Bad Assumptions about the Bible

[B-A-C]

The Ford Man

My daddy was a Ford man. His daddy before him was a Ford man. And now I'm a Ford man.

We laugh at brand loyalty like that. Choosing a truck because of family tradition rather than actually comparing what's on the lot. Never test driving anything else. Never checking the specs. Just buying what daddy bought because that's what we do.

But we carry that same idea into theology.

My preacher said this. The preacher before him said this. My denomination has always taught this. So by George, that's what I believe.

Even if it's unbiblical.

We inherit doctrines the same way we inherit truck preferences. We never test drive them. Never compare them against Scripture. Never ask if maybe, just maybe, daddy got it wrong.

And so the bad assumptions get passed down, generation after generation, until nobody remembers why we believe what we believe. We just believe it because that's what Ford men do.

The '57 Chevy

A friend of mine has an old 1957 Chevy Bel Air. His dad gave it to him years ago. They worked on it together for decades. Replacing parts. Fixing problems. Countless hours in the garage. It's a nice car, but it's not perfect. It's got quirks. It's got issues.

A few years back, he won another '57 Chevy in a raffle. This one is immaculate. A perfect show car. Not a scratch on it.

So which one is his favorite?

You'd think the perfect one, right?

No. It's the one his dad gave him. The imperfect one. The one he's invested decades into.

Because he's vested in it. Time. Sweat. Memories. Relationship. All wrapped up in that car. The perfect one is just a car. The imperfect one is his car.

We do the same thing with theology.

The doctrine I inherited from my father, my preacher, my denomination - the one I've defended for decades, argued for in Bible studies, built my reputation on - that's my doctrine. I've got too much invested to let it go.

Someone comes along with a cleaner interpretation. More biblical. Answers the hard questions. But it doesn't matter. I'm not trading. I've got too many years in the other one.

I've been telling people "this is right, that is wrong" for years. I've debated it. Argued it. Cried over it. Prayed about it. And now I see proof that I was wrong?

Sometimes people see it and accept it. Sometimes they don't want to see it. Perhaps admitting error implies wasted years of effort. All those people I taught. All those arguments I won. All those people I might have led astray.

It's not just about the doctrine anymore. It's about everything I built on it.

And for the record - Ford or Chevy - I don't trust either one to get me where I'm going. That's the point. Don't trust the Ford. Don't trust the Chevy. Trust the map. Read it yourself.

The Lazy Student

Here's a third trap, and it might be the most common.

I could study this myself. I could dig into the Scriptures and figure it out. I could compare passages, look at context, weigh the evidence.

But that takes time. That takes effort. I'd have to use my brain.

It's so much easier to let someone else explain it to me.

And here's the problem - when you let someone else explain it, you get their bias baked in. You're not getting Scripture. You're getting Scripture filtered through their assumptions, their tradition, their '57 Chevy.

I've met people who have been Christians for thirty years. Ask them a hard question and they say, "Well, I'm still a babe in Christ."

Thirty years?

That's not humility. That's a cop-out. That's a refusal to take responsibility.

The writer of Hebrews had words for this: "By this time you ought to be teachers, but you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food" (Hebrews 5:12).

Thirty years on milk. At some point that's not being a new believer. That's negligence.

Lazy students become the next generation of Ford Men, who become invested Chevy owners, who teach the next batch of lazy students. And the cycle continues.

The Berean Way

So what's the way out?

Scripture gives us a model.

"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).

The Bereans. Paul himself - an apostle, a church planter, a man who had seen the risen Christ - came to them preaching. And what did they do?

They didn't just take his word for it. They checked.

And Scripture calls them noble for it.

Not rebellious. Not divisive. Not troublemakers. Noble.

Notice what they did. They received the word with readiness - open minds, willing to learn. But then they searched the Scriptures to verify. Both parts matter. Open, but discerning.

That's the opposite of the Ford Man, the '57 Chevy, and the lazy student.

The Bereans weren't inheriting blindly. They weren't too invested to question. They weren't too lazy to study. They did the work.

That's my challenge to you as you read this book.

Don't take my word for it. Don't take your preacher's word for it. Don't even take Paul's word for it.

Search the Scriptures yourself and see if these things are true.

Read the Bible. The whole Bible. Even the uncomfortable parts. Especially the uncomfortable parts.

And if you find that something you've believed for decades doesn't hold up - if the '57 Chevy turns out to have a cracked engine block - have the courage to admit it.

The truth matters more than tradition. Scripture matters more than sentiment. What God actually said matters more than what we wish He'd said.

Be a Berean.

Check it yourself.

When We Start Inventing​

But there’s another level to this problem. It’s not just that we inherit bad doctrine. Sometimes we actively manufacture it.

When the doctrine we inherited doesn’t quite fit Scripture, we don’t question the doctrine. We invent missing pieces to make it work.

Let me show you what I mean.

The Phantom Apostles​

The New Testament mentions two men: James and Jude. Both wrote letters. Both identify themselves clearly.

James calls himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude calls himself “brother of James.” Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 list them together as Jesus’ brothers.

Simple, right?

But there’s a problem. Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him during His ministry. John 7:5 is clear about this. That’s theologically awkward. Also, some traditions require Mary to be perpetually virgin, which means Jesus couldn’t have actual brothers.

So what did we do?

We invented two more people.

“Oh, the James who wrote the letter? That’s not James the apostle, and it’s definitely not James the Lord’s brother. It’s… some other James. A different apostle. One we don’t have any other record of.”

“And Jude? Not Judas the apostle. Not Jude the Lord’s brother. It’s another Jude. Also an apostle. Also not mentioned anywhere else.”

Where’s the evidence for these phantom apostles? Nowhere. We made them up because we couldn’t handle the simple explanation: Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe at first, but after the resurrection they converted and became church leaders.

We literally invented two people who don’t exist to avoid theological discomfort.

The Multiple Raptures​

Here’s another one.

In Matthew 24 and Mark 13, Jesus describes His return. The sequence is clear:

“Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days… they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds… And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect.”

Tribulation happens. Then Jesus comes. Then the gathering.

But that doesn’t fit pre-tribulation rapture theology. Pre-trib requires the church to be removed BEFORE the tribulation.

So what did we do?

We invented another rapture.

“Oh, that gathering in Matthew 24? That’s not THE rapture. That’s a different gathering. For tribulation saints. The church already got raptured earlier in a secret rapture that’s not mentioned in this passage.”

Where’s this first rapture? Not in Matthew 24. Not in Mark 13. Not in the Olivet Discourse at all.

We import 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and claim that’s the pre-trib rapture. But 1 Thessalonians doesn’t say “before tribulation” either. It just describes the event. Same trumpet. Same clouds. Same gathering. Sounds like the same event Matthew and Mark describe.

But that doesn’t work for our inherited theology, so we split one event into two. We invent a secret rapture for the church and claim the visible one is for someone else.

And when you push back and say “I only see one rapture in Scripture,” they call you a heretic.

We invented a whole gathering event that’s nowhere in the text because our inherited system required it.

The Redefined Sin​

One more example.

Jesus said this: “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”

Clear enough. Two different things:

Speaking against the Son of Man (Jesus) - forgivable.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - unforgivable.

But we don’t like that ambiguity. We want a clean answer to “what’s the unforgivable sin?”

So we invented one: “Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means rejecting Jesus as Savior.”

But Jesus just said speaking against the Son of Man is forgivable. If rejecting Jesus is the unforgivable sin, Jesus contradicted Himself in the same breath.

And think about the implications. If rejecting Jesus is unforgivable, then everyone gets one shot. Once you say “no” to Jesus, you’re done forever. No second chances.

Paul rejected Jesus. He persecuted the church. Was he doomed? No, he converted and became an apostle.

Peter denied Jesus three times. Unforgivable? No, he was restored and led the early church.

The thief on the cross lived his whole life rejecting Jesus. Too late? No, he was saved that very day.

Our invented definition creates absurdities Scripture never supports.

The context matters. Jesus said this when the Pharisees attributed His miracles to demonic power. They saw the Holy Spirit’s work and deliberately called it Satan. That’s the blasphemy. Not intellectual rejection. Not saying “I don’t believe.”

But we needed a clean answer, so we changed what Jesus said to fit what we wanted Him to say.

The Pattern​

See the pattern?

Scripture says X. Our theology needs Y. So we invent Z.

We create phantom apostles to protect doctrines about Mary.

We manufacture multiple raptures to preserve pre-trib eschatology.

We redefine sin to give neat answers to hard questions.

And then we defend our inventions as fiercely as if they were actually in the text.

This is what happens when we start with conclusions and retrofit Scripture to support them. When the Bible doesn’t cooperate, we don’t change our theology. We change what the Bible says.

We add people who don’t exist. Events that aren’t described. Meanings that contradict the text.

It’s not just inheriting bad doctrine anymore. It’s manufacturing it.

The Ford Man buys what daddy bought. But when the Ford breaks down, he welds on Chevy parts and calls it “original factory equipment.”

And then he passes it down to the next generation as if it came that way from the factory.

That’s how traditions become “biblical truth.”

That’s how we end up believing things that simply aren’t there.

And that’s why we need to be Bereans. Check everything. Even the things that seem obvious. Especially the things everyone agrees on.

Because sometimes what everyone agrees on is something we made up three generations ago and forgot it wasn’t in the Bible to begin with.

 

[B-A-C]

The Problem with the Thief on the Cross

Few figures in Scripture get used more often to justify doctrine than the thief on the cross. And few figures are more misunderstood.

You've heard the arguments. The thief wasn't baptized - so baptism isn't necessary. The thief didn't do any good works - so works don't matter. The thief just believed - so belief is all you need.

But there's a problem with building doctrine on the thief. A big one.

What if the thief wasn't the first example of New Covenant salvation - but the last example of Old Covenant salvation?

Paradise, Not Heaven

Let's start with what Jesus actually said.

"Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

Paradise. Not Heaven. That distinction matters.

In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man. When Lazarus died, he went to Abraham's Bosom - a place of comfort, separated by a great gulf from Hades where the rich man suffered. This was Paradise. The holding place for the righteous dead under the Old Covenant.

Abraham was there. Lazarus was there. All the Old Testament saints were there. Waiting.

Waiting for what?

Waiting for Jesus to finish His work.

The Covenant Wasn't in Force Yet

Here's a legal reality most people overlook.

"For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives" (Hebrews 9:16-17).

A will doesn't take effect until the person who wrote it dies.

When Jesus made His promise to the thief, Jesus was still alive. The New Covenant - the new testament in His blood - wasn't in force yet. It couldn't be. The testator hadn't died.

The thief died under the same covenant that covered Abraham, Moses, and David. Faith looking forward to the promise. Old Covenant terms.

He wasn't the first convert of the New Covenant. He was the last convert of the Old.

Jesus Hadn't Ascended Yet

After the resurrection, Mary Magdalene found Jesus at the tomb. She reached out to Him, and He said something strange.

"Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father" (John 20:17).

Jesus had work to do. He hadn't gone to the Father yet.

The book of Hebrews tells us that the earthly tabernacle was "a copy and shadow of the heavenly things" (Hebrews 8:5). There is a tabernacle in Heaven. A real one. Complete with the ark of the covenant and a mercy seat.

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would take the blood of the sacrifice and sprinkle it on the mercy seat. That blood covered the sins of the people for another year.

Jesus, our High Priest, had to do the same thing - but once for all. He had to take His own blood into the heavenly tabernacle and sprinkle it on the heavenly mercy seat.

"Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

When the thief died, Jesus hadn't done that yet. The blood hadn't been applied. The atonement wasn't complete.

The Spirit Wasn't Given Yet

Under the Old Covenant, the Holy Spirit worked differently than He does now.

The Spirit came upon people - temporarily, for specific tasks. He came upon Samson to give him strength. He came upon Saul to prophesy. He came upon David to reign. But He also left. Saul lost the Spirit. David, after his sin with Bathsheba, prayed "Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). He knew the Spirit could depart.

The New Covenant promised something different. An indwelling Spirit. A permanent presence.

But that hadn't happened yet.

"But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39).

Not yet given. Jesus wasn't glorified yet.

Jesus told His disciples, "It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you" (John 16:7).

The Spirit couldn't come in the New Covenant way until Jesus left. That happened at Pentecost - Acts 2. Peter preached, and three thousand were baptized, and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The thief died before any of this. Before the resurrection. Before the ascension. Before the Spirit was poured out. Before Acts 2. Before "repent and be baptized." He couldn't have received the indwelling Spirit even if he wanted to. It wasn't available yet.

Leading Captives Free

So what happened to all those Old Testament saints waiting in Paradise?

"When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. Now this, 'He ascended' - what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?" (Ephesians 4:8-9).

Jesus descended. To the lower parts. To Paradise. And He led the captives free.

Abraham, Moses, David, Lazarus, and yes - the thief on the cross. All of them waiting. All of them transferred when the work was complete.

The thief went to Paradise that day, just as Jesus promised. But Paradise wasn't the final destination. It was the waiting room. And when Jesus finished His work, He came back for them.

The Evidence Stacked Up

Let's count the reasons the thief was under the Old Covenant:

One - Jesus said Paradise, not Heaven. The Old Testament saints' waiting place.

Two - Jesus hadn't died yet. The New Covenant wasn't in force.

Three - Jesus hadn't ascended yet. The blood hadn't been applied to the heavenly mercy seat.

Four - The Spirit hadn't been given yet. The New Covenant indwelling wasn't available.

Five - Acts 2 hadn't happened yet. "Repent and be baptized" hadn't been preached.

Six - Jesus led the captives free after His work was done. The thief was among them.

How many reasons do we need? The thief was Old Covenant by every measure.

Selective Proof-Texting

Here's something interesting. People love to use the thief to dismiss New Covenant commands.

The thief wasn't baptized - so I don't need to be baptized.

The thief didn't do good works - so I don't need to do good works.

The thief just believed - so belief is all I need.

But you know what else the thief wasn't?

Circumcised.

Funny how that never comes up. Under the Old Covenant, circumcision was required. But nobody says, "The thief wasn't circumcised, so circumcision must not matter."

Why not? Because we know circumcision was an Old Covenant requirement that doesn't apply to us.

Exactly. So why are we using an Old Covenant convert to dismiss New Covenant requirements?

Even If You Disagree

But let's say you're not convinced. Let's say you still think the thief was saved under New Covenant terms.

Fine. Let's grant everything you want to claim.

The thief confessed with his mouth. He believed in his heart. He recognized his sin and accepted his punishment. He probably didn't commit any more sins in the few hours he had left. And he couldn't get baptized - he was nailed to a cross with Roman soldiers guarding him.

Maybe grace covered what he couldn't do. Jesus knows hearts. The thief gets a pass on the things that were physically impossible for him.

I'll give you that.

Now answer me this: What's your excuse?

You've been saved for ten, twenty, thirty years. You're not nailed to a cross. You're not dying in the next few hours. You have legs that work. There's a baptistry at your church. There's water in the river.

The thief couldn't. You can.

The thief had hours. You've had decades.

The thief had no opportunity. You've had hundreds.

And if you're wheelchair-bound? I've seen people in wheelchairs get baptized. I've seen elderly people lowered into the water. I've seen baptisms in bathtubs, horse troughs, swimming pools, lakes, rivers, oceans. I've seen people baptized in hospitals.

If you want to obey, you find a way.

The thief had zero options. Zero.

You have options. You just don't like them.

Grace covers "can't." It doesn't cover "won't."

The Real Question

So here's the real question.

Why are we building doctrine on the one dying man who couldn't do anything - instead of the dozens of examples in Acts where people could do something and did?

Pentecost - three thousand repented and were baptized.

The Ethiopian eunuch - "Here is water, what hinders me?" He was baptized immediately.

Paul - "Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins."

Cornelius - baptized immediately after receiving the Spirit.

The Philippian jailer - baptized the same hour of the night.

Lydia - baptized with her household.

Person after person after person. The pattern is clear. Believe and be baptized. Immediately. Without delay.

But we ignore all of that and cling to the one guy who couldn't do it.

Why?

Because the exception lets us off the hook. The exception doesn't require anything of us. The exception lets us say "it's not really necessary."

We go with the one example instead of the dozens.

Bad foundation.

Conclusion

The thief on the cross is a beautiful picture of grace. A man at the end of his rope, with nothing to offer, placing his faith in Jesus and receiving the promise of Paradise.

But he's not your model.

He was the last Old Covenant convert, saved the same way Abraham was saved - by faith looking forward to the promise. He went where the Old Testament saints went. He was led captive when Jesus finished His work.

You live after Acts 2. You live after "repent and be baptized." You live after the Spirit was poured out. You have opportunities the thief never had.

Stop hiding behind a dying man's inability to justify your unwillingness.

Be a Berean. Look at all the evidence. Follow the pattern of Acts, not the exception on the cross.

And if you can obey - then obey.

 

[B-A-C]

The Pre-Trib Assumption

Few doctrines are held more confidently - and examined less carefully - than the pre-tribulation rapture.

Ask many Christians when the rapture will happen, and they'll tell you without hesitation: before the tribulation. The church will be caught up, the tribulation will unfold on earth, and then Jesus will return. Two separate events, separated by seven years.

But where does the Bible say this?

In this chapter, I want to lay out what Scripture actually says about the timing of the rapture. Not what we've been taught. Not what we assume. What the text says.

Jesus Gives the Sequence

In Matthew 24, Jesus lays out a clear timeline of end-time events. His disciples asked Him about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, and He answered them directly.

First, the Abomination of Desolation marks the beginning of the Great Tribulation (verse 15).

Second, the elect are still present during this time. Jesus warns them to flee, and He says that for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened (verses 22-24). If the elect had already been raptured, why would they need those days shortened?

Third, Jesus warns against believing in secret comings. "If anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it... For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be" (verses 26-27). His return will be visible and unmistakable - not secret.

And then comes the key verse:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (verses 29-31).

Read that again. Immediately after the tribulation. Then cosmic signs. Then Jesus appears. Then the trumpet. Then He gathers His elect.

That's the sequence Jesus gave. After the tribulation, not before.

Mark Confirms It

Mark's account of the same teaching says the same thing:

"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven" (Mark 13:24-27).

After that tribulation. Then He gathers His elect. Two witnesses saying the same thing.

Paul Says "Not Until"

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul addresses believers who were worried that they had missed the Day of the Lord. His answer is revealing:

"Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (verses 1-4).

Paul explicitly links two things: "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our gathering together to Him." That's the rapture - our gathering to Him. And he says it will not happen until two things occur first:

One - the falling away (apostasy) comes.

Two - the man of sin is revealed and sits in the temple.

These are tribulation events. The man of sin sitting in the temple is the Abomination of Desolation that Jesus spoke of. Paul says our gathering to Christ will not happen until these things occur.

Not before. Not until.

The First Resurrection

Revelation 20 gives us another critical piece of the puzzle:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection" (verses 4-5).

Notice who is included in the first resurrection: those who were beheaded for refusing the mark of the beast. These are tribulation martyrs. And this is called the first resurrection.

Here's the problem for pre-trib: if the rapture happened before the tribulation, then the resurrection of the saints already occurred. But if that's true, how can this resurrection - which includes tribulation martyrs - be called the first resurrection?

It can only be the first resurrection if no resurrection of the saints preceded it. This places the resurrection - and the rapture - after the tribulation.

The Last Trumpet

Multiple passages connect the rapture with a trumpet. Let's look at them together.

Paul writes: "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed - in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

And again: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

And Jesus said: "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect" (Matthew 24:31) - immediately after the tribulation.

These passages describe the same event. The Lord descends. A trumpet sounds. The dead are raised. The living are caught up. The elect are gathered.

And Paul calls it "the last trumpet." Not the first trumpet. Not a trumpet before other trumpets. The last one.

A last trumpet implies a sequence that has reached its culmination - not a beginning.

Protection Through, Not Removal From

Some argue that God would never allow His people to go through the tribulation. But that's not how God has operated throughout Scripture.

Noah wasn't removed from the flood - he was protected through it.

Israel wasn't removed from Egypt during the plagues - they were protected through them. The angel of death passed over their homes.

Daniel wasn't removed from the lion's den - he was protected in it.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego weren't removed from the fiery furnace - they walked through it with a fourth man.

This is God's pattern. He doesn't always remove His people from trials. He preserves them through trials.

Revelation confirms this pattern: "And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads" (Revelation 9:4).

God seals His servants to protect them from certain judgments. He doesn't remove them from the scene entirely.

Satan's Wrath vs God's Wrath

"But wait," someone says, "we are not appointed to wrath!" And that's true. First Thessalonians 5:9 says, "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."

But here's a distinction many miss: not everything in the tribulation is God's wrath.

Revelation 13:7 says: "It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them." The beast makes war with the saints. That's Satan's wrath against God's people - not God's wrath against His people.

Revelation 20:4 describes those "who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image." These are saints who died during the tribulation - martyred by the beast, not punished by God.

Believers are not appointed to God's wrath. But we have never been exempt from Satan's wrath or the world's persecution. Jesus promised us tribulation in this world (John 16:33). The early church faced intense persecution. Saints throughout history have been martyred.

The Great Tribulation includes persecution of the saints by the beast. That's not God punishing His people - that's the enemy attacking them. And God will preserve His own through it, just as He always has.

One Event, Not Two

Pre-tribulation teaching requires two separate events: a secret rapture before the tribulation, and a visible second coming after it. Seven years apart. Two comings of Christ.

But where does the Bible teach this?

First Thessalonians 4:16-17 describes the Lord descending, the trumpet sounding, the dead rising, and the living being caught up. This is clearly the rapture.

Matthew 24:30-31 describes the Son of Man coming on the clouds, sending His angels with a trumpet, and gathering His elect. This is clearly the second coming.

But look at the elements: the Lord descends, clouds, trumpet, gathering of believers. These aren't two different events. They're two descriptions of the same event.

Second Thessalonians 2:1 links them explicitly: "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him." One coming. One gathering. One event.

There is no passage that clearly says:

The rapture happens before the tribulation.

The second coming happens after the tribulation.

These are two distinct events separated by years.

The consistent pattern of Scripture is: Jesus returns once, visibly. The dead in Christ are raised. The living are caught up. Judgment follows. One event.

Speculative Proof-Texts

At this point, some will bring up verses like Revelation 3:10: "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

This verse is often cited as proof of a pre-tribulation rapture. But look at the context. This is written to the church at Philadelphia. There is no mention of tribulation. There is no mention of rapture. People speculate that "the hour of trial" means the Great Tribulation - but the text doesn't say that.

Compare that to Matthew 24, where Jesus explicitly mentions the tribulation and explicitly says He gathers His elect after it. Compare it to 2 Thessalonians 2, where Paul explicitly links our gathering to Christ with the revealing of the man of sin.

There's a difference between verses that explicitly mention the rapture and tribulation in context, and verses where we have to guess what they might mean. Build your doctrine on the explicit verses, not the speculative ones.

The Count

Let's count the verses.

Matthew 24:29-31 - "Immediately after the tribulation... He will gather His elect."

Mark 13:24-27 - "After that tribulation... He will gather His elect."

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 - "Our gathering to Him... will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed."

That's three passages that explicitly say "after" or "not until." Three clear statements connecting the gathering of believers to events during or after the tribulation.

Now show me one verse that says "before."

Just one.

Not an inference. Not a speculation. Not "well, this could mean..."

One verse that explicitly says the gathering of believers happens before the tribulation.

There isn't one.

Conclusion

I'm not asking you to take my word for this. I'm asking you to read the passages yourself.

Matthew 24. Mark 13. 2 Thessalonians 2. Revelation 20. 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Thessalonians 4.

Read them. See what they say. Notice the sequence Jesus gives. Notice when Paul says our gathering happens. Notice who is included in the first resurrection. Notice when the trumpet sounds.

The post-tribulation view maintains a consistent biblical timeline: The church will face the Great Tribulation. The Antichrist will be revealed and persecute the saints. Jesus will return visibly, after the tribulation. The elect will be gathered at the last trumpet. The faithful will be rewarded, and the wicked judged.

This view honors the plain reading of Scripture, avoids speculative gaps, and affirms the call to endure faithfully until the end.

The pre-tribulation rapture may be what you've always believed. It may be what your preacher taught. It may be what your denomination holds.

But is it what Scripture says?

Be a Berean. Check it yourself.

And if you can't find a single verse that says "before" - maybe it's time to ask whether the pre-trib rapture is biblical truth, or just a bad assumption.

 

[B-A-C]

The Dreaded Works Doctrine

Few words make Protestants more nervous than "works."

Mention works in connection with salvation and people get uncomfortable. They'll quickly remind you that we're saved by grace through faith, not by works. They'll quote Ephesians 2:8-9. They'll warn you about "works-based salvation" and "earning your way to heaven."

And they're right - partially. You cannot earn salvation. You cannot be good enough to deserve heaven. Grace is a gift.

But somewhere along the way, we've twisted "not saved by works" into "works don't matter at all." And that's not what Scripture says.

The Apparent Contradiction

The Bible seems to contradict itself on this issue. Paul writes:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Clear enough. Not by works. But then James writes:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Wait - justified by works? Not by faith alone?

So which is it? Works or no works?

The answer is both - but with an important distinction that most people miss.

The Missing Verse

When people quote Ephesians 2:8-9, they almost always stop there. But there's a verse 10:

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Did you catch that? Created in Christ Jesus FOR good works. Works that God prepared beforehand. Works that we are supposed to walk in.

We are not saved BY works. We are saved FOR works.

Works can't get you in the door. But once you're in, works are expected. Required. Prepared for you in advance.

I wonder why verse 10 gets left out so often.

Before and After

Here's how I understand it: there's a before and an after.

Before you are saved, there is nothing you can do to earn salvation. No amount of good deeds can purchase your way into heaven. You come to God empty-handed, trusting in Christ alone. That's grace. That's faith.

But after you are saved? After you've received that gift? Works are expected. Fruit should appear. Evidence of transformation should be visible.

If someone claims to have received new life in Christ and nothing changes - no fruit, no works, no evidence - we have to ask: did anything actually happen?

James puts it bluntly: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself... You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:17, 19). Belief isn't enough. Even demons believe.

The Parable of the Talents

In Matthew 25, Jesus tells a story about a master who entrusts his possessions to three servants before going on a journey.

One servant receives five talents, another two, another one - each according to his ability. The first two servants put their talents to work and double them. The third servant digs a hole and buries his.

When the master returns, he settles accounts. To the first two servants he says, "Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master."

But to the third servant: "You wicked, lazy slave... take away the talent from him... throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:26, 28, 30).

Notice what the third servant did wrong. He didn't steal the talent. He didn't waste it on sinful living. He didn't curse the master or rebel against him.

He just didn't do anything.

And for that - for doing nothing - he was called wicked and lazy and thrown into outer darkness. Not demoted. Not given fewer rewards. Thrown out.

That should terrify anyone who thinks they can coast on grace and do nothing with what God has given them.

A Hard Master

The lazy servant offered an excuse: "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid" (Matthew 25:24-25).

Here's what's interesting: Jesus didn't deny it. He didn't say, "No, no, I'm not hard at all. I'm gentle and understanding."

Instead, He turned it back on the servant: "You knew that I reap where I did not sow? Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest."

In other words: "If you knew I was demanding, why didn't you act accordingly?"

We want gentle Jesus, meek and mild. Buddy Jesus. The Jesus who just wants to be our friend and never asks anything of us.

But Scripture shows us a Jesus who says "unless you repent, you will perish." Who says "go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." Who says "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Who flips tables in the temple. Who calls religious leaders a brood of vipers.

Yes, Jesus is loving. Yes, Jesus is merciful. Yes, Jesus is gracious.

But Jesus is also a hard master who expects a return on His investment. The servant knew it. We should know it too.

Sheep and Goats

Right after the parable of the talents, Jesus tells another story - the separation of the sheep and goats.

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, He will separate people like a shepherd separates sheep from goats. To the sheep on His right He says, "Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

Why? "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me" (Matthew 25:35-36).

To the goats on His left: "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire... for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink..." (Matthew 25:41-42).

Notice what separates them. Not what they believed. Not what church they attended. Not what doctrines they held.

What they DID. Or didn't do.

The goats didn't commit murder or adultery or theft. They weren't guilty of great sins. They just didn't do anything.

And for that, they go to eternal punishment.

Wedding Clothes

In Matthew 22, Jesus tells a parable about a king who throws a wedding feast for his son. The invited guests refuse to come, so the king sends his servants out to gather anyone they can find - "both evil and good" - and the wedding hall is filled.

But then the king notices a man without wedding clothes. He asks, "Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?" The man is speechless. The king says, "Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:12-13).

This man got into the feast. He was in the hall. But he wasn't properly dressed. And he was thrown out.

What are the wedding clothes? Revelation tells us:

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready. It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints" (Revelation 19:7-8).

The wedding clothes are the righteous acts of the saints. Works.

I wonder if you can get into the marriage supper without them.

The Fruitless Tree

In Luke 13, Jesus tells a parable about a fig tree planted in a vineyard. The owner comes looking for fruit and finds none. He tells the vinedresser, "For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?"

The vinedresser begs for one more year. "Let me dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down" (Luke 13:8-9).

Grace gives us time. Grace gives us another chance. But grace isn't permission to remain fruitless forever. The extra year has a purpose - to produce fruit. And if after all that fertilizing and watering there's still no fruit?

Cut it down.

Jesus says the same thing in John 15: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned" (verses 2, 6).

Branches in Me. Connected to the vine. But fruitless.

Taken away. Cast out. Thrown in the fire.

Faith Given a Task

Hebrews 11 is often called the "Hall of Faith" chapter. It lists hero after hero who lived by faith. But look at what their faith produced:

By faith Abel offered a sacrifice. By faith Noah built an ark. By faith Abraham obeyed and went out. By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. By faith Rahab welcomed the spies.

Every single example of faith involves action. Faith offered. Faith built. Faith obeyed. Faith refused. Faith welcomed.

Faith was given a task to perform - and it performed it.

James understood this: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected" (James 2:21-22).

Faith and works aren't opposites. They're partners. Faith produces works. Works demonstrate faith. A faith that produces nothing isn't faith - it's just mental agreement. Even the demons have that.

Works vs Commandments

Here's a distinction most people miss: obeying the commandments is not a "work."

Not murdering someone isn't a good work - it's just baseline obedience. Not stealing isn't extra credit - it's expected. Not committing adultery doesn't earn you points - it's the minimum.

Works are what go beyond the baseline. Feeding the hungry. Clothing the naked. Visiting the sick and imprisoned. Helping the widow and orphan. Using your talents for the Master's purposes. The boy scout helping the old lady across the street. Mowing your sick neighbor's yard.

Jesus made this distinction in Luke 17. He described a servant who comes in from working in the field. Does the master thank him for doing his job? No. "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do'" (Luke 17:10).

Obeying commands is duty. It's expected. It doesn't earn special recognition.

Works are going above duty. Bearing fruit. Producing a return on the Master's investment.

And when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, He's not asking "did you avoid sin?" He's asking "did you DO anything?"

What's Your Excuse?

Some will bring up the thief on the cross. He didn't do any works. He just believed.

True. The thief was nailed to a cross, hours from death, with Roman soldiers guarding him. He couldn't do works even if he wanted to. Grace covers what you genuinely cannot do.

But what about you? What's your excuse?

Are you elderly and can't get around? Can you pray? That's a work. Can you pick up a phone and encourage someone who's struggling?

Are you homebound? Can you write a letter? Send a text? Intercede for others?

Wheelchair bound? Can you mentor someone younger in the faith?

No money to give? Can you give time? A listening ear?

The widow gave two small coins - and Jesus said she gave more than all the wealthy donors. God doesn't ask for what you don't have. He asks for what you DO have.

The servant with one talent wasn't condemned for having less than the others. He was condemned for doing nothing with what he had.

The thief literally couldn't move. What's your excuse?

Adding and Removing

Here's something that should make us uncomfortable.

Revelation 22:18-19 warns against adding to or taking away from Scripture. Yet look at what we've done with these passages.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. It doesn't say "faith alone." But we ADD the word "alone" to make it say what we want.

James 2:24 says we are justified by works and NOT by faith alone. The word "not" is right there in the text. But we explain it away, redefine it, or ignore it. We REMOVE what we don't like.

The only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the entire Bible - and it's preceded by "not."

We add where it's convenient. We remove where it's uncomfortable. And then we wonder why our theology doesn't hold together.

How Was This Year's Crop?

Maybe you did bear fruit once. Maybe ten, fifteen, twenty years ago you were on fire for God. You led people to Christ. You volunteered. You served.

That's great. But trees don't bear fruit once and die. They produce season after season, year after year, until they're gone.

An apple tree that produced one apple twenty years ago and nothing since isn't a fruitful tree. It's a dead tree. Cut it down. Why is it using up the ground?

The question isn't just "have you ever borne fruit?"

The question is: how was this year's crop?

What fruit did you bear this month? This week? Today?

Because the Master isn't coming to check your lifetime achievement award. He's coming to see what's on the branches right now.

Conclusion

We are not saved by works. That's true. You cannot earn your way into heaven.

But we are saved for works. Created in Christ Jesus for good works. Expected to bear fruit. Required to produce a return on what the Master has invested in us.

The wicked and lazy servant did nothing - and was thrown into outer darkness. The goats did nothing - and went to eternal punishment. The fruitless tree produced nothing - and was cut down.

"A man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

That's not my opinion. That's James 2:24. The only verse in the Bible where "faith alone" appears - preceded by "not."

So let me ask you directly:

Are you bearing fruit? Are you feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick? Are you using your talents for the Master? Are you producing anything at all?

Or are you just taking up space? Using up the ground? A branch connected to the vine but producing nothing?

How was this year's crop?

Be a Berean. Read these passages yourself. And if the evidence convicts you - if you've been coasting on grace and doing nothing - maybe it's time to get to work.

The Master is coming. And He's expecting fruit.

 

[B-A-C]

The Indwelling vs Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Some denominations believe you either have the Holy Spirit or you don't. You receive the Spirit the moment you believe, and that's that. One event.

Other denominations - particularly Pentecostal and Charismatic churches - believe in two separate experiences: the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at salvation, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent event.

So which is it? One event or two?

Let's look at what the Bible actually shows us - and here's the thing: if they are the same event, we have a serious problem with the book of Acts.

The Spirit Wasn't Available Yet

For a long time in Scripture, no one received the Holy Spirit in the way we talk about it today. The Spirit came UPON people temporarily - judges, prophets, kings - for specific tasks. But He didn't indwell them permanently.

Jesus explained why:

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you" (John 16:7).

The Holy Spirit couldn't come until Jesus went away. And John confirms this:

"But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39).

Not yet given. The disciples believed in Jesus. They followed Him. They left everything for Him. But they hadn't received the Spirit yet - because He wasn't available yet.

John the Baptist Knew the Difference

Even John the Baptist understood there was a distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism:

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11).

"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:8).

John could baptize people in water. Only Jesus could baptize people in the Holy Spirit. Two different baptisms. Two different experiences.

And Jesus Himself promised this Spirit baptism was coming:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

You WILL receive. Future tense. They didn't have it yet.

The Requirement

Before we look at the examples in Acts, let's establish why this matters. Jesus told Nicodemus:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Cannot enter. Not "it would be nice." Not "it's optional." Cannot enter.

No Spirit = No entry into the kingdom of God.

So the question of whether you have the Spirit isn't academic. It's essential.

Five Examples in Acts

Now let's look at how people actually received the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. And notice the pattern.

Example 1: The 120 at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4)

There were 120 people in the upper room, including all the apostles. These people had followed Jesus for up to three years. They believed in Him. They had witnessed His death, resurrection, and ascension.

But none of them had been baptized in the Holy Spirit until that day.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance" (Acts 2:4).

Three years of following Jesus - and they didn't receive the Spirit until Pentecost.

Example 2: The Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17)

Philip went to Samaria and preached. People believed and were baptized in water. But something was missing:

"Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).

They believed. They were water baptized. But they hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet. Peter and John came specifically to lay hands on them so they could receive.

Example 3: Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48)

Cornelius was a Roman centurion, a Gentile. The Bible describes him as "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2).

He already believed. He already prayed. He already gave to the poor. But he hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet.

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" (Acts 10:44-46).

Cornelius received the Spirit - and THEN was water baptized afterward. Different order than the Samaritans, but still two separate events.

Example 4: The Ephesian Disciples (Acts 19:1-7)

Paul encountered some disciples in Ephesus and asked them a revealing question:

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Think about that question. If receiving the Spirit and believing are the same event, why would Paul ask? It would be like asking "did you get wet when you jumped in the pool?"

Their answer: "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

They were already believers. They had already been baptized (in John's baptism). But they didn't have the Spirit.

"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying" (Acts 19:6).

Believers who hadn't received the Spirit - until Paul laid hands on them.

Example 5: Paul Himself (Acts 9:1-17)

Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. He saw the light. He heard the voice. He asked "Who are You, Lord?" and Jesus answered. Saul believed.

But he was blinded for three days. He didn't eat or drink. And he didn't receive the Spirit on that road.

Three days later, Ananias came to him:

"Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 9:17).

Paul believed on the road. He received the Spirit three days later. Two separate events.

The Problem

Here's the problem for those who say the indwelling and baptism are the same event - that you receive the Spirit the moment you believe:

If that's true, then none of these people were saved when they first believed.

The 120 at Pentecost - not saved until Acts 2, despite following Jesus for years?

The Samaritans - not saved when they believed and were baptized, only when Peter and John arrived?

Cornelius - not saved despite being devout and God-fearing, until Peter preached?

The Ephesian disciples - not saved even though they were called disciples?

Paul - not saved on the Damascus road when he met Jesus, only three days later?

That creates huge theological problems.

The simpler answer: indwelling and baptism are two separate events. You can be saved - a genuine believer - and not yet have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That's exactly what Acts shows us, over and over again.

The Gifts

When the Spirit comes, He brings gifts:

"But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

Notice: to EACH ONE. The Spirit distributes gifts to each one individually. Not just to apostles. Not just to special people. Each one.

There are also gifts of office: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers (Ephesians 4:11).

And gifts of service: serving, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, showing mercy (Romans 12:6-8).

The Spirit gives gifts to His people. Do you know what yours is?

Using Your Gift

This connects back to what we discussed in the previous chapter. The Master gave you talents and expects a return.

Maybe you've never prophesied. Maybe you've never healed someone miraculously. Fine.

Can you clean the church toilet? That's service.

Can you take out the trash? That's service.

Can you teach children's church? That's teaching.

Can you play the piano for worship? That's ministry.

Can you greet people at the door? That's encouragement.

Can you make coffee for fellowship? That's hospitality.

It doesn't have to be earth-shattering. The kingdom runs on ordinary people doing ordinary things in the power of the Spirit. The guy cleaning the toilet is just as vital as the guy behind the pulpit.

But you have to do SOMETHING. What are you doing with your gift?

The Tongues Imbalance

Now let me step on some Pentecostal toes for a moment.

Some churches focus on tongues, tongues, tongues. That's all they talk about. That's the only evidence they accept. That's the only gift they emphasize.

I don't have a problem with tongues. But if that's all you've got, you're in an unhealthy church.

Paul addressed this: "If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?" (1 Corinthians 12:17).

Apply that to tongues: If the whole body were a tongue, where would the teaching be? Where would the prophecy be? Where would the healing be? Where would the serving be?

A body that's nothing but mouths is a monster, not a healthy body.

Paul even ranked the gifts: "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues" (1 Corinthians 12:28).

Tongues is listed last. Not unimportant - but not first either. Paul says to earnestly desire the GREATER gifts. Does anyone in your church have a greater gift? If not, maybe that person is supposed to be you.

These Signs Will Follow

Jesus said something important in Mark 16:17-18:

"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Notice who these signs follow. Not the apostles. Not the first century church. Not the professionals.

Those who believe.

Are you a believer? Then these signs should follow you. Are they?

And these gifts weren't limited to the apostles. Stephen was chosen to serve tables - and he performed great wonders and signs (Acts 6:8). Philip was also a table-server - and he cast out demons and healed the paralyzed (Acts 8:6-7). Anna was an 84-year-old widow - and she prophesied (Luke 2:36). Philip's four daughters were prophetesses (Acts 21:9).

Ordinary believers. Extraordinary power. That's the pattern of the New Testament.

The Unbelief Problem

"Well," someone says, "I've never seen any of these things. I don't believe they happen anymore."

Here's an interesting verse:

"And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief" (Matthew 13:58).

Jesus COULD have done miracles. But He DIDN'T - because of their unbelief.

Do you see the chicken and egg problem?

"I don't believe in miracles because I've never seen one."

But maybe you've never seen one because you don't believe in them.

Unbelief limits what God does. Not because He can't - but because He chooses to work through faith.

Meanwhile, people in other parts of the world - Africa, Asia, South America - are seeing healings, miracles, deliverances. The same God. The same Spirit. The same gifts. What's the difference? They believe. They expect. They ask.

Pick and Choose

Some will say the gifts were only for the first century. Only for establishing the church. Once the Bible was complete, they were no longer needed.

Where does the Bible say that?

Chapter and verse, please.

And once we start picking and choosing which parts of Acts apply and which don't, where do we draw the line?

The cross? "That was first century, don't need that anymore."

The resurrection? "First century event, not relevant today."

Repentance? "That was for the early church."

Of course not. We'd never say that.

But somehow the gifts expired? The signs ceased? The power faded?

Once I get to decide which parts of Scripture apply and which don't - once I get to draw lines that Scripture doesn't draw - I can make the Bible say whatever I want.

"These signs will follow those who believe." No expiration date. No asterisk. No footnote saying "until the canon is closed."

Do You Have It?

So let me ask you directly:

Do you have the Holy Spirit?

Or do you just THINK you have it?

What's your proof?

In every example in Acts, when the Spirit came, something HAPPENED. Something observable. Something evident.

At Pentecost - they spoke in tongues.

With the Samaritans - something visible occurred (Simon the sorcerer saw it and wanted to buy it).

With Cornelius - they spoke in tongues and exalted God.

With the Ephesians - they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

The people in Acts KNEW they had received the Spirit. There was no guessing. No assuming. No "well, someone told me I received it when I believed."

Do you know? Or do you just assume?

Conclusion

Jesus said unless you are born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

No Spirit = No entry.

This isn't optional. This isn't for super-Christians. This is a requirement.

The Bible shows us that believing and receiving the Spirit can be - and often were - separate events. The 120 at Pentecost. The Samaritans. Cornelius. The Ephesians. Paul himself. All believers before they received the Spirit.

Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?

Have you asked for it? Luke 11:13 says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.

Do you know what gift He's given you? Are you using it?

Or have you buried it in the ground, assuming you already have everything you need?

The Master is coming. He gave you a gift. He expects a return.

How is this year's crop doing?

 

[B-A-C]

The Authors of James and Jude

How did we get the New Testament? Why these 27 books and not others?

The early church had a rule. To be included in the canon, a book had to be written by an apostle or sponsored by an apostle. This wasn't arbitrary - it was how they verified authority and authenticity. The apostles were chosen by Jesus Himself. They walked with Him, witnessed His resurrection, and received His commission to take His teaching to the world.

If a book came from an apostle, it had authority. If it came from someone closely associated with an apostle - someone the apostles vouched for - it had authority by extension. But if a book couldn't be traced back to apostolic authority, it didn't make the cut.

This raises an interesting question about James and Jude. If they weren't apostles, how did their books get into the New Testament? Who sponsored them?

The Canon Rule

The early church fathers - men like Tertullian in the second and third centuries - stressed the criterion of apostolicity. Tertullian distinguished between "gospels of apostolic origin" and "gospels written by disciples of apostles."

Matthew and John were apostles - they wrote their own Gospels. Mark and Luke were not apostles, but they were closely associated with apostles. Mark recorded Peter's preaching. Luke was Paul's traveling companion.

The rule held: apostle or sponsored by an apostle.

The only real exception is Hebrews. Some attribute it to Paul - it's possible, but no one knows for certain. The author never identifies himself. Yet it made it into the canon because the theology was rock solid and consistent with apostolic teaching. But Hebrews is the exception, not the rule.

The Chain of Sponsorship

Let's trace how this works with Paul and Luke.

Paul wasn't one of the original twelve. He wasn't there for Jesus' three-year ministry. He didn't witness the crucifixion or the resurrection appearances to the disciples. He was a Pharisee who persecuted Christians.

Then he met Jesus on the Damascus road. He was converted. He started preaching. But who validated his apostleship?

When Paul first came to Jerusalem, the apostles were afraid of him. They didn't believe he was really a disciple. Barnabas had to vouch for him, bringing him to the apostles and explaining what had happened (Acts 9:26-27).

Later, the pillars of the Jerusalem church - James, Peter, and John - gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. They recognized his apostleship to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9).

But here's the key verse. Peter himself - one of the original twelve, inner circle, walked with Jesus from the beginning - wrote this about Paul:

"And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother." He says Paul wrote "according to the wisdom given him." And he puts Paul's letters on the same level as "the rest of the Scriptures."

That's apostolic sponsorship from the top of the chain. Peter - original twelve - validates Paul.

Paul and Luke

Now what about Luke? He wasn't an apostle either. He was a physician, a traveling companion of Paul. Who sponsored him?

Paul did. In his letters - letters that Peter had already validated as Scripture - Paul mentions Luke:

"Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings" (Colossians 4:14).

"Only Luke is with me" (2 Timothy 4:11).

"Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers" (Philemon 1:23-24).

Paul calls Luke "beloved" and "fellow worker." Paul vouches for Luke in apostolic letters.

So when Luke's Gospel and Acts circulated, the churches could look at Paul's letters and say, "This Luke - Paul vouched for him. He's mentioned in Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon. Paul called him a fellow worker." That's the sponsorship.

The Interlocking Validation

Here's something interesting. Luke wrote Acts. Acts records Paul's conversion, Barnabas vouching for him, the Jerusalem council accepting him. So in a sense, Luke validates Paul's story.

And Paul's letters validate Luke.

Luke sponsored Paul. Paul sponsored Luke.

Does that sound circular? It would be - if it stopped there. Two non-apostles vouching for each other isn't authority. That's just two guys agreeing with each other.

But it doesn't stop there. Peter breaks the loop.

Peter - one of the original twelve - sponsors Paul (2 Peter 3:15-16). That gives Paul apostolic standing. Then Paul can sponsor Luke. Then Luke's record of Paul's conversion has authority.

Without Peter sponsoring Paul first, Luke and Paul would just be two guys validating each other. But Peter's endorsement from the top of the chain makes the whole thing work.

The chain holds: Jesus gave authority to the Twelve. Peter (one of the Twelve) sponsors Paul. Paul sponsors Luke. Everyone traces back to apostolic authority.

That Leaves James and Jude

So what about James and Jude? Who sponsored them?

Some say James and Jude were not among the original twelve apostles. They were just Jesus' brothers who became leaders in the early church. If that's true, they would need apostolic sponsorship to have their books included in the canon.

But who sponsored them? There's no verse where Peter or Paul says "James is my fellow worker" or "Jude wrote according to the wisdom given him." No clear chain of sponsorship like we have for Luke.

Unless they didn't need sponsors. Unless they were apostles themselves.

The Coincidences

Let's look at what Scripture tells us.

First, we know Mary had sons named James and Judas. Matthew 13:55 says, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Mark 6:3 confirms the same names.

Second, we know Mary is called the mother of James. At the cross, we read of "Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses" (Mark 15:40). And "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" (Matthew 27:56). Same names as Jesus' brothers. Same mother.

Third, we know the author of the epistle of James is called "the Lord's brother." Paul writes, "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19).

Fourth, we know Jude identifies himself as "the brother of James." The epistle begins, "Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (Jude 1:1).

Fifth, we know there was a James and a Judas among the twelve apostles. Not James the son of Zebedee (brother of John, one of the "sons of Thunder"). A different James - "James the son of Alphaeus" (Matthew 10:3). And not Judas Iscariot. A different Judas - "Judas the son of James" (Luke 6:16), also called Thaddaeus.

That's a lot of coincidences.

Connecting the Dots

Mary had a son named James. There's an apostle named James (son of Alphaeus). The epistle writer James is called the Lord's brother. Are these three different people - or the same person?

Mary had a son named Judas. There's an apostle named Judas (not Iscariot). Jude the epistle writer says he's James's brother. Are these three different people - or the same person?

The standard view creates multiple people out of what could easily be the same individuals. We assume James the Lord's brother is different from James son of Alphaeus. But where does Scripture say there were three different men named James?

There were two James among the apostles - James son of Zebedee (brother of John), and James son of Alphaeus. There were two Judas - Judas Iscariot, and Judas (not Iscariot).

If James son of Alphaeus is the same person as James the Lord's brother, and if Judas (not Iscariot) is the same person as Jude the Lord's brother - then two of Jesus' brothers were among the original twelve apostles.

The Alphaeus Question

Someone might ask: if James was Jesus' brother, why is he called "son of Alphaeus" instead of "son of Joseph"?

Good question. Joseph is famous. Every Christmas pageant has a Joseph. If James was Joseph's son, why not use the famous patriarch?

Unless Alphaeus was his biological father.

Joseph disappears from the Gospel narrative after Jesus' childhood. He's not mentioned at the wedding in Cana. He's not at the cross. The most likely explanation is that Joseph died.

If Joseph died and Mary remarried, that would be perfectly legal under the Law. A widow could remarry. If Mary married a man named Alphaeus and had children with him - James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and some daughters - then James would rightly be called "son of Alphaeus."

That would make James and Jude Jesus' half-brothers through Mary, but with a different biological father. It explains why Alphaeus is used instead of Joseph - because Alphaeus was their actual father.

Why This Matters

Here's why this matters for the canon.

If James and Jude were among the original twelve apostles, they didn't need sponsors. They were at the top of the chain - same level as Peter, John, and Matthew. Their books qualify for the canon on their own authority.

The "problem" of James and Jude only exists if we assume they weren't among the twelve. But that assumption may be wrong.

Scripture tells us Mary had sons named James and Judas. Scripture tells us there were apostles named James and Judas (not Zebedee's James, not Iscariot). Scripture calls James "the Lord's brother." Scripture has Jude calling himself "brother of James."

That's a lot of coincidences. Or they're the same people.

Conclusion

The early church had a rule for the canon: apostle or sponsored by an apostle.

Peter sponsored Paul (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul sponsored Luke (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 1:24). Luke and Paul validated each other - but only because Peter validated Paul first. The chain holds.

Hebrews is the one exception - unknown author, but theology so consistent with apostolic teaching that it was included anyway.

But James and Jude aren't exceptions. They didn't need sponsors. The evidence suggests they were among the original twelve - Jesus' own brothers, Mary's sons, apostles from the beginning.

We've assumed otherwise. We've created three different James and three different Judas out of what Scripture presents as two each. We've separated "James the Lord's brother" from "James son of Alphaeus" without any scriptural reason to do so.

Bad assumption.

James and Jude were apostles. Their books belong in the canon. The rule holds.

Be a Berean. Check the evidence yourself. And see if the coincidences don't add up to something more.

 

[B-A-C]

Was Pentecost a One-Time Event?

This will be a short chapter. The point is simple.

Some believers treat Acts 2 as a one-time event. The Spirit fell, the church was born, tongues of fire appeared - and that was it. A singular, unrepeatable moment in history. The "birthday of the church" and nothing more.

But is that what Scripture shows us?

Why Is It Called Pentecost?

First, let's understand what Pentecost actually is.

The word "Pentecost" comes from the Greek word pentekoste, meaning "fiftieth." It refers to the Jewish Feast of Weeks - a harvest festival that occurred fifty days after Passover.

Let's do the math:

The Last Supper was at Passover (Matthew 26:18-19, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7-8, John 19:14). Jesus was crucified during the Passover feast. He was in the tomb for three days. Then He rose and appeared to His disciples for forty days before ascending to heaven (Acts 1:3).

Three days plus forty days equals forty-three days from crucifixion to ascension.

Pentecost - the Feast of Weeks - was seven weeks (forty-nine days) after Passover, plus one day. Fifty days total.

That means after Jesus ascended, the disciples waited in the upper room for about seven days - and then the Spirit fell, right on schedule for the Feast of Weeks.

This wasn't random. God poured out His Spirit on a day that was already on the calendar - an annual feast that Israel had been observing for centuries.

The Original Pentecost

We all know Acts 2. The disciples were gathered in the upper room. The Holy Spirit fell. They spoke in tongues. Peter preached. Three thousand were saved.

This happened around 30-33 AD, shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

But Pentecost wasn't something the early church invented. It was an existing Jewish feast - the Feast of Weeks, the feast of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. The disciples were gathered because it was already a holy day on the calendar. God chose that day to pour out His Spirit.

Paul and Pentecost

Now look at what Paul writes, decades later:

"But I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost" (1 Corinthians 16:8).

Paul is planning his travel schedule around Pentecost. He's going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost arrives. Why would he do that if Pentecost was just a one-time event back in Acts 2?

And again in Acts 20:16:

"For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost."

Paul is hurrying. He's rearranging his travel plans. He's sailing past cities he might otherwise visit. Why? Because he wants to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost.

How Many Years Later?

How long after Acts 2 was Paul writing these things?

In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul writes: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago - whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows - such a one was caught up to the third heaven."

Paul is referencing something that happened fourteen years before he wrote 2 Corinthians. That means 2 Corinthians was written at least fourteen years after Paul's conversion - and Paul's conversion happened after Acts 2.

So when Paul talks about staying until Pentecost or hurrying to make it to Jerusalem for Pentecost, that's at minimum fourteen years after Acts 2. The actual number is likely closer to twenty-four to twenty-seven years based on historical timelines.

But we don't need to argue exact dates. Scripture itself tells us it was at least fourteen years. That's enough to make the point.

The Point

Decades after Acts 2, Pentecost was still being observed.

Paul didn't treat it as ancient history. He didn't talk about it as "that thing that happened once." He planned his life around it. He hurried to be present for it.

Pentecost wasn't a one-time event. It was an ongoing feast that the early church continued to observe, year after year, decade after decade.

And if Pentecost kept being observed - maybe the Spirit kept being poured out too.

Conclusion

The idea that Acts 2 was a singular, unrepeatable event is an assumption - not something Scripture teaches.

The early church kept observing Pentecost. Paul kept observing Pentecost. At least fourteen years later - probably more like twenty-five - it was still important enough to plan travel around.

If Pentecost was just a one-time event, why was Paul still hurrying to Jerusalem to celebrate it decades later?

Bad assumption.

Be a Berean. Check it yourself.

 

[B-A-C]

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Few passages have caused more fear and confusion than Jesus' warning about the unforgivable sin. People torment themselves wondering if they've committed it. They lose sleep. They despair.

What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Can it be committed today? Have you committed it?

The answer is simpler than you might think - and it's right there in Scripture, if we take the time to look.

What People Think It Is

Ask ten Christians what the unforgivable sin is, and you might get ten different answers:

"It's rejecting Jesus."

"It's denying Christ."

"It's cursing God."

"It's apostasy - walking away from the faith."

"It's some mysterious sin that you might commit without knowing."

But what does Scripture actually say?

It's NOT Rejecting Jesus

The most common assumption is that the unforgivable sin is rejecting Jesus. But Jesus Himself ruled that out.

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:32).

Read that carefully. Blasphemy against the Son of Man CAN be forgiven. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit CANNOT.

Jesus is the Son of Man. If rejecting Jesus was the unforgivable sin, why would He say that speaking against the Son of Man CAN be forgiven?

These are two different things. Rejecting Jesus is serious - but it's not the unforgivable sin.

Think About What That Would Mean

If rejecting Jesus was the unforgivable sin, think about the implications.

Everyone who said "no" at their first altar call - unforgivable. No second chances.

Everyone who heard the gospel and walked away, but came back years later - unforgivable. Too late.

Everyone who rejected Jesus in their youth but surrendered in their old age - unforgivable. Should have said yes the first time.

Paul himself - who rejected Jesus, persecuted Christians, and held the coats of those who stoned Stephen - unforgivable. Damascus Road came too late.

That's ridiculous.

The church is full of people who rejected Jesus at first and came back later. Some of the strongest believers are people who ran from God for years before surrendering. The prodigal son came home - and the father ran to meet him.

If rejecting Jesus was unforgivable, there would be no prodigal sons. No redemption stories. No "I once was lost but now I'm found."

The Context

So if it's not rejecting Jesus, what is it? Let's look at the context.

The passage appears in Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:20-30. Here's what happened:

Jesus healed a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. The crowds were amazed and wondered if Jesus might be the Messiah.

But the Pharisees had a different explanation: "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (Matthew 12:24).

Jesus responded by pointing out the absurdity: "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:26).

Satan doesn't cast out his own demons. That would be self-defeating. If Jesus is casting out demons, He's doing it by a power opposed to Satan - the Holy Spirit.

Then Jesus gave the warning about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

The Key Verse

Here's where Mark's account gives us the key that Matthew doesn't include.

After recording Jesus' warning about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Mark adds this explanation:

"...because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (Mark 3:30).

That's it. That's the key. That's why Jesus said what He said.

The Pharisees saw Jesus cast out a demon by the power of the Holy Spirit - and they said He had an unclean spirit. They looked at God's work and called it demonic.

Mark 3:30 is often overlooked, but it's the verse that explains everything. Without it, you're left guessing what the unforgivable sin might be. With it, the answer is clear.

This is why we compare Scripture with Scripture. This is why we check the parallel passages. The answer was there all along - in Mark 3:30.

What Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit IS

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is seeing God's work and attributing it to Satan. It's looking at something the Holy Spirit did and calling it demonic.

The Pharisees saw an undeniable miracle - a demon cast out, a man healed. They couldn't deny something happened. So instead, they attributed it to the wrong source. "He's doing this by the power of Beelzebub."

They called the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit.

That's the blasphemy. Not rejecting Jesus. Not doubting. Not struggling with faith. Not saying something foolish. It's looking at God's obvious work and deliberately calling it Satan's.

This Isn't Accidental

Here's something important: this isn't a sin you commit in ignorance.

The Pharisees weren't confused. They weren't mistaken. They weren't ignorant peasants who didn't know any better.

They were the religious experts. They knew the Scriptures better than anyone. They saw the miracle with their own eyes. They had every opportunity to recognize God's work.

And they deliberately chose to call it demonic.

This is willful rejection of undeniable truth. Eyes-wide-open rebellion. It's not stumbling in the dark - it's seeing the light clearly and calling it darkness.

You don't accidentally commit this sin. You don't stumble into it. It's a deliberate, hardened rejection of what you know to be true.

Reassurance

If you're worried you've committed the unforgivable sin, that worry itself is evidence you haven't.

The Pharisees weren't worried. They weren't losing sleep. They weren't tormented by fear. They were confident, self-righteous, and hardened.

A heart that fears offending God is not the heart that commits this sin. A person who's terrified they've blasphemed the Spirit is showing the opposite disposition - they care about God, they want to be right with Him, they're sensitive to spiritual things.

If you've said something foolish in ignorance - repent and move on. That's not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

If you've doubted or struggled - welcome to the club. That's not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

If you've rejected Jesus in the past but want to come back - come back. Blasphemy of the Son of Man CAN be forgiven. That's what Jesus said.

The unforgivable sin is something specific: seeing undeniable evidence of God's work and deliberately, knowingly attributing it to Satan. That's not something you do by accident.

But Don't Push It

Now, having said all that - don't take this as a license to keep rejecting Jesus.

Yes, blasphemy of the Son of Man can be forgiven. Yes, you can reject Jesus and come back later. But that's not a reason to keep saying no.

Every time you reject Jesus, your heart gets a little harder. Every time you say "not today," it gets easier to say "not today" again. Every time you walk away, the walk back gets longer.

The Pharisees didn't start at blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. They got there one rejection at a time. One hardening at a time. Until they could look at an obvious miracle and call it demonic without flinching.

Can you be forgiven if you come back? Yes.

Will you come back if you keep hardening your heart? That's the question.

Conclusion

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not rejecting Jesus - blasphemy of the Son of Man can be forgiven.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is seeing God's undeniable work and deliberately attributing it to Satan. It's calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit.

Mark 3:30 tells us exactly why Jesus gave this warning: "because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit.'"

That's the key. The answer was there all along.

Be a Berean. Check the parallel passages. Compare Scripture with Scripture. And stop tormenting yourself over a sin that worried hearts don't commit.

 

[B-A-C]

Sexless Angels

A common assumption in Christian circles is that angels are sexless - that they have no gender and are incapable of sexual activity. This belief is often stated as fact, as though it's clearly taught in Scripture.

But is it? Let's look at the verse used to support this idea - and then look at some other passages that tell a different story.

The Verse Used

The Sadducees came to Jesus with a trick question. A woman had been married to seven brothers in succession - each one died, and she married the next. Whose wife would she be in the resurrection?

Jesus answered: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

Mark records it similarly: "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25).

From this verse, people conclude that angels cannot have sex. The logic goes like this: no marriage in heaven, therefore no sex, therefore angels are physically incapable of sexual activity.

But is that what Jesus said?

What Jesus Actually Said

Look at the verse again. Jesus said there's no marriage in heaven. He didn't say angels are physically incapable of sex. He didn't say angels have no gender. He didn't say angels lack the equipment.

He said they don't marry.

There's a difference between "can't" and "don't." I don't eat liver. That doesn't mean I'm physically incapable of eating liver. It means I choose not to, or it's not part of my normal activity.

Jesus was answering a specific question about marriage in the resurrection. He wasn't giving a biology lesson about angelic anatomy. He was saying that the institution of marriage - with all its legal and covenantal implications - doesn't exist in heaven.

To jump from "no marriage" to "physically incapable of sex" is adding to what Jesus said.

Genesis 6 - The Sons of God

Now let's look at a passage that creates a problem for the "sexless angels" view.

"Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose... There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:1-2, 4).

Who are the "sons of God"? In the Old Testament, this phrase refers to angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). Some argue it means the godly line of Seth marrying the ungodly line of Cain.

But if that's the case, why did this union produce giants - the Nephilim? Believers and unbelievers still "mingle" today. Where are the giants? If it was just godly men marrying ungodly women, why would the offspring be fundamentally different from normal humans?

Jude's Testimony

Jude sheds light on this. But here's where Bible translations make a big difference. Compare these two renderings of Jude 6-7:

New American Standard Bible:

"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

New International Version:

"And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Do you see the difference? The NASB explicitly connects the angels' sin to sexual perversion and strange flesh - "in the same way as these angels." The NIV separates them into two distinct thoughts, removing the connection and omitting "strange flesh" entirely.

What Jude Is Saying

In translations that preserve the connection, Jude is telling us:

1. Angels left their proper abode (heaven).

2. They committed sexual immorality.

3. They went after "strange flesh" - flesh that was not their own kind.

4. Sodom and Gomorrah did the same thing - "in the same way as these angels."

The Greek word for "strange" is heteros - meaning "different" or "other." These angels went after flesh that was different from their own. They crossed a boundary they weren't supposed to cross.

How could angels commit sexual immorality and go after strange flesh if they're incapable of sexual activity?

Peter's Confirmation

Peter gives us the same timeline:

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter" (2 Peter 2:4-6).

Notice the order: angels sinned, then the flood (Noah's time), then Sodom and Gomorrah. This matches the chronology of Genesis 6 - the angels' sin happened before the flood.

And Peter says these angels are now in chains, in pits of darkness, reserved for judgment. They're locked up - presumably so they can't do it again.

Spirits in Prison

Peter mentions these same beings in his first letter:

"...in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark" (1 Peter 3:19-20).

Spirits in prison. Disobedient in the days of Noah. The same angels from Genesis 6, now locked away.

Why would God lock them up if all they did was... what? Leave heaven? The punishment seems to fit a crime - a specific, serious transgression that God wanted to prevent from happening again.

The Logic Problem

Let's think about this logically.

If angels are physically incapable of sex:

How did they "go after strange flesh" (Jude 7)?

How did they commit "sexual immorality" (Jude 7)?

Why did their union with the daughters of men produce giants (Genesis 6:4)?

Why are they locked in chains while other fallen angels roam free (2 Peter 2:4)?

The "sexless angels" assumption creates more problems than it solves.

What About Matthew 22:30?

So how do we reconcile Matthew 22:30 with Genesis 6 and Jude?

Simple. Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry. He didn't say they can't have sex. He didn't say fallen angels who left heaven are bound by the same rules.

The angels who "kept their proper abode" don't engage in marriage or sexual activity. That's not what they do. But the angels who "abandoned their proper abode" - who left heaven and crossed boundaries - did something different. They violated the created order. They went after strange flesh.

And they were judged for it. Locked in chains. Reserved for the day of judgment.

Conclusion

The assumption that angels are sexless comes from reading too much into Matthew 22:30. Jesus said there's no marriage in heaven - not that angels are physically incapable of sexual activity.

Genesis 6 tells us the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men and produced giants.

Jude tells us angels left their proper abode, committed sexual immorality, and went after strange flesh - just like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Peter tells us these angels are now in chains, locked away, reserved for judgment.

The Scripture paints a consistent picture - if you're reading a translation that preserves the connections.

Be a Berean. Compare translations. Look at the whole counsel of Scripture. And don't build doctrine on assumptions that the text doesn't actually support.

 

[B-A-C]

No Female Angels

Walk into any gift shop around Christmas time. Browse the greeting cards, the figurines, the ornaments. You'll see angels everywhere - and many of them are depicted as female. Flowing hair, feminine features, soft and gentle.

It's a lovely image. But is it biblical?

Let's look at what Scripture actually says about the gender of angels.

Every Named Angel Is Male

Scripture names only a few angels, and every one of them has a masculine name:

Michael - "Who is like God?" The archangel, the warrior angel who fights for God's people (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7).

Gabriel - "God is my strength." The messenger angel who appeared to Daniel, Zechariah, and Mary (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26).

Lucifer - "Light bearer" or "morning star." The fallen angel, before his rebellion (Isaiah 14:12).

Not one female name. Not one angel referred to as "she" or "her." Every named angel in Scripture is male.

Every Angel Appearance Is Male

Whenever angels appear to people in Scripture, they're described as men:

The angels who visited Abraham at Mamre - "three men" (Genesis 18:2).

The angels who went to Sodom - "two angels... the two men" (Genesis 19:1, 10, 12, 16).

The angel who wrestled with Jacob - "a man wrestled with him" (Genesis 32:24).

The angel at Jesus' tomb - "a young man clothed in a long white robe" (Mark 16:5).

The angels at the ascension - "two men stood by them in white apparel" (Acts 1:10).

The pattern is consistent. When angels take visible form, they appear as men - not women, not androgynous beings, but men.

Sodom Confirms It

The account of Sodom provides additional confirmation. When the two angels came to Lot's house, the men of Sodom surrounded the house and demanded:

"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally" (Genesis 19:5).

The men of Sodom saw these angels as men. They weren't confused about what they were looking at. They recognized them as males - and desired them as males.

The angels appeared fully male - so much so that the Sodomites wanted to have sex with them. This only makes sense if angels take complete male form when they appear.

Genesis 6 - Sons, Not Daughters

Here's a detail that's easy to overlook.

"The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose... the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them" (Genesis 6:2, 4).

Sons of God. Daughters of men.

If female angels existed, why didn't "daughters of God" go after "sons of men"? If angels were crossing boundaries and going after strange flesh, why was it only one direction?

The answer seems obvious: there were no female angels to do it. The "sons of God" were male because angels are male. There's no corresponding "daughters of God" because female angels don't exist.

If female angels existed, Genesis 6 would likely mention them. It doesn't. Because they don't.

What About Zechariah 5?

Someone might point to Zechariah 5:9 as evidence of female angels:

"Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and there two women were coming out with the wind in their wings; and they had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heavens."

Two women with wings. Doesn't that prove female angels exist?

Let's look at the context.

In Zechariah's vision, a woman is sitting in a basket (ephah). The angel identifies her: "This is Wickedness!" and throws her back into the basket (verse 8). Then these two winged women carry the basket away.

Where are they taking it? "To build a house for her in the land of Shinar; when it is ready, the basket will be set there in its place" (verse 11).

Shinar is Babylon - the land of Babel, the land of rebellion against God. They're building a temple for "Wickedness" in Babylon.

Also notice: their wings are like the wings of a stork. Under the Mosaic Law, the stork was an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:19).

So even if these are angels, they're certainly not godly angels. They're serving Wickedness. They're building her a temple in Babylon. They have the wings of an unclean bird.

If these are female angels at all, they're demonic beings - not the holy angels of God. This is hardly support for the gentle female angels on Christmas cards.

Conclusion

The female angels in popular culture - the gentle, feminine beings on greeting cards and figurines - aren't biblical.

Every named angel in Scripture is male.

Every angel appearance in Scripture is described as male.

The men of Sodom recognized angels as men.

Genesis 6 speaks of "sons of God" - never "daughters of God."

The only possible female winged beings in Scripture (Zechariah 5) are serving Wickedness, not God.

This doesn't mean we can't appreciate angel figurines as art. But we shouldn't confuse cultural tradition with biblical teaching.

Be a Berean. Let Scripture define your theology - not greeting cards.

A Footnote on Physical Manifestation

Some assume that angels can become visible but not tangible - that they can appear but can't physically interact with the material world. Scripture suggests otherwise.

At Sodom, the two angels didn't just appear to Lot - they grabbed him: "But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door" (Genesis 19:10). That requires tangible hands and physical force.

When Jacob wrestled at Peniel, he wrestled all night with a "Man" who dislocated his hip (Genesis 32:24-25). Wrestling requires a physical body. Dislocating a hip requires physical contact and force. Some believe this was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ; others believe it was an angel. Either way, a spiritual being took physical form and engaged in an all-night wrestling match.

And when the three visitors came to Abraham at Mamre, Abraham prepared a meal for them - and they ate it (Genesis 18:8). Angels consuming physical food.

Angels can do more than just appear. They can become fully physical - grabbing, pulling, wrestling, eating. Another assumption worth examining.

 

[B-A-C]

The New Jerusalem

Ask most Christians where they'll spend eternity and they'll say "heaven." We sing hymns about flying away to heaven, about walking streets of gold in heaven, about seeing Jesus in heaven.

But is that what Scripture actually teaches? Is heaven our final destination? And what exactly is the New Jerusalem - a spiritual concept or a physical place?

Let's look at what the Bible actually says.

Heaven Isn't the Final Destination

Here's something that surprises many believers: heaven isn't where we'll spend eternity.

Revelation 21:1-2 says: "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Notice the direction. The New Jerusalem comes DOWN. Out of heaven. To the new earth.

We don't go up to heaven and stay there forever. The holy city descends. God comes to dwell with men.

Revelation 21:3 confirms this: "And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.'"

God with men. Not men going up to God. Heaven comes down.

Jesus Is Preparing a Place

Jesus told His disciples: "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:2-3).

Notice the language. A place. Many mansions - or rooms, or dwelling places, depending on your translation. Something Jesus is actively preparing.

You don't prepare a metaphor. You don't build rooms in a spiritual concept. Jesus is preparing a physical place for His people.

And where will Jesus be? In the New Jerusalem. "The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it" (Revelation 22:3). If we dwell with Him forever, we'll be in New Jerusalem - not floating in heaven somewhere.

Physical Dimensions

Some say the New Jerusalem is purely symbolic - a spiritual reality, not a physical place. But Scripture gives us specific measurements.

"The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal" (Revelation 21:16).

Twelve thousand furlongs is approximately 1,400 miles. Length, breadth, and height - all equal. That's 1,400 miles long, 1,400 miles wide, and 1,400 miles tall.

To put that in perspective: the base of the city would stretch roughly from Seattle to Minneapolis to New Orleans to San Diego and back. One city covering half the continental United States.

And the height? Mount Everest is about 5.5 miles tall. The International Space Station orbits at about 250 miles. This city extends 1,400 miles up - far beyond anything we can imagine.

You don't give dimensions for a metaphor. You don't measure a spiritual concept. These are physical specifications for a physical place.

Physical Materials

Scripture doesn't just give us dimensions - it specifies the construction materials.

"The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass" (Revelation 21:18).

"The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst" (Revelation 21:19-20).

"The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass" (Revelation 21:21).

Jasper. Sapphire. Emerald. Gold. Pearl. Specific materials. Named stones. This isn't vague symbolism - it's a construction manifest.

Spiritual things don't have material compositions. You don't build a metaphor out of jasper and gold.

The Heavenly Pattern

Consider this: the earthly tabernacle was a copy of something in heaven.

"...who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, 'See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain'" (Hebrews 8:5).

Moses saw a pattern. God gave him specific instructions - use this wood, this gold, these materials. The earthly tabernacle was physical, made of real materials, because it was copying something real.

Hebrews 9:23-24 adds: "Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself..."

The earthly tabernacle was a copy. The heavenly one is the original.

You don't make a physical copy of something non-physical. If the copy required real gold and real wood, what does that tell us about the original? The heavenly tabernacle - and the New Jerusalem - are real, substantial, physical places.

The Size Is Staggering

Let's think about the implications of a city 1,400 miles in each direction.

If the city has multiple levels - and "In My Father's house are many mansions" suggests it does - even with floors a mile high (far taller than any building on earth), that's 1,400 floors.

Each floor would be 1,400 miles by 1,400 miles - about 1,960,000 square miles per floor.

With 1,400 floors, that's approximately 2.744 billion square miles of floor space.

For comparison, the entire land surface of Earth is only about 57 million square miles.

The New Jerusalem has roughly 48 times more floor space than all the land on Earth combined.

When Jesus said "many mansions," He wasn't exaggerating. There's room for every believer from all of human history - with space to spare.

The Spiritual Kingdom Problem

Some say the New Jerusalem is just symbolic of the spiritual kingdom of God - the church, the body of believers, God's reign in our hearts.

But there's a problem with that interpretation.

The spiritual kingdom already exists. Jesus said "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). Paul wrote that God "has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13).

If you're a believer, you're already in the kingdom. It already exists. It doesn't need to "come down out of heaven."

But Revelation 21 describes a sequence: first the new heavens and new earth appear (verse 1), then the New Jerusalem descends (verse 2). Something new is happening. Something that doesn't exist yet is arriving.

You can't have it both ways. Either New Jerusalem is the spiritual kingdom (which already exists and doesn't need to descend) or it's something physical that comes later. The text says it comes later.

The Spiritual Dimensions Problem

Here's another problem for those who say the dimensions are merely symbolic.

If 1,400 miles is just a "spiritual" measurement representing the kingdom of God, let's see what that would include. Center it on Jerusalem - 700 miles in each direction.

Within 700 miles of Jerusalem, you'd have: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, parts of Iraq, parts of Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey.

Outside 700 miles of Jerusalem: Athens, Greece - 780 miles. Rome, Italy - 1,450 miles. All of Europe. All of the Americas. All of Asia except the Middle East. All of sub-Saharan Africa. Australia. Basically, the entire Christian world.

Think about the irony. The region within 700 miles of Jerusalem today is predominantly Muslim - people who largely rejected Christ. Meanwhile, believers in America, Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, and everywhere else are... outside the kingdom?

If you're a Christian in Portland, Oregon, you're 6,000 miles from Jerusalem. Guess you're out of luck.

If you're a believer in China, Brazil, Nigeria, or Australia - sorry, you're outside the "spiritual dimensions" of the kingdom.

Every church Paul planted in Greece and Rome? Mostly outside. The billions of Christians throughout history who lived outside the Middle East? All excluded.

That's absurd. The gospel went to all nations. The kingdom includes every tribe and tongue. It can't be limited to a 1,400-mile region in the Middle East.

The only interpretation that makes sense: the New Jerusalem is a physical city with real dimensions - dimensions so massive that there's room for every believer from every nation on Earth. That's the gospel.

Questions Worth Pondering

The physicality of New Jerusalem raises some interesting questions that Scripture hints at but doesn't fully answer.

What shape is it? Most assume a cube because the dimensions are equal. But Scripture also refers to "Mount Zion" (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 14:1), and Revelation 22:1 describes a river flowing from the throne. Water flows downhill. A mountain - or pyramid shape - with the throne at the top and the river flowing down might fit the description equally well.

Does it sit on the earth or hover above it? At 1,400 miles tall, if it sits on the earth's surface, the top extends far into space. Revelation 21:23-24 says the nations will walk by its light, and there's no need for sun or moon because God's glory illuminates it. If the city hovers above the earth, with the earth rotating beneath, all nations could receive its light. If it sits stationary on one spot, half the world would be in permanent shadow.

Who are the nations outside? Revelation 21:24 speaks of nations walking by its light and kings bringing their glory into it. Revelation 22:2 says the leaves of the tree of life are for "the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:15 mentions those "outside" who cannot enter. If everyone is inside the city, who are these people outside? Who needs healing? Who are we reigning over when we "reign with Christ" (Revelation 22:5)?

These questions don't change the main point - New Jerusalem is a physical place. But they suggest there's more to our eternal future than we often assume.

Conclusion

The New Jerusalem is not a metaphor. It's not merely symbolic of spiritual realities. It's a physical place with physical dimensions and physical materials.

It's 1,400 miles in every direction - larger than the entire surface of Earth.

It's made of gold, jasper, pearl, and precious stones.

It has many mansions - dwelling places that Jesus has been preparing for 2,000 years.

And it comes down. Heaven descends to the new earth. God dwells with men.

Our eternal home isn't a vague spiritual existence in the clouds. It's a city. A place. A home prepared by Jesus Himself.

The assumption that we'll "fly away to heaven" and float in a disembodied spiritual state forever - that's not what Scripture teaches.

Be a Berean. Look at what the text actually says. And look forward to a real place, prepared for you, where you'll dwell with God forever.

 

[B-A-C]

How Many Apostles?

How many apostles were there? Ask most Christians and they'll say twelve. After all, Jesus chose twelve disciples, and we call them "the twelve apostles."

But is twelve the right number? Let's count.

The Original Twelve

Jesus chose twelve disciples, listed in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:14-16:

1. Peter 2. Andrew 3. James (son of Zebedee) 4. John 5. Philip 6. Bartholomew 7. Thomas 8. Matthew 9. James (son of Alphaeus) 10. Thaddaeus (also called Judas son of James) 11. Simon the Zealot 12. Judas Iscariot

Twelve. So far, so good.

Judas Falls, Matthias Rises

Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and then killed himself. But here's an important point: Judas was still an apostle. Jesus said, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70). Jesus chose him - knowing full well what Judas would do. Judas walked with Jesus for three years, was sent out with the others, and was given authority to heal and cast out demons. His betrayal didn't erase the fact that he was chosen.

Before Pentecost, the remaining apostles decided to add to their number. Acts 1:21-26 records the selection of Matthias.

"And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

Matthias wasn't a replacement - he was an addition. The eleven wanted to restore their working number to twelve, but that doesn't mean Judas was erased from the count of those who held the office. Judas was an apostle who fell. Matthias was the thirteenth apostle.

Count so far: 13 (the original twelve, including Judas, plus Matthias). But we're not done.

Paul - The Apostle Born Out of Time

Most people acknowledge Paul as an apostle, even though he wasn't one of the original twelve. Paul himself claimed the title:

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1).

"Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)" (Galatians 1:1).

"Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1).

Paul called himself "one born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:8) - an apostle who came late to the party, but an apostle nonetheless.

Peter validated Paul's apostleship, calling him "our beloved brother Paul" and putting his writings on par with "the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Count so far: 14 (the original twelve plus Matthias plus Paul). But we're still not done.

Barnabas - The Forgotten Apostle

Here's one that surprises most people. Barnabas is explicitly called an apostle in Scripture.

"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude" (Acts 14:14).

Did you catch that? "The apostles Barnabas and Paul." Not "Paul the apostle and his companion Barnabas." Both are called apostles.

Barnabas was the one who vouched for Paul when the Jerusalem apostles were afraid of him (Acts 9:27). Barnabas traveled with Paul on the first missionary journey. Barnabas was sent by the Jerusalem church to Antioch (Acts 11:22). And Scripture explicitly calls him an apostle.

Count so far: 15 (the original twelve plus Matthias plus Paul plus Barnabas). And there may be more.

Andronicus and Junia - Possibly Two More

In Romans 16:7, Paul writes: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."

The phrase "of note among the apostles" can be read two ways:

1. They were outstanding among the apostles - meaning they themselves were apostles, and notable ones at that.

2. They were well known to the apostles - meaning the apostles knew them, but they weren't apostles themselves.

The Greek can support either reading. If the first interpretation is correct, that adds two more apostles to our count.

Possible count: 15-17 apostles (15 for sure, 17 if Andronicus and Junia were apostles).

The Final Count

For sure - 15 apostles:

The original twelve (including Judas - he fell, but he was still an apostle), plus Matthias, plus Paul, plus Barnabas.

Possibly - 17 apostles:

If Andronicus and Junia were apostles (as Romans 16:7 may indicate), then we have 17.

Either way, it's more than twelve.

Conclusion

The assumption that there were only twelve apostles doesn't hold up to Scripture.

Matthias replaced Judas - that's still twelve, but a different twelve than the original.

Paul was called as an apostle - that's thirteen.

Barnabas is explicitly called an apostle in Acts 14:14 - that's fourteen.

And Andronicus and Junia may have been apostles as well - that could be fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen.

It's a small point, perhaps. But it's another reminder to check our assumptions against Scripture. Even simple things we think we know - like "there were twelve apostles" - may not be as straightforward as we assumed.

Be a Berean. Count for yourself.

 

[B-A-C]

The 70 AD Problem

There's a view held by some Christians - not the majority, but more common than you might think - that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. This view is called preterism, and it's closely related to amillennialism - the belief that there is no future literal thousand-year reign of Christ.

According to this view, everything in Revelation and Matthew 24 already happened. The tribulation is past. The antichrist already came. Jesus already returned - spiritually. We're living in the kingdom now. There's nothing left to look forward to except death and eternity.

This ties into the previous chapter on New Jerusalem - if everything is "spiritual," then the kingdom is spiritual, Jesus' reign is spiritual, and the New Jerusalem is just a symbol. But as we'll see, the 70 AD view has some serious problems.

What DID Happen in 70 AD

Let's be clear: something significant DID happen in 70 AD. The Romans, under General Titus, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. This was devastating for the Jewish people. The temple - the center of their worship - was reduced to rubble. You can still see the ruins and the Western Wall today.

Jesus prophesied this destruction: "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matthew 24:2).

That prophecy was fulfilled. The temple was destroyed. I don't deny it.

But preterists go much further. They claim that EVERYTHING Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24 - and everything in Revelation - was fulfilled in 70 AD. That's where the problems begin.

The Nero Problem

Many preterists claim that Nero was the antichrist and that he committed the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel.

There's just one problem: Nero died in 68 AD.

The temple was destroyed in 70 AD - two years AFTER Nero was already dead. Nero never went to Jerusalem. Nero didn't destroy anything. Nero didn't stand in the holy place. He was dead.

Some preterists use Hebrew gematria to make "Nero Caesar" equal 666. But Revelation was written in Greek, to Greek-speaking churches. You have to transliterate to Hebrew AND use a variant spelling to make the math work. That's quite a stretch.

The Titus Problem

If not Nero, what about Titus? He's the one who actually destroyed the temple.

But Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation has a specific timeline:

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days" (Daniel 12:11).

That's 1,290 days - roughly three and a half years. The abomination must STAND in the holy place for this period.

But the temple in 70 AD was destroyed within about 180 days - six months at most. You can't have an abomination standing in the holy place for 1,290 days if the building is rubble after 180 days.

The math doesn't work. Titus couldn't have fulfilled Daniel's prophecy because the temple wasn't there long enough.

The Man of Lawlessness

Paul describes the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4:

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

Did Titus sit in the temple claiming to be God? No. Did Titus exalt himself above all gods? No. Titus destroyed the temple - he didn't sit in it proclaiming himself deity. There was no temple left to sit in.

For Daniel's prophecy and Paul's prophecy to be fulfilled, you need a temple that stands for three and a half years while the man of lawlessness sits in it. That didn't happen in 70 AD.

What About Antiochus Epiphanes?

Some point to Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple in 168-167 BC. He set up an altar to Zeus, sacrificed a pig on the altar, and forbade Jewish worship. This is well documented in Jewish history and the books of Maccabees.

That WAS an abomination of desolation - no dispute. But it happened about 200 years BEFORE Jesus spoke.

In Matthew 24:15, Jesus said: "Therefore when you SEE the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place..."

"When you SEE" - future tense. Jesus was pointing forward to something yet to come, not backward to Antiochus. Antiochus was a type, a foreshadowing. The ultimate fulfillment is still future.

The Gospel Problem

Jesus said: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14).

Was the gospel preached to ALL nations by 70 AD?

The Americas hadn't been discovered. Australia hadn't been discovered. Most of Asia hadn't been reached. Paul was still writing letters trying to GET to places like Spain. The gospel hadn't even fully spread through the known Roman world yet.

"All the world" and "all nations" clearly wasn't accomplished by 70 AD.

The Tribulation Problem

Jesus said: "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:21).

The worst tribulation EVER - past or future. Nothing will ever be worse.

Was 70 AD the worst tribulation in human history? Estimates suggest about one million Jews were killed. That's terrible. But consider:

World War II: 70-85 million dead.

The Holocaust alone: 6 million Jews murdered - there weren't even 6 million Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

World War I, the Black Plague, the Mongol conquests - all killed more people than 70 AD.

If 70 AD was "the worst tribulation that ever will be," then World War II couldn't have happened. The Holocaust couldn't have happened. But they did.

Either Jesus was wrong (not an option), or 70 AD wasn't THE great tribulation.

The Second Coming Problem

This is the biggest problem of all.

"For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be... Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds" (Matthew 24:27, 30-31).

Did this happen in 70 AD?

Did lightning flash from east to west that everyone saw? Did the sign of the Son of Man appear in heaven? Did all tribes of the earth mourn? Did everyone SEE Jesus coming on clouds with power and great glory? Did angels gather the elect with a great trumpet sound?

Revelation 1:7 says: "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him."

EVERY eye. Did every eye see Him in 70 AD? The people in China? Africa? The Americas? The whole world just missed the Second Coming?

Not one historian - Roman, Jewish, or Christian - wrote "Jesus came back today." If Jesus returned in 70 AD, somebody should have noticed.

The Rapture Problem

"Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and one left" (Matthew 24:40-41).

If this happened in 70 AD - where did the people go? Who was taken? Why didn't anyone notice their coworker disappeared? "Hey, I was grinding grain with Mary this morning and she just vanished!"

There are no records of mass disappearances in 70 AD. No Roman records. No Jewish records. No Christian records. The silence is deafening.

And here's the implication: if Jesus already came back and gathered His elect in 70 AD, then everyone waiting for the rapture now - you missed it. Sorry. The "blessed hope" was for first century believers only. Every Christian since 70 AD is too late.

That's not the gospel. The gospel includes a living hope that Jesus is coming back FOR US.

The Dating Problem

Preterists need Revelation to be written BEFORE 70 AD for their theory to work. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, then it can't be describing 70 AD as fulfilled prophecy.

The traditional dating of Revelation is 90-96 AD, during Domitian's reign. The early church father Irenaeus, writing around 180 AD, said John received the vision "toward the end of Domitian's reign." That's 20+ years after 70 AD.

Preterists argue for an earlier date because they have to. But even if you grant them early dating, the events still didn't happen as described.

And what about the early church fathers who wrote AFTER 70 AD? Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus - they all continued to write about the second coming as FUTURE. If Jesus already came back in 70 AD, why didn't THEY know about it? They were closer to the event than we are.

"This happened a hundred years ago and we missed it?" The early church kept looking forward. That tells you something.

The Millennium Problem

If we're living in the millennial reign of Christ right now, as amillennialists claim, consider what Scripture says about that reign:

Satan is bound for 1,000 years:

"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2).

Is Satan bound right now? Peter says "Your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8). That doesn't sound bound. Does the world look like Satan is locked up and unable to deceive the nations?

Jesus rules with a rod of iron:

Four passages say Jesus will rule with a rod of iron: Psalm 2:9, Revelation 2:27, Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 19:15. A rod of iron BREAKS things. It SHATTERS like pottery. It doesn't tolerate opposition.

If Jesus is ruling with a rod of iron right now, why are there Hindu temples? Muslim mosques? Buddhist shrines? Satanic lodges? Atheist conventions? Open rebellion against God everywhere you look?

A rod of iron isn't fluffy and marshmallowy. When Jesus rules with a rod of iron, opposition will be crushed, not tolerated.

Jesus reigning from Jerusalem:

If Jesus is reigning on earth right now - where is He? I want to go see Him. What's the address? Can I book a flight?

The "spiritual" escape hatch won't work. If you have to spiritualize everything to make your theory fit, maybe your theory is wrong.

Conclusion

Did something happen in 70 AD? Yes - the temple was destroyed, just as Jesus prophesied.

Did EVERYTHING happen in 70 AD? No. The math doesn't work. The history doesn't work. The prophecies weren't fulfilled.

Nero was dead before 70 AD. The temple didn't stand long enough for Daniel's timeline. The gospel hadn't reached all nations. 70 AD wasn't the worst tribulation ever. Jesus didn't visibly return. No one was taken. The early church fathers kept looking forward.

Satan isn't bound. Jesus isn't ruling with a rod of iron. Other religions flourish. The world doesn't look like we're in the millennium.

The preterist/amillennialist view requires spiritualizing everything that didn't literally happen. But at some point, if nothing means what it says, why did God bother saying it?

The second coming of Christ is still future. The tribulation is still future. The millennium is still future. The gathering of the elect is still future.

We have a blessed hope - that Jesus is coming back, for us, visibly, and every eye will see Him.

Be a Berean. Don't let anyone take that hope from you.

 

[B-A-C]

My grandmother's King James Bible has verses mine doesn't.

Mark 16:9-20. John 7:53-8:11. Acts 8:37. Whole verses, just... gone.

My Bible has a footnote: "Not in earliest manuscripts."

Her Bible has the verses, no footnote, no explanation.

So which one is right? Did someone add verses to hers, or remove verses from mine?

And more importantly: how do we know what's actually Scripture if different Bibles have different verses?

THE MANUSCRIPT FAMILIES

Here's what most Christians don't know: we don't have the original New Testament manuscripts. Not a single one.

What we have are thousands of copies. Handwritten copies of copies of copies, spanning centuries.

And these copies don't all agree.

Most of the differences are trivial—spelling, word order, obvious copying errors. But some differences matter. Whole verses appear in some manuscripts and not others.

This created two main "families" of manuscripts:

The Alexandrian Text (also called the Critical Text or Minority Text):

• Fewer manuscripts, but older (2nd-4th century)
• Primarily from Egypt
• Shorter readings—many verses omitted
• This is what most modern translations use (NIV, ESV, NASB)

The Byzantine Text (also called the Majority Text or Traditional Text):

• The vast majority of manuscripts (95%+)
• Later copies (5th-15th century mostly)
• Longer readings—includes the disputed verses
• This is what the King James Version uses

So when your Bible says "not in earliest manuscripts," it means "not in the Alexandrian text."

When it says "not in majority text," it means "not in the Byzantine tradition."

THE DEBATE

Each side makes assumptions:

Alexandrian advocates say: "Older is better. The earliest manuscripts are closest to the originals. Later manuscripts accumulated errors and additions over time."

Byzantine advocates say: "Majority rules. Ninety-five percent of manuscripts can't be wrong. The early Egyptian manuscripts were corrupted. The Church preserved the true text in the majority tradition."

Both sides have points.

Older manuscripts probably are closer to the originals, generally speaking. That's just logic—fewer generations of copying means fewer opportunities for error.

But ninety-five percent agreement is massive. If only a handful of manuscripts disagree with thousands of others, maybe those few are the outliers, not the majority.

The Alexandrian position assumes scribes added material over time—harmonizing gospels, clarifying ambiguities, making the text "better."

The Byzantine position assumes scribes faithfully copied what they received, and the Church preserved what God wanted preserved.

Which assumption is more biblical?

Did God preserve His word through the majority of manuscripts used by the Church for fifteen hundred years?

Or did He preserve it through a small number of older manuscripts that sat in Egyptian monasteries while the rest of Christianity used something different?

I don't know. Neither do the scholars. They argue about it constantly.

WHAT'S ACTUALLY MISSING?

Let me give you some examples—and here's where it gets interesting. Some Bibles omit verses because they're "not in earliest manuscripts." Others omit verses because they're "not in majority text."

Example 1: Mark 16:9-20 (The longer ending)

Your NIV or ESV puts this in brackets or a footnote: "Not in earliest manuscripts."

Why? Because Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century, Alexandrian text) don't have it.

But your King James or NKJV includes it in the main text.

Why? Because 95%+ of all manuscripts (Byzantine text) have it.

Example 2: John 7:53-8:11 (Woman caught in adultery)

Same story. Modern translations: brackets or footnotes. "Not in earliest manuscripts."

KJV/NKJV: In the text. Because it's in the vast majority of manuscripts.

But here's the flip side:

Example 3: Luke 17:36 ("Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left")

Your NIV or ESV omits this verse entirely.

Why? "Not in earliest manuscripts" AND "not in majority text."

Almost no manuscripts have it—it appears to be a scribal addition harmonizing Luke with Matthew 24:40.

Example 4: Revelation 22:19 (A textual variant)

Some manuscripts say "book of life," others say "tree of life."

Different translations handle this differently based on which manuscript family they follow.

So it's not as simple as "Alexandrian removes verses, Byzantine keeps them."

Sometimes BOTH families agree a verse doesn't belong. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes individual manuscripts within a family disagree with each other.

The footnotes tell you which manuscripts support which reading. "Not in earliest manuscripts" means Alexandrian text doesn't have it. "Not in majority text" means Byzantine tradition doesn't have it. "Textual variants exist" means manuscripts disagree and scholars made a judgment call.

The point:

No translation is hiding anything. They're just being honest about what the manuscripts say. Some include disputed verses with notes. Some omit them with footnotes. Some bracket them. Different approaches, same transparency.

A DIFFERENT PROBLEM: TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY

But there's another issue that has nothing to do with manuscripts: translation philosophy.

Some Bibles don't follow either manuscript tradition closely—they paraphrase, interpret, or modernize to the point where you're not sure what the original text actually said.

Take Ephesians 4:9: "He descended into the lower parts of the earth."

KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB (both manuscript families): "descended into the lower parts of the earth"

This could mean:

• Christ descended to Sheol/Hades (the realm of the dead)
• Christ descended to earth itself (the "lower parts" compared to heaven)
• Christ descended to the grave

Scholars debate which interpretation is correct, but the Greek text is clear: κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς ("descended into the lower parts of the earth").

But the NLT says: "he descended to our lowly world."

Wait—"lowly world"? That's not translation. That's interpretation. The translator decided what it means and paraphrased accordingly. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but now you can't see the actual text to decide for yourself.

Or Ephesians 4:8: "When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive."

Some translations keep this. Others smooth it to "he led captives in his train" or "he took many captives." The NLT goes with "he led a crowd of captives."

The problem isn't the manuscripts. The problem is the translation philosophy.

Three basic approaches exist:

1. Formal Equivalence (word-for-word):

• Translates as literally as possible
• Keeps awkward phrasing if that's what the Greek/Hebrew says
• Lets you see the original structure
• Examples: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV

2. Dynamic Equivalence (thought-for-thought):

• Translates the meaning/idea rather than exact words
• Smooths awkward constructions
• More readable but less precise
• Examples: NIV, CSB

3. Paraphrase (idea-for-idea):

• Doesn't translate at all—rephrases in modern language
• Very readable but often adds interpretation
• You're trusting the translator's theology
• Examples: NLT, The Message, Living Bible

All three have uses. Reading a paraphrase can help you understand difficult passages. But you shouldn't rely on it as your only Bible, because you're reading the translator's interpretation, not the text itself.

So when the NLT says "lowly world" instead of "lower parts of the earth," that's not a manuscript issue. Both Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts say the same thing. The NLT just decided to interpret it for you rather than translate it.

Be aware of this difference:

Manuscript issues: Which Greek/Hebrew text are we translating?

Translation issues: How do we translate that text into English?

Both matter. But they're different questions.

For manuscript reliability, check footnotes about "earliest manuscripts" or "majority text."

For translation philosophy, compare formal equivalence Bibles (NASB, ESV) with paraphrases (NLT, Message) and see where they differ. When they differ significantly, you're seeing interpretation, not textual variation.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

You might wonder: can't we just compare these to the Dead Sea Scrolls and settle it?

Unfortunately, no. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Old Testament only. They don't help us with New Testament manuscript questions.

But they do prove something important: Old Testament scribes were incredibly careful. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea, dated around 250 BC, matches the Masoretic Text from 900+ AD almost perfectly. A thousand years of copying, and the text barely changed.

That tells us ancient scribes took their job seriously. They weren't careless. They weren't adding and removing verses on a whim.

So if Old Testament scribes preserved their texts that carefully, shouldn't we assume New Testament scribes did the same?

That argues for trusting the Byzantine text—the Church preserved what God gave them, carefully, for centuries.

But the Dead Sea Scrolls also showed some variations did exist between manuscripts. Not every copy was identical. Scribes made mistakes. Small differences crept in.

That argues for preferring the earliest manuscripts—get as close to the originals as possible before errors accumulated.

So the Dead Sea Scrolls can support either position, depending on how you look at them.

DIVINE PROTECTION

Here's what I believe: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

God didn't inspire His word just to lose it in a manuscript debate.

He preserved it. Through persecution. Through copying errors. Through heresies and schisms and councils and controversies.

The core message—who God is, who Jesus is, what He did, how we're saved—that message is crystal clear in every manuscript family, every major translation, every Christian tradition.

Alexandrian or Byzantine, KJV or NIV, the gospel message is intact.

Are there some bad translations out there? Sure. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version that deliberately mistranslates key verses to support their theology. Some paraphrases take too many liberties. Some modernizations lose precision.

But the mainstream translations? Protected. Reliable. Trustworthy.

Not because scholars are perfect. Not because manuscripts never vary. But because God watches over His word.

Does that mean every disputed verse is definitely original? No. We don't know for certain which manuscript family got every detail exactly right.

But it means the message stands. The gospel is intact. The doctrines are clear. The word of the Lord endures forever.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

First, be aware. Know that this issue exists. Check the footnotes in your Bible. Compare translations. Understand why some verses appear in brackets or have notes saying "not in earliest manuscripts."

Not all modern translations omit disputed verses—many include them but add brackets or footnotes explaining the manuscript evidence. The NKJV, for instance, keeps all the verses but notes which ones are absent from certain manuscript families. That's a reasonable approach: give readers the full text while being honest about the textual questions.

Other translations omit the verses entirely, relegating them to footnotes. Others put them in brackets with explanatory notes.

Different approaches, same goal: being transparent about what the manuscripts say.

Second, don't panic. Your faith doesn't depend on whether Mark originally ended at verse 8 or verse 20. Jesus still rose from the dead. The gospel still saves.

Third, read everything. If a verse is disputed, read it. Consider it. See if it aligns with clear teaching elsewhere. Most disputed verses do—they just say in one place what's taught in ten others.

Fourth, trust God's preservation. He didn't lose His word. He didn't let critical doctrines vanish from the manuscript tradition. The Bible you hold is sufficient to make you "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15).

Is the Alexandrian text right? Maybe. Is the Byzantine text right? Maybe. Do we have to choose? Not really.

Both traditions proclaim Christ. Both teach the gospel. Both point to the same God.

The differences matter to scholars. They should matter to us enough to be informed. But they shouldn't shake our confidence that God has preserved His word.

BE A BEREAN

Acts 17:11 says the Bereans "examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

They didn't panic over textual variants. They searched Scripture to test teaching against truth.

Do the same. Check your Bible's footnotes. Compare translations. Understand the issues. Don't be ignorant of this debate.

But also don't be paralyzed by it.

The word of the Lord stands forever. Not because manuscripts are perfect. But because God is faithful.

Your grandmother's King James has a few extra verses. Your NIV has a few footnotes. Both point you to Jesus Christ.

And that's what matters.

The grass withers. The flower fades. But the word of our God stands forever.

Even when scholars argue about which manuscripts said it first.

 

[B-A-C]

Few verses make Protestants more uncomfortable than 1 Peter 3:21: "baptism now saves you."

We've spent five hundred years explaining it away. We quickly add clarifications: "Well, obviously it's not the water itself—it's the heart attitude. It's symbolic. It represents what already happened when you believed."

But that's not what it says.

It says baptism saves you.

THE UNIVERSAL PATTERN

Open the book of Acts. Watch what happens every time someone believes.

Acts 2:38 - Peter's Pentecost sermon: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 2:41: "Those who accepted his message were baptized."

Acts 8:12 - Philip in Samaria: "But when they believed Philip... they were baptized, both men and women."

Acts 8:36-38 - Ethiopian eunuch: "Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?" And Philip baptized him.

Acts 9:18 - Saul: "He got up and was baptized."

Acts 10:47-48 - Cornelius: "Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water." So he ordered that they be baptized.

Acts 16:15 - Lydia: "She and her household were baptized."

Acts 16:33 - Philippian jailer: "Immediately he and all his household were baptized."

Acts 18:8 - Corinthians: "Many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized."

The pattern is universal: Believe → Baptized.

Not believe → saved → maybe get baptized later if convenient.

But believe → immediately baptized.

Even Jesus Himself was baptized. Not because He needed it—He had no sin. But to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). To model what obedience looks like.

Then He commanded His followers: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

FOLLOW THE LEADER

Remember the childhood game Follow the Leader?

The leader runs—you run. The leader stops—you stop. The leader jumps—you jump. The leader crawls—you crawl.

You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "I'm following the leader" while standing still watching them run. That's not Follow the Leader. That's Watch the Leader.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27).

Not watch. Not admire. Not acknowledge. Follow.

So here's a simple test: Jesus got baptized. Did you?

If yes—you're following.

If no—you're watching.

"But I didn't need baptism like Jesus needed it!"

Correct. Jesus didn't need it for sin—He had none. He did it to model obedience. To show us what following looks like.

And then He commanded us to do it.

So if you say "I'm a follower of Jesus" but you won't do what He did and commanded...

You're not following. You're just watching.

And demons can watch. They believe too. They even shudder (James 2:19).

But they don't follow.

Which game are you playing?

THE VERSES WE EXPLAIN AWAY

1 Peter 3:21: "baptism now saves you"

Acts 2:38: "be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins"

Acts 22:16: "be baptized and wash your sins away"

Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"

Romans 6:3-4: "baptized into Christ Jesus... baptized into his death... buried with him through baptism"

Galatians 3:27: "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ"

Colossians 2:12: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him"

We've spent centuries explaining these away. We harmonize them with Ephesians 2:8-9. We insist they're symbolic. We say baptism just pictures what already happened internally.

But what if they mean what they say?

WHAT BAPTISM IS NOT

Before someone accuses me of preaching works-salvation, let me be clear:

Baptism alone saves nobody.

Acts 8 tells us about Simon the Sorcerer. He "believed and was baptized" (v.13). But Peter later said his heart wasn't right before God and he was "full of bitterness and captive to sin" (v.21, 23).

Simon got baptized. He wasn't saved. Why? Because baptism without genuine faith is just getting wet.

Faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely required. "For by grace you have been saved through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

You can't earn salvation. You come to God empty-handed, trusting in Christ alone.

Baptism doesn't add to Christ's finished work. It's not a good deed that tips the scales. It's obedience. It's responding to grace with "Yes, Lord."

And baptism requires conscious choice.

Every baptism in the New Testament follows the same pattern: belief first, then baptism.

Acts 8:36-37: "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Then he was baptized.

Infants can't hear the gospel. They can't understand it. They can't repent. They can't believe. They can't make a conscious choice to follow Jesus.

So infant baptism has no biblical basis. It reverses the order—baptism first, hope for faith later, instead of faith first, then baptism. It treats baptism as magic ritual rather than obedient response.

Scripture is clear: Believe, then be baptized. Not the other way around.

BURIED AND RAISED

Romans 6:3-4 tells us what baptism means: "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

When you go under the water, you're buried with Christ. Your old self dies. Your sins are buried.

When you come up out of the water, you're raised with Christ. You're born again. You're a new creation.

That's the symbolism. Death and resurrection. Burial and new life.

This is why immersion matters. Sprinkling doesn't picture burial. But going completely under water—being submerged—and then coming back up? That's death and resurrection.

The Greek word baptizō means to immerse, to dip, to plunge under. Not to sprinkle.

When Jesus was baptized, He "came up out of the water" (Matthew 3:16). When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, they "went down into the water" and then "came up out of the water" (Acts 8:38-39).

Baptism isn't just getting wet. It's dying and rising with Christ. And the mode matters because the symbolism matters.

You're not just getting cleaned up. You're being buried and resurrected.

ONE BATH, MANY FOOT WASHINGS

Jesus washed the disciples' feet at the Last Supper. Peter objected: "You shall never wash my feet!" Jesus replied, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

So Peter went to the other extreme: "Then wash all of me—hands, head, feet!"

Jesus answered: "Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean" (John 13:10).

There's a distinction here:

The bath = one-time cleansing

Foot washing = ongoing cleansing (daily forgiveness as we walk through a dirty world)

You don't need to be re-bathed every day. The bath happened. You're clean. But your feet get dirty as you walk. So you need ongoing washing—not of your whole body, but of the parts that contact the ground.

Same with the Christian life:

Baptism is the bath—one time, full cleansing, identification with Christ's death and resurrection. You don't need to be re-baptized every time you sin.

But confession, repentance, forgiveness? That's the foot washing. Daily. Ongoing. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9).

So if you've been biblically baptized—conscious faith in Christ, believer's baptism by immersion—you don't need to do it again.

But if you were "baptized" as an infant, you never had the bath. You need actual baptism.

And if you've fallen away and come back? I don't believe in "once saved always saved." I believe in prodigal sons. The father's son left, wasted everything, and came back. The father didn't say, "Sorry, you already had your sonship moment." He restored him fully.

So if someone walks away from faith and comes back—genuinely repents and rededicates their life to Christ—and they want to be baptized again as a public declaration of their restoration? I see nothing wrong with it.

Scripture never prohibits rebaptism. Is it necessary? Maybe not. The "bath" already happened. They just need "foot washing"—confession and restoration.

But if someone's conscience leads them to it, and they're doing it as an act of obedience and rededication? Who are we to forbid what Scripture doesn't forbid?

One bath is sufficient. But if the prodigal wants to take another bath when he comes home from the pigpen? Let him.

HOW FAR DOES GRACE GO?

Someone will bring up the thief on the cross. He didn't get baptized. He just believed.

True. The thief was nailed to a cross, hours from death, with Roman soldiers guarding him. He couldn't be baptized even if he wanted to. Grace covers what you genuinely cannot do.

But what about you? What's your excuse?

There's a difference between "I can't" and "I won't."

The thief couldn't. What about the believer who's had thirty years and countless opportunities but just never felt the need?

If you've been a believer for decades and never obeyed Christ's command to be baptized—not because you couldn't, but because you didn't think it was important—what does that say about your faith?

James said faith without works is dead. Jesus said if you love Him, keep His commands. Peter said be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The entire book of Acts shows immediate baptism.

So the question isn't "how far does grace go?"

The question is: "Why are you testing it?"

If Jesus commanded it, and you can do it, and you just... don't... for decades...

Maybe the problem isn't whether grace covers you.

Maybe the problem is whether you've actually submitted to Jesus as Lord.

SO IF I WAS NEVER BAPTIZED...

Romans 6:3-4 says we were "buried with Him through baptism" and raised to "walk in newness of life."

Colossians 2:12 says we were "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him."

So here's an uncomfortable question:

If I was never baptized... was I ever buried with Him?

If I never went under the water... did I ever die with Christ?

If I never came up out of the water... was I ever resurrected with Him?

Most will say: "Those are just symbols. The reality happened when you believed."

But that's not what the verses say.

They don't say baptism symbolizes being buried and raised.

They say you are buried and raised in baptism.

Not before baptism. Not apart from baptism. In baptism.

So if you've never been baptized...

According to Romans 6, you were never buried with Christ.

According to Colossians 2, you were never raised with Him.

According to Acts 2:38, your sins aren't forgiven.

According to Acts 22:16, your sins haven't been washed away.

According to 1 Peter 3:21, you're not saved.

"But I have faith!"

Good. Faith is required. Colossians 2:12 says you're raised "through your faith."

But faith expressed where?

In baptism.

Faith connects you to Christ's death and resurrection. Baptism is where that connection happens.

Not faith, then maybe baptism later if convenient.

But faith expressed in baptism—dying and rising with Christ.

BE A BEREAN

Water baptism was a huge thing in the New Testament. Nearly everyone was baptized immediately after believing. It wasn't optional. It wasn't delayed. It wasn't "when you feel ready."

It was expected, commanded, and practiced.

Jesus commanded it. Jesus modeled it. The apostles did it. Every convert in Acts received it.

So check your assumptions.

If you've never been baptized, maybe it's time to stop making excuses and obey.

Not because it's a magical ritual.

Not because you're earning salvation.

But because that's what Jesus commanded.

And that's where Scripture says you're buried and raised with Him.

The grass withers. The flower fades. But the word of our God stands forever.

Including "baptism now saves you."

 

[B-A-C]

The word "elect" appears throughout Scripture. God's "chosen people." His "elect."

But who are they?

We assume we know. Some say the elect are the Church—Gentile believers who replaced Israel. Others say the elect are Jews only, especially during the tribulation, while the Church gets raptured beforehand.

So which is it? Let's check our assumptions.

HOW DOES SCRIPTURE USE "ELECT"?

In the Old Testament, "elect" or "chosen" almost always refers to Israel.

Isaiah 45:4: "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen one..."

But in the New Testament, "elect" is used for believers in Christ—both Jew and Gentile.

Romans 8:33: "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?"

Context: believers in Christ.

Colossians 3:12: "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved..."

Context: Gentile believers.

1 Peter 1:1-2: "To God's elect, exiles scattered... who have been chosen..."

Context: believers in Asia Minor, mostly Gentile.

Titus 1:1: "Paul... for the faith of God's elect"

Context: the Church.

So the New Testament consistently calls believers—Jew and Gentile together—"the elect."

BUT WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?

Did God reject Israel? Did the Church replace them?

Romans 11:1-2 answers directly: "Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself... God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew."

Paul makes it clear: God has not abandoned Israel.

Romans 11:25-26: "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved."

"All Israel will be saved." Not "was saved." Not "is spiritually fulfilled in the Church." But "will be saved"—future tense.

So Israel still has a future role in God's plan.

But that doesn't mean there are two separate groups of elect with different destinies.

ONE BODY, NOT TWO

Ephesians 2:14-16: "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility... His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross."

Two groups—Jew and Gentile—made ONE.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

One body. One people. One elect.

Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all."

Notice: one hope. Not separate hopes for Jews and Gentiles. One hope.

Romans 11:17-24 pictures it as one olive tree. Some natural branches (Jews) were broken off because of unbelief. Wild olive shoots (Gentiles) were grafted in. But it's ONE TREE, not two separate trees.

The elect aren't two groups with separate destinies. The elect are one people—the remnant of Israel plus Gentile believers, grafted together into one body.

THE MATTHEW 24 PROBLEM

Matthew 24 creates problems for those who want to separate Jewish elect from Gentile elect.

Verse 22: "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

The elect are present during tribulation.

Verse 31: "And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

This happens "immediately after the distress of those days" (v.29). The elect are gathered AFTER tribulation, not before.

Some say "the elect in Matthew 24 are Jews only, not the Church." But that creates problems.

First, the New Testament uses "elect" for the Church (including Gentiles) far more often than for Jews exclusively.

Second, if we're "one body" (Ephesians 2, 4) with "one hope," why would Jews and Gentiles have different end-times experiences? Why would God treat them separately during tribulation if the dividing wall has been destroyed?

That's not "one body." That's "mostly one, except during tribulation."

You can't have it both ways. Either we're one body sharing the same destiny, or we're not.

REVELATION 7: TWO GROUPS, ONE DESTINY

Revelation 7 shows two groups.

First, 144,000 from the tribes of Israel—12,000 from each tribe. Clearly Jewish. Sealed for protection.

Then, "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes" (v.9).

Verse 14 identifies them: "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Two groups. One Jewish (144,000). One from every nation (innumerable multitude). Both present during tribulation. Both saved by the Lamb. Both standing before the throne.

No "Jews stay, Gentiles raptured" distinction.

The elect are one people—Jew and Gentile together—who endure tribulation and are gathered afterward.

PRESIDENT-ELECT

Think of it like a president-elect. When we vote in November, the winner is called "President-elect." He's not president yet—that doesn't happen until inauguration in January. But the status is secure. The outcome is certain.

Same with "the elect." We're God's chosen people—called, justified, being sanctified. But we're not yet glorified. Not yet fully realized.

That's why multiple verses say we "will receive" eternal life "in the age to come" (Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30). We have eternal life as a present promise and position in Christ. But we will receive it fully when we're glorified.

Like the president-elect: the status is secure, but the full reality comes at inauguration.

So the elect aren't two separate groups (Jews and Gentiles with different destinies). The elect are one people—all whom God has chosen, from every nation, Jews and Gentiles together, one body in Christ, waiting for the day when we're fully glorified and the election is complete.

MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN

Jesus said, "Many are invited, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14).

So the elect aren't simply everyone who hears the gospel or makes a profession of faith. The elect are those who respond, endure, and are found clothed in Christ's righteousness at the end.

Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" (Matthew 7:21). Not everyone who starts the race. But those who finish.

The elect.

BE A BEREAN

Check your assumptions about who the elect are.

Scripture uses "elect" for believers—Jew and Gentile together, one body in Christ.

God has not rejected Israel. A remnant will be saved. But Gentiles have been grafted into the same tree, sharing the same root, the same promises, the same destiny.

One body. One hope. One elect.

Present during tribulation. Gathered after tribulation. Sealed and protected by God.

Not two groups with separate raptures and separate destinies.

One people. One tree. One elect.

 

[B-A-C]

he verses that say "God never changes":

Malachi 3:6: "I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

Numbers 23:19: "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

1 Samuel 15:29: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind."

The assumption: "God never changes in any way. He's immutable. Unchanging. What He decides stands forever."

BUT THEN THERE'S THIS:

Genesis 6:6: "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

Exodus 32:14: "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Jonah 3:10: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."

1 Samuel 15:11: "I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."

2 Samuel 24:16: "When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, 'Enough! Withdraw your hand.'"

Jeremiah 18:8: "and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned."

Jeremiah 26:3: "Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from their evil ways. Then I will relent and not inflict on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done."

Amos 7:3, 6: "So the LORD relented. 'This will not happen,' the LORD said... So the LORD relented. 'This will not happen either,' the Sovereign LORD said."

So which is it?

Does God change His mind or not?

THE ANSWER: BOTH

God doesn't change:

• His character (holy, just, merciful, loving)
• His nature (eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful)
• His purposes (His plan will be accomplished)
• His promises (what He guarantees, He delivers)

But God does respond:

• To human choices
• To repentance
• To prayer
• To circumstances

GOD IS IMMUTABLE, NOT IMMOBILE

Immutable = His essence doesn't change

Not immobile = He's not a statue, frozen, unable to respond

THE PATTERN:

When Scripture says "God relented" or "God regretted," it's showing: God responds to human behavior.

EXAMPLES:

1. Nineveh (Jonah 3)

God's decree: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4)

Nineveh's response: Repented, fasted, turned from evil

God's response: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" (Jonah 3:10)

Did God change His mind?

• His decree changed (destruction → no destruction)
• His character didn't change (still just, still merciful)

Why?

• Because the CONDITIONS changed
• Nineveh repented
• God's decree was conditional: "IF they remain wicked, I'll destroy them"

2. Saul (1 Samuel 15)

God's decision: Made Saul king (1 Samuel 9-10)

Saul's actions: Disobeyed, rebelled

God's response: "I regret that I have made Saul king" (1 Samuel 15:11)

But same chapter, verse 29: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind"

Contradiction?

No:

• Verse 11: God regrets making Saul king (responds to Saul's disobedience)
• Verse 29: God's decree to remove Saul won't be reversed (His judgment stands)

God responds to Saul's sin (regret), but His judgment is final (no change).

3. The Flood (Genesis 6)

Genesis 6:6: "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

Was God sorry He made humans? Or sorry they became evil?

Look at verse 5: "The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time."

Then verse 6: "The LORD regretted... and his heart was deeply troubled."

God's grief wasn't over making humans. It was over what humans chose to become.

God created humans good (Genesis 1:31). But He also gave them free will—the ability to choose. And they chose evil. Continuously. Every inclination, every thought, only evil all the time.

It wasn't God's fault humans did evil. It was (and is) evidence of free will.

God was sorry that free will—which He gave so we could genuinely love and obey Him—gave us the ability to do evil. And we used it. Spectacularly.

Like a parent who gives a child freedom, and the child uses that freedom to destroy themselves. The parent grieves—not over giving freedom, but over how it was used.

God's character didn't change:

• Still values free will (forced obedience isn't love)
• Still hates evil (always has)
• Still grieves when His image-bearers choose wickedness

He responded to humanity's corruption with appropriate grief and judgment.

But notice: even in judgment, God preserves a remnant (Noah). Mercy even in wrath. That's consistent character.

Verse 5 comes BEFORE verse 6 to show: It's not "oops, I made a mistake" but "man chose evil over Me, and that's why I regret it (grieve over it)."

4. Moses Intercedes (Exodus 32)

Israel's sin: Golden calf (Exodus 32:1-6)

God's response: "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them" (Exodus 32:10)

Moses intercedes: Pleads for mercy (Exodus 32:11-13)

God's response: "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened" (Exodus 32:14)

Did Moses talk God out of something?

No. God invited intercession:

• "Leave me alone" = invitation for Moses NOT to leave Him alone
• God wanted Moses to pray
• God responded to prayer

Prayer changes things. Not because God's character changes, but because God responds to prayer.

JEREMIAH 18:7-10 - THE KEY PASSAGE

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

GOD'S PATTERN:

IF a nation is wicked:

• God threatens judgment
• IF they repent → God relents

IF a nation is blessed:

• God promises good
• IF they rebel → God reconsiders

 

[B-A-C]

The assumption: "Hell" and "Lake of Fire" are the same place—the final destination of the wicked.

We use them interchangeably. "Going to hell" means eternal punishment. Hell is the lake of fire. Same thing, right?

Wrong.

According to Scripture, Hell and the Lake of Fire are two completely different places. Hell is temporary. The Lake of Fire is permanent.

And the proof? Hell itself gets thrown INTO the Lake of Fire.

You can't throw something into itself.

THE KEY VERSE

Revelation 20:14: "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."

Read that again. Death and Hades—thrown INTO the lake of fire.

Hades is the Greek word for the realm of the dead. It's what the King James Version translates as "hell" in many passages.

If Hades (hell) gets thrown into the lake of fire, they can't be the same place.

THE PROGRESSION

Here's the timeline Scripture gives us:

1. **Death** → People die and go to Hades (hell) or Paradise

2. **Intermediate State** → They wait there in conscious existence until judgment

3. **Resurrection** → The dead are raised for judgment (Revelation 20:12-13)

4. **Great White Throne Judgment** → Books are opened, deeds are judged

5. **Final Sentence** → Those not in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15)

6. **Death and Hades Abolished** → Both are thrown into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14)

Hell (Hades) is the holding cell. The Lake of Fire is the prison.

Jail vs. prison. Temporary vs. permanent.

HADES IN SCRIPTURE

The Greek word "Hades" appears in the New Testament ten times (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27, 2:31; Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20:13, 20:14).

It's the place of the dead. The unseen realm. The grave. The abode of departed spirits.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew equivalent is "Sheol"—the place where all the dead went, both righteous and wicked, before Christ's resurrection.

Luke 16:19-31 gives us the clearest picture: the rich man and Lazarus.

When Lazarus died, he was "carried by the angels to Abraham's side" (v.22)—also called "Abraham's bosom." A place of comfort.

When the rich man died, he went to Hades—"in torment" (v.23).

Between them was "a great chasm... fixed" (v.26). They could see each other. They could speak. But neither could cross.

Two compartments. Same realm of the dead. Different conditions.

This was the intermediate state—where people waited until the resurrection and final judgment.

PARADISE

Paradise is mentioned three times in the New Testament:

Luke 23:43 – Jesus to the thief on the cross: "Today you will be with me in paradise."

2 Corinthians 12:4 – Paul caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things.

Revelation 2:7 – "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."

Paradise was the compartment of Hades where the righteous dead waited—Abraham's bosom, a place of comfort.

But here's the key: Jesus said to the thief, "Today you will be with me in PARADISE."

Not heaven. Paradise.

Because heaven wasn't the destination yet. The work wasn't finished. Christ hadn't ascended. The atonement wasn't complete.

Paradise was the waiting place.

CHRIST DESCENDED

Ephesians 4:8-10: "When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people. (What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)"

Christ descended. To the lower regions. To Hades. To Paradise.

1 Peter 3:18-20: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits."

He proclaimed to imprisoned spirits. Where? In Hades.

And when He ascended, He "took captives"—He led the righteous dead out of Paradise.

Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18: "When you ascended on high, you took many captives."

Christ emptied Paradise. He led them out. They're no longer in Hades. They're with Him.

That's why Paul could say, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). After Christ's resurrection and ascension, believers who die don't go to Paradise in Hades anymore. They go directly to be with Christ.

But the wicked? They're still in Hades. Waiting.

HADES GIVES UP ITS DEAD

Revelation 20:13: "The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done."

Hades gives up its dead. For judgment.

This is the resurrection of the wicked. The righteous were already raised (1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:4-6). Now the wicked are raised.

They stand before the Great White Throne. Books are opened. Deeds are judged.

And then the verdict.

THE LAKE OF FIRE

Revelation 20:15: "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

This is the final destination. The permanent sentence. The second death.

Not Hades. Not hell. The Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:10: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Forever and ever. No end. No release. No parole.

The beast and false prophet were already there (Revelation 19:20). Now Satan joins them. Then Death and Hades are thrown in. Then everyone not in the Book of Life.

Final. Permanent. Eternal.

DEATH AND HADES ABOLISHED

Revelation 20:14: "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."

Death itself—thrown in. Hades itself—thrown in.

Why?

Because they're no longer needed. Their purpose was temporary. They held people until judgment. Now judgment is complete.

No more death. No more dying. No more intermediate state. No more waiting place.

1 Corinthians 15:26: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Death is destroyed. How? By being thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Death swallowed by death. The second death consumes the first death.

And Hades—the realm of the dead—abolished. Thrown into the Lake of Fire with Death.

They served their purpose. Now they're gone.

TWO DIFFERENT PLACES

So let's be clear:

**Hades (Hell):**

- Temporary holding place

- Where the wicked dead wait until judgment

- Conscious torment, but not the final sentence

- Eventually emptied and thrown into the Lake of Fire

**Lake of Fire:**

- Permanent destination

- Where the wicked go AFTER judgment

- Eternal torment, no end

- The second death

- Where Death and Hades themselves are thrown

Jail vs. prison. Holding cell vs. final sentence. Temporary vs. eternal.

When we say "going to hell," we usually mean the Lake of Fire. But technically, people go to Hades first, then—after judgment—to the Lake of Fire.

THE GEHENNA PROBLEM

There's another word translated "hell" in the New Testament: Gehenna.

Gehenna appears twelve times, all in the Gospels (Matthew 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6).

Gehenna was the Valley of Hinnom—a literal place outside Jerusalem where garbage was burned. Fires burned continuously. It was a place of disgrace, defilement, destruction.

Jesus used it as an illustration of final judgment: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (Matthew 10:28).

Gehenna isn't Hades. It's closer to the concept of the Lake of Fire—a place of final destruction and judgment.

So we have three distinct concepts:

1. **Hades** – temporary holding place for the wicked dead

2. **Gehenna** – Jesus' metaphor for final judgment/destruction

3. **Lake of Fire** – the permanent destination described in Revelation

All three are distinct from each other. None of them are the same place.

WHY IT MATTERS

"So what? Why does it matter if hell and the lake of fire are different?"

Because precision matters. Because Scripture is specific. Because bad assumptions lead to bad theology.

If hell is permanent, then Revelation 20:14 makes no sense. How can you throw a permanent place into another permanent place?

But if hell is temporary—a holding cell until judgment—then the progression makes perfect sense:

Die → Hades (temporary) → Resurrection → Judgment → Lake of Fire (permanent)

It also clarifies Jesus' words to the thief: "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Paradise wasn't heaven. It was the compartment of Hades where the righteous waited. Jesus went there that day—descended to the lower regions—then led the captives out when He ascended.

Now, after the ascension, believers go directly to be with Christ. But back then, they went to Paradise. Temporary. Waiting.

Understanding the distinction helps us understand the whole biblical timeline of death, resurrection, and judgment.

THE SECOND DEATH

Revelation 20:14 calls the Lake of Fire "the second death."

The first death: physical death. Your body dies. Your spirit goes to Hades or to be with Christ.

The second death: eternal separation from God. Body and soul reunited in resurrection—then thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 2:11: "The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death."

Revelation 20:6: "Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them."

Believers experience the first death (unless we're alive when Christ returns). We don't experience the second death.

The wicked experience both.

First death → Hades. Second death → Lake of Fire.

Two deaths. Two destinations.

BE A BEREAN

Check your assumptions.

Hell (Hades) and the Lake of Fire are not the same place.

Hell is temporary. The Lake of Fire is permanent.

Hell gets thrown INTO the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14).

Paradise was the compartment of Hades where the righteous waited—until Christ led them out (Ephesians 4:8-10).

Now believers go directly to be with Christ (2 Corinthians 5:8).

The wicked still go to Hades. They wait there—in conscious torment (Luke 16:23)—until the Great White Throne Judgment.

Then they're resurrected, judged, and thrown into the Lake of Fire.

That's the second death. Final. Eternal. No end.

Hell is the holding cell. The Lake of Fire is the prison.

Jail vs. prison. Temporary vs. permanent.

Scripture is specific. We should be too.

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:14).

 

[B-A-C]

Things Everyone "Knows" Are in the Bible (But Aren't)




We've spent this entire book examining bad assumptions - doctrines we've inherited without checking, traditions we've accepted as truth, interpretations we've never questioned.




But there's a simpler problem underneath all of that: sometimes we believe things are in the Bible that simply aren't there at all.




Not misinterpretations. Not debatable doctrines. Just things that aren't in Scripture. Period.




Yet if you ask most Christians, they'll swear these things are biblical. They've heard them so many times, they must be true.




This is the Ford Man problem in its purest form. We inherit "biblical truth" that's just tradition, popular sayings, or outright inventions. And we never check.




So before we close, let's look at some of the most common "biblical" statements that aren't actually in the Bible.




THE LIST




**"God helps those who help themselves"**




Not in the Bible. Ben Franklin said it in *Poor Richard's Almanac* (1736).




In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite. God helps those who CAN'T help themselves. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). The gospel is for the helpless, the weak, those who've tried and failed.




If you could help yourself, you wouldn't need a Savior.




**"Cleanliness is next to godliness"**




Not in the Bible. John Wesley said it in a 1778 sermon.




Jesus ate with unwashed hands and the Pharisees accused Him of breaking tradition (Matthew 15:2). His response? It's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his heart.




Spiritual cleanliness matters. Physical cleanliness? Nice, but not salvific.




**"This too shall pass"**




Not in the Bible. It's Persian folklore, possibly from a medieval Jewish parable.




The closest biblical concept might be "weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning" (Psalm 30:5), but that's not the same saying.




**"God won't give you more than you can handle"**




Not in the Bible. Not even close.




1 Corinthians 10:13 says "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear."




That's about temptation, not trials. And even then, God provides "a way out" - not because you can handle it on your own, but because He helps you.




Paul said in 2 Corinthians 1:8: "We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself." Far beyond ability to endure. That's not "God won't give you more than you can handle." That's "God gives you more than you can handle so you'll depend on Him."




**"Spare the rod, spoil the child"**




Not quite. Close, but not accurate.




Proverbs 13:24: "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."




The actual verse emphasizes love and careful discipline - not just "beat your kids or they'll be spoiled."




**"Money is the root of all evil"**




Not what it says. Close, but missing a critical word.




1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."




Not money itself. The love of it. And not the root of ALL evil - a root of all kinds of evil. Big difference.




**"God works in mysterious ways"**




Not in the Bible. It's from a hymn by William Cowper (1773): "God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform."




God does work in ways we don't understand. Isaiah 55:8-9 says His thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But the specific phrase "God works in mysterious ways" isn't Scripture.




**"The lion will lie down with the lamb"**




Not what it says. Isaiah 11:6 says: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."




Wolf and lamb. Not lion and lamb. (Though verse 7 does mention the lion - eating straw like an ox, not lying down with a lamb.)




Close. But not accurate.




THE HORSE PAUL DIDN'T FALL OFF




Here's one of the most famous: **Paul fell off his horse on the road to Damascus.**




Everyone knows this. Renaissance paintings show it. Sunday school teachers teach it. It's gospel truth.




Except it's not in the Bible.




Acts 9:3-4: "As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'"




"He fell to the ground." That's it. No horse. No falling off. Just fell to the ground.




Acts 22:7 (Paul retelling the story): "I fell to the ground."




Acts 26:14 (Paul retelling it again): "We all fell to the ground."




Three accounts. Zero horses.




So where did the horse come from? Renaissance art. Painters like Caravaggio depicted Paul on a horse - dramatic, visually striking, made for a better painting.




And once the image became famous, the story became "fact." Now everyone "knows" Paul fell off a horse.




Except he didn't. Because there was no horse.




THE THREE WISE MEN




Everyone knows the Christmas story. Three wise men followed the star to Bethlehem, bringing gold, frankincense, and myrrh.




Except the Bible doesn't say three.




Matthew 2:1: "Magi from the east came to Jerusalem."




Magi. Plural. No number given.




We assume three because there were three gifts. But Scripture doesn't say how many magi there were. Could've been two. Could've been twelve. Could've been fifty.




Tradition says three. The Bible doesn't.




And they didn't come to the manger. Matthew 2:11: "On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary." A house. Not a stable. Not a manger. By the time the magi arrived, Jesus was in a house - possibly months or even up to two years old (Herod killed all boys two years and younger based on when the star appeared).




The nativity scene with shepherds and wise men all gathered around the manger on the same night? Beautiful image. Not biblical.




THE APPLE IN THE GARDEN




What fruit did Eve eat? Ask anyone and they'll say "an apple."




Except the Bible never says apple.




Genesis 3:6: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."




Fruit. That's all it says. Fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.




Could've been a fig (they covered themselves with fig leaves - maybe that's what they ate). Could've been a pomegranate. Could've been something that doesn't even exist anymore.




But centuries of Western art depicted an apple. Now everyone "knows" it was an apple.




Except Scripture doesn't say.




THE ROPE ON THE HIGH PRIEST'S ANKLE




Here's one that might actually be true - but it's not in the Bible.




The tradition: When the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, he had a rope tied around his ankle. If he died inside (because he was unworthy or made a mistake), they could drag his body out without anyone else entering and dying too.




Makes sense. Practical. Might've happened.




But it's not in Exodus. Not in Leviticus. Not in Numbers or Deuteronomy. Not in Hebrews. Not anywhere.




It might be true. But it's not Scripture.




And yet people teach it as biblical fact. "Did you know the high priest had a rope on his ankle? It's in the Bible!"




No. It's not.




WHY THIS MATTERS




These aren't just harmless mistakes. They reveal something dangerous: **We accept things as biblical truth without checking.**




If we can believe Paul fell off a horse for our entire lives without ever noticing Acts 9 doesn't mention a horse - what else have we accepted without checking?




If we can quote "God helps those who help themselves" as Scripture when it's actually Ben Franklin - what other non-biblical sayings have we elevated to biblical status?




If we can insist the fruit was an apple when Genesis just says "fruit" - what other details have we added to Scripture that aren't there?




And if we can do this with simple facts - easily checked, black and white - how much more are we doing it with doctrines, interpretations, and theology?




This is why we've spent an entire book examining assumptions:

- Once Saved Always Saved

- Pre-tribulation rapture

- The Pharisees were legalists

- Hell and the Lake of Fire are the same

- Pentecost was a one-time event

- Christians will face God's wrath during tribulation




Because if we can get the simple stuff wrong - horses and apples and ropes - we can definitely get the complicated stuff wrong too.




THE BEREAN SOLUTION




Acts 17:11: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."




Paul himself - an apostle - preached to them. And what did they do?




They checked.




They didn't just accept it because Paul said it. They searched the Scriptures daily to verify.




And Scripture calls them noble for it.




Not rebellious. Not divisive. Not disrespectful. Noble.




That's what this book has been about from the beginning: Be a Berean.




Don't just accept what you've been taught.

Don't just believe what everyone "knows."

Don't just assume traditions are biblical.




Check it yourself.




Read the whole counsel of Scripture. Look at the majority verses, not just the handful that support your position. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Let the Bible interpret itself.




And when you find out you've been wrong about something - even something you've believed for decades - have the courage to admit it and change.




That's being a Berean.




THE FORD MAN ONE LAST TIME




My daddy was a Ford man. His daddy was a Ford man. So I'm a Ford man.




Never test drove anything else. Never compared. Just bought what daddy bought because that's what we do.




Most Christians approach theology the same way.




My preacher taught this. His preacher taught this. My denomination has always believed this. So I believe this.




Never checked. Never compared. Never asked "but what does Scripture actually say?"




The problem isn't that we believe wrong things. The problem is that we believe things without checking whether they're true.




Paul fell off a horse - never checked Acts 9.

Three wise men - never counted in Matthew 2.

God helps those who help themselves - never searched for the verse (because it's not there).

The Pharisees were legalists - never read Matthew 23.

Once Saved Always Saved - never counted the warning passages.

Pre-trib rapture - never noticed "immediately after the tribulation."




We inherit. We assume. We accept. We defend.




But we don't check.




FINAL CHALLENGE




So here's the challenge: Don't believe me.




Don't take my word for anything in this book.




Check it yourself.




Look up every verse I referenced. Read the context. Compare passages. See if the majority witness of Scripture supports what I've claimed - or contradicts it.




If you find I'm wrong about something, great. You just learned something by checking.




If you find I'm right about something you used to believe was wrong, great. You just learned something by checking.




Either way, you win. Because you're being a Berean.




The point isn't to convince you to believe everything I've written. The point is to convince you to **check everything you've been taught**.




Test the spirits (1 John 4:1).

Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Search the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11).




Because somewhere between "Paul fell off a horse" and "Once Saved Always Saved," we stopped checking whether the things we believe are actually true.




And that's how bad assumptions become accepted doctrine.




So check your assumptions.




Test your traditions.




Examine your theology.




Be a Berean.




The Bible is there. Read it yourself. See what it actually says.




And if you find out something you've believed for years isn't in there - or says something different than you thought - have the courage to change.




Truth matters more than tradition.

Scripture matters more than sentiment.

What God actually said matters more than what we wish He'd said.




Check it yourself.

 

[KingJ]

The Problem with the Thief on the Cross

Few figures in Scripture get used more often to justify doctrine than the thief on the cross. And few figures are more misunderstood.

You've heard the arguments. The thief wasn't baptized - so baptism isn't necessary. The thief didn't do any good works - so works don't matter. The thief just believed - so belief is all you need.

But there's a problem with building doctrine on the thief. A big one.

What if the thief wasn't the first example of New Covenant salvation - but the last example of Old Covenant salvation?

Paradise, Not Heaven

Let's start with what Jesus actually said.

"Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

Paradise. Not Heaven. That distinction matters.

In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man. When Lazarus died, he went to Abraham's Bosom - a place of comfort, separated by a great gulf from Hades where the rich man suffered. This was Paradise. The holding place for the righteous dead under the Old Covenant.

Abraham was there. Lazarus was there. All the Old Testament saints were there. Waiting.

Waiting for what?

Waiting for Jesus to finish His work.

The Covenant Wasn't in Force Yet

Here's a legal reality most people overlook.

"For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives" (Hebrews 9:16-17).

A will doesn't take effect until the person who wrote it dies.

When Jesus made His promise to the thief, Jesus was still alive. The New Covenant - the new testament in His blood - wasn't in force yet. It couldn't be. The testator hadn't died.

The thief died under the same covenant that covered Abraham, Moses, and David. Faith looking forward to the promise. Old Covenant terms.

He wasn't the first convert of the New Covenant. He was the last convert of the Old.

Jesus Hadn't Ascended Yet

After the resurrection, Mary Magdalene found Jesus at the tomb. She reached out to Him, and He said something strange.

"Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father" (John 20:17).

Jesus had work to do. He hadn't gone to the Father yet.

The book of Hebrews tells us that the earthly tabernacle was "a copy and shadow of the heavenly things" (Hebrews 8:5). There is a tabernacle in Heaven. A real one. Complete with the ark of the covenant and a mercy seat.

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would take the blood of the sacrifice and sprinkle it on the mercy seat. That blood covered the sins of the people for another year.

Jesus, our High Priest, had to do the same thing - but once for all. He had to take His own blood into the heavenly tabernacle and sprinkle it on the heavenly mercy seat.

"Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

When the thief died, Jesus hadn't done that yet. The blood hadn't been applied. The atonement wasn't complete.

The Spirit Wasn't Given Yet

Under the Old Covenant, the Holy Spirit worked differently than He does now.

The Spirit came upon people - temporarily, for specific tasks. He came upon Samson to give him strength. He came upon Saul to prophesy. He came upon David to reign. But He also left. Saul lost the Spirit. David, after his sin with Bathsheba, prayed "Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). He knew the Spirit could depart.

The New Covenant promised something different. An indwelling Spirit. A permanent presence.

But that hadn't happened yet.

"But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39).

Not yet given. Jesus wasn't glorified yet.

Jesus told His disciples, "It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you" (John 16:7).

The Spirit couldn't come in the New Covenant way until Jesus left. That happened at Pentecost - Acts 2. Peter preached, and three thousand were baptized, and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The thief died before any of this. Before the resurrection. Before the ascension. Before the Spirit was poured out. Before Acts 2. Before "repent and be baptized." He couldn't have received the indwelling Spirit even if he wanted to. It wasn't available yet.

Leading Captives Free

So what happened to all those Old Testament saints waiting in Paradise?

"When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. Now this, 'He ascended' - what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?" (Ephesians 4:8-9).

Jesus descended. To the lower parts. To Paradise. And He led the captives free.

Abraham, Moses, David, Lazarus, and yes - the thief on the cross. All of them waiting. All of them transferred when the work was complete.

The thief went to Paradise that day, just as Jesus promised. But Paradise wasn't the final destination. It was the waiting room. And when Jesus finished His work, He came back for them.

The Evidence Stacked Up

Let's count the reasons the thief was under the Old Covenant:

One - Jesus said Paradise, not Heaven. The Old Testament saints' waiting place.

Two - Jesus hadn't died yet. The New Covenant wasn't in force.

Three - Jesus hadn't ascended yet. The blood hadn't been applied to the heavenly mercy seat.

Four - The Spirit hadn't been given yet. The New Covenant indwelling wasn't available.

Five - Acts 2 hadn't happened yet. "Repent and be baptized" hadn't been preached.

Six - Jesus led the captives free after His work was done. The thief was among them.

How many reasons do we need? The thief was Old Covenant by every measure.

Selective Proof-Texting

Here's something interesting. People love to use the thief to dismiss New Covenant commands.

The thief wasn't baptized - so I don't need to be baptized.

The thief didn't do good works - so I don't need to do good works.

The thief just believed - so belief is all I need.

But you know what else the thief wasn't?

Circumcised.

Funny how that never comes up. Under the Old Covenant, circumcision was required. But nobody says, "The thief wasn't circumcised, so circumcision must not matter."

Why not? Because we know circumcision was an Old Covenant requirement that doesn't apply to us.

Exactly. So why are we using an Old Covenant convert to dismiss New Covenant requirements?

Even If You Disagree

But let's say you're not convinced. Let's say you still think the thief was saved under New Covenant terms.

Fine. Let's grant everything you want to claim.

The thief confessed with his mouth. He believed in his heart. He recognized his sin and accepted his punishment. He probably didn't commit any more sins in the few hours he had left. And he couldn't get baptized - he was nailed to a cross with Roman soldiers guarding him.

Maybe grace covered what he couldn't do. Jesus knows hearts. The thief gets a pass on the things that were physically impossible for him.

I'll give you that.

Now answer me this: What's your excuse?

You've been saved for ten, twenty, thirty years. You're not nailed to a cross. You're not dying in the next few hours. You have legs that work. There's a baptistry at your church. There's water in the river.

The thief couldn't. You can.

The thief had hours. You've had decades.

The thief had no opportunity. You've had hundreds.

And if you're wheelchair-bound? I've seen people in wheelchairs get baptized. I've seen elderly people lowered into the water. I've seen baptisms in bathtubs, horse troughs, swimming pools, lakes, rivers, oceans. I've seen people baptized in hospitals.

If you want to obey, you find a way.

The thief had zero options. Zero.

You have options. You just don't like them.

Grace covers "can't." It doesn't cover "won't."

The Real Question

So here's the real question.

Why are we building doctrine on the one dying man who couldn't do anything - instead of the dozens of examples in Acts where people could do something and did?

Pentecost - three thousand repented and were baptized.

The Ethiopian eunuch - "Here is water, what hinders me?" He was baptized immediately.

Paul - "Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins."

Cornelius - baptized immediately after receiving the Spirit.

The Philippian jailer - baptized the same hour of the night.

Lydia - baptized with her household.

Person after person after person. The pattern is clear. Believe and be baptized. Immediately. Without delay.

But we ignore all of that and cling to the one guy who couldn't do it.

Why?

Because the exception lets us off the hook. The exception doesn't require anything of us. The exception lets us say "it's not really necessary."

We go with the one example instead of the dozens.

Bad foundation.

Conclusion

The thief on the cross is a beautiful picture of grace. A man at the end of his rope, with nothing to offer, placing his faith in Jesus and receiving the promise of Paradise.

But he's not your model.

He was the last Old Covenant convert, saved the same way Abraham was saved - by faith looking forward to the promise. He went where the Old Testament saints went. He was led captive when Jesus finished His work.

You live after Acts 2. You live after "repent and be baptized." You live after the Spirit was poured out. You have opportunities the thief never had.

Stop hiding behind a dying man's inability to justify your unwillingness.

Be a Berean. Look at all the evidence. Follow the pattern of Acts, not the exception on the cross.

And if you can obey - then obey.

BAC, my brother, you are all over the show here.

1. When Jesus stopped the adulterer from being stoned was He doing so under the old covenant or a new one?

2. Do you believe any in Abraham's bosom / paradise will be kept out of heaven?

The criminal next to Jesus is a shining example, perhaps the best in all of scripture of how important a right heart condition is to God. The only thing God has ever wanted of man is a true repentance of sin. We see this in the OT in Psalm 51:17 and the NT in Luke 5:32.

You and all other non-OSAS pundits come completely and utterly unstuck because you cannot and do not accept Jer 17:9-11. God can truly judge a heart and mind. God will not ever make the mistake of grafting someone with a heart like Judas's into heaven.

You also keep insinuating that the OSAS crowd simply believe magical words, being in the correct religion or a simple belief of Jesus existing and being someone special, is all we need for eternal bliss. This is an insulting line and shows you are not reading or trying to grasp the other side. You are displaying ford type syndrome.

Saving faith / the ability to believe Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead (Rom 10:9) is gifted by God (Rom 12:3, 1 Cor 12:3) to those who truthfully repent of their sins and open the door to Jesus (Luke 5:32, Rev 3:20). God only gifts this to those who pass His judgement of heart and mind Jer 17:9-11. IE God is not a fool who makes mistakes. We can be the fools who can think we are saved.