A Response to "10 Points About Women in Ministry"

Over on Prophetic Ministries Australia, a post was published titled 10 Points About Women in Ministry. Clearly this person's friend does not understand what women in ministry looks like, or even what constitutes "women in ministry" as his 10 points are extremely eisegetical, erroneous, ridiculous, and nonsensical. Allow me to demonstrate:

1. The Bible names a female apostle (Romans 16:7).
No, the Bible does not name a female "apostle." Most English translations say she was "of note among," "noted among," "notable among," "prominent among," "well known among," "outstanding among," etc. A few per-versions (paraphrases and not translations), such as The Message, NCV, and NIrV, actually try to claim that she was an apostle. Wuest's literal Expanded Translation renders the Greek in this way: "who are of excellent reputation among the apostles." All the text means, and is saying, is that the Apostles recognized her reputation and deeds. She was esteemed (held in great respect; admired) among them. The word episemos (ἐπίσημος) properly means "having a mark on it, as spoken of money, meaning marked, stamped, coined." In the New Testament, it figuratively signifies (in a good sense) being well-thought-of, distinguished, or illustrious (Rom. 16:7), and (in a bad sense) being notorious, or infamous (Matt. 27:16). If I were "of note among," "prominent among," "well known among," "outstanding among" the kings of the Earth, it in no way implies or infers that I myself am a king; it simply means that, for good or ill, my reputation and deeds are known among them. This person's friend is trying to read into the text (eisegesis) something that is not there.

2. The Bible names four female prophets: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, & Anna.
While the Bible does name four female prophets, nevertheless their ministries were not ongoing like Elijah, Elisha, and others. Whether or not they were prophets has nothing to do with whether or not women can be pastors/elders, which the New Testament makes clear that they cannot be (1 Tim. 3:1-7).

3. The Apostle Paul had a “spiritual mom” (Romans 16:13).
This text says no such thing (nor does any other text). This text says nothing about "spiritual" or "in the spirit"; it merely says "his mother and mine." If this woman is the birth mother of Rufus (quite possibly the wife of Simon the Cyrene, whose son was named Rufus), she may have been a "mother" figure that Paul looked up to as a mother. If so, maybe her life ministered to him in some way. Whether or not she was a "spiritual mother" to Paul, what does that have to do with whether women can be pastors/elders in the church? Whoever this woman was, she certainly was not a pastor/elder. To try and read that into the text is, once again, eisegesis.

4. Paul did not think it as lowering himself to speak of his ministry to the Thessalonians in motherly terms (1 Thessalonians 2:7-8).
What does this prove about women in ministry or whether or not a woman can be a pastor/elder? Clearly nothing! Speaking in nurturing, compassionate terms is no support for women in ministry, nor does it support the idea that women can be pastors/elders. It is nothing more than a way of speaking. Again, eisegesis at its best.

5. Although the Greek word “Adelphoi” is used 14 other times in James to say “Brothers and sisters” in the English, in James 3:1 it is mistranslated in favor of only addressing male teachers.
Adelphos (ἀδελφός) [G.80] is masculine and strictly means "brothers." Adelphe (ἀδελφή) [G.79] is the feminine of G.80 and strictly means "sisters." Adelphoi is masculine plural. Therefore, James 3:1 is not a "mistranslation," and this person's friend is completely ignorant of the original languages and their grammar, as well as biblical interpretation. Adelphoi speaks of men in the plural (a group of men), and might even speak of men and women together collectively (in a combined group). Whether or not women are to be included in this address, the Bible does not say that women are not allowed to be teachers. It say they are not allowed to "teach or have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12-14), and that they are not allowed to be pastors/elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7). They can teach other women (the Bible commands them to do so; Titus 2:3-5) and children.

6. When Peter wrote that women are the weaker vessel, he was actually saying that they are to be treated with dignity and respect like “fine china dinnerware” (1 Peter 3:7).
And...? First, that has nothing to do with women in ministry, and; Second, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are allowed to be pastors/elders, which the New Testament makes clear that they are not allowed to be (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Yes, husbands should treat their wives with dignity and respect, but that has nothing to do with them as pastors/elders.

7. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he was addressing a specific individual woman in Ephesus, which needed to be silenced in Timothy’s meetings, He was not laying down a rule for all women for all time. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
No, he was not. In the fuller context of the entire book, Paul addresses men who were teaching strange doctrines (1:3) and straying from the truth (1:6). The immediate context of these two verses begins in verse 9, which begins with the plural for women. No such singular individual woman is ever mentioned throughout this letter. To claim otherwise is, yet again, eisegesis. Even if that were the case, try using the argument here with regard to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Immediately after saying this, he rhetorically asks, "Was it from you, women, that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only, women?" He then responds with, "If anyone thinks he [or she] is a prophet [or a pastor/elder] or spiritual, let him [or her] recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. If anyone does not recognize this, he [or she] is not recognized [as a pastor/elder]." Women are not allowed to preach or be elders. One further point: if Paul was referring to a single individual woman who was disrupting Timothy's meetings, then why does Paul use the singular man? Why not say, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over men"? The egalitarian interpretation here has many problems.

8. When Paul wrote to Corinth, he was replying to their previous letter (1 Corinthians 7:1), and in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he quotes their letter and then rebukes them in verses 36-40.
Verses 34-35 are not a quotation from the Corinthians' letter. This argument fails in light of what Paul says in verses 37-38. If verses 34-35 is a quotation from their letter, where is what he wrote to them? Where is the Lord's commandment? In between these two sections, 34-35 and 37-38, all you have are two rhetorical questions. There is no imperative there, no commandment. So this interpretation is false! See #7.

9. Jesus had very special interactions with women: Speaking privately to the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene crying on his feet, Mary being the first to see the resurrected Jesus, Mary sitting and learning at his feet.
Yes, He did. And...? Jesus had high regard for women. Women were the first to have seen the risen Saviour. All these women did was go and report to the Apostles and other disciples. They were not ministering, and they certainly were not preaching or having authority over these men. While Jesus highly respected women, please note that He did not choose a woman to be one of His 12 Disciples/Apostles. Even the replacement of Judas was between two men. There was no choice of a female, and I am sure there were many godly female disciples there. Even if the men decided to choose between two men themselves, if God wanted a female, He would have cast the lots to indicate such.

10. The New Covenant removed the curse of the Garden of Eden, and in Christ equality is restored.
No, the New Covenant did not remove the curse. To claim otherwise is ignorance of not only the curse, but also of Scripture as a whole. If it was removed, why does Paul say in Romans that the whole Earth yearns for the day of redemption when the sons of God are made known? When all is set right again. If the curse was removed, why do we still die? Why is there still sin? Spiritually, all are equal in Christ. This does not do away with our distinctions or the differences in our roles and responsibilities in this world. Hierarchy exists everywhere! Are an employer and an employee equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. Are a master and a slave equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. Are parents and children equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and role, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. So, are men and women equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. Even in the Godhead, the Trinity, there is hierarchical positions and roles, yet Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal. To argue that "in Christ equality is restored" is demonstrative of knowing nothing of the Scriptures. Jesus said, "you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Even in Revelation 20:4, it acknowledges this judgment. That's hierarchy.

While we are correcting errors, let us address a few other eisegetical references that are attempted as proof for women being pastors/elders:

1. Deborah the prophetess (Judges 4:4-14). Deborah was not a pastor/elder. She was a judge (the Hebrew more accurately refers to a defender) over Israel. With her story, you would have justification for a Joan of Arc, but not for a female Charles Spurgeon. Her being a judge over Israel was judgment upon Israel because no man was willing to step up and take on the responsibility for leading Israel. You can see this in Barak's words to her: "If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go" (v. 8). If ever there was a call to man-up and be a man, it was here.

2. Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2). Phoebe was not a pastor/elder. She was a deaconess, as revealed by the use of the Greek word diakonos (διάκονος), which is perfectly acceptable according to the Bible (1 Tim. 3:11). She was a servant of the church.

3. The talking donkey (Numbers 22:22-33). With the exceptions of points 3, 4, and 6 above, this argument has got to be the most ridiculous eisegetical argument ever used. Because the donkey was female, it is argued that it is okay for women to be pastors/elders. First of all, what does a talking donkey have to do with being a pastor/elder? Second of all, the donkey, while being female, spoke with a man's voice (2 Peter 2:16).

There is no biblical argument or defense for women as pastors/elders. Those who insist in pursuing these positions are rejecting the Word of God in rebellion and disobedience, acting as if they are a higher authority than God. They are shaking their impudent little fists in God's face and saying that they know better that He does. God's Word is an extension of Himself, which means that it does not change. God inspired Paul with the words to write, therefore Paul's words are God's words, so if one is going to accuse Paul of misogyny and chauvinism, they are also accusing God of such. These individuals claim to love God, but their disobedient and rebellious actions scream otherwise.

The 7 Feasts of God

In the Old Testament, God established several "Holy Days," which the Bible refers to as "Feasts," that He required His people to celebrate every year. These feasts have two main goals:

1. To look backward in time. These feasts serve as memorial days. Each individual feast remembers and honours a particular event in the history of God's people.

"Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance." Ex. 12:14

2. To look forward in time. These feasts provide shadows of things to come. In order to understand what this means, imagine Jesus walking toward you with the sun at His back. Even before Jesus reaches you and comes into focus, you will see His approaching shadow.

"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Col. 2:16-17

Feasts	Biblical Dates	Months	Bible References
Spring Feasts
Passover [Pesach]	Nisan 14 Crucifixion of Jesus was on this day. Jesus is our Passover Lamb.	Mar-Apr	Ex. 12:3-13:10; Lev. 23:5; Matt. 26:17-20; 1 Cor. 5:7
Unleavened Bread* [Chag HaMotzi]	Nisan 15-21	Mar-Apr	Lev. 23:6-8; 1 Cor. 5:6-8
Firstfruits [Yom HaBikkurim]	Day after Sabbath in week of Unleavened Bread Resurrection of Jesus was on this day.	Mar-Apr	Ex. 22:29; Lev. 23:10-11; 1 Cor. 15:20-23
Pentecost* [Shavu'ot - Weeks; Sevens; Harvest]	Sivan 6 50 days after Passover.	May-June	Lev. 23:10-22; Deut. 16:9-12; Acts 2:1; 1 Cor. 15:20-23
Fall Feasts
Trumpets [Yom Teru'ah / Rosh Hashanah - New Moons]	Tishri 1, 2	Sept-Oct	Num. 29:1-6
Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur]	Tishri 10	Sept-Oct	Lev. 23:26-32; Heb. 9:7
Tabernacles* [Sukkot - Booths; Ingathering; Succoth]	Tishri 15-22	Sept-Oct	Neh. 8:13-18; John 7:2
Other Feasts
Dedication [Chanukah - Lights] This festival was not given by God on Mount Sinai, but was prophesied in Daniel 8:9-14, taking place in c. 165 B.C. when the Temple was re-dedicated.	Chislev 25 8 days.	Nov-Dec	John 10:22
Purim [Lots]	Adar 14, 15	Feb-Mar	Est. 9:18-32

*Commanded performance. God commanded every male to personally bring Him an offering and present it to Him in His designated sanctuary.
"Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses:

• at the Feast of Unleavened Bread
• at the Feast of Weeks
• at the Feast of Booths

and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed." Deut. 16:16

Christianity's Hebrew roots offer an eye to the future as well as to the past. Believers in the Messiah are not responsible to keep these feasts, but knowledge of them enhances our faith. Leviticus 23 is the single chapter that sums up everything in God's eternal plan, from chaos to eternity.

The Spring Feasts:

1. Passover (Pesach): Leviticus 23:5 specifies that the festival year begins with the Passover "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month." Passover is the Feast of Salvation. In both Testaments, the blood of the Lamb delivers from slavery—the Jew from Egypt; the Christian from sin. With the tenth plague in Exodus 12:5, when Egypt's first-born sons died, the angel of death "passed over" the Jewish homes that had the blood of the lamb on their door posts. In the New Testament, Jesus serves as the sacrificial Lamb. The Christian's body is marked with the blood of Christ. Passover represents our salvation.

Prophecy	Fulfillment
The Passover sacrifice was a lamb, whereby each family was spared from death. "On the tenth of this month [of Nisan] they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household." Ex. 12:3	After Messiah Jesus was born, more than 1,400 years later, He was recognized as The Lamb of God. "The next day [John] saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" John 1:29
God decreed that the Passover sacrifice must be a lamb without blemish. "Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; ..." Ex. 12:5a	Jesus was the Lamb without blemish—that is, Jesus was totally without sin. Jesus was "...a lamb unblemished and spotless, ..." 1 Pet. 1:19b Jesus "...has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15b
God decreed that the Passover lamb was to be slain. "...the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight." Ex. 12:6	The Lamb or God, Jesus, was slain for our sins. "...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor. 15:3b Jesus is "...the Lamb who has been slain." Rev. 13:8b
God decreed that He would spare the lives of those whose houses were covered by the blood of the lamb. "The blood [of the Passover lamb] shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt." Ex. 12:13	Those who believe in Christ are justified by His blood. By His blood we are saved from the wrath of God. "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." Rom. 5:9 "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Heb. 9:22b
	Jesus is the Passover sacrifice for any and all who beleive in Him as Lord and Saviour. "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." 1 Cor. 5:7

Hundreds of years before God decreed the Passover lamb, He provided another prophecy of Messiah Jesus in His role as the Lamb of God.

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac.	"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer [sacrifice] him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." Gen. 22:2
Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac on top of Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah later became the very place where Solomon built the temple of God.	"...go to the land of Moriah, and offer [sacrifice] him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains..." Gen. 22:2b "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, ..." 2 Chron. 3:1a
God made special mention that Isaac was Abraham's only son.	"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, ..." Gen. 22:2a "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16
Genesis 22:2 gives the very first mention of "love" in the entire Bible. This first mention of "love" is concerned with the love of a father for his son.	"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, ..." Gen. 22:2a "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand." John 3:35
Abraham prepared so sacrifice Isaac, his son, as God had commanded. As he and Isaac climbed Mount Moriah to reach the place of sacrifice, Isaac noticed that they had brought no lamb for the sacrifice. Notice what Abraham sain in reply...	"Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, 'My father!' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.' And he said, 'Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' Abraham said, 'God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.' So the two of them walked on together." Gen. 22:7-8 Q: From where shall come the sacrificial lamb? A: God will provide HIMSELF!
God spared Abraham's son from being sacrificed, but... ...many centureies later, God did not space His own Son. Instead, God delivered Him up to be crucified . . . for you!	"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" Rom. 8:31-32

2. Unleavened Bread (Chag HaMotzi): Leviticus 23:6 puts the second feast on the next night: "Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." Leaven, or yeast, in the Bible always symbolizes sin. Unleavened bread, eaten over a period of time, symbolized a holy walk, as with the Lord. In the New Testament, unleavened bread is the body of our Lord. During the Last Supper, Jesus took the matzah, broke it, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." He said "I am the Bread of Life." He was born in Bethlehem, which in Hebrew means, "House of Bread."

If you look at the matzah, you will see that it is striped ("By His stripes we are healed"), pierced ("They shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced"), and pure ("He has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin"), without any leaven, as Christ's body was without any sin. The Passover custom of burying, hiding and then resurrecting the second of three piece of matzot (the middle piece), presents the Gospel.

3. Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim): Leviticus 23:11 schedules the Firstfruits "on the day after the sabbath" following Unleavened Bread. Firstfruits acknowledged the fertility of the land God gave the Israelites. They were to bring the early crops of their spring planting and "wave the sheaf before the LORD." This feast celebrates the resurrection of the Lord of Firstfruits.

God decreed that the Firstfruits of the harvest were to be offered unto Him every year on the day after the Sabbath in the week of	"When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and reap its harvest, then you shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. He shall wave the sheaf before the LORD for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it." Lev. 23:10-11
The offering of firstfruits included... ...the first of ripe produce and juices was to be waved before the Lord, and ...each household's firstborn son was to be offered unto the Lord.	"You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me." Ex. 22:29
More than 1,400 years after God decreed the offerings of Passover and Firstfruits, Christ Jesus was crucified for your sins. Jesus is your Passover Lamb!	"Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." 1 Cor. 5:7
On Sunday, the day after the Saturday Sabbath, Jesus rose from the dead. Thus, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Firstfruits. Jesus is your Firstfruits!	"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep [died]." 1 Cor. 15:20 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, ..." 1 Cor. 15:22-23a
Jesus is your Firstborn, offered unto God! When you believed on Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you offered mankind's Firstborn unto God. Thus, you obeyed and fulfilled God's decree to offer Him your Firstfruits.	"He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." Col. 1:18 "[Jesus] was asking His disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?'" Matt. 16:13b
The fact that Christ was the Firstfruits means that there must later be a Full Harvest. You shall be part of that harvest. In Christ, you shall be made alive at His return. At Christ's Second Coming, you shall be "harvested" unto God, and you shall always be with the Lord!	"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming," 1 Cor. 15:22-23a "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:16-17

4. Pentecost (Shavu'ot): Leviticus 23:16 says, "You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD." In late May or early June, Shavu'ot marked the summer harvest. Leviticus 23:17 required an offering of two loaves of bread "baked with leaven." These loaves symbolize the church being comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

The Fall Feasts:

5. Trumpets (Yom Teru'ah): Leviticus 23:24 requires that "In the seventh month on the first of the month you shall have a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets." The Feast of Trumpets is a rehearsal for the day when the Bridegroom will come to claim us, His bride, who are betrothed to Him. The trumpets will announce the Second Coming of Jesus.

6. Atonement (Yom Kippur): Leviticus 23:27 provides a day of confession, the highest of holy days. "On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the LORD." Once a year on Yom Kippur, the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and met the Shekinah glory of the Lord, making atonement for himself and the people of Israel. When Jesus returns at His Second Coming, He will come out of the Holy of Holies (Heaven). He will come as the High Priest to His chosen people. We will present ourselves as holy sacrifices before the Lord, where our work will become evident, revealed by fire. Will it be gold, silver, and precious stones, or wood, hay, and straw?

7. Tabernacles (Sukkot): Leviticus 23:34 says, "On the fifteenth of this seventh month is the Feast of Booths for seven days to the LORD." God wanted to celebrate the fact that He provided shelter for the Israelites in the wilderness. Each year on Tabernacles, devout Jews build little shelters or "booths" outside their homes and worship in them. Tabernacles represents the Lord's shelter in the world to come, when He will "tabernacle" among us for all eternity. Leviticus 23:39 says this feast is to have "a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day." The number eight symbolizes a new beginning. The eighth day of the week is the day after Sabbath, when the work starts anew. On this day of the week, Jesus rose from the dead. With Him, God created something new.

Jesus was crucified on Passover, still entombed on Unleavened Bread, raised on Firstfruits, and sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. We have not yet seen the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets, so we remain under the orders of Shavu'ot.

For those who think that Christians ought to be observing these feasts, and even the weekly Sabbath, Colossians 2:16-17 is your opponent that you must contend with: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." No one is to judge you with respect to feast days (the seven listed above) or Sabbath days (the seventh day of the week), all of which were shadows that pointed to Christ. "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark. 2:27). Hebrews 3:7-4:13 speak of the rest for God's people, which are the Christians. It says in 4:3, "We who have believed enter that rest." In verse 9 it says, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" and in verse 10 it states, "For whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from His." Christ is the Christian's Sabbath rest!

The day Christians worship on commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead (Mark 16:9), just as the communion commemorates His crucifixion (1 Cor. 11:23-29) and baptism commemorates the receiving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). In the New Testament, the New Covenant replaced the Old Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 8:13; 9:16-17; 10:9), baptism replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12), communion replaces Passover (1 Cor. 11:26), and Sunday replaces the Sabbath (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of all these things. Stop trying to return to shadows and types!

Yes, You Are Going Home

In an article written by Jenna Pruett titled, Sorry, John MacArthur. We’re Not Going Home,  she writes,

MacArthur is a committed complementarian. He holds to the idea that men and women have different roles in the church but are still equal. How exactly this equality is preserved within a markedly hierarchical system in which women are blocked from occupying the highest ecclesial positions is anyone’s guess.

Seriously?!? She fails to grasp how men and women can be equal while having different roles and responsibilities? Is she kidding? Wow! Okay, let us take a moment to utilize that organ God placed between our ears and think. Are an employer and an employee equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. Are a master and a slave equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. Are parents and children equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and role, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. So are men and women equal? Yes, they are. They have different hierarchical positions and roles, yet they are equal in personhood, dignity, and worth. How do you not get that? It could not be made, or understood, any simpler.

Has this woman bothered to read the Bible? Apparently not, because several passages make it clear that “the man/husband is the head of a/the woman/wife” (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23) and that “Christ is the head of every man” (1 Cor. 11:3) and “Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18), and that “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). How many times is the woman told to submit to, be subject to, and be submissive to her husband? At least five times (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1)! That is hierarchy. Even in the Godhead, the Trinity, there is hierarchical positions and roles, yet Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal. It is a simple concept to grasp. What is Ms. Pruett’s excuse? Apart from willful ignorance (being dumb on purpose).

These women who think God called them to be pastors or that Jesus or the Holy Spirit told them to preach are being rebellious and disobedient toward God and His Word, rejecting Scripture and shaking their impudent little fists at God, saying, “I know better than You, God. I’m a higher authority than You.”

Deborah was a defender of Israel. From her story, you could have justification for a Joan of Arc, but you could not have justification for a female Charles Spurgeon. That is eisegesis. Priscilla (Acts 18:26) was not a pastor. Aquila and Priscilla were husband and wife, and together they took Paul aside and taught the way more accurately. Priscilla was under the leadership of her husband. Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) was not a pastor. She was a deaconness, a servant of the church, which is permitted by the Bible (1 Tim. 3:11). Junia (Rom. 16:7) was not a pastor nor an apostle. The phrase "outstanding among the apostles" does not mean that she was an apostle. It means that her reputation and deeds were recognized by the Apostles; that she was esteemed, admired, or well-thought-of among them. You cannot force your agenda upon whatever piece of Scripture you think will take it. That is like fools who argue that tattooing is fine because Paul said, "I bear the marks of Christ upon my body" (Gal. 6:17), or the fools who argue that Christ was a vampire because He said, "He who . . . drinks My blood has eternal life" (John 6:54). The worst possible argument for women pastors? The talking donkey. Sure, it was a female donkey. But what does the Bible say? It spoke with what? A male's voice (2 Pet. 2:16). Hmm... How odd.

There is nothing "God-given" about these womens' platforms. These women are rebellious and disobedient against the Word of God, thinking that they know better than God and that they are a higher authority than God. Francis Shaeffer said, "Tell me what the world is saying today, and I'll tell you what the church will be saying in seven years." The church is imitating the world rather than setting herself apart as God intended and imitating Christ. God did not call these women to be pastors, and Jesus did not tell them to preach. Their own voices inside their own heads, which they falsely attribute to the Holy Spirit or Jesus, convinced them that they should do so apart from and against Scripture. After Paul says what he says in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, he rhetorically asks, "Was it from you, women, that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only, women?" He then responds with, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet [or a preacher] or spiritual, let him [or her] recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. If anyone does not recognize this, he [or she] is not recognized." Women are not allowed to preach or be elders. God commands you to be silent for a reason.

#GoHome #StayHome

John MacArthur Teaching Heresy?

I read in a comment on some site that John MacArthur "openly denies the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ and declares the blood of Christ to be worthless for salvation," and that he has done so for over 30 years and continues to do so today. If these were true, MacArthur would be denying clear teachings in Scripture. However, on the issue of the eternal Sonship of Jesus, MacArthur has changed his belief in 2001: Re-examining the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Concerning the blood, this accusation is completely false, as stated in 1987: The Blood of Christ. Certain individuals took to claiming that the blood Jesus shed was "divine blood," the "blood of God." Since God is spirit, and spirit does not have blood, this teaching is heretical and MacArthur denying it is justified.

MacArthur does, however, teach errors when it comes to his eschatological doctrine, as well as to his understanding and differentiating between Israel and the Church. For all his education and Bible knowledge, MacArthur misses and fails to grasp some of the simplest concepts conveyed and relayed in Scripture (which is how and why he allowed the passage of Hebrews 1:5 to cloud his vision of the clear teaching in Scripture of the eternal Sonship of Jesus). For an example, see my article Supersessionism. For another example, see my article Revelation 3:10. How MacArthur misses both these simple points is beyond me.

If John can change his mind about his position regarding the eternal Sonship of Jesus, God willing, maybe he can change his mind concerning what Scripture has to say about Expansion Theology and the truth between Israel and the Church, and maybe God will use the letter I sent to John on Supersessionism to do precisely that. Remember, Israel, true Israel, is the Church, and the Church is true Israel, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, and both Old Testament saints and New Testament saints.

Reverence For the Word of God

When Jewish scribes copied the Old Testament Scriptures, they had to be extremely meticulous, have three people double check everything to ensure accuracy, and throw out copies that had errors.

1. They could only use clean animal skins, prepared by a Jew only, and be fastened by strings from clean animals.
2. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
3. The ink must be black, and prepared according to a special recipe.
4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and they must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
5. They must reverently wipe the pen each time before writing the Word of God, and wash their entire bodies before writing the sacred name of the Lord, the tetragrammaton, the capitalized LORD in our Bibles.
6. There must be a review within thirty days; one mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet, three mistakes found on any page condemned the entire manuscript.
7. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document was condemned and destroyed at once if a letter was omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.

The reason they had to be so meticulous?

In Deuteronomy 6:4, if someone should change D to R, it would read "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is a false Lord" instead of "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

In Exodus 34:14, if someone should change R to D, it would read "You shall not worship the one true God" instead of "You shall not worship any other god."

In Leviticus 22:32, if someone should change CH to H, it would read, "Neither shall you praise My holy name" instead of "Neither shall you profane My holy name."

In Psalm 150:6, if someone should change H to CH, it would read "Let everything that has breath profane the Lord" instead of "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord."

In Jeremiah 5:12, if someone should change B to K, it would read "They have lied like the Lord" instead of "They have lied about the Lord."

In 1 Samuel 2:2, if someone should change K to B, it would read "There is no holiness in the Lord" instead of "There is no one holy like the Lord."

Binding and Loosing: Prohibiting and Permitting

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you prohibit on earth shall have been prohibited in heaven; and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:15-20

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you prohibit on earth shall have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in heaven." Matthew 16:19

Apparently, the first-century Jewish application of these concepts was that their leaders were understood as having authority from God to decide what practices should be followed by the community. In other words, to determine "Jewish law." In Matthew 18:18-20, Jesus transfers this power from the rabbis to His own disciples. Verse 20 is then understood to mean that two or three Messianic Community leaders suffice to determine proper practice (Messianic law).

When the council met in Jerusalem, certain Pharisees demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. It seemed good to the Apostles not to lay a greater burden upon them than these essentials: abstain from things sacrificed to idols; abstain from blood; abstain from things strangled; and abstain from fornication. It seems the Apostles were already prohibiting and permitting certain things.

The Bible, the Word of God!

John Mason's Spiritual Sayings

The Word of God must be . . .
    nearer to us than our friends,
    dearer to us than our lives,
    sweeter to us than our liberty, and
    pleasanter to us than all earthly comforts.


Take the candle of God's Word and search the corners of your heart.


We speak to God in prayer.
God speaks to us in His Word.


All arguments against the Word of God are fallacies;
    all ideas against the Word are delusions;
    all derision against the Word is folly; and
    all opposition against the Word is madness.


When God threatens, that's a time to repent;
when He promises, that's a time to believe;
when He commands, that's a time to obey.


If a man believed the threatenings of the Word of God,
he would tremble and fly to the promises for refuge.


As Christ came out of His Father's bosom, so
the promises came out of Christ's riven side.

Does God Hate Divorce?

According to the translations of these three Bibles, a man appears to be commanded to divorce his wife if he hates her:

when thou hatest her, leave thou her, saith the Lord God of Israel. Forsooth wickedness shall cover the cloth of him, saith the Lord of hosts; keep ye your spirit, and do not ye despise. (Wycliffe Bible, 1388)

"If thou hatest her, put her away," sayeth the Lord God of Israel "and give her a clothing for the scorn," sayeth the Lord of hosts. Look well then to your spirit, and deceive her not. (Matthew's Bible, 1537)

"If thou hatest her, put her away," saith the Lord God of Israel, "yet he covereth the injury under his garment," saith the Lord of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not. (Geneva Bible, 1560)

According to the translations of these two Bibles (the CSB being a major revision of the earlier HSCB), a man who hates and divorces his wife merely commits an injustice against her:

"For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless." (English Standard Version [ESV], 2001)

"If he hates and divorces [his wife]," says the Lord God of Israel, "he covers his garment with injustice," says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. (Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB], 2009)

"If he hates and divorces his wife," says the Lord God of Israel, "he covers his garment with injustice," says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. (Christian Standard Bible [CSB], 2017)

According to the translation of this Bible, the man who divorces his wife commits violence against her:

He that rejects her, sending her away, said the LORD God of Israel, covers the violence with his garment, said the LORD of the hosts; therefore take heed in your spirit, and do not be treacherous. (Jubilee Bible, 2000)

 

According to the translation of this Bible, nothing is said one way or the other about divorce:

For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that no one should conceal the iniquity in his robe; therefore take heed to your spirit, and do not deal treacherously. (The Syriac Peshitta, 1933)

 

According to the translations of these 17 Bibles, God says matter-of-factly that He hates divorce:

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (King James Version [KJV], 1611)

For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (American Standard Version [ASV], 1901)

"For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." (Revised Standard Version [RSV], 1952)

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong and violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore keep watch on your spirit, so that you do not deal treacherously [with your wife.] (Amplified Bible [AMP], 1965)

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD , the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." (New American Standard Bible [NASB], 1971)

"I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel. "I hate it when one of you does such a cruel thing to his wife. Make sure that you do not break your promise to be faithful to your wife." (Good News Translation [GNT], 1976)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. (New International Version [NIV], 1978)

"For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the Lord of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously." (New King James Version [NKJV], 1982)

For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV], 1989)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel. "I hate the person who covers himself with violence," says the LORD of Armies. "Be careful not to be unfaithful." (God's Word [GW], 1995)

"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty, " says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." (New Living Translation [NLT], 1996)

"For I hate divorce," says ADONAI the God of Isra'el, "and him who covers his clothing with violence," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and don't break faith. (Complete Jewish Bible [CJB], 1998)

because he hates divorce, says the LORD God of Israel, and he also hates the one covering his garment with violence, says the LORD of heavenly forces. Guard your own life, and don't cheat. (Common English Bible [CEB], 2001)

"I hate divorce," says the God of Israel. God-of-the-Angel-Armies says, "I hate the violent dismembering of the 'one flesh' of marriage." So watch yourselves. Don't let your guard down. Don't cheat. (The Message [MSG], 2002)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and the one who is guilty of violence," says the LORD who rules over all. "Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful." (New English Translation [NET], 2005)

The LORD God of Israel says, "I hate divorce. And I hate the person who [or The one who hates and divorces] does cruel things as easily as he puts on cloths [covers his clothes in violence]," says the LORD All-Powerful [Almighty; of Heaven's Armies; of hosts]. So be careful [on your guard]. And do not break your trust [be unfaithful]. (The Expanded Bible [EXB], 2011)

"For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that He hates divorce; for it covers one's garment with volence, says the LORD of Hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. (Modern English Version [MEV], 2014)

So, does the Word of God actually teach that God hates divorce, or does it have something entirely different to say? For the answer, we will turn to those renown Hebrew scholars, Keil & Delitzsch:

In v. 15a the prophet shows still further the reprehensible character of the divorce, by rebutting the appeal to Abraham's conduct towards Hagar as inapplicable. The true interpretation of this hemistich, which has been explained in very different, and to some extent in very marvellous ways, is obvious enough if we only bear in mind that the subordinate clause וּשְׁאָר רוּחַ לוֹ, from its very position and from the words themselves, can only contain a more precise definition of the subject of the principle cause. The affirmation "a remnant of spirit is (was) to him" does not apply to God, but only to man, as L. de Dieu has correctly observed. Rūăch denote here, as in Num. 27:18, Josh, 5:1, 1 Kings 10:5, not so much intelligence and consideration, as the higher power breathed into man by God, which determines that moral and religious life to which we are accustomed to give the name of virtue. By 'echâd (one), therefore we cannot understand God, but only a man; and לֹא אֶחָד (not any one = no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to עָשָׂה must be supplied from the previous sentence: "No man, who has even a remnant of reason, or of sense for right and wrong, has done," sc. what ye are doing, namely, faithlessly put away the wife of his youth. To this there is appended the objection: "And what did the one do?" which the prophet adduces as a possible exception that may be taken to his statement, for the purpose of refuting it. The words וּמָה הָאֶחָד are elliptical, the verb עָשָׂה, which may easily be supplied from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Eccl. 2:12). הָאֶחָד, not unus aliquis, but the well-known one, whom it was most natural to think of when the question in hand was that of putting away a wife, viz., Abraham, who put away Hagar, by whom he had begotten Ishmael, and who was therefore also his wife (Gen. 21). The prophet therefore replies, that Abraham sought to obtain the seed promised him by God, i.e., he dismissed Hagar, because God promised to give him the desired posterity, not in Ishmael through the maid Hagar, but through Sarah in Isaac, so that in doing this he was simply acting in obedience to the word of God (Gen. 21:12). After meeting this possible objection, Malachi warns his contemporaries to beware of faithlessly putting away their wives. The Vav before nishmartem is the Vav rel., through which the perfect acquires the force of a cohortative as a deduction from the facts before them, as in ועשׂית in 1 Kings 2:6 (see Ewald, §342, c). נִשְׁמַר בְּרוּחוֹ is synonymous with נִשְׁמַר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ in Jer. 17:21, and this is equivalent to נִשְׁמַר לְנַפְשֹׁוֹ in Deut. 4:15 and Josh. 23:11. The instrumental view of בְ ("by means of the Spirit:" Koehler) is thus proved to be inadmissible. "Take heed to your spirit," i.e., beware of losing your spirit. We need not take rūăch in a different sense here from that in which it is used in the clause immediately preceding; for with the loss of the spiritual and moral vis vitae, which has been received from God, the life itself perishes. What it is that they are to beware of is stated in the last clause, which is attached by the simple copula (Vav), and in which the address passes from the second person into the third, to express what is affirmed as applying to every man. This interchange of thou (in wife of thy youth) and he (in יִבְגֹּד) in the same clause appears very strange to our mode of thought and speech; but it is not without analogy in Hebrew (e.g., in Isa. 1:29; cf. Ewald, §319, a), so that we have no right to alter יִבְגֹּד into תִּבְגֹּד, since the ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient critical authority for such a change. The subject in יִבְגֹּד is naturally thought of as indefinite: any one, men. This warning is accounted for in v. 16, first of all in the statement that God hates putting away. שַׁלַּח is the inf. constr. piel and the object to שָׂנֵא: "the sending away (of a wife), divorce." שָׂנֵא is a participle, the pronominal subject being omitted, as in maggīd in Zech. 9:12, because it may easily be inferred from the following words: אָמַר ייִ (saith the Lord of hosts). The thought is not at variance with Deut. 24:1ff., where the putting away of a wife is allowed; for this was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, whereas God desires that a marriage should be kept sacred (cf. Matt. 19:3ff. and the comm. on Deut. 24:1-5). A second reason for condemning the divorce is given in the words וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל לְ, which do not depend upon כִּי שָׂנֵא, but form a sentence co-ordinate to this. We may either render these words, "he (who puts away his wife) covers his garment with sin," or "sin covers his garment." The meaning is the same in either case, namely, that wickedness will adhere irremoveably to such a man. The figurative expression may be explained form the idea that the dress reflects the inward pat of a man, and therefore a soiled garment is a symbol of uncleanness of heart (cf. Zech. 3:4; Isa. 64:5; Rev. 3:4; 7:14). With a repetition of the warning to beware of this faithlessness, the subject is brought to a close.

With that said, it is quite clear that the evidence points to the fact that God does indeed hate divorce. Those who say otherwise are either looking for excuses for themselves, or looking to provide excuses for others. In either case, what is in their heart is being revealed and they are engaging in disobedience and rebellion against God Almighty and His Holy Word.

Supersessionism

What is Supersessionism? Supersessionism is nothing more than a fancy word for Replacement theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. You see, what the Bible teaches is not "Replacement" theology but Expansion theology.

All through the Old Testament God prophesied of the Gentile Inclusion (Is. 11:10; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 56:6-7; 66:19; Amos 9:11-12; et al). When you get to the New Testament, you see the Gentile Inclusion clearly. In Galatians 3, it is made clear that "it is those who are of the faith who are sons of Abraham" (v. 7), contrasted against Romans 9, which states that "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (vv. 6-7). Galatians continues by saying that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, ' And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (v. 16). The Gentile Inclusion is clinched when it says that "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (v. 29). In Ephesians 2, it is made clear that, although Gentiles were formerly "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (v. 12), that now they "have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (v.13), having "broke down the barrier of the dividing wall" (v. 14) that "He might make the two [believing Israel and believing Gentiles] into one new man" (v. 15) and "reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross" (v. 16). Ephesians continues by saying that Gentiles "are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints [believing Jews from the Old Testament], and are of God's household" (v. 19).

The Gentile Inclusion is made especially clear from Romans 11, where Paul divides national Israel into two separate groups: Believing Israel and Unbelieving Israel. According to Romans 2:28-29, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly...But he is a Jew who is one inwardly..." According to Romans 9:6-8, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants..." Even though Unbelieving Israel are physical Israel, they are not Israel. How can this be? Let us see how. According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, what does this say about Believing Israel? That they are true Jews and that they are true Israel. Even though Believing Israel are physical Israel, they are also true Israel. What does this mean? That true Israel is a spiritual Israel. Remember, Paul just divided national Israel into two separate groups and said that national, physical, unbelieving Israel are not true Jews even though they are descended from Israel. As you read Romans 11 further, the Gentile Inclusion is clenched. Where are Believing Gentiles grafted? In with Believing Israel. Believing Gentiles "became partaker with them [Believing Israel]" (v. 17). According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8 (as well as Galatians 3), what does that make Believing Gentiles? True Jews; true Israel.

In John 10, Jesus even said "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one Shepherd" (v. 16). That is the Gentile Inclusion right there. Jesus does not have two flocks; He does not have two bodies; He does not have two brides. Jesus has one flock, one body, one bride—one Church. The Church consists of believing Jews and believing Gentiles; Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. To separate the body of Christ into two groups is not only unbiblical, it is also ludicrous and insane. National Israel is nothing and means nothing. True Israel is Christ Jesus Himself, to whom belong Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles, all being grafted into Him together. Ephesians makes it clear: "having been built on the foundation of the Apostles [New Testament believers] and Prophets [Old Testament believers], Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (v. 20). What is this holy temple that Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are being fitted together and built into? The Church! If Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are Christians, and they are, what does that tell us? That true Israel is the true Church, and that the true Church is true Israel. The promises of God still apply to Israel—true Israel, spiritual Israel—but they also now apply to the Church, made up of Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles. Paul refers to this as a "mystery" and says that Israel is hardened "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (v. 25). Into what? Into true, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 3, Paul makes this mystery known as plainly and clearly as possible: “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (v. 6).

There are not two paths to God. God does not have two plans of salvation; one by race and the other by grace. All mankind, Jewish or Gentile, must come to and through Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour or else there is no salvation for them! When Romans 11:26 says "in this way all Israel will be saved," it is speaking of the "mystery" of the Gentile Inclusion. Expansion theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. No, because it is not speaking of national Israel but of spiritual Israel. Yes, because it is speaking of spiritual Israel and not of national Israel.

Ruckmanism

Who is Peter Sturges Ruckman, and what is a Ruckmanite? Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. He received his doctorate in philosophy from Bob Jones University. As an Independent "Baptist" pastor, he was the founder and president of Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida, where hundreds of students were brainwashed with his legalism and false doctrinal beliefs. We will get to this in just a moment.

Samuel C. Gipp wrote about him:

"He is, without a doubt, the most outspoken champion of the King James Bible in this generation. He is considered an extremely dangerous foe to the Bible critics who teach that God has not preserved His Bible perfect.
His arsenal consists of an above average intellect, years of studying Bible manuscripts and a caustic delivery. This abrasive preaching style so offends (and scares) today's limpwristed 'soldiers of the Lord' that they shrink from any confrontation with him, OR the facts he presents."

It is a shame that Peter Ruckman died in 2016, because contrary to Samuel Gipp's exaggerated flapping of his gums, I would quite welcome a confrontation to debate with him. The only thing dangerous about Ruckman was the heresy he preached. Ruckman was not caustic; he was outright rude and disrespectful, resorting to vicious badgering and name calling for those who did not submit to his authority. When debating, if my opponent speaks and acts in a mature manner, I respond kindly in a likewise mature manner. If they attempt to mock me (when they have absolutely nothing to mock with), then I will mock them in return to show them how utterly absurd their position is, as well as their behaviour. If I were to have debated Ruckman, and if he were going to try and use such a tactic against me via ad hominem in order to try and silence me and end any possibility of logical, rational discussion, I would be just as caustic in return and put him in his place. Just like Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

Those who think suck responses are not very "Christian" or "Christ-like" need to have a wake-up call and have their heads examined. The idea that you should only respond in a gentle, loving manner all the time is ludicrous and unrealistic. Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim, when he would discuss Christianity and Islam with David Wood, would get upset when David responded calm and gently. Why? Because for the Muslim, such a discussion was very passionate, and being responded to in a calm, gentle manner offends the Muslim and makes them think you do not take them very seriously. When someone mocks you, they think you will just roll over and give in to them. But when you mock them back, it shocks them and causes them to stop, listen, and think. You need to respond in kind. If you have ever bothered to pay attention when you read the Bible, you will notice that Jesus and the Apostle Paul are not always calm, loving, and gentle. Responding more harshly does not in any way, shape, or form make you less loving to those you are dealing with. Sometimes love needs to be hard. If you do not think so, then you are very unrealistic.

Ruckman's intellect was not "above average." His so-called "study" of manuscripts was clearly very poorly done. Was Ruckman aware that there are more than just one TR (Textus Receptus) in existence? Erasmus [a devout Roman Catholic] (1516), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), and Scrivener (1881, 1894) are just a few. Each of these men produced several variations of their TRs that differ greatly one from another. Their TRs also differ greatly from each other's. There is not 100% agreement between any TR! To claim that the KJV is based on the TR, which one? None of them is an exact, precise match to the KJV. Furthermore, the base text for the translation of the KJV was supposed to be the Bishop's Bible, but a comparison shows the translation of the KJV to be far more influenced by the Geneva Bible. Was Ruckman aware of this? Probably not. Did Ruckman have the intellectual fortitude to logically conclude that there is no way an 1881 or 1894 TR (Scrivener's) could be the foundational basis for the 1611 KJV (as some argue today)? What Ruckman presented were not "facts" by any stretch of the imagination. You can engage in all the logical gymnastics you want here and his arguments will still be void of any real facts.

A number of Christians favour the Byzantine manuscripts; the underlying text used in the translation of the New Testament in the KJV. They believe that the Authorized Version represents the best possible translation of the New Testament into the English language. Peter Ruckman agrees with this, but takes it a step further. He believes that the translators of the KJV were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit in their translating work. Ruckman elevated the KJV to the level of "inspired" and therefore "infallible," which is a grievous error.

In Acts 12:4, the KJV uses the word "Easter." This translation is an erroneous mistranslation of the Greek pascha (πάσχα), which is translated as "Passover" everywhere else it occurs. Ruckman is forced to defend the erroneous translations of the KJV, and in so doing insists that the Holy Spirit personally directed and inspired the translators to use "Easter" here rather than "Passover." Sadly, Kent Hovind, who attended Pensacola Christian College, even attempted to argue for the legitimacy of the use of "Easter" in one of his videos. He was wrong. Ruckman even goes so far as to defend the KJV's errors as "advanced revelation," talking about "correcting the Greek with the English" (which is essentially what Scrivener did, turning to the KJV to sort out discrepencies in the original Greek manuscripts). By claiming the translation of the KJV to be infallible, Ruckman makes his assertion more authoritative than Scripture itself.

In the 1611 KJV, in the margin for Luke 17:36, it states, "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." If we examine the 1560 Geneva Bible, we can see that this is true. Verse 37 is verse 36. In modern translations, while they tend to include this verse, they make a marginal note that reads similar to that of the 1611 KJV: "Some manuscripts add verse 36." It is rather laughable how Ruckmanite KJV-Only advocates will tell you that you should get a KJV Bible without cross-references, marginal notes, etc. They do so because the marginal notes undermine the position they are trying to make you swallow. The 1611 KJV, in the Old Testament alone, has some 6,637 marginal notes, which is more than many modern translations. Ruckmanites, those who believe along similar lines as to what Peter Ruckman believed, imbibe a steady diet of camels while straining out gnats.

Here is what the 1611 KJV translators had to say for themselves in "The Translators To the Reader" (verbatim):

1. They believed the authority was in the originals.

"The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets" (p.3).

2. They believed in making new translations.

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.7).

"But the diference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with" (p.8).

3. They believed they were not inspired, but translators.

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" (p.9).

4. They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.

"It hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, here and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scripture are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment" (p.10)

"That any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine … They that are wise, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be another" (p.10).

5. They said a variety of translations were necessary.

"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).

6. They believed Scripture should be in common language.

"But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar" (p11).

Peter Ruckman and Ruckmanites fail to grasp what is meant when Scripture says God will preserve His Word. They believe it refers to the English language of the KJV, but that is utter nonsense and deliberate ignorance. How much manuscript evidence do we have today? How many copies of the original manuscripts?  The sheer number of these copies testifies to the fact that God has preserved His Word. The multiple manuscripts we have available to us today is evidence of that fact. The English translation of the KJV has nothing to do with preservation whatsoever.

Also, have you ever noticed how according to Ruckmanites, there is only one Bible in any language that is "inspired" and "infallible"? The KJV. All English Bibles prior to and after the KJV are apparently Bibles of the Devil, as is every other Bible in every other language. According to Ruckmanites, the English translation of the KJV is the only Word of God that God has given to humanity, and anything and everything else is a tool of the Devil. How preposterous and absurd!

William P. Grady, quite obviously influenced by Peter Ruckman, wrote a book entitled Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible. This book is chock full of error, assumptions, and conclusions drawn from assumptions. It engages in vast amounts of fallacy. Like Ruckman, Grady tries to convince us that the English translation of the KJV is God's final authority to all humanity. Grady, like Ruckman and all Ruckmanites, is ignorant as to church history and Bible history. Anyone who is willing to study both out will quickly see the KJV in a different light, even though they may still respect and appreciate it. But they will no longer be blind following blind guides off the cliff of ignorance.

By the way, Ruckman and his Ruckmanites will deliberately mislabel 1769 KJV Bibles falsely as "1611" Bibles. Any educated individual, or anyone who owns a legitimate facsimile of a 1611 KJV, will be able to tell the difference easily. But Ruckmanites think they are fooling others when the only ones they are fooling are themselves. As such, Ruckmanites, those who subscribe to the same beliefs as Peter Ruckman, are a cult. They are not much better than the Westboro "Baptist" Church. However, do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone who subscribes to the KJV is a Ruckmanite. Here is an excellent article on "What is King James Onlyism?" Three things that KJV-Onlyism is not:

1. King James Onlyism is not a mere preference for the King James Bible.
    
2. King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship.
    
3. King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation.