Author: D.C.

Most people, thanks to the bad influence of conservative Christians and other religious conservatives, believe that modesty means not revealing too much skin or the outline of one’s body, and that a modest girl or woman will not be too revealing when it comes to her body and clothing. The truth, however, is that a woman can walk around topless — or even naked — in public, and still be completely modest, because modesty is actually the opposite of vanity, not the opposite of 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?!” since He made them that way and left them to enjoy the garden that way. 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.

Modesty is still important, but it’s about not showing off, not about not showing skin or curves. When Paul called for modesty in the church, 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 that beauty should not come from “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 Scripture 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 (humility) is something we should certainly aim for.

And as for the concern that not dressing like a prude might cause men to lust or feel sexual desire, anyone who knows what “lust” really refers to in Scripture knows that the idea as religious conservatives understand the concept isn’t actually a problem at all. Just as modesty doesn’t mean what most Christians have misunderstood it to mean, the lust that’s condemned in Scripture isn’t about enjoying the way someone’s body looks, or even about fantasizing about them in a sexual manner, so if someone tries to use that argument, they need to go back and learn the facts about lust as well. (I’ve written about it here, so please go read that article if you aren’t familiar with the truth about what Scripture actually says about lust and sexuality. In fact, this post you’re reading now is taken from a small section of that article.)

If salvation was really a choice that God left up to us, we’d have to start rewriting a number of famous hymns, perhaps starting with these two:

Amazing Grace

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That gave the choice to me!
Though once lost, chose to be found,
Was blind, but chose to see.

How Hard You Tried (to the tune of How Great Thou Art)

Verse 1
O Lord my God,
When I in awesome wonder
Consider all
The world Thy Hand hath made.
Yet you cannot
Rescue any other
Than just the few
Who do choose to be saved.

Refrain:
Then sings my soul,
“Personal Saviour of me,
How hard you tried
(Yet can’t succeed)
To save the rest.
Though Christ died for our sins,
You fail to save
All who don’t believe.”

Verse 2
And when I think,
That God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die,
I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross,
He accomplished nothing,
Without our choice,
To let Him cleanse our sin.

Verse 3
When Christ shall praise
My choice with acclamation,
And give to me
The salvation I did earn.
Then I shall stand
In proud adoration
Of how wise I was
to choose not to burn.

I’ve written about the differences between the various Gospels mentioned in Scripture many times on this website, and given various arguments as to why there is more than one recorded in Scripture, but there’s one proof which settles the debate beyond any shadow of a doubt, and that is the different meanings and end results of the various Gospels.

You see, while the Gospel that Jesus and His disciples preached let their audience members know that the kingdom of heaven was near (which is why it’s called the Gospel of the kingdom), both because its king was in their midst, as well as because it was ready to begin on earth if Israel would only accept Him as their Christ (Messiah) and as the Son of God, we also know that individual Israelites who didn’t accept Him as the Messiah and as the Son of God would not be saved under this Gospel (the salvation here being about getting to live in Israel during what is commonly referred to as the Millennium, and getting to fully experience the New Covenant).

This brings up a problem for the idea that there’s only one Gospel, though, because we know the end result of Paul’s Gospel is the eventual salvation of all humanity (salvation here being a reference to something different than the salvation Israelites were looking forward to; in this case being a reference to immortality and sinlessness). If everybody is going to eventually experience salvation because of the Good News he proclaimed (which is that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day), and not everyone will get to experience the salvation that Jesus and His disciples were preaching, then they simply can’t be the same Gospel.

Now yes, it’s true that those who don’t believe Paul’s Gospel will miss out on the special salvation on top of the salvation everyone is promised that Paul wrote about, but that special salvation is primarily about getting to experience said salvation early (there is slightly more to it than that, but that’s the most important part). In the end, though, it’s a salvation which all humanity will eventually experience because of what Paul’s Gospel means, unlike the salvation the Gospel of the kingdom was connected to, so it’s clearly another Gospel, and a far better Gospel at that.

As for those who are reading this and are unfamiliar with the fact that Paul’s Gospel means that everyone will eventually be saved, I’ve written about this in various places too, but I’d suggest beginning with the following three articles to get started on your understanding of the true meaning of his Gospel:

• How Paul used parallelisms to teach the salvation of all
• “…all men, especially…”
• To be “in Christ,” or not to be “in Christ”? Is that the question?

A fellow believer by the name of Alan posted this over on a Discord server which certain English-speaking members of the actual body of Christ sometimes frequent, and gave me permission to share it. I’ve edited it slightly for punctuation and spelling and such, but otherwise I’ve posted it as it was shared:

“Christians like to shit on atheists for saying there is no meaning to life, but think about this: according to most Christians, the majority of life failed its purpose. Instead of nothing mattering (Atheism), almost everything that did matter FAILED! For the overwhelming majority, it’s not just that their life was meaningless, but that their life ends up in eternal failure. What was the purpose of their suffering? There was no purpose. The evil they experience? Purposeless.

Christianity does not have an answer for the question of evil. Why? Because most people end up in hell forever. The evil we suffer has no value if we end up in hell forever. For the overwhelming majority this will be the case.

Today I was thinking about a man whose girlfriend died of cancer, and he wasn’t able to be there for her because his family stopped him from visiting her in the hospital. A sad story, but I know that he will see her again eventually, and the period of separation will make it all the sweeter.

Everything ends up with a happy ending, because Jesus saves all, but in eternal-torment land, the evil she and he experienced had no meaning, and God had nothing to do with it.

Christianity is more negative then Atheism; it is the worst horror story known to man.”

After finishing my post on the many differences between the Israel of God (and their Gospel of the Circumcision) and the body of Christ (and our Gospel of the Uncircumcision) — which you can find here — and being told by someone who read it that they still can’t see the clear pattern of differences between the two groups and our respective Gospels (and what the different outcomes of believing those two Gospels are), all I could think of was this meme from The Office.

Somehow, because they’re both photographs (both are called churches/Gospels), both highlight plant life (both are about the same Person), both have light shining making the scene visible (both involve grace), and both have places one could walk if they were in the picture (both involve faith that the information within a particular Good News is true — with “news” meaning a specific series of words which conveys specific information about a subject when arranged in a specific order), they’re obviously one and the same picture (church/Gospel), right?

Is the kingdom of God a present reality or a future promise? One of the biggest mistakes one can make when it comes to the question of whether the kingdom already exists or whether it’s still yet to fully begin on earth is to assume the answer is anything other than: Yes.

Recently, due to discussions I’ve been having with an Amillennialist, I’ve been looking closer at the reasons they don’t believe that the kingdom of God will be a physical kingdom here on earth (specifically in Israel) as Scripture seems to clearly say it will be when read without making any assumptions about the text ahead of time. In my studies, I’ve found that a better label for them might be Anti-Millennialists, because rather than being based on a straightforward reading of what Scripture seems to say about the kingdom, their arguments instead seem to be almost entirely based upon disagreement with, and misunderstandings of, certain parts of the Premillennialist position.

One thing that’s good to know is that Premillennialism was the eschatological position which was held to by pretty much by every Christian for the first few centuries of Christendom, at least until Augustine went and changed that fact (aside from a few people like Origen, but he seemed to even deny a future physical resurrection, so I doubt most Amillennialists would want to claim him and his doctrines as their own); and while those of us in the body of Christ today don’t necessarily base our theology on what Christians have historically considered to fall under the purview of “orthodoxy” or “orthopraxy,” this is still a fact that those who are considering the topic should be aware of.

Now the reason they’re called Amillennialists is because they don’t believe in a literal Millennium, instead claiming that the 1,000 period of time we generally refer to as the Millennium is actually a figurative period of time we’re currently living in right now (they also believe that the Judgement Seat of Christ is just another name for the Great White Throne Judgement, because they believe there’s only one future judgement to come, occurring right after Jesus returns). They also insist that the body of Christ is actually the Israel of God, often referring to this church as “spiritual Israel,” and that the kingdom of heaven is actually a spiritual reality taking place in the hearts of believers at this very time rather than being a literal reference to a future time of regeneration in Israel. This, of course, is particularly ridiculous if they happen to also be Infernalists or Annihilationists (meaning they believe in never-ending punishment for non-believers), because any Amillennialist who wants us to interpret the period of time referred to as “for ever and ever” in a literal manner meaning “a period of time without end” because they believe in never-ending punishment would have no good basis for also insisting that the period of time referred to as “the 1,000 years” is meant to be interpreted any less literally (they’d also have to explain why they seem to arbitrarily switch back and forth between literal and figurative meanings for other numbers throughout the book of Revelation as well).

But to get down to what Scripture says about all this, it seems to go without saying that the kingdom was already present, at least in some manner of speaking, during the time Jesus walked the earth, because He told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was already in their midst, meaning it was already present among them in the Person of its Messiah and future King. (No, I don’t believe He meant the kingdom of God was literally inside them; remember, He was speaking to the Pharisees there, and if the kingdom of God was literally within them, of all people, it must be within everyone, which I doubt any Christian believes to be the case, so this verse has to be interpreted very figuratively, with the phrase “within you” simply being figurative for ”within the midst of the group of you,” or ”within Israel,” with ”you” perhaps referring to the people of Israel.) This is why the Good News which He and His disciples preached when He walked the earth was that “the Kingdom of God is near,” and why it was called the Gospel of the kingdom.

However, we also know that the kingdom hadn’t fully come to earth yet, even after Jesus’ resurrection, since Acts 1:3-8 explains that He taught His disciples about the things of the kingdom during the 40-day period between His resurrection and His ascension, and yet, just before He ascended into heaven, when His disciples asked Him if He’d be bringing the kingdom to Israel at that time (after spending all that time learning about the things of the kingdom from Him), Jesus didn’t correct them on their apparently confused question by asking them, “Did I not just spend 40 days explaining that the kingdom began when I was raised from the dead, and that you’re already living in it, or, rather, that it already exists inside your hearts?” Instead, He just said, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” So not only did He not tell them that the kingdom was already present, He also didn’t correct their understanding that the kingdom was going to be located specifically in Israel (which are things they should have really already understood if He’d actually just spent all that time explaining what the kingdom was really about). And so, when He left the earth physically, the part of the kingdom that was “within them” (meaning ”within Israel”) left the earth too, which ended any part of the physical kingdom on the earth at that point, at least for the time being.

Still, that the kingdom does currently exist now in some form is also obviously the case, since Christ is currently reigning in the heavens, at least partially (I say “partially” because the whole of the heavens haven’t been fully brought under His control yet, since the devil and his angels haven’t been cast out of the heavens yet, for one thing, and many spiritual beings there still haven’t been reconciled to God yet either (and you can’t be reconciled without first being alienated, by the way — and I should also add that “reconciled” means the parties on both sides of an estrangement or disagreement are at peace with one another), and won’t until around the end of the fifth and final age, long after the body of Christ has joined Him up there to help Him do so, but that’s a discussion for another time). However, we also know that, at least for those of us in the body of Christ, the kingdom of God is a place that can’t be inhabited by mortal “flesh and blood” (at least not without being inside an aircraft or spacecraft or something similar; and the fact that “flesh and blood” will live in the part of the kingdom of God that will be on the earth in the future is just one more proof that there’s more than one Gospel, as well as more than one form of salvation, recorded as being taught in the Bible), so we ourselves aren’t actually living in the kingdom yet. This, of course, is simply because we’d suffocate from lack of oxygen, or freeze to death, or die from radiation poisoning out there in the heavens without an immortal body, which means that, while it perhaps might be able to be said that the body of Christ is a “part” of the kingdom, at least from a certain perspective (based on verses such as Colossians 1:13 — presuming that Paul wasn’t simply speaking proleptically there, which very well might actually have been the case), we ourselves won’t be “geographically” located in the kingdom, so to speak, until we’ve been quickened (made immortal) and are then brought out there to enjoy the realm in which our citizenship is said to be located.

It’s not just the body of Christ that isn’t geographically located within the kingdom yet, though. The Israel of God (which is an entirely different entity from the church known as the body of Christ, as is made evident by comparing the differences between the two of them as I did here) isn’t in the kingdom yet either. Now, Amillennialists like to claim that Jesus is already sitting on David’s throne, as it’s prophesied that He’ll eventually do (although the physical throne of David didn’t get snatched up into outer space, so even if this passage were saying what they think it does, it would obviously have to be a figurative expression, looking forward to the time He’ll also rule over Israel in person), but if you read the passage very carefully you can see that Peter never actually said that He’s sitting on David’s throne right now. The point of Peter’s sermon there was that David’s prophecy about Christ’s future reign is still able to be fulfilled in the future despite His death, because his other prophecy, about Jesus’ resurrection, also came true. Yes, Jesus sits at God’s right hand in the heavens, but this is on God’s throne, not David’s, and Peter was instead telling his Jewish audience why He’s worthy to also sit on David’s throne on earth in the future. (And yes, there are references to “the throne of the LORD” in the “Old Testament,” but unless one believes that God’s throne in heaven moved down to the earth for a while back then — and then back up to heaven later for Jesus to sit on — and that God temporarily vacated His own seat on said throne so that human kings could sit on it, it should be pretty obvious that these are actually references to two different thrones: a heavenly throne, and an earthly throne from where a representative of the one sitting on the heavenly throne can rule in Israel.) The fact of the matter is, while Jesus indeed sits on a throne in an actual part of the kingdom of God right now, Matthew tells us that He’s also going to sit on another throne (“the throne of His glory”) when He returns to the earth, right before He judges the nations.

All that aside, though, the many prophecies related to Israel make it very clear that their fulfillments will take place on earth, among those of the kingdom of Israel and those of the kingdom of Judah, and are not just “spiritual” code related to the body of Christ. (And, just as a quick aside, if “Israel” is actually spiritual code for the body of Christ, I have to ask, what is “Judah” — which is referred to in these prophecies as a whole different group of people from those in the kingdom of Israel — code for?) It isn’t “in our hearts” that the Israel of God was promised to reign, it’s on the earth. Because, if “Israel” is spiritual code for the body of Christ, and “the earth” is spiritual code for “our hearts,” that would mean the body of Christ is going to reign in their own hearts. Similarly, if the earth is spiritual code for our hearts, does that mean that it’s human hearts that are going to be “filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” rather than the earth? And, if so, whose hearts? And if Israel is said to to be a light to the Gentiles so they can be God’s salvation unto the end of the earth when the kingdom begins, is that code for the body of Christ being a light to the Gentiles (one also has to ask who the Gentiles receiving the light are in this spiritual code, because it can’t be the body of Christ, since they’re apparently Israel) so they can be God’s salvation unto the end of their hearts (presuming I’m correct in assuming that “the earth” is spiritual code for “human hearts”; but even if it isn’t, replace “the earth” with whatever it is code for to see if it ends up being any less ridiculous an interpretation)? And if all those words are spiritual code, then where do we stop? What is “light” code for, and what is “God’s salvation” code for? “Spiritualizing” these prophecies just leads to all sorts of interpretational absurdities if it’s done consistently (although, if there’s one thing few Christians ever do, it’s interpret Scripture consistently).

Of course, those of us who aren’t trying to ignore the clear meaning of the passages know exactly where the kingdom will actually be when it fully begins on the earth: it will be in the land that God gave to Israel’s fathers, as Ezekiel prophesied. And that land will have clear geographical boundaries, from the Mediterranean Sea on the west to the Jordan on the east, with the northern boundary at Hamath, and the southern boundary at Kadesh. Unless the locations making up the borders are all “spiritual” code for something (and I’d certainly be curious to know what it is Amillennialists think all these geographical locations are spiritual code for), it seems pretty obvious that these verses are simply saying that the kingdom will indeed be located within these borders in the future.

In addition, Ezekiel went on to describe some pretty specific dimensions of a future temple within these borders, and if we’re to believe that the land is our heart, then what is the future temple code for? And not just the temple as a whole, but all the specific measurements of the temple as well? I can tell you what those of us known as Premillennialists believe every verse within that passage means: we believe they mean there will be a literal temple with very specific dimensions in Israel in the future. So if someone is going to claim that all this is spiritual code, they’re going to have to be able to give us a convincing interpretation of pretty much all of the specific numbers there as well, before any of us are going to even begin to consider the possibility that they might be on to something.

It’s not just the references to Israel in the “Old Testament” books, though. If references to Israel in the “New Testament” books are actually about the body of Christ, does that mean the body of Christ has not obtained what it is looking for, as Paul wrote in Romans 11:7-12? If so, then who are the Gentiles who are being blessed by their fall? Now I am, of course, speaking facetiously there, since I’m sure no Amillennialist actually interprets the reference to “Israel” in that passage as referring to the body of Christ (or at least I’d be shocked if they did), but to remain consistent with their theology they have no excuse for doing otherwise. They like to pick and choose between which references to Israel in Scripture are referring to the body of Christ and which actually mean Israel, but this just goes to show the flaws in their eschatological position (especially when we consider the fact that this passage tells us they’ll eventually be restored, which brings up the question of who is being restored, since we know the Amillennialist position on Israel is wrong to begin with if it’s actually a reference to Israel and not the body of Christ, but there’s no basis for suddenly making that a reference to the body of Christ after talking about actual Israel).

I could go on and on, discussing things such as how the “world kingdoms” in the dream Daniel explained were actual kingdoms on earth that ruled over the whole “known world” at the time, which means that the kingdom which is going to succeed them has to be an actual kingdom on earth as well, in order to remain consistent (since otherwise we’d have to reinterpret the first four “world kingdoms” spiritually as well), or that the fact that there will still be death on the New Earth (at least until the final age concludes) means getting to live on the New Earth is not a reference to being saved (as Amillennialists appear to believe), or the hundreds of other prophecies in the various prophetic books that would just be absurd to interpret spiritually (which is why Amillennialists only interpret parts of them spiritually, cherry-picking which parts are “spiritual truths” while applying the rest of them to the time the New Earth comes to be, which is when they believe Jesus actually returns to the planet), and perhaps I will in the future (perhaps I’ll even update this very post in the future and add them here), but for now I think I’ve said enough to point out why we believe that the Premillennialist perspective makes far more sense.

How is it that one is saved from hell? Well, it looks like Jesus told us exactly how, and all you need are some surgical instruments:

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

It should be pretty obvious that basically no Infernalist (someone who believes in never-ending torment for people who die as non-Christians) or Annihilationist (someone who believes that people who die as non-Christians will cease to exist forever in the end) actually interprets these two parallel passages literally. In fact, I doubt you personally know a single Christian who both believes that these passages prove never-ending punishment and who has also actually mutilated or amputated parts of their body in order to avoid going to hell, which means they aren’t taking the way to avoid being cast into “everlasting fire” or “hell fire” particularly literally. And if one isn’t going to interpret the method of avoiding the punishment literally, there’s zero reason to take the punishment itself (or the duration of the punishment, for that matter) in those passages literally either. In fact, it would be entirely inconsistent to do so.

This is very simple. If the parts about “everlasting fire” and “hell” in those passages are literal, then the part about bodily mutilation has to be as well, and if it is, that means salvation isn’t only attainable by “believing the Gospel,” but is also possible to attain simply by mutilating or amputating parts of your body.

It also helps to realize that the passages in question are references to a prophecy of Isaiah about a time in the future that Jesus was pointing back to when He used the word, a prophecy that referred to carcases, meaning dead bodies, by the way, and not to anyone who is alive or consciously suffering, at least if we’re taking the passage in Isaiah literally, so there’s once again zero reason to believe these passages are talking about anybody suffering forever, in fire or otherwise.

So what do these passages mean? I’m not going to get into that here (although I have elsewhere on this website). The point I’m making is simply what they don’t mean. If you truly are curious, though, I did write about it here.

There are lots of other passages I can use as well, and I have in other places on this website, but I can show you, using two simple verses of Scripture, that God will save all humanity.

First, Galatians 6:10, where Paul wrote, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Now, did he write, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us potentially do good unto all men, but really only unto them who are of the household of faith”? No, he didn’t. He said in that verse to do good unto every human one has the opportunity to do so to, not just those who are of the household of faith. The word “especially” in that verse doesn’t mean “only” or “exclusively.” It means that those in the household of faith should be treated especially well, but every other human should still be treated well, according to that verse.

Likewise, in 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul wrote, “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.“ (The word “specially” there has the exact same meaning as “especially” in the verse in Galatians does.) Now, did he write, “…we trust in the living God, who is the potential Saviour of all men, but really only of those that believe”? No, he didn’t. In order for God to be the Saviour of all men, as Paul told us there that He is, He has to ultimately save everyone (you can’t be called someone’s saviour without actually saving them, so to be legitimately referred to as the “Saviour of all men,” He’ll have to actually save all men at some point). Once again, “especially” (or “specially”) doesn’t mean “only” or “exclusively.” It just means that those who believe get a “special” salvation, which involves experiencing our immortality and sinlessness earlier than everyone else, and also possibly getting to reign in the heavens, but every other human will still eventually experience salvation, according to that verse.

To put it another way, if, at the end of the school year, a teacher were to say, “I’ve given everyone a passing grade this year, specially Lisa who got an A+,” we’d know that, while nobody else got an A+, they still all passed, since “specially” doesn’t mean “only” or “exclusively.” And for the same reason, we know that, while not everyone will get the “special” salvation that believers will get to enjoy, everyone will still be saved in the end.

Now, if you want to try to read your own presuppositions about salvation and “damnation” into the above verse, I can’t stop you, but it will be just that, you reading your own doctrine into what Scripture actually says.

Most of us in the actual body of Christ (not to be confused with the Christian religion) are well aware of the fact that there is more than one Gospel in Scripture (at least we are if we’ve been a member for much time at all), and that the end result of believing the different Gospels is different as well. Those who believe Paul’s Gospel have joined the body of Christ and will reign in the heavens in the ages to come, while the Gospel of the Kingdom was meant primarily for Israelites, and the end result of accepting that Gospel is to reign on the earth when the kingdom of heaven begins on earth (specifically in Israel).

Most Christians, however, aren’t aware of these facts (or simply refuse to accept them), and instead believe that the body of Christ is now “spiritual Israel,” or has replaced Israel altogether as the true Israel, claiming that when Paul wrote, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” he was actually expanding the boundaries of the true “Israel” rather than shrinking the limits as he was actually doing there.

There have been long exegetical articles and books written explaining how replacement theology is not actually scriptural, and I may even expand on this in a later article myself, but it’s actually extremely simple to quickly prove that Israel has not been replaced by the body of Christ (or that the body of Christ hasn’t been subsumed into the Israel of God), and that proof is the New Covenant itself.

You see, the New Covenant is a covenant which God promised to make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, and this covenant includes God finally writing the law on their hearts (so that they can keep it perfectly, as Ezekiel also explained would be the result of this). This point right here proves definitively that the body of Christ is not a part of Israel, or even a part of the New Covenant as Israel will be partakers of in the future, because we are not under the law. In fact, Paul goes to great pains in his writings to explain that we should not be trying to follow the law, and should not allow ourselves to be placed under it in any way whatsoever. This means that we can’t be a part of Israel’s New Covenant, because it will involve law-keeping when it comes fully into effect, and that just isn’t something we’re supposed to participate in as members of the church known as Christ’s body.

These simple facts tell us that the law will be kept by Israel (and Judah) when it is finally written on their hearts, and that those of us in the body of Christ are not connected to Israel (or is it Judah? Which one is it that the body of Christ is supposed to now be a part of or have replaced?), which means that there are two separate destinies for the body of Christ and the Israel of God (one celestial and one terrestrial), and if there are two separate destinies, then there’s a good chance that the message one believes in order to partake of either destiny is likely different from the other message as well, which we know is indeed the case from other parts of Scripture.

If you’d like to learn more about these two messages and the two destinies, I did write about it in a little more detail here.

There are basically three soteriological positions one can hold to (meaning there are three different scriptural understandings of salvation and the ultimate destiny of all humanity that one can believe in). These three positions are: A) Universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved and reconciled to God in the end), B) Annihilationism (the idea that some people will cease to exist forever in the end), and C) Infernalism (the idea that some people will suffer conscious torment without end).

The truth is that, at least upon first glance, all three of these soteriological positions appear to be supported by Scripture:

A) Universalism	B) Annihilationism	C) Infernalism
Romans 5:18-19	Isaiah 66:23-24/Matthew 18:8-9/Mark 9:43-48¹	Daniel 12:1-3
1 Corinthians 15:20-28	Matthew 10:28	Matthew 25:46
Colossians 1:15-20	Romans 6:23	Jude 1:5-13
1 Timothy 2:3-6	2 Thessalonians 1:9	Revelation 14:11
1 Timothy 4:9-10	Revelation 20:14	Revelation 20:10

There are other passages that both Annihilationists and Infernalists use to support their respective positions as well, of course, but they don’t necessarily speak of the duration of the judgement, nor do they necessarily specify whether the ones being judged are conscious or not, so they weren’t included because they can’t really be used to support either of these two positions particularly definitively. (To be fair, the Matthew 25:46 reference in Column C only says the fire itself is “everlasting,” not that anyone’s suffering in the fire is “everlasting,” so it could be used in Column B as well, but I put it in Column C because it is one of the Infernalists’ favourite passages to support their position.)

Now, if one only looks at the passages in the column that seems to support the position they’re looking to defend, it’s easy to see why someone would come to the conclusion they do. Of course, Infernalists generally do also look at the passages in Columns A and B, and they generally are able to interpret them in ways that seem to support their position as well. However, something that few of these Infernalists ever seem to realize (I’m picking on them here partly because they’re currently the largest of the three groups within “Christendom” — although, historically, that hasn’t always been the case — but also because those in the other two groups tend to already be aware of this fact) is that both the Universalists and the Annihilationists also look at the passages in the columns that seem to support the two views that go against their own soteriological perspectives and have no problems interpreting them in ways that seem to support their respective positions as well.

Simply put, it isn’t that Universalists and Annihilationists are ignoring the passages the Infernalists believe prove Infernalism, as most Infernalists seem to assume (at least in my experience), but rather that each of the passages in all three columns can be interpreted in ways that work within the soteriological framework of all three positions. Now the point of this post isn’t to prove that Universalism is the position which seems to have the most scriptural support (even though that’s what I do see in Scripture myself), but to point out to Infernalists that, even if they might be misinterpreting the passages in question, Universalists and Annihilationists do have scriptural reasons for the positions they’ve landed on as well, and it isn’t that they’re just cherry-picking Scripture and ignoring passages they don’t like. Instead, they’re doing the exact same thing you’re (supposed to be) doing: interpreting Scripture as a whole, which means interpreting the passages in the two columns that don’t seem to support their position upon first glance in such a way that ultimately doesn’t contradict their position, just as you yourself do with the passages in Columns A and B. So while, upon first glance at the passages in Column C, it might seem obvious to you that Infernalism is the only soteriological position supported by Scripture, both Universalists and Annihilationists see it as being just as obvious that their own perspective is the only soteriological position supported by Scripture.

So the next time you hear a Universalist or Annihilationist discussing their viewpoint (and this goes for Annihilationists hearing the Universalist or Infernalist viewpoint as well), please show some humility and acknowledge that, even if they’re wrong, they aren’t simply ignoring the passages you think support your viewpoint, but that they have what they believe are legitimate interpretations of those passages, and that they truly believe these interpretations work perfectly within their own soteriological framework with no contradictions or problems.