understands and has believed what I’ve written in this series, then they’ve already believed the good news that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, and hence have already been saved, so it makes no more sense to say this about us than it does to say it about any traditional Christian who believes they’ve been saved themselves (especially a Christian who believes in OSAS, meaning “Once Saved, Always Saved”).

On a similar — yet somehow even worse — note, some Christians claim that, “If there isn’t a place of never-ending torture in a place called ‘hell’ for sinners, then there’s no point in being good in the first place,” and some even go on to assert that, if they believed it was true that everyone will experience salvation in the end, they’d be out there robbing and raping and murdering people. (Seriously, I’ve had multiple Christians say this to me.) I have to hope they’re just using hyperbole there, although if they’re being serious, and the threat of never-ending torment in a place called “hell” is the only thing keeping them civilized, then perhaps it is a good thing that they don’t believe the truth about this topic, because that’s a seriously disturbing admission about who they really are and what they wish they could actually be doing. But regardless of their sincerity in making these statements, they really aren’t thinking things through. I’ll start with the second claim first, which is to point out that very few believers in the salvation of all are out there committing the crimes these Christians are telling us they apparently wish they could — and, if they believed the salvation of all was true, supposedly would — indulge in. However, presuming they aren’t actually being honest about how their belief in never-ending torment is keeping them from acting out some twisted desire to steal from and hurt others, perhaps the bigger admission that Christians who resort to these sorts of arguments are making is that they don’t trust God’s grace at all. This is actually a bigger topic than just how it applies to the topic of the salvation of all, and I don’t have the time to really get into all the problems connected with this fact right here, but the bottom line is that most Christians really don’t trust God’s grace in the slightest and are always trying to add at least a tiny bit of law to it (just to be safe), even though mortal humans trying to perform religious law always leads to more sin, not less (and not just specifically the Mosaic law, but any religious rules at all, which is what the Mosaic law itself ultimately is), and so this ends up with the exact opposite result of what they’re hoping to achieve through their attempt to shoehorn religious rules into salvation. And as far as the first claim goes, for those Christians who haven’t forgotten that salvation isn’t based on “being good” anyway, since our good works can’t save us, this statement is about as logical as saying, “If criminals eventually get out of prison, then there’s no point in avoiding crime in the first place.” Aside from the fact that the threat of life sentences in prison (and even the death penalty, depending on where you live) doesn’t deter the criminals who do commit major crimes from the actions that result in these sentences, you don’t find most Christians out there living lives of crime (or, if they are, most of them are hiding it pretty well), so we can assume they’re just not thinking things through when they say these things (and, just as with the last objection, any Christian who believes in OSAS and makes these claims forgets that they could then be out there committing the horrific crimes they tell me they wish they could be committing, since they’re guaranteed to still remain saved regardless, according to their own soteriology, so they aren’t being consistent with these assertions at all). Besides, almost no Christian actually believes someone should remain in prison for the rest of their life over a petty crime like shoplifting or jaywalking, so the idea that people should then be tortured without end in “hell” for the same — or even lesser — infractions of the secular law really makes no sense at all (and if someone really believes that sin is actually so serious that it requires someone to be tortured in fire without end, the idea that “the punishment should fit the crime” would be an entirely erroneous idea when it comes to their take on the judicial system as well, since they already believe that every immoral action — which includes breaking the secular law, in most cases — does deserve a much worse punishment than just a fine or a period of time in prison, even when it comes to extremely minor offences, so they should really be arguing for life sentences, the death penalty, or maybe even torture, for every crime, if they wish to be consistent, since they believe that we all deserve far worse consequences than that for committing these actions).

Another very common objection I hear all the time is that Jesus didn’t preach the salvation of all humanity, and that if it were true, He would have mentioned it. Well, if you’ve read all of the articles in this series from the beginning up to this point, you already know why this is a bad argument, of course, but I’ll elaborate anyway. Simply put, Jesus couldn’t have preached the salvation of all humanity, and this is for the very same reason I explained in the first article of this series as to why there had to be two Gospels. Because His death for our sins (and subsequent burial and resurrection) is the basis for the salvation of all humanity, had He taught the salvation of all humanity publicly during His earthly ministry, the spiritual powers of darkness sometimes referred to as “the princes of this world” would have almost certainly put two-and-two together and realized that Him dying for our sins and God raising Him from the dead would be the only possible way that all humanity could not only miss out on eventually remaining dead permanently, but even be made immortal (these are highly intelligent beings, after all), and they would have then avoided their plan to have Him killed, resulting in nobody being saved at all. (And this also means that those of you who are believers in the salvation of all humanity and use parts of the Bible such as the book of John to try to argue that it is indeed scriptural really need to stop using these Circumcision writings for that purpose, because those passages you’re using as “proof texts” can’t actually mean what you think they do, since the sort of salvation being referred to in those books isn’t connected with Paul’s Gospel or the salvation of all at all, so please stick to Paul’s epistles for your arguments.)

And while there are likely more objections than just these which I could cover here (and if I come across them, I’ll likely try to come back and add them to future updates of this article), I’ll wrap this list up with a classic: “God is a gentleman who won’t coerce people into salvation, or force anyone to go to heaven against their will” (some even go so far as to compare the idea Him saving people without them first specifically choosing to be saved to rape; and it’s odd how many Christians seem to have this obsession with using sexual assault in their objections to the salvation of all humanity, and so perhaps they’re telling us something about themselves there and actually are as interested in participating in this crime as many of those who make that previous objection about what they’d do if they believed in the salvation of all seem to imply). Well, if you’ve read everything I’ve written in this series up to this point, you already know that we believe only members of the body of Christ will end up living in heaven (with everyone else eventually being resurrected to live on the New Earth), so right off the bat that’s a straw man argument. But regardless, we don’t believe God will force anyone to be saved against their will anyway, but rather that He gives people the will to want to be saved in the first place. And since Paul told us that everyone is going to experience salvation in the end, He’ll certainly make sure that everyone is willing to enjoy immortality and sinlessness/perfection by the end of the ages. And those who still insist that God just wouldn’t force someone to experience salvation without having to specifically choose to experience it, aside from the fact that this isn’t an assertion found anywhere in the Bible (this is just an unfounded assumption certain Christians make in order to try to hold on to their preferred soteriological doctrines, as well as in order to not have to give up their fetishization of “free will”), most of these people do believe that God will instead force people to suffer in fire without end, even though nobody would actually choose that either. This means that, at the end of the day, it seems as though these Christians don’t actually care if God forces people to experience something against their will at all, so long as He doesn’t let them enjoy what’s to come against the will of the Christians who want people to have to choose to do something specific in order to avoid experiencing suffering instead, the way they think they did.

And with all that being said, let’s move on to the next article in this series where we’ll look at the so-called “proof texts” we’ve all heard used to support the doctrine of never-ending punishment in hell, in order to finally determine what they’re actually talking about once and for all.

Part 14: Biblical threats explained

This is part 12 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 11 is available here: How can you be “born again” if you weren’t even born a first time?

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.

---

Very important: Please be sure you’ve read all of the previous parts of this series — or are at least familiar with everything in them — before reading this article. If you don’t, parts of this article will make no sense, and you will likely remain unconvinced without knowing the details in those articles.

While we now know from what we learned in the previous articles in this series that no humans are going to suffer consciously in any of the biblical “hells” as a form of judgement (at least not for any longer than it takes to die a second time in the lake of fire, presuming one doesn’t die before being cast into that particular “hell”), even though none of the passages we looked at in those articles prove that anyone will remain dead in the lake of fire without end, none of them prove that the people who do end up there will ever be resurrected from it either, much less that they’ll then experience the salvation Paul primarily wrote about — meaning being quickened (aka being made immortal) and sinless — which brings up the question of why I’ve hinted that this will be the case more than once already in previous articles. Well, the answer to that question is found all throughout Paul’s epistles (and, I should add for those who already understand that this will indeed be the case, only in Paul’s epistles), where he taught that everyone will indeed eventually experience that particular form of salvation. Remember, as we learned in the first article of this series, one of the biggest causes of misinterpretations of Scripture regarding salvation is a lack of understanding of the fact that there are different types of salvation referred to in Scripture, and this doesn’t only apply to the difference between the types of salvation connected with the Gospel of the Circumcision vs Paul’s Gospel, but it also applies to the fact that there are different types, or perhaps we could say levels, of salvation within Paul’s Gospel itself. As you’ll learn while reading this article, there have to be two types of salvation within Paul’s Gospel, because he both taught that everyone will be saved and also that everyone won’t be saved when discussing his Gospel, which means that there has to be a general salvation which everyone experiences as well as a special level of salvation connected with his Gospel which only a relative few will experience, in order for Scripture to not contradict itself (and it’s very important that you pay close attention to the wording of a specific verse to determine which of those types of salvation Paul is referring to in it, or else you will walk away extremely confused). Of course, I’m sure you’re wondering what those passages are, so I’m going to go over a number of them now, beginning with Paul’s Gospel itself, which teaches us this (and that’s really all the proof one should need). In fact, not only does the “Christ died for our sins” element of his Gospel teach this, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 also tells us that someone who believes in never-ending punishment can’t actually be a member of the body of Christ, because they don’t believe that sin has been dealt with, once and for all, through Christ’s death for our sins (even if perhaps only proleptically at present, meaning the penalty for sin is now guaranteed to be eliminated in the future for anyone for whose sins Christ died), and hence hasn’t truly believed Paul’s Gospel (if anyone believes that a person can be punished without end because of their sins, they haven’t understood what it means that “Christ died for our sins,” and you can’t truly believe something if you don’t actually understand its meaning). On top of that, though, it also means that someone who thinks a person can only be saved by choosing to believe (and/or choosing to do) something specific isn’t in the body of Christ either, because it isn’t our belief (or any of our actions) that ultimately saves us, but rather it’s simply Christ’s death for our sins, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection on the third day, that saves us (just in case it isn’t obvious, I’m specifically talking about the general sort of salvation which applies to everyone when I discuss verses 3 and 4 of 1 Corinthians 15, and not to the special “eternal life” type of salvation, meaning “age-pertaining life,” that Paul wrote about in verses 1 and 2, which, as we learned in Part 3 of this series, refers to life during the two future ages, and which only a relative few — those who actually do understand what Paul’s Gospel means and truly believe it — will get to enjoy; when it comes to this passage, it’s important to keep in mind that both types of salvation are being discussed in those four verses, and also to remind you to read the first 11 parts of this series before proceeding any farther if you aren’t already intimately familiar with all of the facts that we’ve discussed in this article so far). To insist that one has to choose to believe something specific in order to experience the general salvation which results from what he said happened in verses 3 and 4 is putting the cart before the horse, since faith, or belief, in what Christ accomplished is the cart bringing us into the special “eternal life” form of salvation written about in verses 1 and 2 (known as membership in the body of Christ, which involves getting quickened earlier than everyone else, among other special rewards and “inheritances,” or “allotments” — and which, again, is a form of salvation that not everyone will experience), while the general salvation of all humanity because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, is the horse.

I should say, while “the salvation of all humanity” isn’t, strictly speaking, Paul’s Gospel itself — since Paul’s Gospel is technically just those combined elements that he said he taught the Corinthians (Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day) — because the salvation of all humanity is the end result of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day, it means that the salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished is this Gospel’s main point. And so, while there are other details about his Gospel which also need to be understood in order to be considered a member of the body of Christ (such as what it means that “He was buried,” as we already discussed in a previous article in this series), it can legitimately be said that “the salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished” is essentially Paul’s Gospel, even if it’s not technically Paul’s Gospel (again, of course, referring to the general salvation that everyone eventually experiences, meaning being made immortal and sinless, and not the special “eternal life” sort of salvation which only the body of Christ will get to enjoy in heaven, or even the other “eternal life” sort of salvation, which the Israel of God will enjoy in the kingdom of heaven for 1,000 years).

Despite all this, it’s been stated by many people that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was talking only about those in the Corinthian church who believed Paul’s Gospel (or at least only about people who believed Paul’s Gospel in general), and that it didn’t include the rest of humanity anywhere in its words, and, in fact, that the “for our sins” part of this Gospel was only referring to the sins of those specific Corinthians who believed that the words in Paul’s Gospel are true (or at least only referring to the sins of those who believe his Gospel in general). And while it is true that this part of the chapter was about what the Corinthian believers specifically believed, what they specifically believed wouldn’t actually make any sense if “our sins” wasn’t referring to the sins of all humanity.

I mean, aside from the fact that he didn’t tell them something along the lines of, “Christ can have died for the sins of you Corinthians specifically, but only if you happen to believe that He died for your sins, making it so that He did die for your sins, even though He didn’t actually die for your sins at all if you don’t believe He did” (which would have to be the case if this passage was only about the sins of the Corinthian believers rather than the sins of all humanity), why would he have called this the good news (Gospel) he brought to them if it wasn’t already news which is good for his audience at the time he spoke it to them in person, before they even believed it? (This is why it’s called good news/a Gospel to begin with: because it’s good news whether someone believes it or not, or even hears it or not — it couldn’t be called good news if it’s something that has to be believed in order to avoid a never-ending punishment, especially never-ending torture, since it could then only be called potential good news, or Paul’s Potential Gospel.) The statement that “Christ died for our sins” would have to already be good news to anyone Paul told this fact to before he even spoke the words to them if he wanted to be able to call it a Gospel in the first place, and not just news which can be good, but only if they happened to hear it and then also believe it’s true, somehow turning it into good news for them (although not really particularly good news, since, statistically speaking, they were still pretty much guaranteed to lose most of their loved ones to never-ending punishment in the end, if modern Christians are correct).

I should also say, this is where the Calvinists are at least partly correct (or at least those Calvinists who don’t say unscriptural and illogical things such as, “Christ’s death for our sins was sufficient to save all, but efficient to save only the elect,” because if something must be added to His sacrifice in order for someone to be saved — even something as simple as having to choose to believe the right thing — then His death for our sins was, by definition, INsufficient on its own to save anyone). The consistent Calvinists at least understand that, if we can’t do anything at all to save ourselves, it can only be Christ’s death for our sins (along with His subsequent burial and resurrection) that saves us, which means that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be considered to be saved from at least some perspective (referring to their general salvation from a proleptic perspective, and not to the special “eternal life” type of salvation, of course), because otherwise His death for our sins accomplished absolutely nothing for anyone prior to someone hearing about His death for our sins and then choosing to believe that His death for our sins accomplished something for them too, thus making them their own (at least partial) saviours by turning Christ’s ineffectual action (which, by definition, is what His death for our sins would be if it didn’t have any effect on them on its own) into an action which — only after our contribution (such as the act of choosing to believe the right thing) — actually had an effect on them after all.

Where these Calvinists go wrong is in forgetting that the words Paul specifically said he spoke to the Corinthians when he first evangelized to them in person were not “Christ died for your sins” (or even “Christ died for the sins of the elect,” which is what most Calvinists basically believe he meant). Instead, he wrote that the words of good news he told them in person were: “Christ died for our sins.” If he only meant that Christ died for the sins of the Corinthians and himself specifically, it would mean He didn’t also die for the sins of anyone else, including the believers in Rome or Galatia or anywhere else for that matter (and that He didn’t die for your sins either). But let’s say that he just meant “the sins of the elect,” or even “the sins of believers in general” (to make this point clear to those who aren’t Calvinists as well), when he said “our sins.” Well, since it’s not like believing that Christ died for our sins could then make it a fact that he died for their sins specifically, but only after believing it (since He only died once), this means He had to have at least died for the sins of anyone in Corinth hearing this proclamation of good news before Paul spoke those words to any of them. And so, unless every single Corinthian Paul spoke to believed his words, if Christ’s death for our sins (along with His burial and resurrection, of course) is the only thing that saves us (which it is, since anything we had to add to that in order to be saved would mean we helped save ourselves), it would mean that Paul was lying to anyone who didn’t believe that Christ died for our sins when he spoke those words to them, because that statement would have to include everyone hearing him say those words rather than just the listeners who also believed those words were true (since it would mean that Christ didn’t actually die for their sins after all, considering the fact that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be saved — again, referring only to our general salvation here, and not to the special salvation of believers). Not only that, it would mean we were also lying anytime we explained that the good news includes the fact that Christ died for our sins, at least if anyone who heard us didn’t believe it either (unless, perhaps, what one actually has to believe in order to be saved is that Jesus died only for the sins of Paul and the Corinthians he spoke to — and that everyone in Corinth he preached his Gospel to got saved — and not that he actually died for you or anyone else, but then we’d have to ask what the basis of our own salvation really was in the first place if it wasn’t Christ’s death for our sins too). Now yes, the statement that “Christ died for your sins” is technically true, no matter who we say it to, because they’d still be included in the “all humanity” that gets saved by Christ’s death for our sins. But regardless of how true the statement is, it isn’t the Gospel message, so if you’re evangelizing, please be careful to share the actual Gospel message that one has to believe in order to be able to be said to have joined the body of Christ, which includes the good news that Christ died for our (all humanity’s) sins.

Because yes, Christ’s death for our sins actually had to apply to all humanity (and hence guarantee the general salvation of all humanity), as Paul also made clear when he expanded on all this later in the same chapter by writing that just as “in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Many Christians assume that Paul was simply referring to being resurrected here (based on the fact that the main point of this chapter is the resurrection of the dead), but we know that everyone who Paul said will be “made alive” includes those who will never die, such as the members of the body of Christ who will still be living at the time they’re caught up together in the air to meet the Lord when He comes for His body, not to mention the members of the Israel of God who will still be alive at the Second Coming and who will remain alive — thanks to the tree of life — until the time they’re finally also made immortal, so being “made alive” (translated from a future-tense variation of ζῳοποιέω/“dzo-op-oy-eh’-o” in the KJV, which is the same Greek word that “quickened” is translated from — and which, yes, literally just means “to be given life,” but which is almost exclusively used figuratively in the Bible to refer to being made immortal) obviously can’t simply be referring to resurrection (which is an entirely different word, translated from the Greek word ἀνάστασις/“an-as’-tas-is” instead) because not everyone Paul said will be “made alive” will actually die and be resurrected (yes, that the dead will be physically resurrected was Paul’s main point in this chapter, but he used his Gospel to prove this point, and in doing so ended up covering details that went far beyond just resurrection, including elements that apply to those who won’t be resurrected — because they’ll never actually drop dead — as well).

And since the “in Adam” half of the verse is about the end result of his sin as it applies to everyone (and not just those people who will actually literally die), it stands to reason that, “even so,” the “in Christ” part is about the end result of His death for our sins as it applies to every one of us as well, which can only be the quickening of our mortal bodies (since, as Paul explains later in the very same chapter, being made immortal is what we’re looking forward to as far as our salvation goes, and that being made immortal is how the death Adam brought us all is ultimately defeated, which also means that any human who is made immortal will then be experiencing the final stage of their own salvation as it pertains to Paul’s Gospel). That, combined with the fact that not everyone will end up as a corpse prior to being “made alive” — confirming that the “for as in Adam all die” part of the verse can only be referring to being made mortal, meaning being in a state of slowly dying because of what Adam did — tells us Paul was simply explaining that, for as in Adam all are dying (mortal), even so in Christ shall all be quickened (made immortal). The Present Active Indicative tense in the original Greek of the verb translated as “die” in this verse in the KJV also makes this clear, I should add, making “in Adam all die” in the KJV a figurative translation of a Greek phrase which literally means “in Adam all are dying” (meaning all are in a state of mortality and are slowly dying).

Of course, most Christians assume that one can’t be “in Christ” without first having made a conscious decision of some sort to end up there, leading them to also assume that only those who choose to be “in Christ” (or only those who are elected by God to be “in Christ,” if said Christian is a Calvinist) can be made alive/quickened (and hence be saved), and they then read that assumption into this verse when trying to interpret it. But aside from what we’ve already covered about the meaning of Paul’s Gospel (which should be enough, in and of itself, to prove that everyone has already been guaranteed general salvation, and can, in fact, already be said to have been saved from at least a proleptic perspective), if you read it carefully you’ll notice that not only does it not actually say one has to make a choice to end up “in Christ” in that verse, it isn’t even talking about being “in Christ” from a positional perspective to begin with. (The reason most Christians conclude that one has to choose to be included in the “in Christ” part of this verse is generally because they’re assuming the sort of salvation Paul was writing about here is either the special “eternal life” sort of salvation he also taught about that involves membership in the body of Christ — and which isn’t a form of salvation everyone will experience — or the “eternal life” type of salvation Jesus spoke about during His earthly ministry which involves membership in the Israel of God — which is a type of salvation where one does have to do something specific if they want to experience it, and which is also not a form of salvation that everyone will experience, although whether one does end up experiencing that sort of salvation is just as predetermined from an absolute perspective as the special salvation of those in the body of Christ is — not realizing that Paul was writing about an entirely different sort of salvation here.) If that’s what Paul had been getting at, he would have written, “for as all in Adam die, even so shall all in Christ be made alive.” Thankfully, that’s not what he actually wrote at all. Instead, the way he carefully worded it (“for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”) lets us know that Paul was using a parallelism there to tell us that everyone affected by the action of the first Adam is, “even so,” also equally affected by the action of the last Adam (referring to Christ Jesus, who is also compared to the first man by being called “the second man” in the same chapter), and completely outside of their own desire or will. The slight difference in wording might not seem important to most Christians (and those who don’t want to accept the possibility of the salvation of all humanity will automatically insist it doesn’t matter, without even taking the time to think about it), but it makes all the difference in the world when you realize that God didn’t simply inspire Paul to just throw words onto the page haphazardly, but rather that He made sure Paul laid the words out the way He did in order to make certain it’s clear that, just as nobody had any say in experiencing the effects of the first Adam’s action (mortality and, in most cases, physical death, aside from the relatively few people who will experience their quickening without having died), even so they also have no say in experiencing the effects of the last Adam’s action (eventual immortality) either. Basically, the order of the words God chose for Paul to use tells us that “in Adam” and “in Christ” simply mean “because of what Adam did” and “because of what Christ did,” and are not positional terms at all in this passage, but are rather causal terms.

The fact that Paul wasn’t referring to being “in Adam” or “in Christ” from a positional perspective there is also backed up by what he wrote in Romans 5. Of course (even if most Christians don’t realize this fact, never having thought it over particularly carefully, although this really is the only way their soteriology could possible work based on the way our brains work), in addition to assuming our salvation is (at least partly) based on possessing a certain attribute that others don’t have which allows us to fulfill a required action we have to do for ourselves in order to be saved (such as having enough natural wisdom and/or intelligence and/or humility and/or righteousness to be able to make a choice to believe the specific thing that ultimately saves us, for example, or at least having the natural ability and desire to build up that required wisdom and/or intelligence and/or humility and/or righteousness so one can make that specific choice), rather than our (general) salvation being based 100% on Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection (with no action taken on our part at all in order to contribute to our salvation, since us having to accomplish anything at all to ensure our own salvation — even if it was just managing to repent, meaning managing to choose to change our minds and believe the right thing — would be salvation based at least in part upon something we had to do ourselves, which would ultimately be salvation by works), most Christians also assume that the blame for our mortality, death, and sinfulness falls on each of us as individuals rather than on Adam as well, but that’s not what Paul taught at all. You see, in addition to what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:22 about how we “all die” (meaning how we’re all mortal) “in Adam” (meaning because of what Adam did), over in Romans 5:12, Paul not only confirmed that the specific thing Adam did to bring his descendants mortality and death was his (Adam’s) own sin, but he also went on to explain that the reason we ourselves now sin is because of that mortality we inherited from Adam, when he wrote in that verse: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”

This is one of the most misunderstood passages in Scripture, and most Christians have assumed “for that” in this verse means “because,” and hence have interpreted the last two parts of this verse to mean “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned” in order to preserve their doctrine that we’re ultimately to blame for our own mortality and death (and many Bible versions have even mistranslated this verse to say as much). But, aside from the fact that this would render the verse literally nonsensical (I can’t see any way that the phrase “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned” can legitimately follow “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” and still make any sort of sense at all, at least not based on any rules of grammar, not to mention logic, that I’m aware of), if we die because we sin, the first part of the verse would be entirely superfluous, and might as well be cut out of the verse altogether, since that part of the passage would tell us basically nothing about why we sin, making it entirely irrelevant (not to mention that it would also turn the words “and so” in the verse into a lie: the words “and so” are connecting the clause in the second half of the sentence to the part of the sentence that came before it, which means that what was written in the first part of the verse has to be the reason for the clause that comes after those words, yet there’s no actual connection made between Adam’s sin and our death and sin in the verse if that clause actually means “because all have sinned,” since that places the responsibility on us rather than on Adam, contrary to what the words “and so” are telling us, as well as contrary to what Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 15:22 — which is that human mortality and death exist because of Adam — and Romans 5:12 can’t contradict any other part of Scripture).

And so, if we break it all down we can see that A) Adam sinned (“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world”), B) his sin brought him mortality leading to eventual death (“and death by sin”), C) because of this, his mortality passed down to his descendants (“and so death passed upon all men”) — and for those who haven’t figured it out yet, similar to the way the word “die” is used in 1 Corinthians 15:22, the word “death” is obviously being used as metonymy for “mortality” in this verse as well, since not everyone will literally drop dead before Jesus returns, as we already discussed — and D) for that reason, meaning because of that mortality, all of us descendants of Adam have also sinned (“for that all have sinned”), giving us a nice unbroken sequence of causes and effects (and giving a purpose to the word “that” in the verse, confirming that Paul literally meant “for that [reason] all have sinned”). But if we were to instead interpret the last two parts of the verse as simply meaning “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned” we’ve suddenly lost the whole narrative, since this doesn’t tell us why all have sinned the way the literal reading of this verse does, nor does it explain why Paul included the first half of the verse to begin with. “That all have sinned” because “death passed upon all men” answers that question, but reversing the order (making sin the cause and mortality — or even literal death — the effect rather than mortality the cause and sin the effect) just makes a mess of the whole thing, leaving us with the question of why we sin, which was a part of what Paul was trying to explain in the first place with this verse (and as for why mortality leads to sin, it’s simply because, while we can have the strength to avoid sinning some of the time, being mortal makes us too weak to avoid giving in to sin all of the time). In fact, if our sin actually was the cause, the verse should have actually been written as: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin… but wait… that really doesn’t matter at all, now that I think about it, since death actually passed upon all men because all the rest of us have sinned, and this had nothing to do with that one man, despite what I told the Corinthians in my epistle to them, so why did I even mentioned him here?”

And for those of you who are thinking “Original Sin” might be the answer to that question, aside from the fact that “Original Sin” isn’t a term found anywhere in Scripture, it isn’t a concept found anywhere in Scripture either. In fact, the basis for this strange doctrine is a misinterpretation of the very verse we’ve just been looking at, but I don’t see anything in this verse which says we’ve inherited a “sin nature” from Adam (which is yet another term you won’t find anywhere in Scripture, but which many Christians are forced to read into it in order to hold on to certain unscriptural doctrines they don’t want to let go of), or even that guilt for Adam’s sin has somehow been imputed upon us as well for some reason, as those who believe this doctrine claim is the case. Yes, being mortal causes humans to become corrupt and sinful very quickly, but the claims of those who believe in “Original Sin” can’t actually be found in the Bible without heavily reading one’s assumptions into this verse, and to do so would be pure eisegesis. Some people do attempt to use passages such as Psalm 58:3 and Psalm 51:5 to defend their doctrine of “Original Sin” as well, I should say, but the first verse is talking specifically about “the wicked” (who are differentiated from “the righteous” a few verses later in the same Psalm, telling us this isn’t talking about all humans, but is instead about those who are particularly bad; besides we know that newborn babies can’t literally speak lies as soon as they’re born, as the psalmist said they do, because they can’t speak at all yet, so we know he’s employing hyperbole there, meaning the verse can’t be taken as literally meaning all humans start off wicked, but rather that the wicked begin their destructive path at a very young age), and there are so many possible interpretations of the second verse which don’t turn Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 into a nonsensical lie, as would be the case if “Original Sin” were a valid concept, that it’s utterly foolish to even consider it as a defence of the doctrine. For example, it could simply be more poetic hyperbole (which is a figure of speech David was known to employ in this book, unless you believe his tears could literally create a whole swimming pool on his furniture), it could be using “in iniquity” and “in sin” as metonymy (which is a figure of speech used all the time in the Bible, as should be obvious by now if you’ve read all the previous articles in this series) for “in a world full of sin,” or it could even be referring to the possibility that he was born as a result of his mother having an affair similar to the one he’s believed to be confessing he had with Bathsheba in this very Psalm (and which is what many people think the verse means, believing that the way he recorded his past treatment by others in Psalm 69:4, 7-8, 11-12, and 20-21 indicates this as well — and yes, I’m aware that these were prophetically referring to Jesus, but they had a double-fulfillment, with the first fulfillment being what happened to David, even if only from a hyperbolic perspective in some cases), and these are just three possible interpretations (there are others I didn’t get into here, which you can dig into for yourself if you’re so inclined), so the concept of “Original Sin” really is a nonstarter.

And so, I maintain that the KJV actually got this correct, and that we should simply stick with what it actually says here and interpret it accordingly, in the sense that Paul meant “and so death passed upon all men, [and] for that [reason] all have sinned,” as this is the only interpretation which gives us answers to both the question of why we sin (while also explaining why Paul said, “the sting of death is sin,” since the word “death” has to be metonymy for “mortality” in 1 Corinthians 15:56), as well as the question of why we’re mortal and die (answers which don’t end up contradicting 1 Corinthians 15:22 the way the more common translations and interpretations of this verse in Romans do, I might add), keeping the blame for our mortality, death, and sinfulness squarely on the shoulders of the “one man” Paul meant for us to understand it belongs on: Adam. (At least from a relative perspective, even if God was ultimately the one behind it all from an absolute perspective.)

And so, contrary to what pretty much all Christians have been taught, we ourselves don’t die because we sin. In fact, Adam and Eve were the only humans who died because they sinned — or, rather, began to die/became mortal because they sinned. Yes, that’s what God’s warning to Adam, which is rendered figuratively in the KJV as, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” meant. Remember, the expression “thou shalt surely die” was used in both Genesis 2:17 and in 1 Kings 2:36-46 in the KJV, and yet, based on the amount of time it would take to travel from Jerusalem to Gath and back (even on horseback, presuming my calculations are correct, although I challenge you to confirm this for yourself), there’s no way that Shimei actually died physically the day he crossed the brook Kidron, as Solomon seems to have warned him that he would in 1 Kings. And he certainly didn’t “die spiritually” that day either, as most Christians mistakenly assume the translation of “surely die” in the KJV means (an assumption they make because they recognize that this is obviously a figurative translation, based on the fact that Adam didn’t physically drop dead on the day he sinned), which confirms that the popular “spiritual death” idea is a complete misunderstanding of the term “surely die” in the KJV. As far as Shimei goes, it just meant that he could consider his days to be numbered as of the day he crossed the forbidden brook, because he essentially signed his own death sentence by doing so. And as far as Adam and Eve go, it basically meant the exact same thing, that they could consider their days to be numbered as of the day they sinned as well, just with a longer period of time before their eventual death sentence “played out.” Simply put, Genesis 2:17 is just telling us that, to die, they began dying — meaning they gained mortality leading to eventual physical death — on the day they ate the forbidden fruit (which makes sense considering the fact that the Hebrew phrase מוֹת תָּמוּת/“mooth ta’-mooth,” translated as “thou shalt surely die” in both passages in the KJV, literally means “to die thou shalt be dying”; this also tells us that “to die” can’t possibly be a reference to being punished in the lake of fire, by the way, because Adam didn’t end up in that location the day he sinned either, so becoming mortal remains the best interpretation of this warning).

Understanding this also helps explain why Jesus was able to avoid sinning, as well as why we’ll stop sinning once we’re made immortal. Basically, Romans 5:12 also tells us that mortality is passed down from our human fathers, not our mothers, since it’s Adam who is blamed for our mortality in that verse rather than Eve (who not only also sinned, but sinned before Adam did), as well as tells us that anyone with a mortal, human father will sin (presuming one doesn’t die as a baby before they have an opportunity to sin). This is why Jesus had to be born to a virgin, because He would have been guaranteed to sin at some point if He’d had a mortal, human father. Of course, traditional Christians will say that the reason Jesus didn’t sin is because He’s God, and that only God in the flesh could avoid sinning so He could be the perfect sacrifice for sin, but what they’re telling us when they say that, even if they don’t realize it, is that we humans could then never be free of sin, not even after our resurrection, since we aren’t going to become God, so that couldn’t possibly be the reason (of course, if you’ve read the previous parts of this series, you now know how impossible this explanation is anyway). Instead, the reason is because, not having a mortal father, He was in a state that was neither mortal nor immortal (it’s not a term found in Scripture, but because it’s useful to have a label for this, I personally refer to existing in this state as being “semi-mortal,” for lack of a better term that I’m aware of — although if you’ve read this article before, you might remember me using the term “amortal” instead, but I’ve since decided that “semi-mortal” makes more sense and have updated it accordingly), which means that, while He wasn’t yet immortal, which means being entirely incapable of dying — as we’ll also be when we’re quickened, just like He is now — the fact that He didn’t have a human father meant that He could die but that He wasn’t slowly dying the way we mortals are either, and not having mortality coursing through His veins, but rather having the Spirit without measure, meant He was strong enough to avoid giving into temptation to sin (this combination of “semi-mortality” and having the Spirit without measure also kept Him alive, even on the cross, until He was ready to die and willingly gave up His life). This means that Adam — who, like Jesus, and like Eve, also had to have been in a “semi-mortal” state in order to be able to become mortal after sinning (and no, Adam and Eve couldn’t have been immortal prior to their sin, because “immortal” means “incapable of ever dying”) — theoretically could have also avoided sinning if the circumstances had worked out that way, although he didn’t have the Spirit without measure like Jesus did, and ultimately gave in to temptation, leading to the mortality and sin that all of us now get to experience as well, thanks to being his descendants.

That Adam is ultimately responsible for our condemnation to mortality, death, and sinfulness is also backed up a few lines later in Romans 5 as well, in verses 18–19, where Paul told us that, just as judgement to condemnation came upon all men because of the offence and disobedience of one, and not because of their own offences or disobedience, righteousness and justification of life will also come upon all men because of the obedience of one, and not because of their own obedience — which would have to include obedience towards any commands to do anything specific in order to experience (general) salvation, including commands to choose to repent and/or to believe anything specific — telling us that only two people are responsible for our current and future states, the first Adam and the last Adam, and that we’re just along for the ride. 

You see, when Paul wrote, “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” he was using another set of parallelisms there, something he seemed to love using to prove this particular point in various epistles, where the “all” and the “many” in the second part of each sentence has to consist of no less than the exact same number of people who fall under the “all” and “many” in the first part of the sentences, or else the parallelisms would fall apart, as would his entire point itself. And for those who are wondering why Paul wrote “many” rather than “all” in verses 15 and 19 of this chapter, there are at least two reasons (there could be more, but I’m going to give you the most important reasons). First, verse 15 had to use “many” because not everyone will physically drop dead, as we already discussed. And second, Jesus was technically affected by Adam’s sin to a certain extent as well, in that He too was condemned to die (even if voluntarily) because of Adam’s action, since He had to die for the sins we now commit because we’re mortal thanks to Adam if He wanted to save us (which is why He could be included in the “all” of verse 18). But since He Himself never sinned, verse 19 couldn’t say “all” became sinners, which is why Paul instead wrote that “many were made sinners,” meaning every human other than Jesus (and other than Eve as well, who became a sinner because of her own action rather than Adam’s, since she sinned before he did). And again, being a parallelism, all the people who “were made sinners” because of “one man’s disobedience” will also have to “be made righteous” because of “the obedience of one,” or else the parallelism wouldn’t work (and please re-read that carefully: Paul said that it’s because of “the obedience of one,” and not because of their own obedience to choose to repent and/or believe the right thing, that they’re ultimately “made righteous,” even though, yes, those who do happen to believe Paul’s Gospel will get to enjoy that righteousness before everyone else, but it’s still all due to the obedience of one and not due to their own obedience), although Eve will also be made righteous because of His obedience, of course — for reasons we’ll get to later in this article — even if she isn’t included in the first half of the parallelism.

But for those who still really want to blame our condemnation to mortality and death on our own sins rather than ultimately blaming it on the first Adam’s sin, I’d be curious to know what they believe the condemnation that came upon all men because of the offence and disobedience of one/Adam actually even is, exactly, not to mention why Paul included the part about “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin“ in verse 12, and also why he claimed that “in Adam all die” in 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Of course, most Christians like to insist that one has to first choose to receive the free gift to be included in the second half of these parallelisms (completely ignoring the fact that this is not how parallelisms work), based on the inclusion of the word “receive” in verse 17, but Paul didn’t actually say anything about receiving the gift being a choice in that verse at all (although, if it was a choice, then receiving the “abundance of grace” mentioned in that verse would also have to be a choice). The idea that receiving the free gift is a choice is an assumption that one has to read into the verse, since it just isn’t there in the text (you won’t find the words “choice” or “choose” anywhere in the chapter), and receiving something isn’t necessarily something one chooses anyway, as evidenced by how Paul told us that, on five separate occasions, he received thirty-nine stripes. Since he would have experienced those lashes whether he first purposefully chose to receive them or not (at no point are we told that he said to his assailants, “Please whip me”; and had he instead said, “I refuse to receive these stripes,” they still would have whipped him anyway), it’s time to reconsider the idea that “receiving the free gift” is something one chooses rather than simply experiences apart from anything they have to choose to do, because, aside from the fact that this would make salvation something they gained through their own obedience rather than because of the obedience of one/Christ (thus contradicting Paul’s entire point, which is that only the first Adam and the last Adam are responsible for anything that happens to us when it comes to both our condemnation and our salvation, at least as far as our general salvation goes, which is the type of salvation Paul was writing about in Romans 5), having to choose to receive it would also be something one had to accomplish in order to be saved, which by definition would make it a work one had to do in order to be saved, and the most difficult work one could ever do at that, based on how difficult most people find it to “choose to receive the gift” and “get saved” (at least as far as the traditional Christian understanding of what salvation is goes, although it’s true that their understanding is completely wrong). And so, rather than being offered money as a gift in order to pay off one’s debts, and having the option to either accept it or reject it (which is an analogy many Christians like to use when discussing salvation), it’s actually more like having money deposited directly into one’s bank account — enough to pay all their debts — and having automatic payments to those they owe money to set up entirely without their knowledge (with evangelism being about telling people the good news that the money is there and that their debts will all be paid with that money, whether or not they happen to believe it, or “choose to receive it,” because their bank accounts have already received it).

The reason most Christians insist that receiving the free gift has to be a choice (aside from simply never having considered the possibility that it might not be) is because they just don’t want to accept that condemnation and salvation could possibly be something we ultimately have no say in, which is why they also insist that we’re entirely responsible for our own condemnation to mortality and death (and its resulting sinfulness) as well, contrary to what Paul wrote (all the while often also contradictorily placing the guilt for Adam’s sin on us at the same time as blaming us, in order to preserve the doctrine of “Original Sin,” which is a doctrine that really only exists in order to be able to claim that everyone deserves to be punished in “hell” without end simply by virtue of being born, and is a doctrine which literally makes no sense at all when you take the time to actually think about it, since there’s just no legitimate way for someone who didn’t commit a particular sin to then be considered guilty of committing that sin just because an ancestor of theirs committed it; and one shouldn’t conflate the “condemnation” Paul wrote about in that passage with “guilt” anyway, because the type of “condemnation” in that verse is just the consequence of Adam’s sin that we all experience, meaning the mortality we inherited from him, which also leads to all of us then committing sins as well, and not to us somehow magically being guilty of eating the forbidden fruit ourselves, even though we didn’t actually eat it at all — which is backed up by the fact that the word “condemnation” there is translated from κατάκριμα/“kat-ak’-ree-mah” in the original Greek, which simply refers to a negative sentence and not specifically to a guilty verdict, and is a word which could also be used to say that one has been “condemned” to die of a terminal illness due to no fault of their own, which is actually pretty close to what the “condemnation” in this passage is referring to). You see, if our condemnation to mortality and its resulting sinfulness is based entirely on the action of one (Adam), as Paul said it was, then our salvation to immortality and sinlessness would have to be based entirely upon the action of one as well (the last Adam), as Paul also said it is, rather than based (at least in part) upon a wise decision we ourselves make to receive the free gift, and the pride of most Christians just won’t allow them to accept that as a possibility (because, although they’ll deny it — even to themselves — most of them, at least on a subconscious level, really want to be able to take the credit for having made the wise decision to “get saved,” based on the fact that they definitely want those who don’t make the same wise choice they believe they made to be responsible for not getting saved, based on the tragically large number of Christians who have asked me things along the lines of, “Are you saying that unbelievers will get the same reward as me? Even though they didn’t choose to accept Christ like I did?”, thus telling us they believe they earned, and even deserve, salvation because they were smart enough to choose to receive it, unlike all those sinners who aren’t smart enough to make the same good choice they did and hence don’t also deserve it the way they do, and so these Christians are basically boasting about, or glorying in, their wise decision to choose to receive the gift — as they’d be perfectly justified for doing if they had made that choice — rather than simply being grateful for having received it without ever getting to decide whether to accept it or not).

I should quickly add, some will point out that 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 also talks about “receiving” the Gospel Paul preached unto them, and that the salvation referred to in that passage seems like it could possibly be said to be conditional, at least if we take the passage on its own without considering the rest of Scripture. But even if we interpreted the passage as Paul referring to receiving salvation rather than simply receiving (or hearing) the message he preached unto them, based on what we’ve already covered (not to mention still have yet to cover), it could only be talking about receiving the special form of salvation which involves joining the body of Christ after hearing his Gospel there (a form of salvation that not everyone receives), and not the completed salvation (being guaranteed future immortality and sinlessness) which is discussed in the next two verses after those, and really throughout the rest of the chapter (as well as which is discussed in Romans 5). So even if someone did have to choose to “receive” this special form of salvation, it doesn’t also mean that anyone has to choose to receive the general form of salvation Christ won for all of us through His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day. And so, it’s time to recognize that the idea of the salvation Paul primarily wrote about (at least the general type of salvation) being based at all upon something people have to do for themselves — even if what they have to do for themselves is something as supposedly simple as having to choose to believe the right thing — rather than being based entirely upon what one/Christ did for us, is really something one must read into the text based on one’s preconceived idea that this salvation depends at least partly (even if just 1%) on us and our wise decision to believe and/or do something specific rather than depends 100% on what one/Christ did.

That said, we actually do have to recognize that this applies to the special type of salvation Paul wrote about too, which means it’s time to stop ignoring the truth about predestination as well, since what we’ve now learned (both about “free will” in the previous articles, and also about salvation in this one) proves that predestination must be true, but also that it’s not the horrific concept Calvinism makes it out to be. You see, if everyone will experience the salvation known as being made immortal and sinless, as Paul said we all will, yet at the same time only certain people are chosen, or elected, for salvation, as he also said, then not only does this means that predestination has to be true (since God is only choosing certain people for a certain type of salvation), but also that the type of salvation he meant we’re chosen for can only be the special “eternal life” type of salvation that not everyone gets to enjoy, which means it can be said that predestination is actually more about when someone experiences salvation, not about if they get to experience it, since everyone will eventually experience immortality and sinlessness. Basically, while some people are chosen by God to receive a special, early experience of salvation — meaning they’ll be quickened and made sinless before everyone else, along with receiving various other benefits such as getting to go to heaven, and likely even ruling and reigning with Christ — Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 that everyone will eventually experience the salvation that involves being quickened and made sinless, even if perhaps not until after they’ve been resurrected from their second death at the end of the ages.

Of course, as we already discussed in an earlier article, many people really dislike the idea of predestination (especially as it pertains to salvation). But the fact of the matter is that, even if “free will” weren’t the unscriptural and unscientific impossibility we’ve now learned it is, the existence of “free will” is completely irrelevant when it comes to salvation anyway, because whether “free will” actually could exist or not, Paul not only still places the responsibility for both our condemnation and our eventual general salvation on two men, and on two men alone, rather than on each individual human who will ever have lived, he also places the responsibility for whether or not we experience the special “eternal life” type of salvation on one Person alone as well: God, through His choice of whom He’ll give the gift of faith to.

And for those who disagree with the idea that even our special salvation is based on the decision of one rather than on our own decisions, think about it carefully, because the “gift” in Ephesians 2:8-9 can’t really be referring to the salvation and grace part of the passage, considering the fact that A) nobody can save themselves, meaning make themselves immortal or sinless, and B) the definition of grace is “unmerited favour,” and so the fact that they’re both gifts goes without saying. This tells us that the gift Paul mentioned here has to be the faith (since nobody could ever think the salvation or grace are “of yourselves”), which means that faith has to be something God deals out a certain measure of to each person chosen for membership in the body of Christ rather than something that we build up on our own, just as Paul said it is, and also has to be something we received apart from any action or choice of our own, since otherwise we could then glory either in producing our own faith or in having chosen to accept to receive an offer of faith, neither of which Paul would consider to be possible for anyone he wrote to, because the type of salvation he taught the nations about, in both its general form and its special form, is 100% apart from anything we do ourselves, but is always based solely on the action and decision of one: Christ and God respectively (at least from a relative perspective, even if God was technically behind Christ’s decision from an absolute perspective as well). And for those who want to point out that some Greek scholars claim the original Greek actually says the gift is just the salvation and/or the grace rather than the faith, this assertion is disputed by other Greek scholars who claim it indeed is the faith that is being referred to as the gift in this passage in the original Greek, so you’d have to demonstrate why your Greek scholars are right and why those who scholars disagree with them are wrong. But, as we already learned, because there’s no way for the gift to be a reference to the salvation and/or grace on their own anyway (since it goes without saying that they’re also a gift, which means Paul wouldn’t have said it), this proves the Greek scholars who claim it’s the faith that Paul referred to as the gift have to be the ones who are correct. Besides, if the gift isn’t the faith, it then couldn’t be the salvation either, because in that case the salvation would instead be a payment one earned by building up the required faith using their own strength, which is a work I don’t think anyone could actually do (forcing oneself to believe something is true that they don’t already believe is true would take a lot of effort).

But even if the idea that receiving the special “eternal life” type of salvation was a choice didn’t contradict what Paul wrote, the whole point of the parallelisms in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 is to make it clear that one/Christ has at least the exact same level of effect on humanity that one/Adam had, meaning Christ’s action changes the exact same number of people that fall into the categories of “all” or “many” that Adam’s action did, apart from any choice or choices we make ourselves. So even if it weren’t true that only those to whom God has given the faith to believe this good news will get to enjoy the special salvation which involves being made immortal and sinless earlier than everyone else, and that we had to instead choose to be included in the body of Christ, we still know that everyone will eventually experience immortality and sinlessness anyway. Besides, if Christ’s action doesn’t change the exact same number of people that Adam’s action did, it means that Adam’s failure was ultimately more efficacious than Christ’s victory was, making Adam and his sin far more powerful than Christ and His death for our sins, considering the fact that none of us had to choose to allow Adam’s sin to make us mortal the way most Christians think we have to choose to allow Christ’s death for our sins to make us immortal.

If you’re still finding any of this hard to accept, though, Paul’s parallelism in 1 Corinthians 15:22 can also be expressed mathematically: “For as in a, x die, even so in z, shall x be made alive.” The way parallelisms work means that the set (or variable, if you prefer) known as “x” has to consist of the exact same group (or number) of people in both clauses (with “a” and “z” being two different reasons for their two respective states at two different periods of time) rather than referring to two separate groups of people who have to choose between Adam and Christ. In fact, since this is a parallelism, and because we know that nobody specifically made a conscious choice to “choose Adam” (I don’t recall ever thinking to myself, “I accept Adam as my condemner” before becoming mortal, which would have to be the case if we, “even so,” need to choose to “accept Jesus as our Saviour” in order to be made immortal; and if our condemnation happens without our conscious decision to “accept Adam,” then, “even so,” our general salvation would also have to happen without our conscious decision to “accept Christ,” since this is a parallelism), or to die “in Adam,” but rather we were all simply born mortal (remember, our condemnation to mortality, death, and sinfulness was entirely because of one/Adam, and not because of anything we ourselves did, or else newborn babies who haven’t sinned yet would never die, and those who believe that a fetus receives its spirit from God while still in the womb would then have to also concede that it would be impossible to perform an abortion once a pregnancy had reached that point), this also means that, “even so,” nobody can choose to be “in Christ” either (if this verse meant that it’s up to us to specifically choose to be “in Christ,” it would mean that it was up to us to specifically choose to be “in Adam” first, which we already know isn’t the case, since we’re all born mortal; and if these were positional sorts of states, and we could unknowingly end up “in Adam” by committing an act we didn’t realize placed us there, it would also mean that, “even so,” the only way to end up “in Christ” would have to also be by unknowingly committing an act we didn’t realize placed us there either). This verse is simply telling us that “all” (“x”) are mortal/dying “through Adam/because of what Adam did” (“in a”) rather than because of any choice of our own, and that the same “all” (“x,” again) will also eventually be become immortal (be made alive) “through Christ/because of what Christ did” (“in z”) rather than because of any choice of our own. And the same applies to when Paul uses the words “all” and “many” in his parallelisms in Romans 5 as well (go ahead and put an x in place of the words “all” and “many,” or perhaps an “x” and a “y” in their respective places, in the verses in Romans 5 to see for yourself). With this in mind, the only way 1 Corinthians 15:22 could possibly mean that only some people will be quickened is if the verse said, “For as in Adam only some die, even so in Christ shall only some be made alive,” or if it perhaps said, “For as in Adam all die, unevenly so in Christ shall only some be made alive” (the words “even so” in the verse basically mean “in the same way,” or “equally so,” telling us that the variable x has to be the same number of people on both sides of the words “even so”).

Unfortunately, due to a combination of the fact that most people misunderstand the various passages in Scripture about judgement, “hell,” and the lake of fire, especially the ones that include warnings by Jesus (which are indeed serious warnings, but they don’t mean anything even close to what most people have assumed they mean) — and are misinterpreting these and other Pauline passages about salvation in light of their misunderstandings of those judgement passages rather than interpreting those particular passages in light of these and other Pauline passages about salvation (because they don’t realize that the salvation Jesus spoke about during His earthly ministry was an entirely different sort of salvation from the one Paul was writing about here, as we learned in the first article of this series, they mistakenly assume that, since not everyone experiences that sort of salvation, not everyone will experience the type of salvation that Paul was writing about here either) — along with the fact that this verse says “in” (“in Adam” and “in Christ”) rather than “through” or “because of” (which is what the word “in” is talking about here), most Christians read these passages and come away with extremely confused interpretations. Since one can only be “in” one of two people at a time, positionally-speaking, this causes them to miss the fact that the word “all” is the exact same group of people in both clauses (referring to “all of humanity”). To be fair, “in” obviously can mean “inside” something, positionally-speaking (from either a literal or a figurative perspective, depending on the context), but it can also mean “through [the action of]” or “because of” something or someone, and that’s clearly what Paul was getting at in this parallelism.

However, let’s pretend to forget all of the above, and assume for a moment that this passage actually is referring to being “in Christ” from a positional perspective rather than referring to our immortality being because of what Christ accomplished. Does that change anything at all about the end result I concluded it would culminate in (all humans eventually experiencing salvation by being quickened)? Not even slightly. To put it simply, because this is a parallelism, we’d then be forced to read it as meaning: just as every human begins dying by being “in Adam,” even so every human will end up made alive by being “in Christ.” So even if you interpret “in” positionally here, being a parallelism would force this verse to then mean that every single person will be “in” both of those two people, figuratively speaking, just at two different points of time in each of our lives. That said, when you consider the fact that the context of the chapter was resurrection and immortality, it’s pretty clear that Paul was literally telling us in this parallelism that even though “because of what Adam did all humans are mortal, even so because of what Christ did all humans will be quickened” (and to be quickened means to experience the last stage of salvation, finally enjoying one’s immortality, and hence sinlessness).

For anyone who might somehow still be skeptical, however, hypothetically speaking, if Paul was trying to explain in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 that, because of what Adam did, every single human has been condemned to mortality and sinfulness, yet, equally so, because of what Christ did, every single human is guaranteed to eventually enjoy immortality and sinlessness, I’d like you to tell me what he would have needed to have written differently in those chapters in order to convince you that this is what he meant.

All that being said, while Paul tells us in verse 22 of 1 Corinthians 15 that everyone who experiences mortality because of what Adam did will eventually experience immortality because of what Christ did, he also tells us (when he wrote, “but every man in his own order”) that there’s a specific sequential order when it comes to each mortal human being made fully alive beyond the reach of death (meaning that humanity won’t all be quickened at the exact same time), with the first order mentioned being “Christ the firstfruits,” and the second order being “they that are Christ’s at his coming” (there’s a third order mentioned in the passage as well, but we’ll get to that after we consider the first two orders). Now, there is some debate as to exactly who is included in each of the first two orders, with some people believing that the first order refers specifically to Jesus and that the second order includes everyone who will be quickened around the time of His Second Coming (both the members of the body of Christ, and also the members of the Israel of God who will be quickened around the same time, give or take approximately seven years), while others believe that the first order refers instead to the whole body of Christ (since being a part of Christ’s body means we can all legitimately be called “Christ,” or “anointed” — which is what the Greek word Χριστός/“khris-tos’” that “Christ” is translated from means — even if we’re not all “Christ Jesus” Himself), but that this excludes the body’s Head (Jesus, who is already immortal), with the second order only being those in the Israel of God who are quickened some time after He returns, at the resurrection of the just. As for me, I believe the latter interpretation to be the correct one, with the firstfruits in the first order being the whole body of Christ — again, excluding Jesus — at the time He comes for His body in the air, including both those dead members of the body of Christ who will be resurrected, as well as all the members who are still living, finally experiencing their immortality at that time (the dead members of the body of Christ will be resurrected first, after which they and the remaining living members will be “made alive”/made immortal as we meet the Lord in the air), and who will no longer sin from then on (because they’ll no longer be mortal). This event will be God withdrawing His ambassadors from earth (as one does prior to declaring war) before the Tribulation begins, who then go on to fulfill their purpose in Christ in heavenly places.

As for why I don’t believe Jesus Himself is included in this order, there are two reasons, both of which I technically actually covered in the last paragraph, but I’ll go into a little more detail now in case anyone didn’t catch them. The first reason is because verse 22 would also seem to mean that, at some point in the future, “in Christ shall Christ be made alive,” which seems to be contradicted by Peter, who wrote that Christ was already quickened — past tense — by the Holy Spirit, and not that He will be quickened/“made alive” — future tense, which is the tense verse 22 uses — as though He isn’t already immortal now. As for the second reason, it’s that “but every man in his own order” in verse 23 (of which “Christ the firstfruits” is the first order) is referring back to everyone who is promised to eventually be “made alive” in verse 22 (which means that to be a part of the orders referred to by “every man in his own order,” you have to also be included in verse 22), but since verse 22 is a parallelism, to be a part of the group of people included in the second half of the point being made by this parallelism, one would also have to be a part of the group of people included in the first half of the parallelism (meaning being included among all those who “die” because of what Adam did, which we already determined refers to being mortal and in the process of slowly dying because of what Adam did). Remember, as we just discussed, the equation is basically: “For as, because of a, all are made mortal, even so, because of z, all will be made immortal.” And so, to be a part of the group of people affected by z (at least within the parallelism), one has to first be affected by a, which means being mortal. The problem is, being mortal also means being guaranteed to eventually sin, as we also previously learned, and since Jesus never sinned, He couldn’t have been a part of group a, which means He also couldn’t have been a part of group z in the parallelism, and hence couldn’t be a part of any of the orders listed under “but every man in his own order,” which does include “Christ the firstfruits,” telling us that the people included within this particular order of people being made immortal in the future can only consist of the parts of the body of Christ that aren’t Jesus (who doesn’t need to be included in it anyway, for the first reason I just covered, which is that He’s already immortal).

And yes, I realize this seems to imply that Eve won’t be saved, since she also wasn’t a part of the first group in the parallelism (which means she couldn’t be included in the second group in the parallelism either). However, like Christ, she’s a unique case in all of this, having sinned before Adam did and hence not being able to be included in the parallelism either. This isn’t the problem it might seem to be at first, though. As we just covered, Christ Himself was quickened without technically being included in either group within the parallelism, and this is fine because He was never a part of the particular point that Paul was making with this parallelism to begin with, which is simply that everyone affected by a is also affected by z, and nothing more. And if He can be quickened without being a part of the second group in the parallelism (even though He technically was affected by what He did — earning His own quickening through His own faith, as was proven by His voluntary death on the cross — He still was never a part of the parallelism to begin with, outside of being z in the equation of course), there’s no reason others can’t also be quickened (and even reconciled to God) without technically being included in the point the parallelism is making either. And Eve indeed is going to be quickened in the future, and (along with many others who also aren’t included in group a that I’ll discuss soon) will even be reconciled to God as well, for reasons I’ll explain a little later in this article. But even if it somehow could turn out that she wasn’t going to be saved, because of not being included in the parallelism, the point Paul was making with the parallelism — that everyone affected by Adam’s action is also going to be equally affected by Christ’s action — still stands. But don’t worry, she will be quickened, as I’ll prove later, presumably at the same time the third order of people will be quickened.

We can’t get to that third order without first discussing the second order, though, and I personally interpret this second order — “they that are Christ’s at his coming” — as referring to those made immortal at the time of the resurrection of the just, 75 days after the Tribulation has concluded (people such as “Old Testament” saints, for example, at least from the point of Abraham onwards — including Elijah, with this being the time he’s quickened — as well as those who died following the teachings that Jesus and His disciples gave). I should say, for a long time I assumed that everyone who gets to enjoy the sort of salvation Jesus spoke about, both dead and living, will be made immortal at this point, but I’ve since concluded that only those who were dead and who will be resurrected some time after the Second Coming will be made immortal at this time, and that everyone else who gets to enjoy “everlasting life” while living in the kingdom of heaven in Israel will simply remain alive in a “semi-mortal” state (at least to begin with) thanks to partaking of the fruit and the leaves of the tree of life on a monthly basis, and won’t be made truly immortal until the final order of quickenings is completed much later. As for why I’ve come to this conclusion, I’ll just quickly say that if the reward for “overcoming” by some of those during the Tribulation will be to partake of the tree of life, and if one needs to continuously consume its products in order to remain healthy and alive, as Revelation 22:2 seems to imply, yet the quickening of the resurrected dead happens instantaneously and is irreversible, as is demonstrated by those in the body of Christ when they’re caught up in the air to meet the Lord (not to mention based on the definition of “immortality”), it seems that there must two different methods of remaining alive on this earth and the New Earth (quickening as the first method, and partaking of the tree of life on a regular basis as the second). That said, as I already mentioned, some like to group the body of Christ in with this order as well, and believe it applies to everyone who experiences the salvation that Jesus spoke about, as well as those who experience the salvation that Paul wrote about — even if some are quickened three-and-a-half to seven or more years apart from each other — and believe the first order is just speaking of Jesus Himself. However, as I already explained, to do so really doesn’t make any sense to me, considering the tense of “made alive” in verse 22, so placing the body of Christ in the first order rather than the second seems to make the most sense, and even more-so if I’m correct that only the resurrected dead members of those in the Israel of God will be quickened at the end of the Tribulation, which it would seem has to be the case for the reason I already explained, as well as because there wouldn’t be anyone left to fulfill the prophecies of righteous Israelites not only growing old but also having children in the kingdom of heaven and on the New Earth if every member of the Israel of God were quickened shortly after Jesus returns, as I’ve also previously mentioned (and the fact that all the living members of the body of Christ will be quickened when they’re caught up together to meet the Lord in the air, as well as the fact that the dead in Christ are resurrected before those who are still living when they go to meet the Him in the air, yet those who are raised from the dead at the resurrection of the just are still dead until at least 75 days after the Tribulation ends, is also more evidence that the body of Christ is not the Israel of God, and that our respective quickenings take place at different times, which also confirms that one should not conflate our being caught up to meet Christ in the air with the Second Coming). But regardless of whether the body of Christ is included in the first order or in the second order, there are still a lot of people who won’t have been “made alive”/made immortal yet during that second order, including the rest of the members of the Israel of God who aren’t quickened at the resurrection of the just but are still alive thanks to the fruit of the tree of life (not only 1,000 years later when the kingdom of heaven on earth draws to an end, but for the duration of the final age on the New Earth as well, however long that’s going to last), not to mention everyone else who didn’t get to enjoy “everlasting life” when Jesus returns. And so the question arises, if all humanity is going to be “made alive” because of Christ, yet each in their own order (which Paul told us is going to be the case), when will this happen for everyone who isn’t included in those first two orders? Well, if everyone will be “made alive” in their own order, there must be at least one more order after that one for the rest of humanity to be included in, and the very next verse tells us there indeed is.

Of course, most people who read this chapter assume “they that are Christ’s at his coming” in verse 23 is the final order of people to be quickened (if they even realize that Paul was talking about quickening at all), but Paul actually spoke of that third and final order made up of the rest of humanity which we now know also need to eventually be “made alive” when he wrote “then cometh the end” in verse 24. Now, this technically could be said to have a double fulfillment of sorts, since the end of the ages is almost certainly when this final quickening occurs (and is something that the body of Christ has already attained in spirit, if not only proleptically, and will have also attained physically at their own quickening, long before the actual final age ends), and this has caused most people to misunderstand Paul’s statement there as meaning that he’d moved on from the topic of resurrection and immortality and had now begun discussing the end of the world (or the end of the ages, as others assume) in this verse instead. But Paul hadn’t even hinted at any such topics in this chapter so far, yet had just mentioned an order of different groups of people to be “made alive,” made up of every mortal human who will have ever lived, as stated in the verse immediately prior to this one (in verse 23 when he wrote, “but every man in his own order,” which was referring to all the men who are mortal because of Adam being made immortal by Christ — as he said would happen in verse 22 — in their own order), so there’s absolutely zero basis that I can think of for interpreting this verse as meaning anything other than Paul telling his readers that “then comes the end of the quickenings of all the orders of men to be ‘made alive’” (which tells us that the final group of men from the “every man in his own order” of groups made up of all men who are mortal will finally be made immortal at that time) and then going on to explain when in the future the end of the quickening of all humanity will occur, which will be at the time “when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” I don’t believe anyone would disagree with me that when Paul wrote, “when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,” he was explaining when whatever “then cometh the end” happens to mean takes place. And if the end of the world or ages were going to occur immediately after “they that are Christ’s at his coming” are quickened, it might make sense to assume that’s what Paul was referring to there. But as I already mentioned, we know that there will be at least 1,000 years separating the period of time when that particular order of people will be quickened and the time our current world ends and is replaced by the New Earth (and, as those who understand the Doctrine of the Ages — more often referred to by believers as the Doctrine of the Eons — are aware, there are two whole ages, likely made up of thousands of years or more, between that quickening and the end of the ages), so a new topic about the end of the world or the end of the ages doesn’t really fit in those words at all because neither of those things are going to come to an end immediately (or even any time soon) after “they that are Christ’s at his coming” are “made alive.” Meanwhile, the end of the sequence of people being quickened in a specific order fits there perfectly, since the order of those quickenings is what he’d just been writing about. In fact, if he meant the end of the world or the end of the ages, he would have then been leaving out that final order of “every man in his own order” of all men who are dying from the sequential order of quickenings he’d just started writing about (including the members of the Israel of God who weren’t quickened after Jesus returns and who would then miss out on being made immortal if this wasn’t talking about the final group of people to be quickened), so it really makes no sense at all for him to have gone from discussing that topic (the specific order of all the groups of people who are mortal and dead because of Adam being “made alive” because of Christ) to suddenly discussing an entirely new topic altogether in this verse — never having even suggested that he was referring to that new topic (Christ’s triumph over other rulers and turning the kingdom over to God, or even the end of the ages or of the world) anywhere else in the chapter up until this point — and then to return to discussing his original topic of resurrection and quickening again as he does just a few verses later. Since it wasn’t the point of the chapter to begin with, there would have been no reason for Paul to have even mentioned Christ delivering the kingdom up to God, to putting down all rule and authority and power, and to the end of Christ’s reign over the kingdom (as he discusses in the next few verses after this one) in this chapter at all other than to explain when that final order of “every man in his own order” to be “made alive” that he’d just been discussing actually is going to be “made alive,” by letting his readers know that this final quickening would, in fact, not only be the end of the quickenings he’d been writing about in the two verses prior to it, but also that it would be the very last thing Christ does before giving up His reign and turning the kingdom over to God (and, in fact, that this final quickening would be how death is finally destroyed, as he said it would be a couple verses later).

Now, a lot of Christians simply assume that the reference to the destruction of death in verse 26 is just talking about the salvation of “they that are Christ’s at His coming” in verse 23 (they have to, because of their assumption that not everyone will experience the salvation Paul was writing about here). But aside from the fact that death somehow being said to be destroyed by that group of people being quickened (or being saved in whatever way they assume this means) when Christ returns would mean that nobody after Christ’s return (including anyone born during the thousand-year kingdom in Israel and on the New Earth, as well as those in the Israel of God who aren’t quickened at the Second Coming) could possibly ever be quickened either (because the final salvation via the destruction of death would then have already been said to have taken place when Christ returned, since, if their salvation was figuratively referred to as the “destruction of death,” there wouldn’t be any “death” left to “destroy” for anyone else to get saved by it happening again afterwards, seeing as it would have already been “destroyed” in the past at that point, whatever the “destruction of death” might actually even mean if that were the case), this also isn’t possible because verses 24 and 25 tell us that His sentient enemies are subjected, and that death is then destroyed, at a point in time after “they that are Christ’s at His coming” have been “made alive,” and not that His sentient enemies are subjected and that death is destroyed by that particular group of people being “made alive.” Remember, death is the last enemy to be defeated, yet there will still be more death and sentient enemies continuing to exist long after the quickening of “they that are Christ’s at His coming,” since, aside from any death which will occur on earth during the thousand years itself, there’s not only going to be a final (even if somewhat short and one-sided) battle between God and those who consider Him to be their enemy a thousand years after the quickening of “they that are Christ’s at His coming” which will involve the death of all those enemies who will rise up against Israel in that attack, we’re also told in Isaiah 65 that people will continue to die on the New Earth for a certain period of time as well (when Isaiah wrote, “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”), long after “they that are Christ’s at His coming” have been quickened. And for those who are thinking that Revelation 21:1–8 means there won’t be any death on the New Earth at any time, while that is one possible interpretation of the passage, at least if we interpreted that passage on its own, there are also various other possible interpretations of these verses in Revelation which don’t contradict what Isaiah wrote, 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 could be separated from the first three verses of the chapter by the “Mountain Peaks” of prophecy that we discussed in a previous article in this series, setting verse 4 at the end of the ages, with verses 1 through 3 being set at the beginning of the New Earth, long before the final age draws to an end. Now, some people do 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 it a chapter later as well), but rather that it’s actually talking about what will take place during the thousand-year kingdom of heaven on this earth. The thing 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 these two passages between the time that book was written and 2 Peter was written would be looking for details about this New Earth that 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.” Still, even if Isaiah hadn’t told us that certain people were going to die on the New Earth, the fact that some people will still be mortal (or at least semi-mortal), not to mention the fact that some people will have died a second time in the lake of fire and that their dead bodies will be displayed there for everyone to look upon at that time, also proves that death continues to exist and remain an enemy for at least a certain period of time on the New Earth, because death can’t be considered to have been truly destroyed as long as A) anyone remains dead, and/or B) anyone is still in a state of slowly dying (as mortals are), or is even capable of dying (as semi-mortals still are until they’re quickened), meaning death won’t actually be destroyed until “the end” group of “every man in his own order” of groups is finally “made alive” and there aren’t any humans left who are not yet immortal (and remember, immortality for humans is always connected with salvation in Scripture, thus proving once again that everyone has to eventually experience the sort of salvation that Paul primarily taught about).

Of course, some Christians instead assume the references to death in these verses are talking about the mythical “spiritual death” that most Christians believe in (and which some of them mistakenly assume the death in verse 22 is talking about as well, although if it was, then Jesus definitely couldn’t be included in the “firstfruits” reference, unless you believe He also “died spiritually,” whatever that means, “in Adam”; although, if He did, He would have then only been “made alive” spiritually “in Himself” as well, and wouldn’t have been physically resurrected), but if this part of the chapter is just talking about a so-called “spiritual death” rather than physical mortality, and is only talking about certain people being given some sort of “spiritual life” (or “going to heaven” after they die, which we now know isn’t even a scriptural concept, since only the living can enjoy life in outer space, as we learned is what going to heaven means in an earlier article in this series), the same problem that applies to those who think the destruction of death is simply referring to the salvation of “they that are Christ’s at His coming” would have to apply here as well, because the end of “death” doesn’t occur until after both “they that are Christ’s at His coming” are saved and all the rest of Christ’s enemies have been subjected as well, since it’s the final enemy to be defeated. (Although, if there were such a thing as “spiritual death,” this would mean that eventually everyone else will also become “spiritually alive” when Christ subjects His enemies and destroys death, since if “death” in this chapter was simply a reference to the so-called “spiritual death” so many believe in, there couldn’t be any “spiritual death” left once Christ destroys it, long after “they that are Christ’s at His coming” have been “made alive,” which means that everyone left who is still “spiritually dead” at that time will become “spiritually alive” when death is destroyed as well, especially based on the fact that verse 22 is a parallelism.)

So, unless someone has a better explanation of what these verses are referring to (one which doesn’t contradict the rest of Scripture, and so far one hasn’t been forthcoming when I’ve asked), it would seem that the point of verses 24 through 26 definitely has to be about the final order of people to be “made alive,” meaning the rest of the “all” who die because of Adam who haven’t been “made alive” because of Christ yet (including both those who are currently dead at that time, meaning those whose bodies will have been burned up in the lake of fire at the Great White Throne Judgement, as well as those who happen to die on the New Earth prior to the destruction of death, and also including those who are still living, thanks to having partaken of the fruit and the leaves of the tree of life to keep from dying, but haven’t been quickened yet, referring to those whose names were written in the book of life but who hadn’t already been quickened previously — with Enoch likely being included among this group, presuming he and other righteous men who existed prior to Abraham weren’t resurrected with Abraham in the second order of quickenings — along with any of their descendants who also have access to the tree, not to mention any other mortal humans who might be living on the New Earth as well but who have not been given access to the tree at that time, of course), finally quickened after the last age is completed and Jesus’ reign over the kingdom comes to an end because He’s placed all enemies (including death) under His feet (which ultimately just means that He’ll no longer have any enemies at that time: in some cases, such as in the case of death, because they’ve been destroyed altogether and no longer even exist, but in other cases because they’ll then be at peace with Him and God, as I’ll soon prove from another letter of Paul’s) and has turned all rulership (including rulership over Himself) over to His Father, and God is finally “All in all” (yes, in all, not just in a lucky few; if Paul had not pointed out that the “all” he was writing about doesn’t include God, people could then turn around and say that “all” doesn’t literally mean “all” because it obviously couldn’t include God, so it could then also exclude people who die as non-believers as well if it doesn’t actually mean “all,” but because Paul does point out that God isn’t included in the “all” but doesn’t mention anyone else as being excluded from the group, we know that everyone other than God is included in the “all,” even those who die as non-believers — and for those who like to argue that “all” in this verse can’t actually mean everyone because of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:6, what I just wrote about “all” including everyone other than God tells us that it has to be referring to all sentient creatures other than God in chapter 15 regardless, although there’s no good reason to assume that the “all” in chapter 12 isn’t talking about everyone anyway, and based on what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty, it almost certainly is).

This all means, by the way, that being “made alive” in verse 22 can’t simply be a reference to joining the body of Christ or the Israel of God or to some other relative form of salvation one experiences at the time one believes one of the Gospels, as some assume, because being “made alive” happens only three times, and in a very specific order (and this is also why Enoch and Elijah can’t have been living in heaven all this time, as I mentioned in a previous article in this series, because, in order to live there, they’d have to have been “made alive” prior to the specific order of three sets of quickenings when that happens to everyone, although also because heaven is meant for the body of Christ, not for the Israel of God — which is the church that Elijah would be a member of — whose destiny is instead the kingdom of heaven).

This also means that people who use passages which tell us Jesus will reign “for ever” in order to prove that “everlasting punishment” will also never end because those passages use the same words too are actually basing their argument on an obvious misunderstanding, since Paul is clear that His reign won’t be never-ending, but rather will only last until He’s defeated the final enemy, and stops reigning after doing so. This also demonstrates just how few people are aware that A) nearly all of the passages that are translated as saying “eternal,” “everlasting,” “for ever,” or “never” in the popular, and less literal, versions of the Bible such as the KJV have to be interpreted qualitatively and figuratively rather than quantitatively and literally, based on this fact, as well as that B) everyone will eventually be quickened/“made alive,” which Paul knew because he saw much farther into the future than John did in the prophecies he recorded in the book generally called Revelation (John basically only saw into the beginning of the New Earth, when death is a much less powerful force than it is now, but still exists, since, at the very least, there will still be people dead in the lake of fire at that time, whereas Paul saw a much later point of time, at the end of the ages, when death is finally destroyed altogether, and nobody can be left dead at all if there isn’t any death left — which there couldn’t be if it’s been destroyed).

And since many Christians often make a similar mistake when they try to insist that, “If ‘eternal damnation’ isn’t actually never-ending, then ‘eternal life’ would have to come to an end as well and we’d eventually die,” or even, “if hell eventually ends, then heaven would have to eventually end too,” I’m forced to point out that they really aren’t thinking things through when they make these assertions, since we’ve already determined from what we learned in Part 3 of this series that these type of words in the KJV generally have to be interpreted qualitatively rather than quantitatively (or figuratively rather than literally), so we have to assume they aren’t talking about how long one lives (or even how long one is punished) so much as about the form or quality of the life and judgements they experience will be (and, in fact, most Christians already interpret this term qualitatively and figuratively anyway, as we learned in Part 4 of this series). Besides, we already know that the current heaven will eventually cease to exist anyway, or else it couldn’t be replaced with by a New Heaven. And so, just because one’s time experiencing “eternal damnation” will come to an end, it doesn’t stand to reason that anyone enjoying “eternal life” in the future will eventually die (or lose their salvation), because it isn’t verses about “eternal life” that promise us lives which never end in the first place, but rather it’s verses about our impending immortality which tell us we’ll never die (at least after our quickening), as I’ve pointed out at various times throughout this series. So, when people are eventually resurrected from their second death in the lake of fire to be “made alive”/quickened (which they’ll have to be in order for it to be able to be said that death has truly been destroyed, since as long as death continues to hold anyone prisoner, death hasn’t actually been defeated or destroyed at all, but rather continues to be an enemy), members of the body of Christ will have reached the end of their “eternal life” (or “eonian/age-pertaining life”) at that time as well, but we’ll still remain alive because we’ll already have been made immortal long before that. Basically, when someone reaches the end of the figurative “for ever” or “everlasting/eternal life,” that particular aspect of their salvation (the special sort of salvation that only a few will ever get to enjoy) will be over, but they’ll still remain alive because they’ll have bodies that can’t die (or, if they’re among those who get to enjoy “everlasting life” in Israel, or perhaps even on the New Earth, but haven’t been made immortal yet, they’ll finally be given immortality, along with everyone else).

But in case anybody somehow is still skeptical about the salvation of all humanity after reading all that, Paul confirmed it beyond any shadow of a doubt when he wrote in 1 Timothy 2:3–6 that Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, which is because God wants all men to be saved. You see, when a ransom is fully paid, all those who are held captive are set free, unless the one paying the ransom has been lied to (and there’s nothing in this passage which qualifies the “all” as referring only to believers, so to insist it only includes them — or to insist that it only refers to “all kinds of men,” as some Calvinists do — is to once again read one’s assumptions into the text, especially in light of the fact that Paul began the chapter talking about all men alive, including all those in authority at the time — unless, perhaps, the only men that God wants to save are kings and those in authority, which is really the only logical way of trying to limit the scope of God’s desire towards human salvation in this passage if it isn’t talking about all humanity, although I trust you can see how ridiculous that interpretation would be — and also said in verse 4 that all mankind is included in those whom God wills to salvation, and there’s nothing in the text to indicate he’d suddenly begun referring only to believers immediately after that, but instead wrote that Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for the same “all” he’d been talking about already, telling his readers that every human who will have ever lived has been ransomed, even though they won’t all experience their salvation at the same time).

To break it down:

1. Anyone Christ “gave Himself a ransom for” will be ransomed.

2. If someone is ransomed as a result of Christ’s death, they will be saved.

3. The “all” that Christ “gave Himself a ransom for” includes all mankind.

4. All mankind will be saved.

Please don’t confuse this as meaning that Christ died in our place, receiving the penalty for our sins so we wouldn’t have to receive said penalty for our sins ourselves, though, as many Christians believe He did (so long as we choose to believe He did so, they’d also claim). Of course, even if the idea that Christ paid the price for our sins in our place was a scriptural concept, it makes no sense that we would have to choose to believe He paid the price for our sins in our place in order for Him to have actually paid the price for our sins in our place (He either did or He didn’t, and our belief couldn’t change the fact either way), because if those who didn’t choose to believe it then had to pay the price themselves, it would mean God was double-charging, which would be quite dishonest of Him (not to mention most unfair to His Son, Who endured beatings and the pain and humiliation of the cross before entering the death state, all in order to be a ransom for all sinners in order to save them, and God isn’t going to shortchange Him of any of the sinners He suffered and died for in order to save, regardless of whether some of them might not have been born wise enough to come to believe He did so prior to their death or His return — and those who don’t believe this good news includes most Christians out there as well, by the way, since they themselves don’t believe that He ransomed “all” humanity through His death for our sins either, which means they haven’t fully understood, and hence can’t be said to have truly believed, Paul’s Gospel, and as such can’t be said to be in the body of Christ).

That said, there’s absolutely nothing written anywhere in Scripture which even implies that Jesus died “in our place,” or that He received the penalty for anyone’s sins “in their place” so they wouldn’t have to pay the price for their sins themselves. However, for those who have never really thought about this, let’s consider what it would mean if He actually did pay a penalty for our sins so that we don’t have to suffer that particular penalty ourselves. If He did, and if ending up in the lake of fire without being able to leave it was the penalty for our sins (whether consciously or otherwise), it would mean that Jesus would have to still be burning in the lake of fire (experiencing the specific punishment we deserve is what paying the penalty “in our place” means, after all). But since He never even set foot in the lake of fire to begin with (He couldn’t have, since it hasn’t even begun burning in the Valley of Hinnom yet, at least not as of the time this book was written, and He wasn’t crucified or buried in that “hell”/valley either), much less remained there for all time (which would have to be the case if that truly was the price to be paid for our sins that He paid), burning without end in the lake of fire obviously wasn’t a punishment He suffered “in our place,” which means it couldn’t possibly be the specific penalty we deserve either, at least not if He did pay the penalty we deserved “in our place.” And if the penalty He supposedly paid “in our place” was simply death instead, nobody who “got saved” would ever actually drop dead, which obviously isn’t the case (and it couldn’t simply be crucifixion that He endured “in our place” either, or else all non-believers would have to eventually be literally crucified as their punishment, but there’s definitely nothing in Scripture which even implies this to be the case). This also means the penalty couldn’t be never-ending “separation from God,” since, if it were, Jesus would also have to be separated from God at this point in time, and for all time, in order to truly “pay the penalty in our place.” And for those who want to suggest that the penalty might be “spiritual death,” whatever that’s supposed to be, it would again have to mean that A) Christ “died spiritually” for us “in our place” rather than died physically on the cross (and I’m assuming nobody actually believes He “died spiritually”), but also that B) nobody can be “spiritually dead” before they die physically if Christ paid that penalty “in our place,” yet most Christians believe we’re already “spiritually dead” prior to salvation, so there’s no way He could have “died spiritually” for us “in our place” so we don’t have to ever “die spiritually” ourselves, because we’re already in this spiritual state before we get saved (or we would be if the common Christian viewpoints of “spiritual death” and that Jesus paid the price in our place were actually true, of course).

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a penalty for our sins, however. In fact, there is, and that penalty is indeed death (specifically to die and remain permanently dead, or at least that seems to be the logical conclusion based on Romans 6:23, on the fact that people are born mortal without first sinning, and on the fact that it can’t refer to suffering in the lake of fire since we now know that no humans can suffer there, so death eventually leading to unending oblivion — even if one might be temporarily resurrected for a judgement before dying again and proceeding on to that permanent death — appears to be the only option remaining for what it is that our sin earns us). It’s just that Jesus didn’t die “in our place” to receive the penalty so we don’t have to, which should be obvious considering the fact that believers continue to drop dead today (and also because He didn’t remain permanently dead, which is a part of the penalty). And while it’s true that the reason we die is simply the mortality we inherited from Adam, the sins we can’t avoid because of that mortality also make us worthy of the death most of us will experience, so any mortal humans who end up sinning (which is all of us, or at least all of us who don’t die before we’re able to sin, although everyone who does die prior to that point will presumably eventually sin as they grow up on the New Earth after they’ve been resurrected) still need to have their sin dealt with.

Because, while God does indeed want all humanity to be saved (as we learned in 1 Timothy 2:4), and even though He could temporarily overlook sin (and in “Old Testament” times He did indeed pass over the penalties of many sins which occurred, especially the sins of those who participated in the sacrificial system under the Mosaic law, presuming they didn’t commit “a sin unto death,” meaning a sin that had a death penalty attached to it under the law), the blood of bulls and goats could not actually take away sins (the death of these animals couldn’t actually remove the penalty of sin, nor could it keep us from sinning again), and so if Christ had not given His life for us — and if God hadn’t known ahead of time that this was going to happen —  it would have actually been unjust of God (Who is indeed a just God, and is one Who judges according to truth) to pass over the penalty of their sins and treat them as if they hadn’t sinned and weren’t deserving of death, even if they did perform the required sacrifices under the law (and it would be equally unjust of Him to simply forgive us today without what Christ did as well).

Thankfully, Jesus always did His Father’s will (and, as we now know, a part of His Father’s will is that all men be saved), and so, because He lived a completely sinless life and then became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” He was given all power (once again translated from the Greek ἐξουσία, which, as we learned in a previous chapter of this book, simply means “authority”) in heaven and in earth. This means that Christ now has the authority to be Lord of both the dead and the living (and He couldn’t be Lord of the dead if they remained dead, since, as we also now know, the dead aren’t conscious), and He also has the authority to save all of the sinners He died to save from the condemnation which our sins made us deserving of. To put it simply, because of His obedience, Christ became more deserving of the authority to save us sinners than we sinners remained deserving of remaining permanently in the death state, which means that God is now able to righteously forgive sins at any time (without our consent, even, if He wants to do so) because His doing so is in accord with what Christ deserves due to His obedience. And since Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:15 that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” and not that Christ Jesus came into the world to save only those few sinners who happened to be wise enough to decide to let Him save them, every sinner (and this would have to include Eve, because she was a sinner too, even if she wasn’t included in that parallelism in 1 Corinthians 15:22) will ultimately end up saved in the end because it’s what Christ Jesus came to do and also deserves. (And I should probably also point out that the condemnation we deserve for our sins is not the same condemnation that we experience because of Adam’s sin, since that was simply condemnation to mortality leading to death, which in turn condemned us to give in to sin, whereas it’s that sin we give in to thanks to our mortality which is what makes us deserve to eventually be condemned to die and remain dead permanently — which means we could also say that we’ve been condemned to be condemned to be condemned, with Christ dying in order to save us from all of those forms of condemnation, along with other forms of condemnation that I don’t have the time to get into the details of right now as well, at least in the case of some people.)

To break this all down:

1. All humans have sinned and, as such, are all deserving of permanent death.
2. Because God is love, He wills that all humanity be saved from this penalty.
3. It would be unjust of God to use His own authority to save those who are deserving of death by quickening them, or even by keeping them alive in a semi-mortal state, simply because He desires to do so (since doing so wouldn’t be in accord with the truth that they’re deserving of permanent death).
4. Because of His obedience “unto death, even the death of the cross,” however, Christ became worthy of the authority that was required to carry out God’s will that all humanity be saved (which He received when he was resurrected by God).
5. Since Christ wills to do the will of his Father — and, as such, is going to use His God-given authority to save all sinners from death as His Father wills (starting with believers, of course) — the eventual salvation (and thus the justification) of all humanity was guaranteed by Christ’s obedience unto death.

So, while He didn’t die “in our place,” or pay the penalty “in our place” (since most of us still die, and since He didn’t remain dead), Christ did die in order that the penalty could be justly set aside at whatever point God decides to do so for each of us (although “every man in his own order”), at which time each of us will be resurrected (if we’ve died), be justified, and be made free from even being able to die ever again (be made immortal, in other words).

That’s not all, though. Because He died for our sins, He not only condemned sin (not us — sin itself) in the flesh, but His death also put away sin, removing sin from the equation for all humanity altogether, even if perhaps only proleptically for the time being (thus making Him the antitype of the goat in the wilderness in the Mosaic law, among other things), and if sin has been put away, in some ways it can be said that it’s ultimately no longer something anyone needs to worry about at all (and in the long run, humanity as a whole definitely doesn’t have to worry about it). You see, when He went down into the tomb, it can be said that He brought sin down into the earth with Him, and when He was resurrected three days later, He returned without that sin, and so sin is no longer being held against anyone anymore (at least from an absolute perspective, even if not, perhaps, from a relative perspective), regardless of whether they believe it or not, because Christ died for our sins, which is yet more proof that everyone will experience salvation in the end, when they’re eventually made immortal and incapable of sinning any longer (although those relative few who “come unto the knowledge of the truth” now, meaning those who understand and believe what it means that Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again on the third day, get to enjoy a special form of salvation on top of the type of salvation that everyone will experience: including freedom from religion — because they know there’s nothing they have to do, or even that they could do, in order to receive the benefits of what Christ did for us, since they’re aware that having to do any act at all would be a work performed in order to earn that gift, even if that act was simply having to choose to receive the free gift that Christ already guaranteed for all of us — and also getting to experience that salvation before the rest of humanity does too, being quickened long before the majority of humanity will be, among other benefits once we’re in heaven as well).

The above all definitively proves the salvation of all, but that’s not the only biblical proof, because Paul also wrote (in Ephesians 1:13-14):“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” How does that prove the salvation of all? Well, if you read it in the context of the whole chapter, and are also familiar with the different types of salvation mentioned in Scripture, you’ll notice that this section of the chapter (verses 3 through 14) is primarily about the blessings that God has purposed beforehand to literally lavish upon those (“hath abounded toward us”) whom He chose to become members of the body of Christ. Simply put, this section of the chapter is all about how God has predestined certain people to experience certain blessings in Christ, blessings which not everyone will experience. This isn’t Calvinism, however, since experiencing the blessings mentioned in this chapter aren’t about the general salvation that everyone receives. It’s only those who are experiencing the special “eternal life” form of salvation Paul taught about that he was writing to in this passage, specifically the body of Christ.

And so when Paul wrote, “after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” he was saying that his readers had heard the word of truth, and, in what is essentially a parenthetical, explained what that word of truth they heard was: the good news (“gospel”) of their salvation. To put it simply, Paul wrote here that the good news they had heard was the good news of their already guaranteed salvation — meaning the general salvation that all humanity has been guaranteed — not the good news of how they could have salvation if only they did something specific (note that he didn’t write, “after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your potential salvation, although only if you actually believed that gospel,” but rather that they had heard the good news about the salvation which was already theirs — since it was already everyone’s, even if perhaps just proleptically at present, thanks to Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection — after which they trusted that this good news about their already guaranteed salvation was indeed true). The point here is that, because there is no included proposition in the text connected with the salvation they heard about, the good news they heard was a proclamation that they were already guaranteed salvation prior to hearing about it (as the outcome of Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection, meaning as the outcome of the facts proclaimed in Paul’s Gospel). Simply put, Paul couldn’t tell them the good news of their salvation if it wasn’t already their salvation (at least from a proleptic, or perhaps absolute, perspective).

Of course, most people read this verse and assume that either the first part of the verse (“In whom ye also trusted”) or the last part of the verse (“in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”) actually is a proposition about their salvation, and that their salvation wasn’t guaranteed until after they actually believed the supposed good news about how they could attain said salvation. But this is a misunderstanding due to not being aware of what the different types of salvation mentioned in Scripture are all about. All the first part of the verse is telling us is that they trusted Christ after they heard the good news of their already guaranteed general, absolute form of salvation which He’d already won for all of us (including them), and all the last part of the verse is telling us is that, after they trusted that Christ had already guaranteed that form of salvation for all of us because of what He accomplished through His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection, even before they believed it, they were then sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which means they were also given a special, relative form of salvation (“an earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession”) which doesn’t apply to all humanity the way the salvation that Christ guaranteed for all of humanity does, since not everyone is sealed by the Holy Spirit. All that is to say, Paul’s little parenthetical in Ephesians 1:13 is simply telling us that “the good news of [their and everyone’s general] salvation” was already “as good as done” for them (and for everyone) before they heard it, and after they heard about the salvation that was already guaranteed for them (because it’s guaranteed for everyone), they trusted Christ and were sealed with the Holy Spirit, and hence were also promised the special “eternal life” form of salvation which only members of the body of Christ get to enjoy (and were then awaiting that salvation guaranteed for everyone, meaning the quickening of their mortal bodies, referred to here as “the redemption of the purchased possession,” which they’ll receive when Christ comes for His body, and which everyone else will also eventually receive, although “every man in his own order,” as we already discussed). Basically, just as it is with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, this passage talks about both forms of salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel, and just as it is when it comes to that passage, if one isn’t aware of this fact, they’ll horribly misinterpret Ephesians 1:13-14 too.

But even clearer than that example, Paul also wrote that God is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” in 1 Timothy 4:10, and honestly, it doesn’t get any more clear than this, with Paul telling us that God will save absolutely everyone, even if those who believe this good news will get to experience a special level of salvation on top of that (as already discussed, including freedom from religion, as well as an earlier experience of immortality than everyone else, among other things). Every Christian out there knows the definition of the word “especially” (or “specially,” which the KJV uses here, and which ultimately also means “particularly,” not “exclusively,” and which happens to be the origin of the term “special form of salvation” that I’ve been using throughout this series), yet somehow most of them seem to forget what it means when they get to this verse. But their apparent selective memory aside, they’d still recognize that if a teacher said, “I’ve given everyone a passing grade this year, especially Lydia who got an A+,” the teacher would have meant that, while nobody else got an A+, they still all passed, since these Christians actually do know that “especially” (and even “specially”) doesn’t mean “specifically” or “only,” even if they need to pretend to themselves that it does when considering what Paul had to say here.

Likewise, if someone wrote, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith,” the way Paul did in Galatians 6:10, they’d know that they should focus most of their positive efforts on believers (“them who are of the household of faith,” the very same people Paul was referring to when he wrote, “specially of those that believe,” in 1 Timothy 4:10), but that they should still try to do good unto everyone else (the very same “all men” that Paul said God was the Saviour of) as well, and not that we should do good only unto believers (and for those who might be wondering, yes, the Greek word translated as “especially” in Galatians is indeed the same Greek word translated as “specially” in the KJV in the verse we’ve been looking at in 1 Timothy: μάλιστα/“mal’-is-tah”). In fact, if “specially” did mean “only,” the part of the verse which tells us God is the Saviour of all men would be a lie, because it didn’t say God is “the potential Saviour of all men, but really only of those that believe” (or that God is “the Saviour available for all men, although only actually the Saviour of those that believe”), but instead plainly tells us that He actually is the Saviour of all men, and to be able to legitimately be called the saviour of someone, you have to actually save them at some point, which means that, to be able to truly be called “the Saviour of all men,” God has to actually save all men eventually. Bottom line, if even one human fails to end up experiencing salvation by the end of the ages, Paul would be just as much of a liar as that teacher would turn out to be if any of the students in Lydia’s class received a failing grade after telling them they’d all passed.

And Calvinists who insist that Paul is only claiming “God is the Saviour of all kinds or sorts of men,” or, again, that God only wants “all sorts or kinds of men” to be saved rather than actually “will have all men to be saved,” as Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, A) that’s clearly not what these passages say anyway (the words “kinds” and “sorts” aren’t there in the text), and B) they’re ignoring the second part of the verse where Paul says “specially of believers” (which can’t really follow the phrase “all kinds of men” and make any sense in this case, since “specially” would then be have to be qualifying who the “all kinds of men” are, but the word “specially” simply can’t be used that way, because it means “particularly,” not “exclusively”) rather than “specifically believers,” so they’re just reading their own preconceived doctrinal bias that not everyone will experience salvation into these passages because they have no other choice if they don’t want it to contradict their theological presuppositions, just as non-Calvinist Christians who believe in never-ending punishment do in their own way as well.

All that is to say, this verse (which is yet another example of Paul referring to both the general and special forms of salvation in the same passage) once again verifies that the doctrine of salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel that he taught about throughout his epistles is indeed that every human who is affected by the curse and locked up in unbelief — not to mention in vanity (neither of which we’ve been locked up in because of any choice we made, but rather, from a relative perspective, because of a choice Adam made, and, from an absolute perspective, because God Himself chose to lock everyone up in that manner so we could eventually also be shown mercy and be delivered from the bondage of corruption, since, as we already discussed in a previous article in this series, if we’d never experienced evil we couldn’t have truly appreciated the contrasting goodness, and if we’d never experienced sin and death, we could never experience, and hence never truly appreciate, grace; immortality might not mean as much to us either, without having first experienced mortality, I should add) — will also be equally (actually, even more so) affected by the cross and made immortal, even if it doesn’t happen to everyone at the same time (with believers getting that special, earlier experience of salvation they’ve been promised, as well as potentially getting to rule and reign with Christ in the heavens during the impending ages, or perhaps getting to rule over the earth from Israel — depending on which sort of salvation they’re experiencing — figuratively referred to as “everlasting life,” or as “life eternal,” in the KJV and other less literal Bible versions).

In fact, the verses (Romans 8:18–23) around the passage which tells us that all creation (referred to in the KJV as “the creature”) has been locked up in vanity also tells us quite definitively that all humanity will indeed be saved: “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Notice that Paul said “the creature” (meaning creation, referring to all human beings — if not all biological beings who can look forward to things — and not just those who are in the body of Christ) has the earnest expectation of “the manifestation of the sons of God” (referring to our appearing with Christ when He returns), because “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” and they wouldn’t be looking forward to our appearing if they weren’t going to benefit from it, which we know they will, since Paul wrote there that they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption and will become “children of God” (not to be confused with those of us who are “the sons of God,” which is a much more esteemed position — referring to our position as joint-heirs with Christ — although we are still technically “children of God” as well, even as “sons of God” — and yes, women who join the body of Christ are included in the “sons of God” label too, just as all women are in the “all men” reference in 1 Timothy 4, which just means “all humans”). In addition, verse 23 says that it’s “not only they, but ourselves also,” which means “they” (those who aren’t in the body of Christ) and “ourselves also” (those who are in the body of Christ, referring to those “which have the firstfruits of the Spirit” — telling us that there will be others after those in the body of Christ who will also have the Spirit, based on the meaning of “firstfruits”) will all enjoy “the redemption of our body” (our quickening, in other words, which is salvation; although “every man in his own order,” of course).

However, as I’m sure you expected, I have to once again ask my usual question: If Paul was trying to explain that God indeed will save everyone eventually, but that He’ll also give believers a special salvation on top of that in the meantime, I’d like you to tell me what he would have needed to have written differently in those passages in his first epistle to Timothy and in Romans 8 in order to convince you that this is what he meant.

It’s not just salvation that all humans will experience, though; it’s also reconciliation. And while the salvation that involves being made immortal is technically only experienced by mortal beings such as humans, reconciliation will be experienced by all sentient beings in the universe who require it, as demonstrated by a passage where Paul used a similar sort of parallelism to the ones he used in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, this time in the first chapter of his epistle to the Colossians. In fact, I don’t know how someone can read verses 12 through 20 of that chapter and not end up a believer in the reconciliation of all creatures, although it seems most people somehow miss the fact that Paul is using a type of parallelism known as an Extended Alternation here — likely because they probably aren’t familiar with Paul’s consistent use of parallelisms throughout his epistles to prove the salvation (and reconciliation) of all humanity — to tell us that the same “all” created by Him are also the same “all” that are reconciled to Him by the blood of Christ’s cross, and that this passage tells us that not only are all humans (meaning all the things created in earth, as mentioned in both verses 16 and 20) both created by and reconciled to Him, but all the creatures in heaven/outer space (as also mentioned in both of the same two verses, referring to a list of spiritual beings that overlaps with another list of creatures who are described in Ephesians 6:12 as being the spiritual wickedness in high places) are also both created by and reconciled to Him, and there would be no need to reconcile spiritual beings in heaven who weren’t first alienated, so it can only be the foolish (and sometimes sinful, or even evil) spiritual beings in the heavens who are being reconciled; and if all of them are going to be reconciled, as Paul promises they will be in that passage, we know that all the creatures on the earth will be as well, as he also says they will be in the same passage (and these are the group of beings I mentioned earlier that weren’t a part of the first half of the parallelism in 1 Corinthians 15:22, since they aren’t descendants of Adam and hence aren’t mortal like us humans are because of his action, but can still be reconciled to God because of Christ’s action, just like Eve, even if none of them were technically included in the point being made by that particular parallelism).

It’s important to keep in mind that the words “reconcile” and “reconciliation” refer to the parties on both sides of an estrangement or conflict being at peace with one another, meaning that God is at peace with them and they’re at peace with God when this reconciliation occurs, and this wouldn’t the case if any of them were still being tormented in the lake of fire at that time, which they would have to leave right before Christ destroys death by resurrecting and quickening any dead humans still left in the lake of fire as well (thus proving that “for ever and ever” isn’t meant to be interpreted as literally meaning “without end,” even when it comes to the punishment of the spiritual beings known as the devil, the beast, and the false prophet in the lake of fire, since they’d have to be included in the “all” which are both created by and reconciled to God as well, telling us that it actually means “until the end of the ages,” or “for the duration of the final age or ages,” depending on the context of the passage in question and the plurality of the word αἰών/“ahee-ohn’” in said passage in the original Greek, with “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for the ages of the ages” [or “for the eons of the eons”] being what the part of Revelation 20:10 which talks about the duration of their torment, for example, actually means — think of the word “ever” in the KJV as often being used as metonymy for “age” or “ages,” basically — with “the ages of the ages” referring to the final two impending ages that we’ll get to enjoy before the ages finally come to an end), since Christ’s defeat of all other enemies takes place just prior to the destruction of death (and if there’s a better way to put an end to an enemy than turning that enemy into a willing servant, or even a friend, I don’t know what it would be). This is also proven by the prophecy of Philippians 2:10-11 which tells us, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” because nobody can say Jesus is the Lord and truly mean it apart from the Holy Spirit leading them to do so, which means anyone who does so will possess the Holy Spirit at that time. There’s absolutely no indication in this passage that this declaration will be forced out of them the way most Christians assume it will be, especially since it’s “to the glory of God the Father,” and He’d receive far more glory from a willing confession based on the reconciliation that Paul wrote about than from a coerced concession by an enemy, so the only reason to read the idea of this confession being forced out of still-existing enemies at gunpoint (or whatever sort of threat it takes to get a presumably immortal spiritual being to assent to something they don’t want to assent to) rather than being made by friends and willing subjects who are now at peace with Him in their minds is, once again, preconceived doctrinal bias that not every human will experience salvation and that not every created being who needs it will be truly reconciled to God. But if you’re having trouble with this parallelism, replace the word “all” with the variable x again in both verses 16 and 20 of Colossians 1 — in fact, do it in all the verses from verse 16 to verse 20 — and it should become clear what it means.

The First Man: Adam = Condemnation [to mortality and sinfulness] of all

The Second Man: Christ = Salvation [immortality and sinlessness] of the same all

Therefore as… (Romans 5:18)	Even so…
by the offence of one [not ours]	by the righteousness of one [not ours]
judgement came upon	the free gift came upon
all men	[the same] all men
to condemnation	unto justification of life
For as… (Romans 5:19)	So…
by one man’s disobedience [not ours]	by the obedience of one [not ours]
many were made	shall [the same] many be made
sinners	righteous
For as… (1 Corinthians 15:22)	Even so…
in Adam [meaning because of what Adam did]	in Christ [meaning because of what Christ did]
all die [meaning all are born mortal]	shall all be made alive [meaning the same all will be made immortal/be saved]

For by Him… (Colossians 1:16)	By Him… (Colossians 1:20)
were all things created	to reconcile all things unto himself (having made peace through the blood of his [Christ’s] cross)
that are in heaven, and that are in earth [whether angelic or human]	whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven [whether human or angelic]

Now, some try to argue that verse 21 of Colossians chapter 1 contradicts this conclusion, but that just means they aren’t reading the text very carefully, since A) it really should be obvious that the point Paul was making about the eventual reconciliation of all created beings concludes with the end of verse 20, and B) they somehow miss the fact that when Paul wrote, “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled,” in that verse, he was simply stating that his readers had already experienced reconciliation at the time he wrote the letter. But since we’re not claiming that verses 16 to 20 say everyone has currently been reconciled in their minds yet anyway, the current reconciliation of believers doesn’t preclude the future reconciliation of everyone else he promised would eventually be reconciled as well (in fact, if it did mean that, it would also mean that no humans other than those who first read this epistle some 2,000 years ago could be reconciled after that time, which would mean there’s no hope for you or me either). It’s also important to notice that it’s only in our minds that Paul says the alienation takes place prior to being reconciled, as well as to know that the alienation is entirely one-sided at this point in time, with religious humans (and foolish spiritual beings) mistakenly believing that God is still angry with them because of their wicked works, as it could be said He was from a certain (almost certainly hyperbolic) perspective prior to the crucifixion, not realizing that God is actually already at peace with everyone (in fact, from an absolute perspective, He always has been), and because of what He did through Christ, He isn’t even imputing the trespasses of the world unto them at all — remember, while evil acts will be judged at the Great White Throne, sin won’t be, because sin has already been entirely taken care of by Christ, as we learned in a previous article in this series — but is instead now asking those of us in the body of Christ to beseech the rest of the world to be reconciled to God (or, more strictly speaking, to be conciliated to God, since the Greek word translated as “reconciled” in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 in the KJV is καταλλάσσω/“kat-al-las’-so,” which, like “conciliation,” is much more one-sided than the Greek word ἀποκαταλλάσσω/“ap-ok-at-al-las’-so” — which was also translated as “reconciled,” in Colossians 1:20-21 — is), meaning to be at peace with God in their minds because He’s already at peace with them, and to believe the good news of their already guaranteed salvation because of what Christ did (and it seems we’ll be bringing a similar sort of message of reconciliation to the alienated spiritual beings in the heavens, after Christ takes us up there to be with Him, as well, but that’s a much bigger topic than I have the time to get into here).

Some also attempt to argue that Jesus doesn’t help angels, but only helps the descendants of Abraham, based on a certain type of translation of Hebrews 2:16 which is rendered along those lines (but which is translated in the KJV as: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”), in order to argue that Colossians 1:20 can’t mean spiritual beings will be reconciled to God. But even if theirs was a good translation of the verse, it doesn’t say Jesus will never reconcile angels and other spiritual beings. Just as not every human is reconciled to God in their minds at present, this translation of the verse could also only mean that Jesus isn’t helping angels out at present (which does seem to be true). But since Colossians says they will be reconciled, we know they’ll have to be in the future, and that this verse can’t mean what they’re assuming it means (although, even if we did ignore Colossians, we’d then have to also believe that no Gentiles could be saved as well, since they aren’t descendants of Abraham).

Of course, other Christians will try to argue that, because 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 said, “he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power,” and also that “all enemies” will be put under Christ and will be subdued unto Him (with “put under,” “subdued,” and “subject” in this passage all being translated from different tenses of the exact same Greek word — ὑποτάσσω/“hoop-ot-as’-so”), not to mention that Christ “must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet,” that this must mean these enemies will be punished without end rather be reconciled to God through Christ, and so they’ll insist that Colossians 1:20 can’t include God’s enemies (be they humans or spiritual beings) when it refers to all things being reconciled to Him either. They’re once again reading their assumptions about never-ending punishment into the text, however, as is made clear by the fact that A) the passage in 1 Corinthians just doesn’t say anything about any conscious enemy being punished anyway, much less being punished without end, not to mention the fact that B) Jesus Himself is going to then be put under God and become fully subject to Him as well, and Jesus isn’t going to be punished without end when He’s subjected to God, so we have no reason to believe that any of the rest of the conscious beings falling under the category of “all things” in that passage will be punished without end when they’re subjected either, which once again verifies that God will indeed be All in all(especially since the second “all” in the phrase “all in all” is obviously including the “all enemies” in the same passage). To be clear, many of the beings referred to as enemies — human and otherwise — will be punished, as we know from other passages (although not all enemies will be punished, since even members of the body of Christ were once listed among those enemies, yet we won’t be punished; and if Paul, who was also listed among those enemies, can be reconciled to God, anyone can be), but my point is simply that this passage doesn’t actually mention punishment, much less unending punishment, so one can’t just read their assumptions about never-ending punishment into it simply because they want to.

Now yes, some will then try to argue that, because the same Greek word — καταργέω/“kat-arg-eh’-o” — is translated “put down” when Paul wrote “when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” in verse 24 as is translated “destroyed” in verse 26, “all enemies” must then be destroyed too, but that’s reading yet another assumption into the text, because this “putting down” or “destroying” only refers to concepts (such as the rulership by beings other than Christ and God, as well as mortality/death) being put down or destroyed, and not to actual conscious beings being destroyed (since concepts obviously aren’t going to be included in the “all” that God will become “all” in; only conscious beings would be included in that “all”). So yes, while destruction can be a form of subjection, it isn’t implied by the term, because it isn’t the only form of subjection (since, again, Jesus would then have to also be destroyed when He becomes fully subject to God if that were the case), which means that it has to be outright stated that “destruction” is the form of subjection being applied to a specific being in a specific passage in order for “destruction” to apply to that being, and it definitely isn’t outright stated that any conscious beings will be destroyed in this passage (figuratively or literally), only that certain concepts will be (again, those concepts being rulership by lower beings and mortality/death). Still, others will insist that all enemies being put under His feet — which is a reference to His enemies becoming His “footstool,” as Psalm 110:1 put it — must also mean these enemies will experience never-ending punishment. But once again, we can see that there’s nothing anywhere in this passage, or in any other passages which refer to being under someone’s feet or to being a footstool for that matter, which even hints at the idea that being under His feet or being a footstool means being punished without end. So at the end of the day, rather than disproving it, these verses actually prove the eventual salvation of all humans and the eventual reconciliation of all conscious beings who require it.

And at the risk of sounding repetitive, I have to ask yet again: if Paul was trying to explain that God indeed will reconcile every being He ever created who has been alienated from God, I’d like you to tell me what he would have needed to have written differently in Colossians 1:16-20 in order to convince you that this is indeed what he meant.

In addition, I’d also like to ask you to explain what the basis of your belief that you’ve been saved (or will experience salvation) even is, presuming you believe you’ve been saved. If you can honestly say that you’ve been saved simply because Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, it can be said that you have faith in Christ for your salvation. But if you believe you’ve been saved because you chose to believe that Christ died for your sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, then it can really only be said that you have faith in your faith for your salvation. Because in order for salvation to be based solely on what God and Christ accomplished (meaning based 100% on Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection), rather than based (even if only in part) on what you yourself accomplished (meaning choosing to believe in Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection), everyone has to be saved (at least proleptically; and if something is proleptic in God’s eyes, it’s guaranteed to happen) by what God and Christ accomplished, whether anyone believes it or not, since otherwise it’s your faith that ultimately did the job of saving you, with Christ only accomplishing the first step of your salvation, but not actually completing it Himself.

All that being said, when traditional, “orthodox” Christians insist that not all humanity has been saved, or even that not all humanity will be saved, they are technically correct. However, at the same time, they’re also very wrong. And I hope it’s clear by now how this can be the case, but for anyone who somehow does still view this as a contradiction, please think carefully about everything we’ve covered so far, and also consider this question: If I pointed out that, among a group of four people, they each had a quarter, but that at the same time only one of them had a quarter, and that both statements were equally true, how could this be the case? Well, it’s actually quite simple: All four people had a piece of a pie, each an equal-sized slice of the pie that made up the whole pie when put together, but only one of these people had a 25-cent coin in their pocket. You see, as we learned from Part 1 of this series, the same word can refer to different things, and this applies to both the word “quarter” as well as the word “saved” (not to mention “salvation”). We already know that there are multiple types of salvation, and that not everyone experiences every sort of salvation. Relatively few people will experience the sort of salvation referred to under the Gospel of the Circumcision, for example, not to mention the sort of salvation connected with membership in the body of Christ, which means it shouldn’t be a surprise to hear me agree that not everyone will be saved, as long as one realizes that I’m referring to specific types of salvation which not every human is guaranteed to experience when I say that, and also realizes that everyone will experience at least onetype of salvation by the end of the ages, and, in fact, that everyone has “experienced” a certain type of salvation already too (at least from a certain perspective), whether they realize it or not.

Because everyone has already been saved from both a proleptic and an absolute perspective thanks to what Christ accomplished, since God ultimately views all of us as already experiencing our salvation from a physical perspective (which could also be called an eschatological perspective, referring to the physical experience of salvation which occurs at our resurrection and/or quickening, when the mortal puts on immortality and we can finally enjoy the full salvation that we had all along thanks to Christ), since, being Almighty God, He sees everything, everywhere, all at once from His timeless perspective (and so, perhaps we could even say that all humanity has now been saved from an ontological perspective too, because salvation is not only now a guaranteed part of the human experience thanks to Christ’s death for our sins, but because it really always has been, since that was always a part of God’s plan for Christ and us to begin with). At the same time, though, only believers have been saved from a relative perspective, which could also be referred to as salvation from a noological perspective, with this sort of salvation being freedom from the power of sin by being given knowledge of the good news of our ontological salvation and truly believing it: faith, in other words (“noological” meaning “relating to the mind,” etymologically originating from the Greek word νοῦς/“nooce,” which itself is translated as “mind” and as “understanding” in the KJV). Because when someone comes to realize that God is already at peace with us, and that there’s nothing we have to do to earn the salvation that Christ already earned for us, they’re then freed from the power of sin, which is the law or religion, and one can say that they’ve been saved “noologically,” and have also been brought into membership in the body of Christ. This means it can be said that we’ve been saved, we’re being saved, and we will be saved, all at the same time, as long as we remember that there’s nothing we ourselves have to do (or even that we could do) to gain any of these salvations (although it is also true that members of the Israel of God do participate in their specific form of salvation, something I refer to as circumcision, or Israelite, salvation, which they’ll experience in the kingdom of heaven when it begins on earth in the future, and which is another equally legitimate form of salvation, as long as one doesn’t try to combine their Gospel with the Gospel I’ve been focusing on in this article, which is, of course, Paul’s Gospel; Paul says they shouldn’t try to switch between the two of them either, but rather that they should stick with the one they’re called to).

Now, those aren’t all the arguments for the salvation (and reconciliation) of all humanity. There are many more, but those should be enough to make it clear that the only way to avoid the conclusion that everyone will eventually experience both salvation and reconciliation is to insert words into Paul’s epistles that aren’t there, to redefine certain words into meaning something other than what the writers meant by them, or even to change (or simply ignore) the order of the words in some verses. But there’s just no justification for doing so, especially when we consider the fact that there’s no basis for believing in never-ending conscious torment in the lake of fire — or even in an afterlife realm while dead — as we’ve already learned. However, I know that there are still a number of common objections to the idea that everyone will eventually experience salvation which you’ve no doubt heard, or perhaps even raised yourself at some point, as well as a number of so-called “proof texts” in the Bible which you’ve no doubt been taught support the traditional doctrine of never-ending punishment in the lake of fire; and while it should be pretty clear by now to those who have been paying attention to everything we’ve covered that, when you take everything Paul wrote about salvation — as well as the differences between the various types of salvation mentioned in Scripture, not to mention the figurative meaning of certain English words related to long periods of time — into consideration, none of these arguments or supposed “proof texts” can actually support the popular assumptions most of us grew up with when it comes to this topic, we should still take a look at them regardless, so you can know how to answer them whenever they’re used to try to argue against what Scripture actually says about salvation, beginning with the objections, then moving on to the “proof texts,” and we’ll do just that in the remaining articles in this series.

Part 13: Objections answered

This is part 11 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 10 is available here: The impossibility of “free will”

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.

---

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. — John 3:1–7

Modern-day evangelicals are obsessed with this passage, insisting that everyone has to choose to be “born again” if they want to experience salvation. Unfortunately, just like Nicodemus, they have absolutely no idea what Jesus meant by the term. To get the obvious out of the way first, nobody can choose to be born a first time, and this second birth is no different since it happens to those who “received him [Jesus]” and were “given power to become the sons of God” not “of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” so it’s obviously not something any individual can choose to experience out of the strength of their own will power, but is instead something that is ultimately decided for them by God (demonstrating that, when the Bible says one receives something, it isn’t necessarily based on a choice we make ourselves, as so many Christians assume it must be).

But equally important to know, unless you’re an Israelite, you can’t be “born” a second time, because you haven’t been “born” a first time, at least not when it comes to the sort of “birth” that Jesus was talking about there. Remember, as we learned in Part 1 of this series, Jesus wasn’t talking about the same sort of salvation Paul primarily wrote about (in fact, throughout Paul’s epistles, he never even once spoke about a new birth; instead, he taught about a whole new creation altogether — or “a new creature,” as the KJV puts it — which is even better than being “born” a second time), but was referring to getting to live in the part of the kingdom of God that will exist for 1,000 years in Israel (and if you don’t agree with that statement and haven’t read it yet, go read Part 1 of this series, because I proved it there), so from that fact alone it should be obvious that this statement is only relevant to Israelites and not to Gentiles. But to make this even more clear, Jesus’ question (“Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”) in response to Nicodemus thinking that any of this was about biological childbirth tells us that this Pharisee should have already known exactly what Jesus was talking about based on the Scripture available to him at the time. This tells us that we have to look to the Hebrew Scriptures to determine exactly what Jesus meant (and we know there’s nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about “asking Jesus into your heart,” as most evangelicals explain being “born again” as meaning when they share their “gospel,” or really anything else they use to try to explain the meaning of being “born again” either, for that matter).

So what was it in the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus was referring to here? Well, Jesus was talking about a nation that was figuratively said to have been “born” a first time by Moses in Exodus 4:22 when he said, “Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn” (along with similar statements he made in Numbers 11:12 and in Deuteronomy 32:18). That would be the first “birth” of those whom Jesus was referring to in this passage, telling us that it only applies to the nation of Israel. As for the second birth, this also has to be something spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures if Nicodemus should have known this already as “a master of Israel,” so we have to look to passages that refer to Israel being born another time, and this would be Isaiah 66:8 which asks, “shall a nation be born at once?”, prophetically referring to something that will happen to the nation of Israel in the future. Simply put, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about Israelites fully experiencing their New Covenant (which never applied to Gentiles, since we didn’t have an old covenant to be replaced with by a new one to begin with) and the rebirth of the favoured nation of God when they’re returned to their land completely and are finally able to walk in God’s statutes properly, meaning they’ll finally keep the Mosaic law perfectly, because they’ll have been sprinkled with “clean water” and will have the law written on their new hearts (and this is why Jesus said they need to be born not just of the Spirit, but also of water, to let Nicodemus know that He was referring to that prophecy in Ezekiel 36, and Nicodemus would have also known that this prophecy was connected with the prophecy about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31), which we know — thanks to the Greek Scriptures — will all take place around the time of the end of the Tribulation, when Jesus returns and the thousand-year kingdom begins.

This is also why Jesus specifically said, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Unfortunately, people who aren’t using the King James Version are unlikely to be aware of this, because most other Bible versions don’t use the precise grammar in their translations of that passage the way the KJV does (and even many people who do use the KJV won’t realize it, since few today know about 17th-century grammar), but “ye” is a plural word in the KJV, which means Jesus was simply saying: “Marvel not that I said unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye [the nation of Israel] must be born again.”

Now, it is true that Jesus said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and combined with the fact that they make the same mistake Nicodemus made in assuming the first “birth” was biological (which is what led him to ask his question about entering “the second time into his mother’s womb”), this has led evangelicals to assume that individual Gentiles today have to choose to be “born again” or they won’t be able to go to heaven, but we already know that going to heaven is only for the body of Christ, so this can only be referring to getting to live in the part of the kingdom of God that will exist on earth for 1,000 years rather than in the part of the kingdom of God that will be in heaven. Simply put, Jesus was just referring to the specific Israelites God chose to be a part of Israel’s second birth when it occurs (since Jesus didn’t specify that He was referring to or including the nations in this statement the way He did in Matthew 25:32, and because we know that His teachings were pretty much only relevant to Israelites — not to mention the fact that Gentiles weren’t “born” a first time in the manner that Jesus was referring to there, so there’s no way they could be “born” a second time as well — it should be pretty obvious that His statement should be understood as meaning: “Except a [Jewish] man be born again…”), including a few who can perhaps be said to have (at least proleptically, if not literally) experienced the second birth earlier than the rest, such as those Peter wrote to in his first epistle (where he called back to prophecies about this from Exodus 19:6 and from Psalm 22:30–31). And even then, we know that an Israelite only needs to be “born again” to “see the kingdom of God” during the first thousand years of its existence on earth, since the Mosaic law (and hence the New Covenant) will be irrelevant after those thousand years have been completed, after heaven and earth have passed away, which means the “born again” figure of speech will no longer be relevant either. This tells us that Israelites who missed out on getting to enjoy life for 1,000 years in the kingdom of God on this earth will finally have an opportunity to enter the kingdom of God on the New Earth (when it will be centred within the New Jerusalem). Some will try to argue that Jesus’ “except a man” statement means this has to apply to all humans, of course, but they’re ignoring the context and audience of the passage (Israelites). This is just like Paul’s “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” statement to his audience (the body of Christ), which is only referring to the part of the kingdom of God that will be in outer space (as we learned in Part 7), because we know that flesh and blood will inherit the part of the kingdom of God that’s going to exist on earth during the thousand years (as we also learned in Part 1, not everybody who gets to live in the kingdom will have been quickened — meaning made immortal — at that time, since only those resurrected from the dead when Jesus returns will have their mortal bodies quickened, while those who endured to the end of the Tribulation will instead continue on in mortal bodies, at least at first, so they can continue marrying and procreating as the Bible says will happen at that time), as well as on the New Earth (at least until the end of the ages), and there’s no reason the word “man” and “kingdom of God” can’t be just as context-defined here as “flesh and blood” and “kingdom of God” are in that passage.

And just as a quick but somewhat related aside, I should point out that Nicodemus and Jesus were likely speaking either Hebrew or Aramaic rather than Greek when they had this conversation, and that it would have then been translated into Greek from whichever language they were speaking when their discussion was recorded in the book of John. I bring this up because the Greek adverb ἄνωθεν/“an’-o-then” that the English “again” part of “born again” was translated from in the KJV can legitimately be — and, honestly, is even more commonly — translated in English as “from above” (although not always), and some Christians believe this means that Jesus actually said “born from above” rather than “born again.” However, I don’t believe that anybody at all could ever hear “born from above” and possibly somehow think the speaker was literally talking about a second biological birth the way that Nicodemus thought Jesus’ statement was referring to, even as a misunderstanding of what the speaker was saying, whereas someone who hears “born again” could be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that’s what the speaker meant. Nicodemus’ use of whichever word was translated into Greek with the adjective δεύτερον/“dyoo’-ter-on” — literally meaning “the second time” — seems to tell us that the context of the term he was responding to was “second,” or “again,” anyway, so I maintain that “born again” is indeed the only English translation that makes sense, unless, perhaps, the writer of the book of John specifically used ἄνωθεν as a double entendre in his Greek translation, since the second birth of Israel would indeed be sent “from above” rather than generated by themselves. But either way, the original statement Jesus made in whichever language they were speaking was almost certainly “born again” and not “born from above.”

So no, unless you’re a member of the Israel of God, you haven’t been “born again,” and neither can you be (since you weren’t “born” a first time in the manner Jesus was speaking about), nor do you need to be, since the salvation of those in the body of Christ won’t be enjoyed in the same part of the kingdom of God that Israel is looking forward to living in when it begins in earnest on the earth, and keeping the New Covenant in the way that being born again refers to is entirely irrelevant to us anyway, because we’re not going to follow the Mosaic law perfectly in outer space (since we’re not under law to begin with) the way Jeremiah said those in the house of Israel and the house of Judah will when the New Covenant comes fully into effect.

I realize that evangelicals and other Christians have various ideas about what it means to be “born again,” but if their ideas can’t be shown to be laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures, they have no basis for the claims, because otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have criticized Nicodemus for not knowing what He meant by the term. And I’m sure you’ve heard “testimonies” by certain Christians about how they were “born again” and became a whole new person, walking away from a life they considered to be sinful, thanks to God changing them when they “got saved” (and, in some cases, it’s true that they were leading particularly sinful lives, although it’s also true that most Christians misunderstand even more of the Bible than just the topics we’ve been discussing, and misinterpret large parts of it to be teaching that many things are sinful which actually aren’t sinful at all, but that’s a discussion for another chapter). And yes, God was indeed behind the change, at least from an absolute perspective, because God is behind absolutely everything that happens (since all is of God). But from a relative perspective, their changed lifestyles had nothing to do with being “born again” at all, since we know from what we just covered that being “born again” is only for the Israel of God (and that’s not to say the lives of Israelites who are “born again” won’t change drastically, but that’s because they’ll finally be able to keep the Mosaic law perfectly when it happens, which isn’t something Gentiles are meant to keep, and members of the body of Christ certainly aren’t, whether they’re Jewish or Gentile, which is another clue that being “born again” isn’t for us).

So when you hear a Christian’s “testimony” about how getting “born again” changed them, and are tempted to think it means you should remain a member of (or return to) the Christian religion (or to join it, if you’ve never been a member), remember that many people who have hit rock bottom have realized how destructive their lifestyles were and dramatically changed their lives for the better without becoming Christians at all (and that people who join other religions have similar “conversion experiences” to the ones Christians talk about as well), so joining this religion isn’t proof of anything other than that they decided something in their life needed to change. And if “fruit” is evidence of having believed the truth, just remember all the negative “fruit” of all those Christians you’ve met throughout your life (and even those who might seem to be living better lives now in some ways than they were before they converted all have “secret sins” they hide from the rest of us, so remember that you’re only seeing the “fruit” they’ve made public). As nearly everybody who hasn’t been blinded by the “light” of the leaders of the Christian religion knows, the fruit of Christianity is anything but good, so don’t be tempted to return to it if you’ve already been saved from it, or to give it a try if you’ve been blessed enough to never have been imprisoned by it (and if you’re still a member, get out as quickly as you can). Those of us who have escaped the Christian religion (as well as many of those who were wise or blessed enough to never join it) know very well that, while nearly everything Christians think is sinful actually isn’t, almost all of the actions and attitudes that they live by are extremely wrong (and often quite evil, all the while calling their actions and teachings both righteous and good). As nearly everyone who looks in at it from the outside can see, greed, fear, paranoia, hunger for power, peer pressure, envy, hypocrisy, arrogance, prejudice, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, malice, spite, and all manner of other actual sins are the hallmarks of the Christian religion, but most Christians within the religion somehow just can’t see what is plainly evident to the rest of us. That said, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, so even Christians can technically experience God’s grace (and eventually all of them will, of course). But as far as those who don’t embrace His grace go, I really wouldn’t want to be a religious leader or Christian “evangelist” at the final judgement, and those who willingly follow these leaders are in for a world of sorrow at that time as well (yes, it’s likely that most Christians will actually end up at the Great White Throne Judgement due to their believing a false “gospel”). If the citizens of the cities that rejected Jesus’ disciples are going to be judged more harshly than those of Sodom because they had the light revealed to them, how much more severely are those in Christendom who have the completed Scriptures going to be judged for ignoring, and even rejecting, the truths found therein, following the myths of their religious leaders instead, because they prefer to have their self-righteous ears scratched? (And for anyone who is wondering, yes, members of the body of Christ might have been called Christians at one time, and while this label does seem like it might have been used by members of the Israel of God in the past, there’s no indication that any believers in the body of Christ used it for themselves, but rather it appears to be a pejorative applied to them by others outside the body, and as such, most of us avoid the label — so as to not be confused with those in the religion that uses the label today, which some of us suspect began with people such as Phygellus and Hermogenes and others who turned away from Paul creating the adulterated “gospel” of the Christian religion by merging parts of each of the two legitimate Gospels into one — and simply call ourselves members of the body of Christ, or sometimes just “believers” or “‘Concordant’ believers.”)

Still, there is a possibility that a small number of people today (and throughout the last two millennia) do have a legitimate “born again” experience, similar to those who were members of the Israel of God during Peter’s lifetime. I’ve spoken with some who are not necessarily “orthodox” Christians, but who seem to have had some miraculous experiences and signs connected with coming to believe what John 20:31 (and Romans 10:9-10, which is also connected with Israel’s salvation rather than the salvation of the body of Christ, as we’ll learn in an upcoming part of this series) says, so it’s possible that they have Israelite ancestry that they aren’t even necessarily aware of themselves, and that they’re a part of a remnant of the Israel of God awaiting the kingdom, which I do personally believe has existed since the first century. But even if so, the vast majority of Christians do not fall into this small group, presuming I’m correct that it does exist, since most of them believe that Jesus is God the Son rather than the Son of God (as we learned in Part 6 of this series), and aren’t following the Mosaic law in the way that they’re supposed to be doing so.

Part 12: In Christ shall all be made alive

This is part 10 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 9 is available here: God is still on Plan A

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.

---

As we learned in the last two articles, all is of God. However, as most of us know, the idea that God planned everything makes many people extremely uncomfortable for another reason on top of the reasons we discussed in those articles, which is that they really dislike the idea of predestination in general, since they just don’t like the idea that we humans aren’t ultimately responsible for our own actions. And so, in order to try to deny the biblical concept of predestination, they like to say things along the lines of, “God doesn’t want robots,” and claim that God gave us something called “free will.” These people don’t understand that, aside from being entirely unscriptural, “free will” is a complete impossibility from a purely logical and scientific perspective as well, and that it can’t actually exist in reality at all.

You see, while everyone agrees that we can make voluntary choices, most people who teach the importance of “free will” also believe that the choices we make can’t be predetermined ahead of time in any way. In fact, most people simply assume that the existence of our ability to make choices proves that we must have “free will,” because they conflate that ability to make choices with “free will,” but this isn’t what the term “free will” means at all. The reason so many people make this mistake is because relatively few people have ever taken the time to try to figure out what the term actually means (not to mention why we make the choices we do). But those who have taken the time to determine the meaning of the term have concluded that it has to mean “a choice which is independent of any cause” rather than simply “a choice.” This is because they realize A) that a choice is simply the act of selecting between two or more existing options (regardless of whether the selection that’s made was predetermined or not), which means that the ability to make choices simply can’t be the definition of “free will” in and of itself, and B) that if a choice one makes has any cause at all, it means the choice was predetermined by that cause, since that’s what it means to be subject to causality — and hence determinism — meaning the law of cause and effect. And so, because they don’t like the concepts of either predestination or natural determinism, they insist (without any actual proof) that we must have the ability to make choices which are independent of any cause (and they give this ability the label of “free will”). This assertion of theirs ignores reality entirely, however, because even if our choices weren’t predestined by influences outside the sphere of the physical universe (such as by God Himself), every choice we make would then still have to be predetermined by our nurture and/or nature (meaning our life experiences and/or genetics). You see, while it might even feel to some people like our choices are independent of any cause, if a choice truly was (or even could be) uncaused, it would mean the choice one made was actually completely random (which I doubt any Christian would think is better than being predetermined). The bottom line is that, because an event (even an event such as making a selection between two or more available options) has to either have a cause or not have a cause, there’s no way for any event (and hence no way for any choice we make) to be anything other than caused or uncaused (meaning anything other than predetermined or random), or at least nobody has ever been able to provide a third option that works within the limits of reality and logic (although, if you disagree, please let me know what that third option is), which is why “free will” is actually an entirely meaningless term altogether, in that it’s a word used to refer to something that can’t actually even exist, unless perhaps one is simply using it as a synonym for “random chance” (although I personally don’t even believe in the existence of true “randomness,” because I believe that even when it comes to our lack of ability to predict certain things when it comes to quantum mechanics — such as how long it will take for a single unstable atom placed in a controlled environment to decay, for example, which is something we can’t predict under those circumstances, but can instead only determine the probability of it occurring within a given time — that God is ultimately still behind even those seemingly random events).

And yes, I am aware that the term “freewill offering” is used in many Bible translations, including the KJV, but this “freewill offering” isn’t the same thing as the so-called “free will” choices we’ve been discussing here. “Free will” (with a space between the two words), as we’ve already discussed, refers to a choice supposedly being made without being subject to causality, while the Hebrew term נְדָבָה/“ned-aw-baw’” that “freewill offering” is translated from in the Bible simply refers to a voluntary offering which wasn’t required by God (as opposed to the types of offerings which were required, or commanded to be given, by God), as we can see from the fact that the same word is also translated as “voluntary offering,” among other things, in various other parts of the KJV. Now, we’ve already determined that any choice one voluntarily makes can only be caused or uncaused (meaning either predetermined or random), which means that the term “freewill” in the Bible simply can’t have any connection to a supposed “free will” choice (if such a thing could even exist in the first place) unless you believe the performing of the required sacrifices and offerings actually was predestined by God to be performed by those who chose to do so, meaning they had no ability to choose of their own supposed “free will” to not perform those particular sacrifices and offerings. Basically, it seems that the translators of the KJV just wanted a synonym for “voluntary” so as to not keep using the same word over and over again, and landed on “freewill,” but the term “freewill” should never be conflated with the nonexistent “free will.”

And so, even though these facts prove that the idea of “free will” is not only an unbiblical term (and again, that it should not be confused with what the KJV refers to as “freewill,” which is something else altogether), but that the idea really makes no logical sense to begin with, some people still try to insist that a predetermined choice can’t actually be a real choice at all, based on the fact that it was predetermined. But as I already mentioned, and as everyone I’ve ever discussed this topic with in the past agreed is the case at the time I brought it up, “making a choice” can indeed be simply defined as the act of selecting between two or more existing options, and this completely refutes the idea that a predetermined choice can’t be an actual choice. I mean, let’s break it down logically. If you were walking down a path and came to a fork in the road in front of you, forcing you to select one of two options — in the sense that you have to decide which of those two paths to walk down if you want to continue moving forward — and you selected one of the two paths and walked down it (regardless of which one you selected), based on the definition of “making a choice” that we just covered (which was “selecting between two or more existing options”), you’d have to agree that an option was indeed selected because you’re now walking down one of the two paths, and hence a choice was indeed made. And so, if I could then somehow convince you that the option you selected was predetermined in some manner ahead of time (perhaps by someone else using some form of mind control to cause you to choose a specific path), you’d have to admit that an option was still selected (based on the fact that you’re now partway down the selected path), which means that, by definition, a choice was still made regardless of why it was made. So even without “free will,” and with predestination (or determinism), choices are still choices. Simply put, choice and determinism (or choice and predestination) are not mutually exclusive, and hence the definition of “free will” can’t simply be “the ability to make a choice.” (Some people also go even further by insisting that love would be impossible without “free will,” but that’s just as ridiculous a claim, since the feeling we call “love” would still be something we felt whether or not we were predetermined to experience that feeling, because we still feel it regardless of the cause; and for those who understand that “love” can also be an action or a choice, whatever loving actions one chooses to perform for those we perform them for would still have taken place regardless of the cause of said action as well — and remember, we’ve already determined that the ability to make a choice is not the definition of “free will,” and this would apply to loving choices as well — so yes, love exists even though “free will” doesn’t.)

When Christians talk about “free will,” however, what they’re almost always really getting at is that they believe the fault for not choosing to believe and/or do the same things as them when it comes to matters of salvation lies entirely with the one making the choice, and that the choice couldn’t possibly have been predetermined in any way whatsoever (and this goes for their views on why one sins in the first place as well, of course). There are other reasons too (such as self-righteousness and pride), but one of the big reasons Christians want to insist that “free will” exists is to make sure that God doesn’t receive any of the blame for a person’s refusal to choose to “get saved,” and to make sure it’s clear that the sinner in question is entirely to blame for whatever negative consequences this might result in (to put it simply, it’s largely because they want to make sure that God is absolved of any responsibility for someone who doesn’t choose to “get saved” ending up suffering without end in the unscriptural version of the lake of fire they tend to believe in; although, as you’ll discover in an upcoming article in the series, our salvation ultimately isn’t even based on any choices we make at all — and honestly, we should be extremely thankful for that fact, based on just how bad the decision-making ability of most humans really is — but you’ll have to wait for Part 12 of the series to learn why I said that).

Since everything has to have a cause, however (because otherwise the thing happening would be uncaused, or random), the questions that really matter when discussing the topic of who deserves the credit or blame for a particular choice are:

1) What is the cause of the choices that people make?

2) Taking into account all the variables that were present at the precise moment a choice was made, could the person making that choice have actually made a choice other than the one they did; and, if so, how, as well as why would they have chosen differently if they could have?

In discussions with Christians on this topic, when asked those very questions, they’ll often deflect by saying things along the lines of, “Nothing causes the choice except for the chooser.” Of course, even if this tautological attempt at a non-answer was in any way meaningful, or was even demonstrably true in and of itself (which it certainly isn’t; it’s really nothing more than a confused and nonsensical assumption with no foundation, but one which they’re forced to believe — pun intended — in order to continue holding on to the idea of “free will”), it tells us absolutely nothing about what really matters, which is why a particular choice is made, and it also ignores the second question altogether (on purpose, I’m fairly certain, even if just on a subconscious level, likely in order to avoid thinking about the topic from this perspective so that they couldn’t possibly end up discovering that they might actually be wrong about it).

But even if we were to ignore all the passages in Scripture that tell us God is ultimately responsible for everything, and put the credit and blame for choices entirely on “the chooser” instead, we’d then have to ask, “What is a chooser?” Well, a “chooser” is simply a person whose brain selects between available options, and one’s brain is made up of (among other things) neural connections which are wired differently in each person by a combination of their life experiences and their genetics (their nurture and nature, in other words). The different layouts of the neural networks in each of our brains results in different choices made by each of us (because it’s the specific neural network in each of our brains that decides which choices we each make), and none of us gets to choose the way our brains are wired, because we didn’t get to choose the life experiences and genetics that caused our brains to be wired the way they are at the time it selects an option or options. This means that at the end of the day, if God didn’t interfere, or isn’t actually the one who decided what our life experiences and our genetics would be in the first place, it would ultimately simply be our life experiences and our genetics that determine what choices we make, which means that our choices would all be predetermined by our nurture and nature, and that we would still have no “free will” anyway. And so the answer to the question of whether, in a hypothetical parallel universe — with every particle and wave being in the exact same state and location in that universe as they existed in when a specific choice was made in our universe, including the particles that the atoms which make up the wiring of the brain of the person making the choice consist of — they could have chosen something different has to be, “No, they couldn’t have.” But if you believe they could have, I’d like to know not only how they possibly could have, but also why they would have (meaning, what would be different in this hypothetical parallel universe, which was 100% identical to ours in every way up until the point they selected the option they did, that would result in them selecting a different option from the one they did in our universe).

Although there’s no scriptural or logical reason to do so, at this point some will try to avoid these facts by claiming that our mind isn’t actually generated by our brain, but instead somehow exists on a deeper, “spiritual” level (some will also get into pseudo-scientific talk about quantum realities as well, although I can guarantee you that few to none of them have any idea how quantum mechanics actually works, and that they’ve almost certainly only brought this concept up based on claims they’ve heard other people make). The problem is, aside from the fact that this is clearly both unscientific and unscriptural (as we already learned from an earlier article in this series, human consciousness, or our “soul,” is generated by an unconscious spirit powering a biological brain, and can’t exist separately from a living human body), even if this idea somehow were true, it couldn’t actually help support their ideas so much as simply push the problem back a level. You see, a supposedly “spiritual mind,” whatever that’s supposed to actually be, would still have to be “made” out of something (out of whatever it is that spirit, or whatever it is they’re claiming a mind comes from, consists of) and would still have to make choices based on what its “neurological structure,” so to speak, would then be made up of, and so the questions of why a particular option was selected over another, and whether another option could have actually been selected instead (and why it wasn’t), are still the relevant questions that need to be answered, even if this could somehow be the case. Basically, to simply stop at “the chooser” without finding out what “the chooser” consists of and why “the chooser” selects the particular options they do is essentially to say that a specific “chooser” is simply either naturally good or naturally bad (or perhaps naturally intelligent and/or wise, or naturally unintelligent and/or foolish).

Some Christians (especially when discussing the topic of “free will” when it comes to salvation) have also said things like, “It isn’t about the ability to choose something else, but about the inner motives of the heart. Some people choose to not get saved because they are lovers of themselves and not of God. They don’t want to let go of their way of life, and so they don’t want to believe and be saved. It’s a choice that reflects the inner motives of the person.” This assertion is actually sort of close to the truth because, yes, most people do prefer to love themselves over God. However, aside from the fact that our salvation (at least the type of salvation Paul taught about) has nothing to do with our actions or our way or life in the first place, this assertion doesn’t help their arguments anyway, because all it does is tell us the nature of “the chooser” while ignoring the question of why the nature of “the chooser” is what it is, meaning why “the chooser’s” biological brain — or even their supposed “spiritual mind,” if you prefer to believe in such things — is “wired” the way it is at the time an option is selected. And since that “wiring” is ultimately responsible for any choices “the chooser” makes (which it has to be, unless you can provide another cause that works within the realm of reality), the ultimate blame (again, presuming God doesn’t interfere) would then be on that particular selfish and/or evil nature (meaning the evil “wiring” of their brain, be it a “spiritual” or physical brain, or even a combination of both) that they weren’t even responsible for having in the first place. And if it really does come down to just that nature, it means they still couldn’t have ever made any other choices than the ones they did since that would go against their nature, which means any choice was ultimately predetermined by that preexisting selfish and/or evil nature which they had no say in being given to them, because said nature (meaning said evil “wiring” of their brain which resulted in said choice) was generated by their life experiences and genetics. So really, this argument actually helps prove that “free will” would be impossible even if God wasn’t predetermining everything.

On a somewhat related note, I’ve also heard some Christians suggest that, while God doesn’t predetermine everything Himself by manipulating every particle in existence in order to control every detail of the universe that way (including the particles that the brains which make our decisions ultimately consist of), He still gets all of His will fulfilled because He’s smart enough to be able to manipulate events within the universe to ensure people do His will. How He’d do this without controlling the very particles that make up the physical universe, I’m not sure (perhaps He only manipulates certain particles, to make sure certain things happen, but stops short of controlling the particles that ultimately make up the human brain), but even if He isn’t directly controlling the particles that ultimately make up the human brain, if He’s controlling enough details in the rest of the universe to ensure His will is done, He’d still technically be manipulating the brain, even if only from the outside, and if His will ends up being done (as the people who suggest this idea believe happens), then He’s still making sure that the brain of the person making the choice does end up making the choice He wants them to make (since otherwise His will wouldn’t end up getting fulfilled). And so the end result of this idea is still predestination by God, because regardless of how the action that God wants completed ends up happening (whether it be via direct control of the brain or via manipulation based on events happening externally to the brain), the action would still end up happening based on God’s control, and hence the action was still predetermined by God.

I’ve also heard some Christians — when that first question about the cause of the choices people make is asked in regards to why some people don’t choose to get saved — simply reply saying, “It’s because they would not,” thinking that mangling Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:37 somehow answers this question. They don’t seem to realize that they’re giving an answer to an entirely different question there, however, while ignoring the actual question altogether. “They would not” is an answer to the question, “Would they or would they not choose to get saved?”, but it doesn’t answer the question, “Why would they not choose to get saved?” We already know that “they would not,” since we already know they haven’t (which is why we asked the question in the first place), but we still want to know why they would not, and to simply say, “It’s because they would not,” is a circular answer which doesn’t answer the actual question at all. Of course, logic and linguistics aren’t a particular strength of the kind of people who give this sort of answer, so some of them might not even realize just how much of a non-answer this is, but I suspect most of them are aware that they’re simply evading the question because they want to avoid the actual answer.

This all means that there are two options and only two options, which are that either A) our choices are predetermined — by one’s nurture and/or nature, and, perhaps, by outside influences such as God — or B) our choices are random. As I already said, nobody has ever been able to provide me with a third option, and until they do, those remain the only two options available for us to work with (although, as I said, I don’t even believe that the second option is actually possible either, but because I personally can’t scientifically prove that God is the hidden variable behind quantum events, and also because, even if true randomness doesn’t exist, quantum mechanics still provides us with events which are effectively random due to being unable to predict them precisely, so I included it anyway), which means that even though we do all have a will, our wills can’t be said to be free (particularly before we’re saved — can a slave to sin be said to be free?), and so it’s time to recognize that “free will” is not only a completely illogical and unscientific concept, but that it’s entirely unscriptural as well, which means that it’s time to throw the idea away and accept that God really is fully in control. And don’t worry, this doesn’t mean we’re robots. Because, considering the fact that the Bible refers to us as merely clay in God’s hands, well, calling us robots would actually be giving us too much credit.

Part 11: How can you be “born again” if you weren’t even born a first time?

This is part 9 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 8 is available here: Unmerited suffering and God

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.

---

In my last article, I mentioned that those of us in the body of Christ believe God is 100% in control of absolutely everything, and that the “absolutely everything” He’s in control of includes evil and the suffering it can result in (since evil and suffering are a part of “absolutely everything”). It’s easy enough to prove that God is ultimately responsible for the evil that exists in the world (even without being evil Himself, since He does it for the greater good of everyone rather than for malicious reasons), not only because it’s the only possible way that unmerited suffering could coexist with a loving and omnipotent God (as I demonstrated in that article, so please go read it if you haven’t already), but also because He takes the credit for it in Scripture anyway. But it isn’t just evil that God takes credit for. If Scripture is to be believed, He ultimately takes credit for — wait for it — absolutely everything, which would also have to include sin (unless sin somehow doesn’t fall under the category of “absolutely everything”).

This idea can seem confusing to most people when they first hear it, because it would seem logical that God doesn’t want us to sin, and in fact He seems to tell people not to do so in Scripture. Well, the truth is, He doesn’t want us to sin, and He does indeed tell people not to. But at the same time, He still wills us to sin. This might sound like a contradiction at first, but it’s really not. Just as with the nine options I provided for solving “the problem of evil” in the last article, it comes down to understanding the difference between God wanting something to happen (in the sense of enjoying something that might occur) and willing something to happen (in the sense of allowing, or even causing, something He doesn’t necessarily enjoy, but knows needs to happen, to take place).

As an example, someone might not want to go to work on a given day, because they might prefer to lie in bed and watch TV, but they can still will themselves to go to work if they need to earn money to pay their bills. Simply put, someone (even God) can will themselves to do something they take no pleasure in and would prefer not to do if they recognize that the end result of doing that thing will be better than not having done it, as we just discussed. Some of you are now thinking, that’s all well and good, as far as what God “wants” versus what He “wills” goes, but what about His commandments? Isn’t it His will that humans obey them, meaning that we don’t sin? Well, this comes down to not recognizing another difference, which is the difference between His absolute will and His relative will (or, to put it another way, the difference between His preceptive will and His providential will), meaning the difference between His public commandments (or His precepts) and His hidden intentions (or plans). Not recognizing the difference between these two different types of “wills” leads Christians to believe that God never intended for people (beginning with Adam) to disobey Him in the first place, when the truth is that He secretly intended for people to rebel against His commandments all along. A great example of this is His commandment against murder. God made murder a sin, yet He had the murder of Christ planned from the foundation of the world, knowing full well when He gave the commandment against murder that without it there would be no salvation for anyone (and I’m sure it should go without saying that God didn’t actually enjoy seeing His Son tortured and killed, but He still willed it to happen because He knew it had to happen in order to accomplish His purposes — and before anyone brings up Isaiah 53:10, that’s obviously a very figurative verse referring to God considering Jesus’ suffering and death to be a satisfactory ransom for sin, since there’s no way God would literally take joy in watching His Son be tortured for no reason other than the sake of taking pleasure in watching it happen, as though He’s some sort of sadist, because that definitely would make Him evil — not to mention a sinner — if that was the case).

A less obvious, yet no less helpful, example (and one which explains how it all began in the first place) would be His commandment to Adam and Eve to avoid eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When we consider the facts — that while He told them not to eat of it, He all the while placed the tree right in the centre of the garden with nothing to make it difficult to get at (when He didn’t have to place it in the garden, or even anywhere on the planet, at all if He really didn’t want anyone to sin), made it look like good food and pleasant to the eyes and to be desired to make one wise, and even placed the serpent right there to tempt them (since nobody is anywhere that God didn’t specifically place them; and remember, being both omniscient and omnipotent and then allowing either something to happen or someone to be in a specific location is no different, morally speaking, than directly causing it or placing them there — although the story of Micaiah tells us that God does send spiritual beings to lead people astray in order to complete His purposes anyway), not to mention the fact that, without eating it, humanity would not only never understand evil but would never truly understand the contrasting goodness either (it wasn’t called just “the tree of the knowledge of evil,” it was called “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”) — it becomes obvious that God actually intended for them to disobey Him so that death and sin could enter the world (and, again, had already intended to have His Son killed prior to this, which would be a strange plan if He didn’t also intend for sin and death to exist; God doesn’t make contingency plans — each plan He makes is something that He fully intends to take place and that will indeed happen, so the death of His Son wasn’t just something He had in mind to do if humanity happened to sin, but was instead a plan He fully intended to implement long before Adam ever sinned, and in fact the reason Adam sinned was so that humanity would be mortal in order that God could implement His plan).

And, of course, the main reason He even gave Israel the Mosaic law in the first place was so that they would sin all the more. It might seem hard to believe, and some even try to deny it by making the assertion — one which is not only found nowhere in Scripture but which is actually contradicted by it — that “God is not the author of sin,” but the Bible actually tells us that God has not only purposely locked up His human creation in unbelief, but that He has also purposely locked us up in sin, in vanity, and in corruption (meaning in decay, humiliation, and death), all in order that He can later set us all free (and He can’t free us if we aren’t first locked up).

This means that, while sin is still sinful, it’s not something that surprised God, or even something that He didn’t actually secretly intend to come into existence in the first place (again, for the purpose of revealing goodness and grace — since, again, without evil we could never truly appreciate goodness, and without sin we could never truly understand God’s grace; contrast is often necessary to fully comprehend things, as we’ve already learned, and knowing this helps us come to understand that the existence of sin was actually necessary in order for God to complete His purposes).

Of course, some Christians will quickly quote what James wrote, saying, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” And it is true, God doesn’t directly tempt anyone to sin. But we’re talking about what God does from an absolute perspective in this article, in order to make sure that we’re not only tempted to sin but that we do indeed sometimes give in to that temptation, and not about the temptation itself (which happens only from a relative perspective — and if you aren’t familiar with the difference between the relative and absolute perspectives in Scripture, please go read Part 1 of this series). And if you believe that God wouldn’t ever do something from an absolute perspective to cause someone to be tempted, you might need to read Matthew 4:1 a little more carefully.

I should probably add, knowing the meaning of the word “sin” might help make what I’m saying seem a little less blasphemous to those reading this who are horrified by the idea of the necessity of the existence of sin. You see, the Hebrew verb חָטָא/”khaw-taw’,” along with its Greek translation of ἁμαρτάνω/“ham-ar-tan’-o,” which we often translate as “sin” in English (with the noun versions being חַטָּאָת/“khat-taw-aw’” and ἁμαρτία/”ham-ar-tee’-ah,” respectively), is a word that simply means “to miss the mark” — for example, to not hit the bullseye on a target with an arrow, or to miss a target with a stone thrown from a sling — as the book of Judges made clear when it mentioned seven-hundred lefthanded men who “could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss,” with the word “miss” in that verse being the same Hebrew word חָטָא that is translated as “sin” in other passages. So yes, Adam missed the mark (sinned) by failing to avoid eating the forbidden fruit, but God hit the bullseye perfectly when Adam missed the mark because that was His plan for Adam from the beginning, which means that even though God is responsible for sin from an absolute perspective, He didn’t sin by ultimately being behind it all because He didn’t miss the mark Himself at all, since sin and death entering the world through Adam’s sin was His intended “mark” all along (and for those who insist that God would never give anyone a rule that He actually wanted them to break, if His plan was for Adam to sin, He had to make a rule for Adam to break or else Adam couldn’t have fulfilled His intention that sin enter the world, although Romans 5:20 also tells us that God absolutely would do this anyway). This also means that, if Adam hadn’t sinned, God would then have been the sinner instead, because it would mean He had failed to accomplish His intended goal of sin entering the world — and for those who want to insist that God’s intended goal was a world where humanity never sinned, that would also make God a sinner because Adam did sin, which means that God would have also missed the mark if that sin-free world was actually His intended mark. And if His plan was simply to let Adam do whatever he wanted and to simply sit back and watch what happens, as some seem to believe, having no particular intended goal for the world at all, and the death of Christ simply being His contingency plan to use if Adam did happen to sin, that would still make God culpable for both the existence of sin and evil (since the nine options we went over in Part 8 of this series would be just as applicable here, considering the fact that God is omniscient and would have known even before He created the world that it would definitely happen, but also considering the fact that an omniscient, omnipotent being who doesn’t stop evil from coming into existence — which God would have known would be the end result of sin coming into existence — is just as morally responsible as said being would be if they had directly caused it anyway), but His sovereignty would then also be a lie, as would be all the passages of Scripture that tell us He’s completely in control and that all is of Him.

And Scripture does tell us that He’s completely in control. In fact, the complete sovereignty of God and His purposes for creation from before it all began is one of the most important factors in Scripture, and is taught throughout the Bible. And while most Christians would claim to believe in His sovereignty, not very many actually do, because very few of them actually believe He has a good reason for causing absolutely everything that has happened in creation, and that He has had very specific plans for the ages (and for every one of the people living in each age) from the very beginning. Instead of knowing (and glorifying) God as God, which would involve them understanding that He is completely in control, placing everything where He intends it to be and subjecting all to His will, nearly all Christians believe that God really hoped Adam wouldn’t actually sin (even though He would have known before creating Adam that he would sin, making this idea completely nonsensical and hence not worth considering), but that God is now on Plan B because Adam did end up sinning. They just don’t believe Paul when he wrote in Ephesians 1:11 that God works all things after the counsel of His own will, not just some things. But the fact is that He really does, which means that everything about creation — be it good and evil, righteousness and sin, pleasure and suffering, faith and unbelief, and even the crucifixion and the devil (who was created the way he is today, contrary to popular opinion, since he’s been a murderer, and, to put it simply, a sinner, at least in his heart, from his very beginning, for the purpose of getting Adam to sin and for bringing evil into the world in general) — was all intended by God from before the beginning of creation. And this isn’t just about God being able to see the future and then accounting for it in His plans either, because while God is indeed able to see the future, He also declares what is going to be done from the beginning, and what He intends to be done will be done. Which means that if God’s intended “mark” truly was a world without any evil or sin, no evil or sin could have possibly ever occurred without God becoming a sinner Himself. To put it simply, everything that has happened and will happen occurs exactly as God planned it, because God is still on Plan A.

Part 10: The impossibility of “free will”

This is part 8 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 7 is available here: Heaven isn’t what you think it is

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.

---

As one learns more about the theology of those of us in the body of Christ (not to be confused with the theology of those in the Christian religion who have mistakenly appropriated our title), they’re often extremely surprised when they discover our theodicy, meaning what we believe when it comes to resolving what’s generally referred to as “the problem of evil.” When they learn that we believe God is 100% in control of absolutely everything (because the Bible says that all things are indeed of Him, not just some things, and that He works all things after the counsel of His own will, not just some things), and that the evil which exists in the world is included in the “absolutely everything” (meaning the “all things”) we believe Him to be in control of, they tend to be very shocked at first.

Of course, most people will argue that God can’t be behind the evil in the world (despite the fact that He actually takes responsibility for the existence of evil, not to mention for the existence of “all things,” as we already learned) because they believe that would mean He must be evil Himself, or at least that He can’t be very good or loving. And if you look at the problem from a “forward in time” perspective (meaning, if you begin with what you assume it would say about God if He actually is behind the evil in the world, especially the evil which exists in the form of unmerited suffering, and work your argument forward from there), it’s easy to understand why someone would conclude that God just can’t be behind it.

However, if you instead take a look at the problem from a “backwards in time” perspective (meaning you begin with the fact that evil, especially evil which includes unmerited suffering, exists in the world, and then work your way backwards to figure out why that is), you’ll discover that none of the other possible reasons for the existence of said evil are any better (and that many are far worse) when you really break the options down. Because the fact of the matter is, the world does contain unmerited suffering — huge amounts of it — which is to say that people suffer for all sorts of reasons that they can’t be directly blamed for, such as babies who are born with painful diseases, or people who lose their homes to unforeseeable natural disasters, or even people who lose loved ones to disease or accidents, among the vast number of other kinds of suffering that nobody chooses to endure.

And while it can be argued that “evil” doesn’t have an ontological existence in and of itself, as some like to point out, and that the form of evil we experience as suffering technically only takes place in our minds (which means that, if we didn’t care about the results of these events, we wouldn’t suffer, and hence evil wouldn’t exist in that form), the way our brains are wired means that these catastrophic events being experienced by our minds do still cause us suffering, so from that perspective, evil does still exist. But beyond that factor, there’s also the definition of “evil,” which is really just any action (or, I suppose, inaction) which is “harmful,” “calamitous,” or “causes damage or destruction,” and these things not only do happen (so from that perspective, evil definitely does exist as well), but the Bible says that God Himself does many of these things which bring about destruction and calamity too.

Even after reading all that, however, most Christians will still deny that “all things” are indeed of God. And because of this, we have to ask them the question (although, even if they didn’t deny what Scripture says, it’s still a good question to consider): “What are the possible reasons for the existence of evil, especially in the form of unmerited suffering, in a universe created by God?” Well, the following nine options are the only reasons I can think of that could possibly answer this question:

1. God doesn’t want this suffering to occur (meaning He doesn’t actually enjoy witnessing it happen), but it all happens against His will because He’s powerless to stop it. This option could only be the reason if God isn’t actually omnipotent, which basically means He wouldn’t actually be Almighty God, so it’s not technically a valid option at all, but for the sake of completion, I’m including it in the list anyway.
2. God does want this suffering to occur (meaning He enjoys witnessing the suffering), which works out well for Him because He would technically be powerless to stop it if He didn’t enjoy watching it happen. This is just another variation of the last option which removes God’s omnipotence altogether (while also making God out to not be good and loving either), so it’s really just as invalid as the last one and doesn’t even deserve consideration, so we’ll leave it at that.
3. God doesn’t want this suffering to occur (meaning He doesn’t actually enjoy witnessing it happen), nor does He will it to occur (meaning He isn’t actively behind it in any way), and there’s no ultimate greater good that comes out of the suffering, but while He has the power to stop it, He decides to just sit back and let it occur naturally anyway. This option maintains God’s omnipotence, but it indicates that He isn’t very good or loving, since He could have stopped it but chose not to, even though there’s no good reason for letting it happen, and He doesn’t even want it to occur to begin with.
4. God doesn’t want this suffering to occur (meaning He doesn’t actually enjoy witnessing it happen), nor does He will it to occur (meaning He isn’t actively behind it in any way), but while it would be within His power to stop it, the suffering (which must be naturally occurring in some way) somehow does work out for the greater good of those who experience it, so He simply sits back and lets it all play out. This seems even less likely than any of the other options so far, when you really think about it. The idea that every single instance of unmerited suffering (out of the trillions of cases or more of it occurring throughout human history — not to mention throughout the history of animals, who also did nothing to deserve the suffering they go through, and yet they do suffer, as anyone who has ever owned a pet can attest) could possibly somehow work out for the greater good of every being who ever experienced it without God ultimately being behind it is statistically impossible (you’d probably have a better chance of winning the lottery jackpot every single week of your life than of this somehow happening to be the case), so this option isn’t even worth considering.
5. God does want this suffering to occur (meaning He enjoys witnessing the suffering), and although He doesn’t will it to occur (meaning He isn’t actively behind it in any way), and while it would also be within His power to stop it, because the suffering (which must be naturally occurring in some way) somehow not only does work out for the greater good of those who experience it, but also because He enjoys watching us suffer in the meantime, He sits back and lets it all play out. This option has the same statistical impossibility as the last one, so it’s also not worth considering, but it also has the additional problem of meaning God isn’t good or loving, making it doubly untenable.
6. God does want this suffering to occur (meaning He enjoys witnessing the suffering), although He doesn’t will it to occur (meaning He isn’t actively behind it in any way), and while there’s no ultimate greater good that comes out of the naturally-occurring suffering (other than God getting what He wants), and while He could stop it at any time, He sits back and lets it happen because He enjoys it. This option would obviously mean that God isn’t very loving, so it isn’t really an option either if we’re trying to maintain that God is loving, but I’m including it for the sake of covering all of the possible reasons that suffering might exist in a universe created by God.
7. God does want this suffering to occur (meaning He enjoys witnessing the suffering), and He even wills some, if not all, of it to occur (meaning He’s actively behind some, if not all, of it), and while there’s no ultimate greater good that comes out of the suffering for those who are experiencing it, He makes sure that some, if not all, of it occurs because He enjoys witnessing it (I say “some, if not all, of it” because some of it might also be incidental to His actively making it happen, but He must enjoy watching that particular suffering that He didn’t cause too, or else He wouldn’t let it happen as well). This option would also mean that God isn’t loving, and it definitely would mean He’s evil, so it isn’t really an option at all if we’re trying to maintain that God is good and loving and not evil, but, like all the other options that don’t really deserve consideration so far, I’m including it for the sake of covering all of the possible reasons that suffering might exist in a universe created by God.
8. God does want this suffering to occur (meaning He enjoys witnessing the suffering), and He also does will it to occur (meaning He’s actively behind it) because He knows there’s ultimately a greater good for all of us that will come out of the specific suffering He causes each of us to experience. This is getting close to the actual reason, but it would mean that God wouldn’t actually be loving, so it can’t quite be the answer we’re looking for.
9. God doesn’t want this suffering to occur (meaning He doesn’t actually enjoy witnessing it happen), but He does will it to occur (meaning He’s actively behind it), because He knows there’s ultimately a greater good for all of us that will come out of the specific suffering that He causes each of us to experience.

As far as I can tell, those are the only logical options available to us as to why unmerited suffering occurs in a universe created by God (yes, it’s possible there might be some slight variations of the above that I missed, but even if so, I don’t think that any of them would be at all tenable without devolving the options into absurdity, and I definitely can’t think of any that make sense and are also superior to any of those options, so I’m leaving it at that), and when you look at the suffering that exists in the world beginning from this perspective, it seems to me that option 9 is the only one that actually maintains God’s existence, as well as not only His omniscience, omnipotence, and sovereignty, but also His good and loving nature, because it tells us that not only is He behind it, but that He’s doing it for reasons that are in all of our best interests (although it’s important to point out that option 9 can only be true if it’s also true that nobody will actually be punished without end, since otherwise the majority of the suffering that people experience doesn’t end up working out in their best interests after all, but thankfully the Bible teaches that everybody willenjoy salvation in the end, as anyone who reads all the articles in this series will know by the time they finish reading all of them).

Of course, when considering the above, or even when trying to think of an alternative option that I might have somehow missed which you do believe is superior to any of the options in that list, it’s important to keep in mind that there’s little-to-no moral difference between being omniscient and omnipotent yet choosing not to stop the unmerited suffering and actively being behind said suffering in some way, so if you’re going to go with an option where God could have stopped it but chose not to, you’d better have a good reason for that option which does work out for the greater good of all those who are experiencing it.

Now, as for the question of what the greater good actually is that might explain why God did it this way, the fact of the matter is, we could simply say that we don’t know, and this would be a perfectly good answer to give (because, since option 9 is the only possible option that makes any sense, we could legitimately just trust that everything will work out for the best, even if we don’t know how or why that is right now). That said, those of us who are in the body of Christ do have an answer which we believe to be true, one which is often referred to by us as “the contrast principle.” Basically, the conclusion which most of us have come to is that one can’t truly and fully appreciate good without first experiencing evil (referring to all the various forms of evil, of course, and not just suffering, although suffering is definitely included), and likewise, that we can’t fully understand and appreciate God’s love without having first experienced a lack of His love, or at least the feeling that we’re not experiencing it (similarly, we would argue that we can’t fully understand and appreciate His grace without first experiencing sin). If this doesn’t seem to make sense at first, think about how one can appreciate the warmth of being indoors in a heated building after being outside in the cold much better than they would be able to if they’d never actually experienced cold weather (or vice versa, with being able to enjoy the cold generated by air conditioning if one lives in a part of the world which is always hot, and how they wouldn’t appreciate that relief from the heat if they lived in a part of the world which was always cold). So basically, while it definitely isn’t fun in the short term — as we experience the suffering — by the end of the ages we’ll all thank God for the suffering He put us through, because we’ll all appreciate our existence at that time much more than we could have if we hadn’t ever suffered (so, with that in mind, we need to remember that God isn’t doing this to us, but that He’s actually doing this for us, even though we might wish He’d stop already in the meantime).

Of course, in response to this, the argument is often made that God could have simply created us with the necessary knowledge of good already present in our brains at our birth, and that He didn’t have to make any of us suffer at all (or have to allow any of us to suffer, if you prefer). And while I have to think that He technically could have created us with whatever knowledge He wanted us to have already in our brains (He is God, after all), as it turns out, He didn’t create us with this knowledge already in our heads. And since He didn’t, He must have had a good reason for not doing so, which means we have to once again work backwards from that fact and ask ourselves what that reason is. And when you do so, since unmerited suffering still exists, everything I included in the list of options still stands as well.

The fact of the matter is, God didn’t seem to create us with any conscious knowledge in our brains at the time we’re born at all, but seems to instead want us to have to learn things as we grow, either through study or through direct experience (or, really, through a combination of both study and experience). As for why God did it this way, there could be multiple reasons, but one possible reason is that, if we didn’t actually experience it ourselves, our understanding of both good and evil would simply be academic rather than experiential, and based on the way that God did create us (having to learn many things through experience), the most logical conclusion seems to be that experiencing suffering will lead to a better possible outcome or outcomes (with the appreciation of good likely being at least one of these outcomes, if we’re right about the contrast principle) than simply having the knowledge already in our heads at the time of our birth could have.

Now, even after reading all of the above, some will still assert that, if this is true, then God must be evil, regardless of the points I’ve made that would suggest otherwise. But in light of the fact that God didn’t create us fully formed with the knowledge of good and evil already stored in our minds, whether or not the contrast principle is why God did things this way, Him willing unmerited suffering, among other forms of evil, to exist must still be the best possible way to do things. Think about it: Since we do exist in a universe where we’re born without any knowledge, having to learn things as we grow, if God truly is sovereign, good, and loving, then the sort of universe we currently exist in, including all its suffering (merited or otherwise), must result in the best possible outcome for us, meaning the best possible outcome for all of us must come from living in a universe where we begin knowing nothing. And since it exists, this would also have to mean that evil and suffering are unavoidable in this particular sort of universe. Of course, the contrast principle could still potentially be a beneficial side effect of this sort of universe as well — or could perhaps be a required principle, based on the fact that the best possible way for us to get to the best possible outcome is to live in a universe of growth and learning and processes and suffering rather than one where we come into existence fully formed with all the knowledge we need already in our brains and with no suffering — but either way, since this is the way the universe is, and since we’re assuming that God indeed is sovereign, good, and loving, because those nine options I listed are still the only logical possible reasons for the existence of unmerited suffering (outside of the possibility of God simply not existing, of course, but I’m writing about “the problem of evil” from within a theistic framework here), I would argue that we’ve now determined this assumption of theirs that God must be evil if He’s actually behind this has to be incorrect (and, in fact, somewhat blasphemous) and that it’s time for them to discard that idea. Because when we look at it from the “backwards in time” perspective, they’re still stuck with those nine options and only those nine options, and so they’ll have to decide which of them they want to believe.

And this is why those of us in the body of Christ are able to understand that God can cause (or create) evil without being evil, as long as the evil exists for good reasons. As I already mentioned, “evil” really just means “calamity” or “destruction” (or “that which causes suffering,” as I’ve been using the term in this portion of this series of articles) anyway, and we already know that evil can be done to serve a greater purpose. And the potential “contrast principle” isn’t the only good purpose it can be done for. As another such example (one which might be more applicable to humans right now), one could amputate a gangrenous limb — causing much suffering, unmerited suffering even, if the patient didn’t do anything to cause the infection, which is the exact form of evil we’ve just been discussing — in order to keep it from spreading, ultimately saving the life of the patient. This is yet another proof that evil can be done to bring about a good outcome, and that doing or causing evil definitely doesn’t mean that the one doing evil necessarily is evil, or even that evil acts are always immoral (and for those who would insist that this action isn’t evil because it saves the patient’s life, it still involves causing damage to a part of the patient’s body, and causing suffering to the patient, so it still falls under the definition of “evil”). Now, some people, hearing this example, have claimed that this idea makes God out to be abusive, insisting this would mean that God was thinking, “Healing is so inherently great and desirable that I will get everyone in the world sick just so that I can eventually heal them,” to which I would first respond by saying that bringing God down to a human level there — similar to the way Job did — isn’t necessarily the wisest way to go, but also that, based on the fact that we do go through unmerited suffering, in light of the fact that the nine options I listed still remain the only options, it might be time for them to accept that perhaps it could be true that it is better for us to have experienced both the “sickness” and the “healing” than to not have experienced them, and that this isn’t actually abusive at all, since it ultimately works out in our best interest; and, in fact, that it would really be less loving of God to not have done so.

And with all that in mind, I maintain that this solution to the problem of evil is really the only possible option, at least if you don’t want to go with atheism as the reason behind the unmerited suffering that we all experience at one point or another in our lives (which is technically a tenth option, and you’re free to believe that if you prefer, but that option gives us far less hope than option 9 does — in fact it offers no real hope that our suffering has any meaning at all — so I’m sticking with option number 9 because I prefer an option that provides us all a promise of a better future, and also makes the unmerited suffering we all go through actually have meaning). However, if you think you can come up with another option that you believe I missed, one which actually does work as a better theodicy than option 9, please do let me know.

That said, it isn’t just evil that God is responsible for. If Scripture is to be believed, He’s ultimately responsible for “all things” (at least from an absolute perspective), which would also have to include sin too (unless sin somehow doesn’t fall under the category of “all things”). In order to learn my justification for this claim, however, you’ll need to read the next article in the series.

Part 9: God is still on Plan A

This is part 7 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 6 is available here: The only true God

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.

---

What is heaven like? And where is it, anyway? Nearly everyone who believes in God has asked these questions at some point in their lives. The answers they’re normally given, unfortunately, are generally vague guesses or assumptions, or simply statements saying “we can’t know for sure.” The truth, however, is that Scripture actually answers these questions for us, and the answer is so simple that I can actually show you heaven right now. How? Well, let’s take a look at some of the passages of Scripture which tell us the answer to that question:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. — Genesis 1:20

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. — Matthew 24:30

So when we see the word heaven, we can see that it’s sometimes referring to the sky above us, where the birds and clouds are (earth’s atmosphere, in other words).

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained — Psalm 8:3

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth — Genesis 1:14-17

As we’ve already determined, heaven is “above” us, but we can now see that it isn’t only a reference to our atmosphere, but to outer space as well.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. — Genesis 1:1

This tells us that there are only two overall “places” God created, which means there are only two places one can be: on earth, or in heaven. And if one is in the sky or in outer space, they’re not on earth, which only leaves heaven for them to be in. (This also proves that “hell” isn’t a literal third place one can be in or that God created, since He only created two places, I should add, because the “hell”/Valley of Hinnom is here on planet earth, the “hell” sometimes known as Tartarus is also on this planet — underground on planet earth — and the “hell” that dead humans are figuratively said to be in isn’t actually a “place” at all, but is just a figure of speech for being “unseen,” although it’s also sometimes used as metonymy to refer to being in the grave, which would also refer to being underground on planet earth.)

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. — Luke 24:51

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. — Acts 1:9-11

This also reaffirms that heaven is a reference to what is “up above” the ground we stand on. We can see that, after Jesus ascended up into heaven, the disciples were gazing up into the sky (heaven), as the angels also confirmed they were (while also confirming that a prophecy of Zechariah is about Him and when He’ll one day return to the exact same spot He left from, which was the Mount of Olives). So, simply put, if someone wants to see heaven now, all they have to do is look up at the sky.

Most people, of course, think of heaven as a place the righteous dead go to, but you won’t find any Scripture that tells you anyone goes to a place called heaven while dead (which makes sense, considering the fact that the dead are unconscious, as we now know from the previous articles in this series), thus making the word “heaven” another example of those False Friends found in the Bible that I mentioned in Part 1 of this series (which, as I explained there, 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). The truth is that only the living can go to heaven, at least in a conscious state, and those in the body of Christ will go there when our Lord comes for His body, and we’ll finally “ever be with the Lord” there. That said, heaven isn’t a place you’d want to go right now in your current body (aside from a short trip there in an aircraft or a space shuttle), because one needs a quickened (meaning immortal) body that could survive and thrive out there if you were planning to stay long, considering the fact that you’d suffocate from lack of oxygen, or freeze to death, or die from radiation poisoning out there in the heavens without either an immortal body or some sort of vehicle or structure to protect you from death (this is at least partly why Paul wrote that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” — we’ve already learned in a previous article in this series that flesh and blood will inherit the part of the kingdom of God which will be on earth, meaning the kingdom of heaven in Israel, so this was clearly only about the part of the kingdom that will be in heaven, not the part that will be sent fromheaven). It also isn’t the perfect, sinless place most people think it is, at least not yet, since the devil and his angels haven’t been cast out of heaven yet, for one thing, although it will be pretty great for the body of Christ when we have our new bodies that can enjoy it out there with our Lord as we fulfill our impending ministry to the spiritual beings residing there. This means, by the way, that Christians who like to claim that God can’t allow sin into heaven (which is not an assertion I’ve ever seen made in Scripture) seem to have forgotten that, if Satan needs to be cast out of heaven, it means sin has already been in heaven, as is also confirmed by the fact that the book of Job says he was there too. Similarly, the claim they often make that sin can’t exist in heaven because God can’t look upon sin is also an unscriptural one, since the words “to behold” in Habakkuk 1:13, which they like to quote to try to prove this assertion (and which actually says, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil”), are simply an expression in the KJV that means “to give attention to” or “to look upon approvingly” (which is what the Hebrew word רָאָה/“raw-aw’” that “behold” in this verse is translated from means). Satan’s presence in heaven, not to mention God’s omnipresence and the fact that “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good,” as Proverbs 15:3 tells us (with “beholding” in this verse translated from the Hebrew word צָפָה/“tsaw-faw’,” literally meaning “observing”), would make this a very problematic (not to mention contradictory) verse as well, if most Christians were correct about what that verse in Habakkuk meant. I should probably point out that this is obviously only referring to the sort of evil that falls under the category of moral evil rather than morally-neutral evil, since few people remember that not all evil is sinful, as I mentioned previously in this series — unless you believe that animals can sin, of course (the word “evil” just means “harmful,” “calamitous,” or “destructive,” and not all actions that cause destruction or damage are inherently sinful, since otherwise it would mean that it was immoral to ever break anything, and that even popping a balloon would be a sin; simply put, the word “evil” in Scripture is basically just referring to anything that breaks something or causes suffering, whether with good intentions or bad — but we’ll get more into that topic in an upcoming article in this series, where we’ll learn a lot more details about both evil and sin, including their origin). Still, this does bring up the question of where people got the idea that the righteous dead go to a place called heaven in the first place from. There are a few reasons for this, but the main two reasons are verses that refer to God being in heaven, as well as a misunderstanding of the word “paradise.”

Since we know that the body of Christ will go to heaven, and also that people will be living with God in the New Jerusalem, most Christians have assumed that these references must be talking about a place the dead go, not realizing that these things both take place within the physical universe, experienced by living people, rather than in an ethereal afterlife dimension experienced by the dead (the body of Christ goes to heaven to complete a ministry there, but not until after they’ve been resurrected from the dead and/or quickened; and the New Jerusalem later descends from heaven/outer space to the New Earth rather than being a place anyone who is dead goes to). That said, yes, God indeed is in heaven. He has a throne room (which can also be referred to figuratively as “heaven”) and a throne somewhere out there in outer space, presumably in the city that will one day be called the New Jerusalem, while it waits to descend to the New Earth, and it also seems likely that He manifests a part of Himself in some sort of manner that the spiritual beings there can perceive, but He ultimately transcends the whole universe at the same time. (And just as a quick aside about God manifesting a part of Himself in a manner that the spiritual beings in heaven can perceive, there are some people who believe that because the Bible says God is invisible and that nobody has ever seen him, this must then apply to the celestial beings in heaven too — and some even insist that those of us in the body of Christ won’t ever see God either, even after we’re quickened and living up in heaven — and while it’s possible that this interpretation of these passages is correct, I’d suggest that these verses were more likely written from a relative perspective, in that it’s really only speaking of mortal humans who can’t currently see God, because something being “invisible” to us doesn’t mean that such things can’t be seen by means other than the naked eye of a mortal human, or that something other than a human can’t see it either, the way some animals can see things that are invisible to us; besides, spiritual beings do interact with Him now anyway, and one generally sees somebody that they’re standing next to, not to mention the fact that Micaiah — who gave the prophecy about the spirits interacting with God — said he saw God in the vision too, so I think it’s safe to say that we’ll see Him as well, when we’re in heaven, as will the people residing on the New Earth too.)

As far as the second misunderstanding goes, paradise is a reference to a future state of the earth where the tree of life will be, both after Jesus returns and also later on the New Earth, which makes sense considering the fact that there would be no need to eat from the tree of life in an ethereal afterlife realm as a ghost in order to remain “alive,” if the immortality of the soul were true. This means that Jesus’ statement to the thief on the cross about being with Him in paradise couldn’t mean what most Christians assume it to mean, because paradise doesn’t really even exist yet, at least not outside of the Jerusalem which is currently above as it waits to descend to the New Earth, I suppose (and anyone who wants to insist that Jesus was speaking about something other than a future state of the earth will need to provide some scriptural references with solid exegesis of those passages to prove that assertion, not to mention explain away all the proof we’ve already covered in the previous articles in this series that the dead really are unconscious — and before someone brings up 2 Corinthians 12:4, in light of everything we’ve just covered, this being a reference to Paul having a vision of the future splendours of the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, and not a reference to the supposed afterlife dimension we’ve now learned from those articles and this one that there’s no basis for believing exists anyway, makes far more sense than any other interpretation I’ve ever heard). Since we have to interpret this verse in light of everything else we covered in the previous articles, based on the way it renders Jesus’ statement, we’re forced to interpret this verse in the KJV figuratively, meaning that, from the thief’s perspective, it would feel like the same day when he woke up from his sleep and began to live with Jesus in paradise, either in Israel after Jesus returns, or on the New Earth (and for those who think it would mean that Jesus was being less than truthful by speaking figuratively here, ask yourself if that means He was also being untruthful when He spoke figuratively to call Himself a door?). This is also confirmed by Jesus’ statement that He hadn’t ascended to the Father yet in John 20:17, not to mention the fact that we’re told His “soul” went to “hell” when He died (which simply means that His consciousness ceased to exist when He died, based on what we learned in the last few articles in this series), not to heaven (or paradise), and if Jesus did not go to paradise on that day (which He really couldn’t have without time-travelling to the future when paradise finally exists on earth), the thief couldn’t have been with Him there either, verifying that this could only be a prophetic statement about a time in the distant future when paradise begins on this earth or the New Earth. (And yes, I know that Jesus had been resurrected when He made that statement about not having ascended to the Father yet, but it’s still not a statement He could have made honestly if He had ascended as a ghost, which we know He Himself didn’t do anyway since His body was in the tomb and His “soul” was figuratively “residing” in “hell” while He was dead.)

I should say, there are also those who understand what death and paradise are, but who think this passage should be translated differently rather than interpreted differently. You see, there are no commas in the original Greek that this part of the Bible was translated from, so Luke 23:43 could just as legitimately be translated as saying, “Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise” (just like Paul used similar expressions in Acts 20:26 and Acts 26:2, not to mention all the times expressions like this were used in various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures — meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the Old Testament” — such as in Deuteronomy 4:26, 39–40, and 5:1, to list just a few examples), simply meaning the thief would be with Jesus in paradise, either in Israel after Jesus returns, or on the New Earth, in the future (lining up exactly with the malefactor’s request that Jesus remember him when He comes into His kingdom, telling us that he was expecting Jesus to either escape the cross or to be physically resurrected after he died — something even Jesus’ disciples didn’t believe was going to happen at that time, which means he might have been the first convert to believe in the resurrection if that was the case — and to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven on earth in the future regardless of whether He died or not, which makes sense considering the fact that no Israelite back then would have been expecting the kingdom to be anywhere other than in Israel, as we learned in Part 1 of this series, least of all in the “hell” also known as “sheol/hades” where Jesus and everyone else who died “ended up,” so to speak, and which he would have had literally zero scriptural basis for assuming the kingdom was going to be located). That said, while we certainly can if we want to, without doing any violence to the original Greek, we don’t actually have to change the punctuation at all in order to understand what Jesus was getting at since, regardless of where the comma is located, we still have to interpret this verse in light of the rest of Scripture, which means that whether we move the comma (as some translations do) and interpret Jesus’ statement literally, or leave it where it is in the KJV and interpret Jesus’ statement figuratively, the only possible valid interpretation (in light of what we’ve now learned from the articles in this series about heaven, “hell,” death, and immortality) is still the exact same no matter where the comma ends up (at least if we’re taking the rest of Scripture into consideration), with the thief not ending up in paradise with Jesus until he’s resurrected from the dead to live either in Israel or on the New Earth, so I’ll leave it at that.

The fact of the matter is, nobody mentioned anywhere in the Bible was ever recorded as looking forward to an afterlife in a place called heaven, or as being afraid of being punished consciously in an afterlife realm called hell, nor had any Scripture prior to Jesus supposedly unveiling it to Israelites for the first time in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 ever even suggested that people would go to an afterlife realm to live happily or to suffer in while dead either (until Jesus told this very figurative story, anyone who based their theology entirely upon what the Scripture which was available to them at that time said would assume nobody is even conscious when they’re dead, as we’ve already learned in the last few articles in the series — and, as I mentioned in Part 2 of this series, when I discussed the supposedly figurative usage of the Valley of Hinnom to describe a fiery afterlife realm, it seems extremely unlikely that the Person who corrected people for teaching extrabiblical theological concepts by saying things like “have ye not read…?” and “it is written…” would suddenly turn around and teach a concept of an afterlife that is not only found nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, but which also seems to contradict everything the Hebrew Scriptures said about the state of the dead, as well as what he told the Sadducees about God being the God of the living rather than of the dead, a few chapters later, as we also already learned in Part 4 of this series, which would mean God couldn’t have been the God of Lazarus while he remained dead, if the “events” in this story actually took place), and the fact that the concept of an afterlife realm for ghosts wasn’t ever taught in the Hebrew Scriptures should really tell you everything you need to know about the idea. What they were looking forward to was a physical, bodily resurrection in the distant future, so figurative stories such as the one in Luke 16 have to be interpreted in light of this fact. The story of the rich man and Lazarus wasn’t a new revelation to replace the scriptural doctrine of unconscious death until resurrection, so one has to figure out what it means without creating an entirely new theology that not only hadn’t ever even been hinted at prior to it in Scripture, but that would also contradict other parts of Scripture, which also means that any scriptural references to the version of “hell” that dead souls are in can’t be talking about a place any human will actually suffer in, and neither can any passages that talk about the lake of fire (at least they won’t be able to suffer there any longer than it takes for a mortal body to die in that fire, as we also learned in the previous articles in this series). And so, the simple fact is, every single person who dies goes to “hell” (meaning the “hell” used as a figure of speech for the state of being unconscious because one is dead, as we also learned in Part 4) whether they’re a believer or not. And only those who do understand and believe what it is Paul meant when he wrote that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, will get to go to heaven, but not until after they’ve been resurrected and/or made immortal, because the only way for someone who is dead to go to heaven would be to put their corpse on an aircraft or space shuttle, but they wouldn’t enjoy it particularly much (although this does mean that someone who has died can technically be in heaven and “hell” at the exact same time, even if they couldn’t know they were in either “location”).

This also means that Enoch and Elijah didn’t go to live in heaven rather than dying either (at least not the same “part” of heaven that Jesus is now living in, which is presumably the Jerusalem which is above), contrary to the way Christians assume they did, since whatever happened to them can’t contradict what you’ve already learned from this series of articles. Genesis 5:24 is not an easy verse to understand, but based on everything we‘ve covered throughout these articles so far, we know that Jesus is the only human living in heaven (at least in the part of heaven outside of earth’s orbit where certain humans will go to live eventually), so they couldn’t have, which means that Enoch had to have gone somewhere other than heaven when he “was not” and was “taken by God.” The most probable explanation is that he was simply “caught away” from a dangerous situation where he would have been killed, to live out the rest of his life in safety somewhere else, similar to the way Philip was “caught away” after baptizing the eunuch, which seems to line up with the fact that the book of Hebrews includes Enoch in a list of people who lived by faith while also saying that everyone in the list died without having received what they were promised yet. And it’s recorded that King Jehoram received a letter from Elijah after the time that Elijah was caught up in the whirlwind to heaven, so, again, based on everything we now know about who is in heaven, this means that Elijah pretty much had to have been deposited somewhere else on earth to live out the rest of his life in safety too, just like Enoch, and that he then also eventually died, just like Enoch. There’s also the factor of how one has to have been quickened in order to live permanently in heaven/outer space, and 1 Corinthians 15 gives us a specific order of when each person will be “made alive” (which refers to being made immortal, as I’ll prove from Scripture in an upcoming article in this series), and outside of Jesus, nobody has been quickened yet, so they definitely can’t be immortal yet and hence can’t be living in heaven where Jesus is, but you’ll learn more about this aspect of salvation in that upcoming article.

This all means, by the way, that it’s also time to rethink the term “the kingdom of heaven,” or “the kingdom of the heavens” (which is simply a reference to the future kingdom coming from the heavens to earth, specifically to Israel), since this could actually be more literally translated as “the kingdom of/from outer space,” or perhaps simply “the kingdom from above.”

And this also all means that you can now be free from the fear of either you or any of your loved ones suffering in hell, because you now know that nobody is conscious while dead, and hat none of the biblical “hells” are anything even close to what we’ve been taught they are by our religious leaders anyway.

Part 8: Unmerited suffering and God

This is part 6 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 5 is available here: He was buried

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.

---

As we learned in the last article in this series, because almost no Bible believers actually believe that Christ truly died for our sins and really was buried (instead believing that only His body did and was, while He Himself lived on and went somewhere else altogether, meaning He Himself didn’t actually die or end up buried at all), none of these people can be said to have been baptized into the body of Christ yet, since they haven’t truly believed what Paul said those who experience the special sort of salvation he wrote about will believe at the time they’re saved (and please go read that article if you haven’t realized this fact yet). I should also point out that coming to understand that Jesus actually fully and truly died brings one to the realization that most Christians have misunderstood the nature of God (for lack of a better term) as well, thinking that God is one being made up of three beings rather than being only one being (however that’s supposed to work — and before someone claims they believe God is actually not one being made up of three beings, but rather three beings sharing one essence, they refer to their “three-in-one” deity as “He,” not “Them,” thus demonstrating that they either don’t know how English works or that they don’t know what the logical result of their doctrine is). Because, while the Bible says that there are actually many gods out there in the universe (it would be difficult for our heavenly Father to be the God of gods if there were no other gods out there for Him to be the God of), it also tells us that there is only one Almighty God (who created all the other gods), and He has no equals or co-equals. Can Almighty God have a God above Him? Nearly everyone I’ve asked this question to has immediately and rightly answered “no” (and the one person who answered “yes” when I asked him this question needs to learn how numbers work, because if Almighty God had a God above Him, there would then be two “Almighty” Gods: 1) Almighty God, and 2) the God who exists above Almighty God), but as we’ve already seen, Scripture tells us (in many places, actually) that Jesus has a God — His Father. This means that, while any title His Father has can also now be applied to Him (the English word “God” is just a title, after all, and is not His name, similar to the way “President” is a title and not an actual name), especially when speaking and acting on His Father’s behalf as His Father’s icon (or image), and hence He can now be referred to as God representationally (just as I can show you a picture of my wife and honestly say, “This is my wife,” even though it isn’t literally my wife since I didn’t marry a photograph), Jesus can’t actually be the Almighty God literally like His Father is, because the Father is above Him, and nobody is above — or even beside, meaning equal to — the Lord God Almighty (Who is differentiated from “the Lamb” — referring to Jesus — in the Bible anyway, which should also make this pretty obvious).

And so, even though at this point (post-resurrection and quickening of Christ) one might be able to call Jesus a “god,” or even be able to legitimately call Him “God” from a relative or representational perspective — since Matthew 28:18 says that all power in heaven and earth has been given to Him (meaning authority, in this case, once again being translated from ἐξουσία/“ex-oo-see’-ah,” which is important for the same reason we learned in the last article), and Acts 2:36 even says that He’s also now been made “Lord” by God as well — Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that, to us (meaning to those of us in the body of Christ, which is who Paul was writing to), “there is but one God, the Father.” I trust you can see that Paul didn’t say, “to us there is but one God, the Father and the Son,” which means there’s just no way to fit the Son into the title of God in that verse without ignoring the rules of grammar, not to mention the point of the passage it’s included in. And likewise, even though the Father is Lord from an absolute perspective, He’s temporarily given Jesus the title (and authority) of Lord, so, to us in the body of Christ (even if only from a relative perspective), Jesus is the one we currently refer to as Lord (and not someone we refer to as God in addition to Lord, since Paul told us in this verse that, to us in the body of Christ specifically, the Father is the only one we view as God — which makes sense, considering the fact that the Father really is the only God from an absolute perspective anyway, being the only one who can be called Almighty God). Besides, as verse 5 of that chapter says, there are “lords many,” so if this passage meant that Jesus is God because He’s been given the title of Lord for the time being, then all the other lords would also be God too. (And as for why I keep saying that Jesus is only “Lord” temporarily, it’s because 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that He’ll eventually give up His reign, after He destroys death.)

This is similar to the way that Jesus said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” in John 17:3. Based on the rules of language and logic — particularly when it comes to the definition of the word “only” — there’s just no way to make “thee the only true God” include anyone other than the person being referred to by the singular word “thee” (σέ/“seh” in the original Greek) in that verse (not to mention anyone other than the person being referred to as “the only…”). Jesus would have had to have said something along the lines of, “thee and me, the only true God,” or perhaps, “us, the only true God” (and then left out the second half of the verse altogether), in order to be included as a part of “the only true God” there. And yes, some Christians do try to argue that, because Jesus is mentioned in the second half of the verse, this fact then somehow makes Him a part of “the only true God.” But since the verse doesn’t say, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, who is also the only true God,” this is just reading one’s preconceived theological beliefs into the verse, especially since He separated Himself from the label of “the only true God” by saying “and” in between “the only true God” and “Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (telling us that “Jesus Christ” exists in addition to “the only true God” as a separate individual from that God, and not as another part of that God). You see, to use a bit of math to clarify things, when someone states that somebody else is the only x, and doesn’t include themselves or anyone else in that x in the statement, there’s just no way to then try to argue that said person actually meant that they are also the only x, even though they didn’t say that in their statement at all, and anybody who tries to claim otherwise is demonstrating that they either don’t understand how language and logic work, or are outright lying (even if only to themselves). Still, if you disagree, please show us how anyone other than the God and Father of Jesus Christ can be squeezed into the label of “thee the only true God” without contradicting any rules of language or logic.

Besides all that, the power (authority) which God gave to Jesus couldn’t have been given to Him at all if He was already ontologically the capital-G “God,” because then He’d already have had all the authority that was given to Him, since you can’t be given something that you already possess. And just as with His assigned authority, if He was already capital-G “God,” He couldn’t be made Lord either, because He’d already be Lord from an ontological perspective.

But even beyond the fact that the traditional, “orthodox” Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ is simply illogical and unscriptural, as I mentioned already (at least from an absolute perspective, even if we could technically say we believe in the deity of Christ from a relative perspective, since any being referred to as a god can be said to be a “deity” as well, even if there’s only one capital-D “Deity”), the bigger problem is that one can’t even join the body of Christ while truly believing in this doctrine (because, again, it means they don’t believe Christ actually fully died for our sins, and was buried, but that only His body did and was; God can’t die, so if one believes that Jesus is God, they can’t believe that Jesus truly died, nor can they believe that He Himself was buried), so I would posit that the reason it’s become one of the most important ideas in the Christian religion is because Satan wanted to make sure that as few people as possible could become a part of the body of Christ and take his reign from him during the future ages, and so when he created the counterfeit religion which has come to be known as Christianity today, in order to keep people from believing the truth of the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, he made sure it was a part of one of the primary doctrines.

In addition, it’s likely that belief in the traditional, “orthodox” doctrine keeps one from enjoying the sort of “eternal life” that one experiences under the Gospel of the Circumcision as well (and if you aren’t familiar with the difference between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, please be sure to read Part 1 of this series where I explained it in detail), because belief that Jesus is the Son of God is required for salvation under that Gospel, and the traditional doctrine teaches that Jesus is “God the Son” (really nothing more than a title for a certain part of God; and yes, logically, that is what it has to mean, despite any protestations to the contrary by Christians who might be familiar with their official — albeit unscriptural — “orthodox” creeds and what the so-called “heresies” declared by the supposed leaders of the religion are) rather than the actual Son of God (Jesus can’t be both God and the Son of God at the same time, because, based on the rules of language, that would make Him the Son of Himself). Scripture speaks of the Son of God and the Spirit of God, but never “God the Son” or “God the Spirit.” It’s important to remember that Scripture puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and on how one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (particularly those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision), so much so that claiming He has an identity not found in Scripture — “God the Son” — is teaching another Jesus.

Now, some like to claim that the traditional Christian doctrine regarding the deity of Christ and the other teachings connected with it is all “a mystery” which isn’t meant for us to understand, but nowhere in the Bible do we find this assertion made, so they have no scriptural foundation on which to lay this claim. Besides, if it is a “mystery” that can’t be understood, what basis do we have for believing it in the first place? Was the idea that Jesus is God prophetically told to be true to those Christians whose viewpoint on this topic won at Nicaea (yet with how the concept is supposed to work, exactly, never actually being explained, as is made clear by the fact that nobody seems to be able to do so without resorting to teaching ideas that are considered heretical to “orthodox” Christians)? I don’t recall that claim ever being made by any Christians. In fact, the reason the traditional doctrine came to be accepted by the Christian religion as truth is because the position won in a vote, not because any actual prophets at the Council of Nicaea revealed the doctrine to be true, which means that trying to defend the doctrine by calling it a “mystery” doesn’t help the position at all.

Ultimately, belief in any of the traditional “orthodox” doctrines seems to mean one hasn’t fully believed Paul’s Gospel and has not joined the body of Christ, and if something is an important teaching or practice (or is considered to be an “orthodox” tradition) among the majority of the followers of the Christian religion, it’s generally safe to assume it’s a doctrine of demons and that the opposite is true instead (particularly if it’s a major tradition, doctrine, or practice taught by Rome — for whom never-ending torment in “hell,” the immortality of the soul, and the deity of Christ are all extremely important doctrines). While Jesus’ statement that “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” was technically referring specifically to the Gospel that Jesus was teaching to the Israel of God, it is still true that very few people (relatively speaking), including Christians, ever join the body of Christ, so it likely still counts as a trans-dispensational (or trans-administrational) truth, which means that there’s no way a religion with as many followers as the Christian religion has  — more than a quarter of the human population of the planet at the time this book was last updated — can possibly be the “narrow way” that few find. Really, when it comes right down to it, there’s almost nothing that the Institutional Church gets right about God or Scripture. Although some denominations do occasionally stumble upon parts of certain truths seemingly accidentally, it’s extremely rare, and no one denomination within Christianity ever seems to get more than a few things at most somewhat right — and even then, they rarely understand even a small portion of the full implications of the parts they sort of appear to grasp. It seems (from a relative perspective, at least) that Satan works hard to keep people in these denominations from joining the body of Christ, and also to use these churches to keep the rest of the world from learning spiritual truth as well. Paul’s remonstration against Israel in his epistle to the Romans that, because of them, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations,” is today almost better applied to those in the Christian religion who give the world contradictory messages about God that keep people who think about these things from believing in such an apparently confused deity, telling people that God loves everyone unconditionally, as long as they meet certain conditions; that you are saved by grace alone and not by any actions of your own, as long as you act now and choose to become a Christian before you die; and that God is the Saviour of all humanity, yet will fail to save most of the humanity He’s supposedly the Saviour of, who will actually be tormented in “hell” without end (or will at least be burned up and permanently cease to exist if certain other Christians are correct) rather than be saved. Thanks to these lies, those who are able to recognize the hypocrisy hear these things and think, “The god of the Christian religion says one thing but apparently means something else altogether, so why would we want anything to do with this seemingly dishonest deity and contradictory religion?”

This isn’t to say that everyone who uses the label of “Christian” will definitely miss out on “eternal life,” however (although a pretty large number of people who call themselves Christians very likely will). A few of them might still experience life in the kingdom of heaven. It’s just that, due to their ignorance, they are unknowingly under the Gospel of the Circumcision instead of the Uncircumcision.

So, while “orthodox” Christians aren’t a part of the body of Christ and will miss out on heavenly blessings in the next age (and even in this age), an extremely small number of them might still get to enjoy the impending age here on earth if they follow the requirements of the Gospel of the Circumcision and don’t try to mix that Gospel with Paul’s Gospel, since it’s either one or the other. But as far as those of you who have now learned how to differentiate between the two Gospels go, you’re ready to also dig deeper into the rest of Scripture with a framework that will make it that much more clear what else the leaders of the Institutional Church might not have taught you thanks to their pre-existing assumptions about what Scripture says.

And with all that in mind, the passages we’ve looked at so far in this chapter prove once and for all that Jesus is not literally — nor can He possibly be — Almighty God, which means that any other passages one thinks might prove the traditional doctrine that He is God must be interpreted from the perspective that He’s only the Son of God instead. And, in fact, there are better interpretations for every one of the so-called “proof texts” that Christians use to try to prove their “orthodox” tradition, interpretations which don’t contradict the passages we just looked at. And so, without getting into the details, we have to always remember that just because a passage might seem to imply Jesus is God, we’ve already learned that Jesus can be said to be God representationally, and that He indeed is a god (in fact, He‘s the second highest authority in the universe at this point, higher than any god out there other than His Father, which means one could also say that He’s God from a relative perspective, even though only His Father is God from an absolute perspective), just as a passage that might be able to be interpreted as saying Jesus pre-existed His own birth as a human can, at most, be used to defend the doctrine that He was the first being created by Almighty God (presuming there isn’t another, equally possible, interpretation, which there often is), so at most these passages can be used to defend those points. However, since what I’ve already written proves our perspective on God and Christ quite definitively, while I might add more about this topic in future updates to this article, I’m going to leave it at that for now. Still, there are a lot of studies out there which go into even more detail on the topic, so if you’d like to learn what our interpretations of the various supposed “proof texts” for the traditional doctrine are, please see the list of articles and webpages listed below (before you read these articles, though, I should warn you that the majority of the members of the true body of Christ tend to not view the King James Bible quite as favourably as I do, and as such, they’re not written by King James Bible Believers; still, these are the best resources on the topic I could find by other members of the true body of Christ, so I’d still urge you to read them anyway):

• The Trinity
• One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part One)
• One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Two)
• One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Three)
• One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Four)
• One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Five)
• “The Trinity” — deadly doctrine on steroids
• Paul’s Gospel and the Death-Denying Doctrines that Contradict It
• The God Who is Love
• The Unbiblical Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Deity of God — Part 1 — The Only True God
• The Deity of God — Part 2 — God’s Will and Counsel
• The Deity of God — Part 3 — Faith in the Deity of God
• The Deity of God — Part 4 — God and Satan
• 46 Reasons Why Our Heavenly Father Has NO Equals or Co-Equal
• Jesus Christ the Son of God
• Refuting an Argument for “the Deity of Jesus Christ” (Part One)
• Refuting an Argument for “the Deity of Jesus Christ” (Part Two)
• 34 Reasons Why “the Holy Spirit” Is Not a “Person” Separate from the Only True God, the Father
• The Bible does not identify Jesus as Yahweh (part one)
• The Bible does not identify Jesus as Yahweh (part two)

---

In addition to the above articles (which were all written by true members of the body of Christ who also understand the difference between the two Gospels), I’m also including the following list of articles and websites which are either run by believers who don’t necessarily understand — or at least believe in — the difference between the two Gospels, or by otherwise traditional Christians who might not even be members of the true body of Christ at all, but they do contain some excellent arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, so I’m linking to them here as well:

Let the Truth Come Out (website)

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?

Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?

Specific objections to “Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?”

Some further notes on the unitarian debate

Understanding the concept of agency

The Messiah: a human Davidic king or the divine God?

A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit (part 1)

A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit (part 2)

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 1)

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 2)

The Deity of David

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts (part 1)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Old Testament (part 2)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Synoptic Gospels (part 3)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Gospel of John (part 4)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Acts of the Apostles (part 5)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Paul’s epistles (part 6)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Hebrews and the general epistles (part 7)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Revelation (part 8)

Trinity theories versus Scripture

Adamic Christology and the human Messiah

Mosaic Christology and the human Messiah

Elijah, Elisha, and the human Messiah

Davidic Christology and the human Messiah (part 1)

Davidic Christology and the human Messiah (part 2)

Jesus and the HANDS of God

Reasons to Believe’s Argument for the Trinity

When was the Trinity discovered?

The Incoherent Metaphysics of the Trinity

The Incoherence of the Incarnation

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 1 of 3)

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 2 of 3)

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 3 of 3)

The Trinity Delusion (website)

Biblical Unitarian (website)

Trinities.org (website)

---

If you don’t have the time to read all of the above articles right now, or just want to keep reading the rest of the articles in this series first, that’s fine. You can always come back to this page later (and please do, at least if you haven’t come to fully understand why one must reject the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be considered a true member of the body of Christ).

Part 7: Heaven isn’t what you think it is