The Mass Shooting and Liberal Utopian Society

by Andrew Isker

In the last two weeks, there have been two mass shootings in the United States, and the second took place this week at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. These shootings have reignited the regime’s already intense desire for a disarmed populace. Even before the bodies of the dead children had been removed from the school, our mentally diminished President spoke to the nation, demanding that rifles (which he is not even able to accurately describe) be confiscated across a 330 million person country spanning an entire continent. This despicable man, and the legion of sociopathic ghouls arrayed behind him, are clearly overjoyed that there is a classroom full of young children lying dead in Texas. They don’t actually care about the anguish of parents who will never see their child grow up. Their deaths are merely a political prop for the most evil people on the planet.

It is hard to fully comprehend just how totalitarian such designs are. But these are the very same sadistic freaks who successfully locked those 330 million people in their homes for weeks or months, and then (mostly successfully) restricted their ability to provide for their families if they refused to get an extremely dangerous mRNA injection that does not even accomplish its intended purpose. All you are to them is a guinea pig or a rat in a social experiment. You do not matter. Your children do not matter. You only exist to provide them with power.

You must understand that school shooters and other mass shooters are an extremely acute symptom of the disease that horribly afflicts the American nation. You live in an incredibly sick society, and since you are born into it and live in it every day, you go about your life mostly unaware of just how dreadful things really are. It is imperative for the people who manufacture the inversion of reality that you perceive everything through the lens of the now. This is why “The Current Thing” has such memetic power: it attacks reality distortion at its source, where obsession over what is, right now, cuts you off from any sense of historical perspective. In the case of mass shootings, the exclusion of historical perspective keeps the masses from noticing that mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon and that decades ago, when the United States had vastly more liberal gun laws, and anyone could even purchase fully automatic submachine guns in the mail, this never happened. The question you should ask is, why not? What exactly was different about America 90 years ago compared to today?

The answer to that question is fairly obvious. Modern American society is a factory for psychopaths. The young man in the North American Continent is planted in a field fertilized by atomization, loneliness, and hopelessness. Many have never met their father, and most do not have anything remotely close to a “good relationship” with him. Most have no meaningful connection to the community in which they live, nor even the nation they inhabit. In school, they are social outcasts, driven to niche internet communities for the only semblance of human interaction in their lives. They are marinated in hardcore pornography from before they have even reached pubescence. They know (or at least perceive) that they will never know the love of a flesh-and-blood woman. They are on the kind of pharmacological cocktail that any premodern society would only ascribe to witchcraft and demon possession. They have nothing to live for and no one who loves them. Given how many young men our nation is producing like this, the question we ought to be asking is not “why does this happen?” but rather “why does it not happen a lot more?”

Continue reading...

Who or What is a Jew?

The original name for some of the people we now call "Jews" was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" first appears in Genesis 14:13, and literally means "an Eberite, a descendant of Eber." Another name was Israelites, which literally means "a descendant of Israel," referring to Jacob who had his name changed to Israel by God. Yet another name is Judaites, which literally means, "a descendant of Judah."

After the death of King Solomon, when the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms, the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south (1 Kings 12; 2 Chronicles 10), anyone from the kingdom of Judah, regardless of their tribe of descent, was referred to as a Judaite.

To set the record straight, Abraham was neither an Israelite, nor a Judaite. Furthermore, all Eberites are neither Israelites nor Judaites; and all Israelites are not Judaites. In fact, all "Jews" are not even Israelites or Eberites. How can I say this? Because people from every ethnicity and colour have converted to Judaism. Ergo, contrary to the erroneous and heretical notes in the 1967 Scofield Reference/Study Bible, all "Jews" are not the natural descendants of Abraham. Such an ignorant statement is void of all intelligence and reality. That is like saying that all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther.

Today, a "Jew" is predominantly an adherent of Judaism. This is proven by the fact that any person (African, Indian, Asian, etc.) who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism is considered a "Jew." In fact, most of the talk about who is a Jew centers around "conversion." For example, if a woman born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, raised in a Reform congregation and understanding herself to be completely Jewish, if she wants to marry a Conservative Jewish man, she would have to "convert" for her children to be considered Jewish by Conservative standards. It is a mish-mash of muddled nonsense. There are also those who do not adhere to Judaism who are referred to as Jews, which, technically, should be nominal Jews (by name only). After all, in every religion there exist nominal individuals who claim to belong to it, but whose lives and behaviour do not reflect it (e.g., nominal Christians, nominal Muslims, nominal Hindus, nominal Buddhists, etc). Modern Jewry has become as clear as mud. They have so many ways with which to identify "Jews," whereas in Scripture there were only two (and typically only one): being a descendant of or belonging to the tribe of Judah, or belonging to the kingdom of Judah.

Contrary to God's Scriptures, and every other ethnicity on the planet, modern Jews erroneously attempt to trace their lineage through the mother. This is likely due to the fact that when the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes exiled from the land (2 Kings 17), when their women were married off to other men, it effectively ended their bloodlines.

Lineage is always traced through the man; not the woman. Everyone knows that the seed originates with the man. Ergo, the father determines what the children are (save for religious preference, as you are not born a religion). For centuries, a great number of people have been falsely labeled as "Jews" who are not Jews. In fact, according to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, many of the people ethnically calling themselves "Jews" are not real Jews and do not belong to Israel. According to Romans 11:17-24, only those who believe and trust in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour (the remnant) are true Jews belonging to the true Israel—Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel was frequently referred to as a vine. In John 15, Jesus says, "I am the true vine." Make the connection.

Imagine a Muslim man marrying a Jewish woman. Uh oh! What is the child? According to Muslims, the child is a Muslim. According to Jews, the child is a Jew. This is like a piece of buttered bread being tied to the back of a cat and being dropped from a height. How will it land? Buttered bread apparently always lands butter side down, and cats always land on their feet. What if a Jewish man marries a Muslim woman, then what would the child be? Apparently nothing, since neither has lineage claims on the child. Here proves that a Jew is predominantly an adherent of Judaism: if a non-Jewish man marries a Jewish woman and they have a child who is not raised as Jewish and embraces a different faith, how does this child become a "Jew"? If they forsake the religion they embraced, are they automatically considered a Jew because of the mother (which is false lineage)? Or does the child have to convert to Judaism? A conversion to Judaism makes one an adherent to Judaism. Ergo, the most accurate definition of a Jew is one who adheres to Judaism. But I digress.

The fact is, there are a great number of people today calling themselves "Jews" who are not Jews in the least (save perhaps by being an adherent to Judaism). If you traced these people's lineage back, you would find that a great many of them are not, and have never been, Jews; but they have been falsely raised to believe that they are, erroneously tracing their lineage through the mother rather than through the father. This false lineage is obliterated when one pays attention to the Old Testament. It is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"; not "the God of Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah." The lineage of Judaite to Israelite to Eberite is through the man; not the woman. It is patriarchy, not matriarchy.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (a passage that Jews are dishonest with, attempting to claim it teaches matriarchal descent), in expressing the prohibition against inter-faith marriage (not inter-racial marriage), God says, "you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons" (v. 3). Why? "For they [their sons and daughters] will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods" (v. 4). The "they" literally means "he," but the prior verse lets you know that it works both ways. If you put the emphasis on the "he," as Jews do, then they should logically understand it to be so because lineage is traced through the father. 

Another verse Jews erroneously attempt to use in support of matriarchal descent is Leviticus 24:10, which speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man. This passage is identifying their nationality, their ethnicity. It says nothing about the adherence to Judaism (which did not exist at the time—find a single reference in the Old Testament to "Judaism"). Who says that this Egyptian man did not become a full-fledged citizen of Israel by circumcision? Abraham was told that "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised" (Gen. 17:13), and Moses was told, "But if a stranger sojourns with you and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land" (Ex. 12:48). Circumcision was a sign and seal of being entered into covenant with God, where God says the person who is not circumcised "has broken My covenant" (Gen. 17:14).

[Allow me a little rabbit trail here for clarification purposes. There are some Credo Baptists who deny circumcision as being a sign and seal of being in covenant with God and attempt to argue that circumcision merely identified you with Israel. Sorry, but that argument is false. Let me re-state it: Abraham was not an Israelite. Only those who are descendants of Jacob are Israelites. God made it extremely clear when He said that the person who is not circumcised "has broken My covenant" (Gen. 17:14).]

Jews also falsely claim that King David's Jewish status is determined by his mother. No, it is not. It is determined by his father. Read any of the genealogies in Scripture and you will see that the lineage is traced through the father. Even Jesus' lineage is traced through the males. The non-Jewish women who are part of Jesus' ancestry, whether they converted or not, do not affect His Jewish lineage because it is traced through the fathers.

Jews tend to contradict themselves, saying that "status as a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe; it is simply a matter of who your parents are," and yet continuously talking about conversion. Like I said, most of the talk surrounding the status of a Jew has to do with conversion to Judaism, which is what you believe. Maybe they should amend their statement to say that "status as a Jew does not always have to do with what you believe."

There are at least three types of Judaism: Orthodox Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the obligation to observe the unchanging law; Conservative Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the right to change the law; and Reform Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the right to pick and choose what to observe. Jews say that "the Torah is the heart of Judaism," but they also say that "the Talmud is the life of Judaism." The Talmud carries on the traditions of the elders that the Pharisees held to in Jesus' day, for which He condemned them: "they teach as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9), "neglect the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8), and "reject the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition" (Matt: 15:3). If they bothered to pay attention to the Scriptures, as Jesus pointed out to them, the Scriptures speak of Him.

The Talmud is the most significant collection of the Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah. There are two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean if they just say "the Talmud" without specifying which one. The Mishnah is an early written compilation of Jewish oral tradition, the basis of the Talmud. The Gemara are commentaries on the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara together are the Talmud. There are two Torahs: the Written Torah, known as the Tanakh (an acrostic for Torah [The Law], Nevi'im [The Prophets], and Ketuvim [The Writings]), and the Oral Torah, which are Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2nd century A.D., when they began to be written down in what became the Talmud. The most prominent Jewish sources of our day admit:

"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." —Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered." —Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." —Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

As you can see, determination of who and what is a Jew is extremely convoluted. There is a grave amount of error surrounding this determination. When Scripture talks about those who "say they are Jews and are not" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), it makes you wonder what exactly it means. Commentaries differ on their understanding. Hopefully this helps to clear up some of the confusion, especially that created by Zionists and Dispensationalists who attempt to claim that "all Jews are the natural descendants of Abraham," an argument that is completely illogical. Biblically, there were only two ways to determine a "Jew": (1) being a descendant of or belonging to the tribe of Judah; or (2) belonging to the kingdom of Judah. Also, biblically, and prior to 1948, "Israel" was defined as a particular man (Jacob), and as a particular tribe (the descendants of Jacob).

By the way, the term "Messianic Jew" is an oxymoron. A Jew who trusts and believes in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour becomes a Christian; a Christ-one, or Christ follower. Would you call a Muslim who comes to Jesus a "Messianic Muslim" or an "Isa Muslim"? Today, "Jew" predominantly refers to an adherent of Judaism. It is confusing when attempted to be used otherwise. As I said, the entire use of "Jew" has become convoluted. As even Jews acknowledge, "Jew" is not a race, an ethnicity, a culture, or even a nation. To use it in this manner is extremely erroneous.

ADDENDUM:
We have already established that, biblically, there were two ways to determine who was and was not a "Jew": (1) being a descendant of, or belonging to the tribe of, Judah; or (2) belonging to the southern kingdom of Judah (from the tribes of Benjamin or Judah). Save for when Israel was divided into two kingdoms, if you were of the tribe of Benjamin, you could not call yourself a Judaite; you were a Benjamite. Everyone who calls themselves an ethnic "Jew" today, are they claiming to belong to the southern kingdom of Judah (from either the tribes of Benjamin or Judah)? If they belong to some other tribe, then they are no "Jews" and should stop calling themselves such; unless the use of the term absolutely means they are an adherent to the religion of Judaism.

Is It Possible For Infants To Have Faith?

Credo Baptists frequently attempt to argue that infants are incapable of exercising faith. They conveniently forget that an 8-day-old was to have circumcision applied to him. If an 8-day-old cannot exercise faith, but was still administered the sign and seal of being in covenant with God, then why can an infant not receive baptism, the sign and seal of the new covenant?

Not only that, but according to Scripture infants can have faith. First of all, faith is a gift (Eph. 2:5, 8). Nowhere in Scripture does it say you have to be from a certain place or of a certain age to receive this gift or its benefits. Here are some passages that contradict the Credo Baptist's argument:

"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; you made me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; you have been my God from my mother's womb." Psalm 22:9-10

"By You I have been sustained from my birth; you are He who took me from my mother's womb; my praise is continually of You. ... Do not cast me off in the time of old age; do not forsake me when my strength fails. ... O God, You have taught me from my youth, and I still declare Your wondrous deeds. And even when I am old and gray, O God, do not forsake me, until I declare Your strength to this generation, your power to all who are to come." Psalm 71:6, 9, 17-18

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb. ... When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Luke 1:15, 41

Second, circumcision entered children into God's family of faith. They were under the umbrella of their parents' faith, whose responsibility it was to train them up and disciple them. Circumcision could only be applied to male infants. Baptism, however, is more inclusive.

Scripture does not say one way or the other whether there were infants/children present or not in the passages concerning Lydia, Cornelius, Stephanas, and the Philippian jailer. However, the Greek is singular when speaking of the individual believing, yet plural when speaking of the household being baptized. Furthermore, it is a safe bet that these households did consist of infants/children.

With regard to the above passages, I have no doubt that some people will attempt to argue against the first one based on it being prophetic of the Lord Jesus. Their argument will exclude everyone else and say that it only applies to Jesus, as He was God in the flesh. With the third one, John was filled with the Spirit from birth. Ergo, he had to possess the gift of faith. If there were no faith present, then how could he be filled with the Spirit? Does the Spirit now indwell those without faith?

God made specific promises, and there is nothing in Scripture that limits the place or the age for receiving these benefits. Since faith is a gift, God can bestow it upon His children at any point (unless you want to put God inside a box, and/or think that you are God).

If you think I have a dislike of Credo Baptists, or that I think some sort of ill about them, I encourage you to read my previous article, Paedo or Credo: Does It Really Matter?

Does Baptism Save?

Marcus "Flame" Gray is starting to embrace and teach grave errors. Baptism does not save, and Jesus never taught such a thing. The biggest hurdle for this belief to leap over is the thief on the cross who never received baptism, yet Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

In his new song, "The Patristics," Mr. Gray lists a bunch of names from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries who taught that water baptism saves. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc. This is his argument for the belief. Apparently Mr. Gray is unaware that just because something was taught a long time ago, or for a long time, does not mean that it is true. Mary's perpetual virginity was taught in those early centuries, too, but Scripture, God's Holy Word, contradicts such nonsensical teachings.

If Mr. Gray bothered to study like a Berean, he would notice that during the 2nd century a great many errors began creeping into the Lord's Congregation. Waiting periods began to be introduced for baptism, something that was done immediately in the Scriptures upon profession. The Lord's Supper, a full meal that was at the center of the congregations' fellowship, began to change toward a tiny cup with a wafer, cracker, or crumb of bread. The clergy/laity split was introduced at this time, which never existed previously. Temples were introduced via Constantine, which were molded after the Old Testament practices as well as Roman pagan practices.

The people who wrote closer to the times of the apostles did not have the complete Word of God. Some of their beliefs were constructed from a single letter they had, without understanding the whole picture. Systematic doctrine was not the primary focus of the early Congregation; Christ-likeness was. Spreading the Gospel, and embracing the Lord Jesus as their Saviour was more important than all the other stuff. Truth be told, you could have all the other stuff and still miss the Lord. But if you have the Lord, you do not necessarily need the other stuff. All that matters is that you trust and believe.

Mr. Gray is correct when he states that baptism is not an outward sign of an inward expression. He is correct in that Scripture teaches no such thing. Baptism is closely tied with the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why so many people get it wrong, because they are trying to tie it to Jesus, rather than leave it where it ought to go. Again, baptism has nothing to do with the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Christ Jesus. Had he remained on the cross for three days and then resurrected, everything would be accomplished exactly as it is. Baptism belongs to the Spirit. Once you understand the correlation between water and the Spirit, a bunch of puzzle pieces will fall into place for you and it will be like someone switched a light on inside your brain.

Furthermore, baptizing infants does not regenerate and save them. Pick any denomination you want that practices this, and you will see children grow up and reject the faith, choosing to live like the Devil instead. Is Mr. Gray so naive as to believe that these people will be going to Heaven, all because they were baptized when they were young? I am sorry, Marcus, but that is heresy!

Mr. Gray clearly lacks understanding of not only 1 Peter 3:20-21 and Acts 2:38-39, but also of the subject of baptism in its entirety. Is he aware that Romans 6:3-4 and 1 Corinthians 10:2 have nothing to do with water baptism, but with identification? When the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, the water never touched them. It did, however, touch the Egyptians, and killed them all. Likewise, 1 Peter 3:20-21 has nothing to do with water baptism. Verse 21 is speaking of an antitype, an earthly expression of a spiritual reality; a symbol, picture, or pattern of some spiritual reality.

"Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb. ix. 24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah's family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world: or, it signifies the truth itself, as answering the type or figure; and thus the temporal salvation of Noah, &c. from the flood, in the ark, was the type, and the eternal salvation of believers by baptism is the antitype, or truth figured by it." —Matthew Poole

When Peter says, "baptism now saves you," he first states that he is not talking about water baptism, and then he immediately answers the objection, "How can baptism save us when so many perish who are baptized," by declaring what it is in baptism that is so effectual: "an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"The word for answer has the idea of a pledge, agreeing to certain conditions of a covenant (the New Covenant) with God. What saves a person plagued by sin and a guilty conscience is not some external rite, but the agreement with God to get in the ark of safety, the Lord Jesus, by faith in His death and resurrection." —John MacArthur

"In baptism there is a solemn covenant, or mutual agreement, between God and the party baptized, wherein God offers, applies, and seals his grace, stipulating or requiring the party's acceptance of that grace, and devoting himself to his service; and when he out of a good conscience doth engage and promise this, which is to come up to the terms of covenant, that may properly be called the answer of a good conscience." —Matthew Poole

Mr. Gray, like the men he is worshipping from those early centuries, fails to grasp what exactly is being taught in God's Holy Word. Neither Peter nor Paul taught that baptism saves, and the Lord Jesus certainly did not teach that baptism saves. Mr. Gray has embraced error and followed it directly into heresy. I pray that the Lord takes hold of him and brings him back to the truth. Lutheranism teaches some things that are biblically accurate, but everything it teaches is not biblically accurate. To assume that it does is how you stumble into error, which can lead to heresy. We must always hold Scripture as our final authority and carefully pay attention to context and what is being taught.

For Ignorant Christian Semitophiles

For those Christians who have blinders on when it comes to the nation of Israel, having been manipulated and brainwashed into worshipping the State of Israel and believing that they can do no wrong, I recommend you pick up a book titled The Cross of Bethlehem: The Memoirs of a Refugee.

Ro'i Tov is an Israeli political dissident living in Bolivia. A brilliant chemist, he was exiled because he converted to Christianity and socialized with Palestinians. He was attacked, injured, and robbed by Israelis in La Paz, Bolivia. His book, The Cross of Bethlehem, is a memoir of a Christian Israeli military officer caught in the crosshairs between a country that demands total obedience, even if that means firing on rock-throwing women and children, and following his conscience. In a story of faith and courage, tragedy and hope, Ro’i Tov shares the heartache of growing up an outsider in the tight-knit kibbutzim along the Jordan Valley. It is here that his sharp intelligence, instead of buying him the freedom he so desperately desired, trapped him in a company without a moral compass and a military that challenged his spiritual and moral beliefs. When he left Israel and threatened to tell the world what he had witnessed, he found himself on a high-stakes journey that took him from Thailand to China, from the US to South America.

From Ro'i Tov:

Christianity poses a singular threat to Jewish leadership. Universally, religion deals with salvation or redemption of the human soul. Judaism speaks about an ethnic salvation, provided the group fulfills the 613 Mosaic Laws written in the Pentateuch, the Bible's first five books. The laws' fulfillment is enforced and monitored by a dedicated group of priests.

In essence, the individuals' good-standing depends on the priests' judgment. As a result this is a powerful control tool over the general population. Since most of the population is not instructed on law, and moral values are not taught to them, they can be easily manipulated as per the priests' political goals at any given moment.

This became a model for the leaders of the young State of Israel. They created a country without constitution - nor set borders - in which laws could be changed quickly and unpredictably. Every citizen is in danger of becoming guilty of yesterday's crime which is today's law. A good relationship with the ever watchful authorities is the only assurance of receiving a redemptive wink.

It went even deeper. The tone of a typical Israeli conversation is highly ironic and displays a harsh and almost automatic criticism of the other person. Unlike  British humor, the Israeli never points this weapon at himself. Under such circumstances, no deed or word are good enough for achieving redemption - i.e. social acceptance by a fellow citizen.

The result is that people seldom relax and create nurturing, positive relations with their peers. Every conversation is a battlefield, every friend hides a foe. Every dispute or criticism may deteriorate and lead to excommunication and the loss of the promised redemption.

Even those who grew up far away from a religious education were heavily indoctrinated on the importance of collective identity. "We don't do that," and "We do this" are the ubiquitous and unquestioned mantras of Jewish-Israeli society.

People proclaimed the opinions of their ethnic and religious groups, using "we" more often than "I." By repeating the views expected of them Israelis spared themselves the need to think or express their true opinions.

JESUS

Jesus broke up this line of reasoning. He taught about personal redemption based on faith and love, of having direct access to God through our prayers and thus of being independent from priests. He preached the Kingdom of God, a society based on justice and love. Such a society can exist within the framework of a modern state, but it would lead to the loss of power by the few men thriving under Pharisaic modeled societies.

The result was that Jesus was considered an enemy from the beginning. His teachings and the New Testament were banned. So were many of the prophets who had made clear allusions to a Messiah resembling Jesus and of a New Covenant based on love and forgiveness. Therefore, the Pharisaic and rabbinical communities restricted their studies and commentaries to the Pentateuch. The other Old Testament books became nothing more than historic literature.

Even in my quasi-Communist high school - which claimed to be secular - we skipped Chapter 53 of the Book of Isaiah, which contains the clearest and exact allusion to Jesus, His deeds and the New Covenant in the Old Testament. The original text in Hebrew is even clearer than most translations into Indo-European languages.  Isaiah's complex language always contains a subtext that is lost in the translations. In verse five, he doesn't only claim that His wounds would heal us, but he also hinted that we are healed by His companionship, delivering much of the Christian doctrine in just a few words.

Since it's difficult to attack a preaching of love and peace, the approach chosen by the Pharisees was complex. Jesus and His period were scarcely mentioned in Israeli history classes. Instead, greater emphasis was placed on deviant Christians who moved away from His teachings and committed atrocities.

The Spanish Inquisition was a central topic; the tortures were studied in excruciating detail. In that way, few of us would feel inclined to learn more about Christianity and the priests would keep their positions and the huge material and political benefits accompanying them. We were encouraged to fear Christianity.

The model was adopted by the State of Israel. For such a method to work in a modern state, two things were imperative. The first was a Jewish majority and thus the "Law of Return" granting immediate citizenship to any Jew immigrating to Israel was the first law legislated by the Israeli parliament.This created a new problem, namely defining "Who is a Jew?" which is still unresolved.

The second was giving the priests control over key points of citizens' lives: birth, marriage and burial. Even nowadays, these events are controlled exclusively by religious authorities while basic human rights are grossly ignored.

Judaism seeks salvation for a race; not for individuals. Collectivism (e.g. Socialism, Zionism and Communism) originates in the Jewish focus on ethnic redemption and explains why these movements have no moral compunction when dealing with perceived enemies of collective redemption. i.e. "the end justifies the means."

Jews and the State of Israel are not innocents. More often than not they are the instigators. This quote sums it all up very nicely:

"You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can't criticize Israel..." —Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache

People have witnessed Jews and the nation of Israel doing the unthinkable, and yet nobody calls them to task and holds them accountable. Nobody calls them out and exposes them. Why? Because Jews have been manipulating the deck for decades. When someone catches them in the act doing something despicable, they use Ad Hominem to go after the person and make them look bad, removing all eyes off of themselves, and thus discouraging any discourse that would illuminate the truth. When they commit atrocities and someone highlights it, they merely accuse that individual of "anti-semitism" and "hate crimes." This is the kind of tactic that the Devil employs. This is why Scripture refers to them as the Synagogue of Satan. They are just like magicians; they get you looking at one hand while the other hand pulls off the trick. While they make their opponents look bad, they can continue working in the darkness to accomplish their evil agendas.

Sadly, too many Christians have been brainwashed into supporting Israel without ever questioning them. They are unaware that the notes in the 1967 Scofield Reference/Study Bible are fraudulent. These notes are heavily Zionist-friendly, twisting Scripture and eisegeting it with nonsensical commentary. Abraham was told by God that He would bless whoever blessed him, and curse whoever cursed him. Zionists have attempted to twist this passage into support for the State of Israel, claiming that whoever supports Israel will be blessed and whoever curses Israel will be cursed. This is complete eisegesis of the passage. Abraham was neither an Israelite, nor a Judaite (a "Jew"). This statement has nothing to do with the current nation of Israel. If more Christians would learn how to read, and question imposed commentary notes in so-called "study" Bibles, this kind of embarrassing interpretation would disappear rapidly.

If you are a Semitophile who has been manipulated and brainwashed into thinking the State of Israel can do no wrong, worshipping it and the Jews like some sort of god, I have some passages I want you to read, pay attention to, and ponder promptly:

Ephesians 2:11-3:13
Romans 2:28-29
Romans 9:6-8
Romans 11:17-24
Galatians 3:7, 16, 26, 29
Hebrews 8-10

Notice how the Bible, God's Holy Word, teaches completely contrary to what you have been taught and led to believe? These are not the only New Testament passages I can provide you with that utterly obliterate the Jewish myths you have been conditioned to believe. It is about time you started paying attention to what it is you are reading, O professing Christian, and paying attention to the immediate and historical context. Zionist interpretations have no foundations in, and cannot be sustained from, Scripture.

When you read Romans 11:26, you think that ethnic Jews, the State of Israel, will be saved. Not so! Try carefully reading and paying attention to the words spoken in verses 17-24. Apply Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8 to the unbelieving Jews. After everything that is said in verses 17-24, about the believing gentiles (nations) being grafted in with the believing Jews, what do you supposed is meant by "and in this way all Israel will be saved"? Go on, think about it; I know you can get it. You just do not want to admit it, because that would mean admitting that you were wrong and you were duped by false theology for so long. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall."

Jews Caught Faking Hate Crimes

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) claims that anti-semitic incidents are at "near historic levels."

Riiiggghhht...

And the several Jews who have been caught red-handed at these incidents, putting these tags up themselves, have nothing to do with it, right? These are self-inflicted "hate crimes" (like that of Jussie Smollett) being committed by the very people who pioneered calling their critics names and flinging false labels (such as "anti-Semite") at them in order to make them look bad, removing all eyes off themselves, and shutting down any dialogue that would expose the truth. Here is just one of dozens of quotes that expose typical Jews for who and what they really are:

"You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can't criticize Israel..." —Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache

It is not "hate speech" or "anti-semitism" to acknowledge that Jews have been manipulating things behind the scenes to their own advantage for decades. The above quote is just one of dozens that expose themselves and their agendas. This does not mean that we hate them or wish them ill, just as we should not hate Muslims or wish them ill. Jesus commands us to love our enemies and to do good to them. It does mean that we need to be wise and discerning, calling them out and exposing them. The same tactics used by Jews to remove all eyes off themselves and paint their critics in a bad light have been used by homosexuals, transgenders, and Muslims, and are starting to be used by zoophiliacs and pedophiles.

Fortunately, there are Jews out there who are well aware of the typical Jewish behaviour and tactics who are willing to call them out and expose them. Typical Jews are some of the biggest racists and committers of hate crimes there are. Without stooping to their level, it is time we started calling them out and exposing them.

Jews think they will rule over other nations and people. This mythology has been adopted by Dispensationalists. Jews would do well to read the New Testament and come to terms with the truth. Unless they return to Yahweh and confess Jesus as Messiah and Lord, they will continue to be cast aside by Him. They will continue witnessing Yahweh bless the nations while cursing them. Their temple will never be rebuilt (because Christians are the temple [see Ephesians]) and their sacrifices will never be reinstated (because Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the sacrifice all others foreshadowed [see Hebrews]). Christians need to discard Jewish myths and embrace the truths of God's Word. When a Jew repents and confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior, they become a Christian. Judaism seeks salvation for a race; not for individuals. Salvation comes by grace, not by race. There are no free passes. A Jew either comes to salvation as prescribed by Jesus, or they are lost to eternity the same as everyone else.

Is God Double-tongued?

If "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21), saying exactly what He wanted them to say, and if God says what He means and means what He says, then how do you, oh professing Christian, explain the following clearly stated passages of God's Holy Word?

"For the married woman has been bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man." Romans 7:2-3

"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

"A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband has died, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39

Again, oh professing Christian, if "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21), saying exactly what He wanted them to say, and if God says what He means and means what He says, then how do you explain the above clearly stated passages of God's Holy Word?

Go ahead and re-read the above passages several times over.

God does not change; He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not lie, nor does He contradict Himself. His followers will not contradict anything He has said. So if there is an apparent contradiction to the above clearly stated passages, where is this contradiction originating? Certainly not from the Lord Jesus, nor from the apostle Paul! Contradictions to these clearly stated passages originate from the wicked hearts of desperately sick men and women who have no problem perverting the Word of God to suit their own fleshly desires.

I encourage you, oh professing Christian, to wrestle with and submit to the words taught in these passages of God's Word. Stop trying to find other passages where you can attempt to manipulate and twist them to contradict what is clearly stated here unequivocally for all to understand! By doing so, you become a mouthpiece for the Devil. Lying is a practice of the Devil. If you are going to profess the name of Jesus, then start behaving and believing as someone who actually belongs to Him. 

Christian Persecution

QUESTION: "According to Revelation 20:4, what I don't understand is... why does God allow this to happen? Why does He let this happen? ... Christians to be tortured, head chopped off, starved, poverty, out side looking in. This is what I want to know." (Anonymous)

ANSWER: "My brother, why did Jesus get persecuted, beaten, flogged, and crucified (see John 19)? Why was each of the apostles killed for their faith in Christ, except the apostle John? Why were the early church fathers persecuted, and some killed, for their faith in Christ? Why are missionaries past and present, and believers in Christ today, tortured, imprisoned, and killed for their faith in Christ? Should we today who follow Christ expect any less treatment from a world that hates Christ? The apostle John says, "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you" (1 John 3:13, KJV). The Lord Jesus said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18, KJV). Isn't it interesting that John calls the person who "hates" his brother a "murderer" (see 1 John 3:15). Hate is murder, because like cancer it eventually leads to murder, if not addressed. My brother, we live in a very sinful world, so it shouldn't surprise us if the people of this world persecute, torture, imprison, or even kill us. Our mission is to represent Christ and preach the Gospel (see Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Phil. 1:21). Sure, it doesn't seem fair that God would allow such treatment to happen to his children, but then again, God did not spare His Son either (Rom. 8: 32), nor were the early apostles and Christians spared from such horrible treatment. Consider Moses: "[He] Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" (Hebrews 11:25, KJV)." (Jerry Sheppard)

"For Your sake we are killed all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
Psalm 44:22

Christian Flat-Earthers Refuted

Christian flat-Earthers like to falsely assert that "The Bible is a flat-Earth book." They notoriously like to champion Isaiah 40:22 as their proof text for their absurd and nonsensical belief.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22

The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chug (חוּג), which means, "circle, circuit, compass," (Strong's) and, "a circle, a vault, a horizon" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary). To Christian flat-Earthers, this appears as an open and shut case. It might be, if they actually understood how to read. More on that in a bit.

I had read somewhere once that supposedly in ancient Hebrew literature this word is used to describe the ball that children play with, but I am not so sure of that claim; I would have to see the evidence supporting it (as opposed to the writer making it up and lying through his teeth). I read elsewhere once that in modern Hebrew this word is used of a sphere, along with kaddur, galgal, and mazzal. The source provided for this  was Ben-Yehuda's Pocket English-Hebrew Dictionary, p. 252. I have not been able to verify this yet.

Historical Latin translations of the Bible yield support for a spherical object as opposed to a flat circle. Santes Pagnino translated this word as sphaera, while Benedictus Arias Montanus and François Vatable translated it as globus. Others translated it as orbis.

"And roll you tightly like a ball, to be cast into a vast country; there you will die and there your splendid chariots will be, you shame of your master's house." Isaiah 22:18

The word translated "ball" here is the Hebrew word dur (דּוּר), which means, "a circle, ball or pile: ball, turn, round about" (Strong's) and, "a heap, pile, something balled up" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary). Is this the actual Hebrew word for a ball? 

Earlier I stated that these Christians do not know how to read. What does Isaiah 40:22 say? Does it say anything about a circular Earth? No, it does not. What does it say? "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth" The focal point here is the circle, not the Earth; much like you would say, "the rings of Saturn." You are talking about the rings, not about the planet Saturn. Isaiah is talking about the constellations in the expanse of the heavens that encircle the Earth. Pay close attention to the rest of the verse, following the context of the circle: "who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Even if the word does refer to a spherical shape, "the sphere of the earth" would still be talking about the expanse that encircles the entire Earth; on all sides.

"Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on the circle of heaven." Job 22:14

This passage uses the same Hebrew word. In the NASB it is translated as "vault," as supported by The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. God is said to walk on the circuit of heaven. God's home is above the tabernacle of stars which surrounds the globe Earth as a curtain.

If you are a Christian who believes in the flat Earth theory, here is a book that provides explanations to give proper context of every Bible verse cited by flat-Earthers in their attempt to try and justify the flat Earth concept. If you would like to look at the actual facts that debunk the flat Earth theory, visit this site.

The Devil's Agents

The majority of these names are nothing but mouthpieces for the devil; they are agents for the devil. They are running a Ponzi Scheme, robbing the desperate, the lonely, the isolated, and the ignorant. They are promising you the very things that the unregenerate heart and the flesh already desire. Do you know what does not show up in the list of desires that they promote? Brokenness, humility, penitence, sacrifice, unselfishness, virtue, love, holiness, worship, Heaven. Why would they promote Christ-likeness when they can promote worldly desires like fame and fortune? Paul's letter to the Corinthians acknowledged that Satan appears as an angel of light and his agents disguise themselves as ministers of light. This should not be a surprise to us. Yet, many professing Christians lack any degree of discernment and think that anyone who names the name of Jesus must belong to Him. If only they spent more time in the Word, especially the New Testament, and less time doing whatever else they waste their time with; the idols they have made more important in their lives than the Lord Jesus and His Word. Books like The Shack and The Secret teach utter heresy that opposes and contradicts the Word of God. They contain New Age elements among their various other errors and heresies, including heresies taught by Eckhart Tolle. If you follow Joel Osteen's book Your Best Life Now does not mention Jesus even once because Jesus is not part of that teaching. If you believe Osteen's theology, then this will be your best life, because the life to come will be Hell. Osteen teaches you to "eat, drink, and be merry." People who desire what he has to offer are not Christians. They are deceived, pursuing "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." Avoid these men and women like the plague!

Ché Ahn Jennie Allen Neil Anderson Paul & Andi Andrew Tomi Arayomi Herbert Armstrong John & Carol Arnott John Avanzini Mel & Desiree Ayres Jimmy Baker Rolland & Heidi Baker Marlyne Barrett Mark Batterson Rob Bell Todd Bentley Kenton Beshore Mike Bickle Tudor Bismark Nadia Bolz-Weber Shawn Bolz Greg Boyd Rodney Howard Brown Juanita Bynum Christine Caine Stacie Campbell Harold Camping Tony Campolo Ergun Caner Charles Capps Timothy Bruce "Bruxy" Cavey Morris Cerullo Steve Chalke Mahesh Chavda David Yongii Cho Shane Claiborne Randy Clark Kim Clement Tracey Cook Graham Cooke Kenneth & Gloria Copeland Paul Crouch John Crowder Jim Cymbala Jennifer Kennedy Dean Creflo Dollar Francois Du Toit Jesse Duplantis Debbie Eaton Lou Engle Rachel Held Evans Russel & Sam Evans Margaret Feinberg Charles Finney Don Finto Richard Foster Jentezen Franklin Steven Furtick Daniel Fusko Charlotte Gambil Eric Geiger Jack Graham Trisha Graves Jessi Green Craig Groeschel Nicky Gumbel David Guzik Mimi Haddad John Hagee Ted Haggard Kenneth Hagin Nick Hall Lisa Harper

Michael & Carol Hart Jen Hatmaker Jack Hayford Eric Heard Nate Heitzig Skip Heitzig Jack Hibbs Marilyn Hickey Benny Hinn Ed Hindson Zane C. Hodges David Hogan Bryan & Bobbie Houston Cindy Jacobs T. D. Jakes Brad Jersak Bill Johnson Brian & Jenn Johnson Tony Jones Rick Joyner Bianca Juarez Olthoff Haron Kaisa John P. Kelly E. W. Kenyon Erin Kerr Patricia King David Koresh Michael Koulianos Greg & Val Kurjata Madeleine L'Engle Nora Lam Greg Laurie Jennifer LeClaire Witness Lee Carl Lentz Aaron Levy Banning Liebscher Heather Lindsey David Lister Eddie Long Anne Graham Lotz Levi Lusko Rebekah Lyons David Mainse Zach Manis Texx Marrs Molly Marshall John C. Maxwell Brian McLaren Adam Mesa Diego & Cindy Mesa Eric Metaxas Joyce Meyer Brent Miller, Sr. Donald Miller John Milton* Kelly Minter Jen Miskov Miles Monroe Beth Moore Hayley Morgan Robert Morris Malcolm Muggeridge Mike Murdock Arnold Murray Raechel Myers Shauna Niequist Henri Nouwen Bianca Olthoff John Ortberg Joel & Victoria Osteen Doug Pagitt

Rod Parsley Earl Paulk Norman Vincent Peale Fred Phelps (and family) Cal Pierce Chuck Pierce Peter Popoff James A. "Jacob" Prasch Frederick Price Joseph Prince Bob Proctor Shane Pruitt Chris Quilala Chris Quintana Rodney Reeves Raul Reis Ryan Reis Sarah Jakes Robers Oral Roberts Richard Roberts Pat Robertson James Robison Samuel "Sammy" Rodriguez Richard Rohr Sid Roth Jennifer Rothschild Ricky Rush Charles Taze Russell Gabriel Salguero Robert Schuller Susie Shellenberger Priscilla Shirer Ed Silvoso Brian Simmons Walid Shoebat Joseph Smith Judah Smith David J. Stewart Diana Stone Perry Stone Tim Suttle Jimmy Swaggart Wes Tameifuna Leroy Thompson Phillis Tickle Robert Tilton Jack van Impe Kris Vollotton Ann Voskamp Derek Vreeland Alexis James Waggoner C. Peter Wagner Sheila Walsh Raphael Warnock Thomas Wesley Weeks, III Stovall & Kerri Weems Ellen G. White Randy & Paula White Todd White Bruce Wilkinson Dallas Willard Amanda Bible Williams John Wimber Oprah Winfrey Andrew Wommack Philip Yancey Brigham Young Ed Young Sarah Young William P. Young Michael Youssef Brian Zahnd

Avoid music and ministry from these "churches":

Bethel Church
Celebration Church
Elevation Church
Gateway Church
Hillsong Church
iHOP
Lakewood Church
Passion Church
Planetshakers Church
Saddleback Church

Three Types of Knowledge

1. Propositional (Explicit) Knowledge

• Systematically Document
• In Writing
• FAQ / Instructions
• Data Driven

2. Procedural (Implicit) Knowledge

• Explicit Knowledge Applied
• Learned Skills or Know How
• Wisdom
• Problem Solving

3. Experimental (Tacit) Knowledge

• Informal But Personal
• Understood Without Being Said
• Learned Over Time
• Shown Through EQ (Emotional Intelligence)

The first one would be Truth and the last one would be Spirit. We are to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. The fact is, a Christian needs all of these to varying degrees. Our faith cannot merely be head knowledge, which would be the first one; it also has to be personal, which is the last one. 

Let me put it this way: I could be really close friends with the President of the United States, but if I show up at the White House, they are not going to let me in just because I say that I know the President. If the President comes out and says that he knows me, they will let me in. It is the same with Jesus. It does not matter if you say that you know Jesus; what matters is if Jesus knows you (Matt. 7:21-23).

All the head knowledge in the world about Jesus will never save you. You could have every doctrine absolutely point on and still not know Jesus personally. Every Christian should be studying to learn about God and what He desires from us (the first), actively putting that knowledge into practice to show that one truly believes it (the second), and walking with the Lord personally through prayer and submission to the leading of His Spirit (the third).

Go and serve your King!

"To the Rest" — 1 Corinthians 7:12-16ff

What I am about to address was shared with me by a reader. A while ago, I wrote an article titled, Who or What Are "the Rest"? A reader reached out to me and shared some information that was gleaned from this article. Needless to say, I found it extremely interesting.

To date, I have not encountered this information in a commentary, nor have I ever heard a preacher speak about it. In fact, most commentaries I have looked at, if they even address it at all, try to say that "to the rest" means "to the rest of your letter to me" or "to the rest of the cases mentioned in your letter." I believe this is highly unlikely given the previous "to the married."

As many of you probably know, there is no Greek word for 'husband' or 'wife.' Depending on context (which translators can get wrong from time to time), the word aner, which means "man," can be translated as "husband," and the word gune, which means "woman," can be translated as "wife."

In 1 Corinthians 5:1, it says "that someone has his father's wife." This may be a poor translation. From this wording, we tend to understand that a man is having sex with either his own mother, or his step-mother. That would be adultery (moicheia). The word used here is actually porneia (fornication; illicit sexual behaviour committed by unmarried individuals). Translating the word as "woman," rather than "wife," would make more sense; the man is in a romantic relationship, or having sex, with his father's woman (girlfriend, would be today's best translation).

At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (v.1). Imagine if this had said, "it is good for a husband not to touch his wife." (Actually, I encountered one such woman who had this erroneous belief. It extended to the absurd, claiming that sex, and the enjoyment thereof within the bonds of marriage, was from the evil one.)

According to the article shared by a reader, since the Corinthians were Greeks, it was apparently a Greek custom that a marriage was not finalized until the couple actually lived together. If this information is accurate, which would bring great clarity to the use of "to the rest" (seeing as how you are either married or you are not), then the use of "man" and "woman" would better suit the text.

If the information in this article is accurate, it would seem that Paul was saying that if a Corinthian convert who was engaged to an unbeliever does not quite know what to do, the best thing would be to form a marriage using no other custom or ceremony other than moving in together. But if the unbeliever prefers not to form a marriage in such a manner (either because he/she is offended not to fulfill Corinthian marriage customs, or because he/she does not want to marry a Christian), then Paul did not see their engagement as binding. Paul recommended that if the unbelieving Greek was willing to live together, then the couple should do so.

Paul did not require Christians to avoid marriage with unbelievers, but only that widows should re-marry within the community of faith. However, Paul's words elsewhere can be applied to marriage (though contextually they have nothing to do with marriage): "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever" (2 Cor. 6:14-15). What Paul said was said as advice only, and would never contradict the command of the Lord to "not divorce" your wife or husband (vv.10-11).

Verse 11 is absolutely clear: "if she does [divorce her husband], she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband." This applies to the man as well. These words are a direct command from the Lord Jesus. Romans 7:23 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 are likewise absolutely clear:

"For the married woman has been bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man."

"A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband has died, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

If "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21), then both Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 were spoken directly by God Himself. If that is the case, does God say what He means and mean what He says? Or does He merely talk for the sake of talking? This is what professing Christians need to wrestle with and come to terms with.

If the information in the article shared by a reader is accurate, that completely and utterly obliterates the eisegetical insertion of a cause for divorce and re-marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 by many pastors, including John MacArthur, and aligns the passage (vv.12-16) more in tune with the correct understanding of the "exception clause" found in Matthew (which has to do with Jewish custom and their betrothal period). In either case, verses 12-16 do not provide an occasion for divorce and re-marriage.

What lends to my consideration of the information in this article as being accurate for interpreting verses 12 through 16 is Paul saying, "if any brother has a [woman] who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him" (v.12). If they are married, quite obviously they are living together. Sure, it is possible that "live with him" means "to remain with him," but let us take it in the literal sense with regard to the information in this article. It says nothing about being married (as the married element has been settled), but about "living" together. The entire passage makes more sense in light of the information in the article, rather than the typical interpretation applied, which seems to have several interpretational flaws. Given the state of Mary and Joseph, not being married yet considering divorce, why should we assume that this passage is not similar when it talks about divorce?

With the above in mind, we may consider that 1 Corinthians 7:27 may have been poorly translated as well, and should read instead, "Are you bound to a [woman]? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a [woman]? Do not seek a [woman]." Why? Because, first, Paul is talking to virgins (v.25) and, second, the next verse states, "But if you marry, you have not sinned." Consider this in the context of the article. I believe verse 29 should also read "women" instead of "wives," because it is absolutely nonsensical advice in the case of marriage (consider verses 32-34), but is perfectly acceptable given engagement customs.

Men need to curb their wicked hearts and stop forcing unbiblical interpretations derived from the desires of their flesh upon God's Holy Word. No passage in Scripture supports divorce and re-marriage, save by eisegesis. Re-marriage is only an option in the case where one's spouse has passed on. Biblical separation is an option in cases such as abuse (whether to the spouse or the children), but the end goal is always reconciliation. We need to learn to take marriage more serious, and teach others to do the same. "Marriage is to be held in honor among all" (Heb. 13:4). It is an extremely serious covenant being entered into. Not only is it a picture of Jesus and His Congregation, but it is also a picture of forgiveness and reconciliation, and a picture of the Gospel. Let's stop marring these pictures and giving the world something to mock.

Paedo or Credo: Does It Really Matter?

Whether you perform paedo-baptism (infant baptism) or credo-baptism (adult baptism) does not really make a difference. You face the exact same problems regardless of which practice you choose to implement. You do not understand this because you fail to understand baptism correctly.

Paedo-baptism has been practiced as early as at least A.D. 200. It is practiced by all the major denominations, including Catholicism. Despite having this kind of track record, it does not necessarily mean that the practice is biblical. When you consider the practice of circumcision, the practice of infant baptism makes complete logical sense, having been expanded upon to include female children. But even this does not necessarily mean that it is biblical.

I have already discussed in the past how baptism and circumcision are identical. Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the truth of God's promise—to give righteousness to all who have faith—and testifies in one of two ways. One, it testifies to a blessing (that righteousness is given to those of faith); two, it testifies to a curse (that those who break the covenant will be cut off). Consider Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau. Their circumcisions acted as a witness either for or against them as they grew and learned about God and His precepts. Whether you are circumcised as a child or as an adult, or whether you are baptized as a child or as an adult, this applies exactly the same.

Baptism and circumcision are different externally, but they are exactly identical internally. They represent the same things: both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30).

When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of your country with all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights, responsibilities, and privileges and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision and baptism. The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught them. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself, or reject what he was taught, becoming an apostate, and appropriate the curses unto himself.

Again, while this makes complete logical sense in support of paedo-baptism, nevertheless it still does not mean that it is biblical. It may be biblical, but none of this means that it is. These are merely inferences. But in either case, as I said earlier, whether you implement paedo-baptism or credo-baptism, it makes absolutely no difference. Why?

How many adolescents and/or adults have you witnessed baptized only to walk away from the faith? They did not "forfeit" or "lose" their salvation, as the Charismatic denominations tend to teach (out of their ignorance of this subject, too); they never had salvation to begin with. Judas, Simon the magician, and Demas (among others) are excellent examples in Scripture of adults who were baptized and yet had no real faith. Jesus' parables explain this perfectly. When the Gospel is presented, there are those who, through the Holy Spirit, receive it and flourish (genuine converts; see Matt. 13:8, 23); and there are those who appear to be converted, and seem "on fire" for the Lord, but when trials, tribulations, and persecution come, they wither away because they were never actually grounded (false converts; see Matt. 13:5-7, 20-22). Jesus says that both genuine and false will grow up in the Congregation together until the Harvest.

Whether you are baptized as a child and grow up and have nothing to do with the faith, or you are baptized as an adolescent or an adult and eventually have nothing to do with the faith, the result is exactly the same. The problems faced are exactly the same. When you perform baptism does not change a thing. In both cases, adequate discipleship needs to take place, the Holy Spirit must do His work, and the faith must be embraced and be made their own. Remember the cliché, "God does not have any grandchildren"? You cannot ride the coattails of your parents. How many people grew up in a congregation (regardless of denomination), in a religious household, and have since abandoned the faith? How many have embraced sin, such as homosexuality or transgenderism, and are presently defined by it? These people were never saved to begin with. We need to stop making excuses for these people!

If you want to implement paedo-baptism, then do so according to your belief, but remember that baptism is not some magical formula and does not save! If you want to implement credo-baptism, then do so according to your belief, and remember the same. "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5). "Each one of us will give an account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:12). People from both sides have switched over to the other side, so the argument is not as clear cut as some would have you believe. The stronger evidence supports paedo-baptism, but again it is merely inference and does not necessarily mean that it is biblical. "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather judge this—not to put a stumbling block or offense before a brother" (Rom. 14:13).

Concerning the Collection

When the early apostles (John, Peter, and James) had validated Paul's early ministry, they encouraged him to have a heartfelt concern for poor believers: "Only they asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do" (Gal. 2:10). Paul dearly loved the impoverished saints in Jerusalem, and was fully aware that God wanted their needs met. Paul knew that they would be devastated by the coming famine. He also understood that they would not be able to sustain themselves in the face of the increasing persecution coming upon them from the Jews.

"Now in those days, some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and indicated by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And as any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the service of the brothers living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders." Acts 11:29-30 (cf. Acts 18:23-21:16)

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to set something aside, saving whatever he has prospered, so that no collections be made when I come. And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem, and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me." 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15)

Let us use some logic, reasoning, and common sense, shall we? In the midst of a famine, what good is money going to do you? Chances are usually pretty high that it would be useless to you. Not only that, but what is it that widows, orphans, the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned need the most? Clearly not money. These collections most likely consisted of food, much the exact same way that the tithe consisted of food (save for one passage [Deut. 14:22-29] where if the distance was too great for you to transport your animals and food, you were allowed to sell them and then once you arrive at the final destination, buy what you needed). If the distance of a collection was such that the food would be of no good by the time it arrived in Jerusalem, then the collection would most likely consist of money.

However, if the collection did consist of money, there would have to be food available somewhere that the Jerusalem saints could purchase with the money. Otherwise, the gesture would be empty and you might as well do as James describes: "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" (James 2:15-16). If you are in the midst of a famine, and someone hands you a bunch of money, what use is that? Can you eat it?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, John MacArthur says, "This passage contains several important principles on giving that not only explain how Paul wanted that specific collection conducted, but also indicate what kind of model of Christian giving the church today ought to follow." As godly as he may be, and as much as I respect him, Mr. MacArthur commits several errors in his teachings on the collection.

First, Mr. MacArthur claims that "each one of you" (1 Cor. 16:2) "universally eliminates any excuse or exemption for any believer from the regular ministry of giving." He says, "[Paul] commands all to be generous with whatever they have." Paul may encourage generosity, but he certainly does not command it. Perhaps Mr. MacArthur would like to inform himself of the fact that there is no command contained anywhere in the New Testament to give. Giving is voluntary. Period. Otherwise it would not be an act of worship. Perhaps he would like to remind himself of Paul's words elsewhere: "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). Giving is not mandatory nor compulsive.

Giving is to be an act of worship and come from the heart, from a sincere love for God and for others: "But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth" (1 John 3:17-18). The New Testament is extremely specific as to what giving looks like, and it has nothing to do with lining some preacher's pocket nor with paying the bills and maintenance of a temple (building) that Jesus never intended us to have in the first place! Until Emperor Constantine provided them, filling them with relics he took from other pagan temples, Christians did not have, nor meet in, temples. If the church you attend will not use your giving for what the New Testament intends it to be used for, then you have the responsibility to make sure it goes where God intended it: widows, orphans, the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and missionaries planting congregations. You are not obligated to give it to your church.

"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. ... Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matthew 25:34-40)

This is what biblical giving looks like! Not only to the world, to show them the love of Jesus that is within us and to prove that we are not merely filled with vain talk, but especially to those of the household of faith. Giving is supposed to be an act of worship, yet most congregants find themselves held in bondage to the eisegesis committed and forced upon them by their preachers.

Second, Mr. MacArthur claims, "The opening verses of 1 Corinthians 16 present the essential model for how Christian giving should be handled." No, it does not. The Corinthian Christians were not giving to their preacher or their local congregation; they were giving relief aid to the struggling congregation in Jerusalem who were enduring persecution from the Jews again and suffering from the famine.

Yes, Christians ought to be generous whenever an opportunity arises, because as they do unto others they are doing unto the Lord (Matt. 25:34-36). As Paul reminds them of what Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give then to receive" (Acts 20:35). Especially North Americans whom God has blessed in abundance. As Paul was doing with the Greek congregations, to help the struggling Jerusalem congregation, North Americans should be doing the same for the struggling congregations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are often too selfish and greedy. Giving includes our time, talents, and treasure in order to help those who are in need. It is not concerned with only, or even primarily, our money. Prove yourself a genuine convert of Christianity by giving the way God intended to begin with. If you are too proud, stubborn, and greedy to help those less fortunate than yourself whenever an opportunity arises, then as John points out, you have no business trying to call yourself a Christian because the evidence is written all over your inactions.

Paul Washer's Logical Fallacy

"Let's go back through 2000 years of Christian history. If the men and women who loved and cherished the Scriptures, and had a high view of Scriptures, are all in agreement with regard to a certain doctrine, and they don't agree with you, then who's probably wrong?" —Paul Washer

As godly as Paul Washer may be, and as much as I may respect him, this is a logical fallacy. Just because a majority of individuals held to a specific view does not mean that the view they held to was in any way, shape, or form true. Otherwise, we should all still be adhering to the Catholic beliefs. Yes, that last sentence would also be a logical fallacy if someone actually believed that to be the case, because Catholic beliefs developed well after the early Congregation. Again, just because a majority of people hold to something, or that a particular view was held for a certain period of time, does not mean it is correct.

According to Mr. Washer's argument, then who do we rely on? The Presbyterians? The Baptists? The Anglicans? The Reformed? The Lutherans? Or how about the Catholics? Since all these groups have majorities in agreement, and have held to certain beliefs for centuries, does that honestly mean that we are wrong when it comes to a particular belief? If that is the case, then all the other groups mentioned must be wrong since "the majority" before them held to the Catholic beliefs.

To give a clear example where Mr. Washer's thinking is completely in error, look to the historical interpretation of Romans 7:14-25. If you look in most commentaries, you will see that they hold to the traditional interpretation. However, this interpretation is false. First, it ignores the context. They deliberately leave off verse 13, which is key because Paul asks a specific rhetorical question wherein he proceeds to give his answer (just as he did his three previous rhetorical questions). It even ignores the context of verses 4 through 12. This is key in understanding the meaning of 13 through 25. Second, it ignores what comes before and what comes after. Compare 14-25 with what is stated in chapter 6 and chapter 8. This interpretation is completely contradictory to the statements of these two chapters; not to mention everything else in the New Testament. Third, it ignores the words used and the meanings of those words, all of which are not true of a Christian. The historical interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 has been experiential rather than exegetical.

If you perform your study thoroughly and honestly, and all the commentators disagree with you, you may be wrong, but not necessarily; you may actually be right. If they all disagree with your conclusion, double check your work. If you are absolutely sure you have been a good Berean applying 2 Timothy 2:15, then you might have discovered an error in thinking that has been carried on for centuries. Sometimes, when people discover errors, their thinking is to acquiesce to the "great" men before them, putting them on a pedestal they do not belong on. We are only human, and even the "greats" can, and have, committed errors. Let the Spirit of the living God be your guide without falsely attributing your own desires and opinions to His leading.