

**Mere Theology:**

**Christian Bible Doctrine for Beginners, Refreshers for Experts, and Study for Third-Millennium Saints in Diaspora**

Jesse Steele

Smashwords Edition

**Copyright © 2017 Jesse Steele**

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced for sale in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

books.jessesteele.com

books@jessesteele.com

Jesse Steele on Smashwords

ISBN: 978-137-001-647-1

**First Release Edition**

Please pardon and report any grammatical or typographical or syntactical errors to books@jessesteele.com with "book error" in the email Subject field. Thank you.

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

For personal enjoyment only, you are welcome to share this ebook with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial and non-theatrical purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by Jesse Steele. Thank you for your support.

**For My Professors at the Moody Bible Institute**

**I studied under more than one semester**

**Dr. Gregg Quiggle**

**Whom I could not call by "Doctor" in my time as his student and nonetheless influenced my understanding of theology more than any other**

**  
****Dr. Ron Saur**

**Advisor, soldier, Greek scholar, advocate, mentor, and friend**

**Dr. Mike McDuffee**

**Evangelist, approachable guru, German scholar, and gentleman**

**Dr. Bill Marty**

**Veteran and leader who let the Bible speak for itself**

**Dr. C. Marvin Pate**

**Quiet, comical, transparent, thoughtful, diligent, and caring;**

**Paul, Daniel, and Revelation**

**Dr. Lou Barbieri**

**Who knows his Systematic Theology in brief and at length, as in pain and in joy everlasting**

**Dr. John Hart**

**Who knows the Gospel of John and the "river-like" big picture consistency of Biblical Hermeneutics**

**Dr. Michael Wechsler**

**Who did not hesitate to recite Hebrew poetry to a Hebrew-illiterate class to demonstrate the role of phonetics in lower criticism, and whose project assignment gave me the opportunity to meet Dr. Ken Taylor**

**Dr. Harold Foos**

**Apologeticist, scholar, and dissident of new books "already written" by different names when it is better to save a tree**

**Dr. David Fetzer**

**Communicator par excellence, mentor, leader, and role model**

**Dr. Rosalie deRosset**

**Friend, confidant, contagious connoisseur of language well used, and evangelist for the cult of the anti-cliché**

**And, special "Dispensation" for**

**Dr. Thomas Cornman**

**Whom, though I studied under only once, personally sold me my student edition of MS Office as a freshmen, cried in class when I asked if the Church had become distracted in its calling, and opened his door even after taking a heavy promotion**
**Table of Contents**

For My Professors at the Moody Bible Institute

Prologue: The Academics of It All

Introduction: Theology, Death & Today

Another Book on Theology

Why Study the Bible

Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and Expository Preaching

The Audience

Pastoring the 'Diaspora'

Doctrinal Reconciliation Today

Lordship v Grace

Language: Literal and Poetic

Supplementary Articles

Starting Basics

Core Purpose and Starting Premises

The Terms 'Christian' and 'Christianity'

Note on Scripture Reference Style

Note on Non-Cited Generic References

Bibliology – The Bible

Textual Criticism and the Nature of the Bible's Authority

Bibliology Proper

History and Sections of the Bible

The Two Great Commandments

The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)

Time of Job, Enoch, and Biblical Theology of 'the Righteous'

A 'Righteous' Man

'The satan'

Epic-Scale Events

Most High and Mighty to Save

Paul

Paul and Proverbs

Paul and History

Paul and the Church

Paul and Hebrews

On Interpreting Scripture

Cultural Experience and Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics and Vantage Point of Homily

Interpreting the Genre of Dreams and Visions

Example: A Walk through the Elements

God's Voice Today

Theology Proper – Who God Is

The Trinity

God the Uncreated Author and Sustainer

God the Creator of Days

God the Most High, the Merciful, and the Just

God of Means

Dealing with "Other gods"

Anthropology – Humanity

Sabbath, Work, Rest, and Death

Men and Women: Equal in Value and Strength; Different in Nature

Soul, Spirit, and Flesh

Man: A Multi-Faceted Being

Heart & Mind: Junction of Soul, Spirit, and Body/Flesh Proper

Prosperity and Profit

Godly Goals, Covetousness, and Sexual Lust

Divorce and Remarriage

Morality, Homosexuality, and Categories of a Biblical Worldview

Christology – The Person of Christ

The Uncreated God-Man

Many Crowns and 'Many Hats'

Significance of the Virgin Birth

In Regards to Christ's Nature

Soteriology – The Work of Christ

Imputed Righteousness

On the 'Eternal Security' Discussion

Pneumatology – The Holy Spirit

Director of Wisdom and Leadership

Baptism and Drenching

On Terminology for the Holy Spirit's Presence in One's Life

Chronological Occurrence of Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Signs Validating Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Two Kinds of 'Tongues'

On the Apparent 'Silliness' of a Prayer Language

False Prophecy

Modern Activity of Signs and Wonders

Modern Prophecy: Particular Revelation

A Needed Summary of Anthropology, Soteriology, and Pneumatology

Free Will and Predestination

Faith and Works

Faith, Prayer, and Works as a Progression

Health, Prosperity, and Pain

Purpose: The Decider of Miracles and Prosperity

Divinization: 'Becoming gods'

Synopsis of the Human Dilemma

Ecclesiology – The Church

Priesthood of all Believers

Objectives of the Church

Living and Growing Together

Four-Fold Ministry of Ephesians 4:11

Leadership and Beauty in Ministry, Marriage, and Assembly

Church and the Gospel

Missions Today

Missions & the Gospel: Spreading v Clarifying

Sacraments

Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Sacrament of Water Baptism

Tongues and Prophesy in Assembly

Christianity and Economic Models

Tradition and Cultural Relevance

Human Institutionalization of Christian Fellowship

Tent-Making and Professional Clergy Today

Proseucheology - Prayer

Knowing God's Will

Proseucheology Expanded: Prayer & Deliverance

Forgiveness

The Root of Strongholds

Release from Bondage

Cleansing the Ground

Our Authority and Jurisdiction Regarding Forgiveness

Generational Sin

Prayer and Fasting

Eschatology – End Times

On Satan

The Question of Evil and God's Goodness

Eternal Judgment: Punishment and Reward

Parousia in Conjunction with the Millennium

Satanic Propaganda Concerning Latter Days

'Armageddon'

Parousia in Conjunction with the Great Tribulation

Two Bodies of Believers in Revelation 7

Seven Churches: The Introduction to Revelation

Four Bodies of Believers throughout Revelation

Etymology and Context of the Seven Churches

Perseverance: Smyrna and Philadelphia

Rapture, Israel, and the Churches

Christ and Antichrist

Christian Suffering and Victory Regarding the Great Tribulation

Summary of the Final Judgment

Salvation by Faith v Book

Light, Darkness, and the New Daytime

Summary of End Times

Works Cited

About the Author
Prologue:

The Academics of It All

I started this paper in 2002, at the 24-7 restaurant, _Tempo_ , in downtown Chicago, the night before my 12 page senior _Doctrinal Statement_ paper was due. My only research tools were a mini laptop _Libretto_ computer and my exhaustive concordance of the NASB. Since then, I continued to expand on it whenever I felt that diligence demanded that I further my research of the Scriptures.

Then Mr. Quiggle and Dr. Bill Marty, whom I had class and counsel with many times, explained that one day we Bible students might need a basic theology statement on seven basic areas of doctrine and this would be an important starting point. It was; and I wrote this book in the original word processor document file I used for that class assignment 15 years ago.

In 2005, I spent four consecutive 14-hour days with the same concordance and expanded the 12 page paper into 20 pages, and slowly moved to 40 pages in the following years. During that time, Internet research was not widely available for research. The Scripture references herein, even most in this 2017 revision, were done with nothing but my memory and a hardcopy exhaustive concordance of the NASB 1995. In Taiwan, about February 2009 and during the Lunar New Year holidays in Asia, I edited half of it before I became exhausted with toning-down my own overuse of complex language from years previous. In 2017, over the Lunar New Year holidays in Asia again, and during travels over the holidays, I decided I needed to re-edit and finish my doctrinal statement. It grew from 44 pages to 143 and I finally finished my edit, through to the last page on St. Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017. I promptly wrote my thanks in the "For" page, to my many professors whom I often think about, especially in these matters. The next day, February 15, I added introduction thoughts on Theology Proper and Ecclesiology, along with some citation comments for the Book of Enoch and Paul's years of solitude. After that, any afterthoughts I had to expand on I found I had already written at length. So, it was time to call it a book.

Not long after, and in full disclosure, Mike Bickle in his sermon to his students on February 17, 2017, reminded them of a paper they needed to write on _The Person of Jesus_. I thought my own section to be inadequate, even though most every section of this study seems to be about Jesus. So, I added an introduction to _Christology_ and researched four hours for the section **Many Crowns and 'Many Hats'** **. I may expand on this several years in the future, but, right now, there is so much about Jesus that could be said, all the books I could write in the world would not be enough.**

While I had heard of it, I had not read _"Pagan Christianity"_ by Barna and Viola until finishing this 2017 edition, though I read Barna's _"Revolution"_ in 2005. I wrote this _Prologue_ section as an afterthought for the sake of history and accounting, and I am only through Viola's and Barna's introduction; I haven't even started Chapter 1. As I read Barna's introduction, I find that the same concepts they address I also address here.

As for Viola, I haven't seen his factual claims or his contentions, though I plan to give him no easy review, though fair. It seems to me that my position seems more or less that of Don Carson's position about the Emergent Church, that there is much to be learned from the accusation of even fools since the Church is not entirely undeserving of the overly harsh critique of which it has been on the receiving end. I will continue to discuss these topics with challenging minds whom I remain in touch with. My general agreement is with Barna and his basic research of our day, that being unconventional in the extras does not mean less love for Jesus; I argue from the Bible, Barna argues from the Bible and research. Actually, being unconventional as a Christian may even be necessary to love Jesus more than is allowed by the constrains of what Sunday morning has become.

As for Church Fathers, I openly admit that I have not read them. Now that I have finished my own expanded study in Bible theology, I feel that I can. Remember, this study (this book you are reading) is not a study in Church history. It is a theological work based solely in Scripture. I do not develop theology from the Church Fathers because I believe in Sola Scriptura. Though I borrow some terms from the Church, such as "Trinity", I develop my own definitions and constructs of truth from the Bible alone.

It has always been important for me to, in some ways, limit what I read so as to protect my biases. While _"Pagan Christianity"_ is on my Kindle, so is Chesterton's _"The Everlasting Man"._

Another work I just reviewed, since finishing this study, but before writing this _Prologue,_ was a publication from Pew Research in February 2012, _Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade._ Pew observes that lack of technology updates in America's voter system costs over $4 USD per registration while Canada's costs were only $0.35. With lack of technology and reconsideration for how information is processed, not only is America's outdated system expensive and inaccurate, it is begs opportunity for voter fraud. One of the main problems is travel, that people can move around the country more easily and the old system of voter registration creates many duplicates and inaccuracies, merely because it doesn't expect people to be able to travel or relocate out of their voting precincts. I basically wrote the same thing in this study about Christian fellowship, but without Pew's input at the time.

Again, for me, it was important that I not read these other works before writing this because this is not a research paper that collects other research data. _I wanted my conclusions about the Bible to have come from only the Bible as much as possible._ Bible study is not an exercise of reading the Bible and pretending to understand it while merely regurgitating what we were told it means. My New and Old Testament Survey professor, Dr. Mary, first helped me to understand how the Bible speaks for itself. Later, when I began to study Greek under Dr. Saur, he was interested and mildly entertained at my supportive comments to him after our first class, "Preaching should be a demonstration of good Bible study methods to teach people how to listen to the Bible as it speaks for itself, _not train people to 'twist' Scripture accurately_."

I learned to understand and study the Bible among the great minds at Moody, both among students and the faculty. We reviewed Church History, of course. I know what people have said about the Bible. But, for a season, _having learned from godly men who study God's Word,_ I wanted to shut away the voices of interpretation and look at the Bible purely for what it is.

For me, and having learned from Quiggle of how to track theological and epistemological influences, it was important to me that I write this theology paper with a focus on Bible with as little influence from outside literature as possible. I wanted to write what I really believed myself, basing ideas in Scripture as much as I could. I didn't just want Barna or anyone else talking through my work. Now that I have finished, and I have begun to read those other works, I see that I wasn't off track in the least.

I plan, Lord-willing, to honor my professors with my humble gift of this book to them, which I hope they do not waste the time to read. I have nothing to teach them. At most, they could review and critique what I say and easily see how little I have read of their vast knowledge of history. The Bible says that a student should share what he has learned with the one who teaches (Gal 6:6). So, while I wrote this on my own, with no purpose other than that I felt it to be a basic diligence, it became my intention to finish that diligence to deliver it back to my professors so that they might know that their work was not wasted.

Introduction: Theology, Death & Today

My grandfather was a plumber and my father a teacher. Today they are both with the Lord. Like the others with them who now know the Lord face-to-face, they see more from their vantage point in glory than any theologian in this lifetime. It is with great humility that I write about the One on the Throne whom my dad and grandpa talk with. Christians ourselves are among those most likely to take offense to theological writings penned by each other, arguably more so than non-Christians. While Satan is rightfully considered the arch-enemy of the Church, it is the doctrine dictated by the Lord Himself that Satan is opposed to, not doctrines authored by Man. Our best theology is a least-worst description of the living God whom we will one day see beyond any need for explanation.

**Another Book on Theology**

When I started writing this I asked myself, "Does the world need yet another book on theology?" Erickson and Boyce have done wonderfully. This study, however, aims at being more concise, as well as being aware of the matters of the start of the third millennium.

The great theology works, from the Church Fathers through Ryrie and Grudem, were written prior to the Emergent Church "discussion". Since that wave, liberal theology has permeated sectors of the Church that would formerly have been considered, practically speaking, "incorruptible". The theology books of the past, as good as it was to stand on giants, didn't stop the pop-culture tsunami and they can't answer the aftermath. Another factor is the digital age and the impact of transportation-communication capabilities on Christian fellowship. Of course, as a serious student of the Bible in my personal life, writing out my own theology seems every bit as much a matter of diligence (2 Tim 2:15) as an MD reading up on journals and keeping careful records of every patient he sees. In Bible study spheres, writing theology keeps us anchored in evaluating our own beliefs in preparation to handle ad hoc Apologetics gently in the real world (1 Pet 3:15-16). But, it also acts as a lens for transparency. As a trained Bible student with a presence in media (podcasting, authoring, blogging) people need to be able to examine my own framework to see where I stand on specific topics. Yet, those two reasons alone (diligence and transparency) do not justify publishing a theology work to be as easily available to the public as this. I decided to publish this as I have to provide some sort of continuing framework of orthodoxy, retaining the truth, expanding on the normal topics, and rebutting popular errancies, and to do all this in the post-EC and digital age contexts.

**Why Study the Bible**

Different people read the Bible for different reasons. Some people read it merely to arrange theories of how they believe it was made up and invented, ignoring the value and power of applying it to our lives. With the power the Bible demonstrates in the lives of people who study it and take it seriously, the question in studying it should be about how to benefit from it the most. Other people believe in the Bible's power, but they don't study it to apply that power to their lives. Instead, they read it for its great enjoyment, all the while trying to dismiss small teachings that should compel them to change the way they live. They read it for comfort and notoriety of their own ideas, to help themselves sleep at night when they know what they are doing is wrong.

Generally, people know that the Bible has power in the life of its readers. So, even when we insist on doing things our consciences condemn, it is easy for us to read the Bible because "we know we should", slowly forgetting that the Bible doesn't give us its power when we twist it to mean what we want it to mean. The Bible's power only goes so far as we are willing to obey it correctly.

This is the reason why I study the Bible.

I don't want to know what I can "get away with"; I want to know how I can seize the rights of being a child of God. His commands and His wisdom are a liberating and empowering delight expressed in Psalm 119:32. Delight in Him and in wisdom that leads to abundance are the presumed goals that the Bible assumes about anyone who reads it. If I don't have those presumed goals then I will be able to make the Bible say anything I want it to. Then, there is no point in studying it nor is there a need.

I have no objection if someone does not want to study the Bible. But, reading the Bible with the goals contrary to its purpose and benefit, merely to appease one's own conscience, confuses people who want to learn how to study the Bible with the Bible's presumed goals. If someone does not want to learn what directions and pursuits are and are not worthwhile—to learn how to more effectively focus and benefit oneself—then there is neither purpose nor need in studying the Bible.

By reading the Bible in order to contort it against its own purpose, one is merely fabricating one's own framework for truth and morality. One does not need the Bible to make one's own invention of morals—just make them up anyway if that is the goal! But, pretending to use a contorted interpretation as some kind of "basis" to rationalize a self-invented moral framework is as foolish as the idol maker of Isaiah 44:9-20—he grows a tree only because the rain sent water, burns half of it for food and warmth, and shapes the other half with his own hands into his own god to seek deliverance from. This thinking doesn't have the sound reason to say, "In my own hand is a lie!"

**Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and Expository Preaching**

The Bible can speak for itself. We do not need a "super-smart" person—a professional, trained expert, or mystically wise teacher—to divine its meaning for us. With some basic understanding about literature, history, what an author means in writing, and a lot of time familiarizing ourselves with the Bible, everything becomes clear with time. When one thing doesn't seem to make sense, we keep reading and find another paragraph or sentence that helps it all make sense. Someone who reads the Bible selectively can easily be proven wrong, usually by surprise.

These basic rules of study are called "hermeneutics" and they are relatively easy to learn. Many books have been written about them, so I won't try to cover too many of them here. In summary, consider the Bible like a river that twists and winds with eddies and rapids. While water seems to move at different speeds and in different directions, the river has an eventual destination. Sometimes it flows east to wind its way around a mountainous topic, then it will turn south to show us a beautiful valley. Every river's destination is the ocean and they always move "down". In seeing these overall themes, don't take every microscopic statement of the Bible as its final teaching point. Just enjoy the scenery and remember where it is eventually headed.

Hermeneutics is a study all to itself, but even the most basic overview can help. I highly recommend _Living by the Book_ by Howard Hendrix because it is thorough and easy to understand.

When we teach the Bible, every preacher, every Bible study leader—everyone who teaches from the Bible must demonstrate how basic hermeneutics allow the Bible to speak for itself. An audience must not only learn what the Bible teaches, but also learn _how to_ see the Bible's truth for themselves in their own study. This is called "expository preaching", where the teacher reads the Bible, explains its ancient meaning, identifies its eternal truth, then discusses its contemporary relevance often called "application". This four-step process is called "exegesis". A good expositor will help listeners walk away with better knowledge of both the Bible passage of the day and hermeneutics so they understand the Bible better in their own time of study.

One key of hermeneutics, interestingly, is obedience. The Bible has power because it is partially a spiritual book. God's powerful Holy Spirit works behind and through the Bible. While Bible public speaking basics and Bible hermeneutics can be reviewed as an academic study, Bible preaching must be done under the direction of the Holy Spirit. An ongoing preacher does not live by the Bible he teaches from and who preaches without God's calling will kill people spiritually. And, that accounts for much of the mess we see today.

**The Audience**

This study is written for any Christian's benefit. I intentionally mix a conversational, first person tone with theological "babble" because this is a study in theology. Perhaps this can help introduce laymen to theological ways of thinking while helping experienced theologians keep their feet on the ground, at least in manner of style.

I do intend that the experienced and "theology genre initiated" reader will gain a perspective to consider on the times. There are some contributions that I haven't seen come up in theological circles, such as "Salvation by Book" (named with pithiness as a _Biblical theology of Salvation in Revelation_ , but still implying systematic theology called _Salvation by Faith alone_ , of course,) the term "Departure of the Church" in terms of End Times (as a more fluid term, making room for discussable ambiguity,) "Rapture for the Persevering" (based on theological framework from Old and New Testament threading themes of _light_ , _wisdom_ , _perseverance_ , and _deathless transformation at Christ's return_ ,) that the Book of Enoch applies to End Times (and is therefore not Scripture, but, by implication, perhaps the Church should dust it off,) and technological-historical arguments for why "having a pastor" and "being on a tax-reported Christian fellowship list" should not be a test of whether a Christian is in Biblical fellowship (though useful and practical in the past, considering aged scaffolding a hindrance and potential hazard today.) Nearly all of these relate to the End Times, if not theologically then situationally.

In terms of non-conventional, ad hoc Christian fellowship, the term "diaspora" does not come up in any section, only in the title. James wrote to the saints "scattered". Unfortunately, due to internal politics, immorality, grossly false doctrine, or any combination of the above, many Sunday morning ministries have forced the hand of dedicated Christians to leave without always having a place to leave to. New Testament authors predicted as much. Unfortunately, there are many "Marie Antoinette" Christian pockets where the local Church is strong, having a plethora of doctrinally sound, non-controlling Christian establishments; but who do not sympathize with other geographical pockets that don't have it as good as they do. In order to reject the Emergent Church movement and dig deep enough to grow in the truth necessary to withstand EC, which many doctrinally sound, but entertainment-focused congregations did not provide, Christians have opted to study the Bible at home and supplement with online, audio, video, and print media.

In about 2005, George Barna observed these tendencies, but since then, many have suggested that those Christians need to change their own perspective and thereby return to the abusive marriage, rather than putting the burden on the leadership to change themselves to such a point where the "diaspora" would want to return without a sales pitch. Leadership needs to be blamed for failure at some point—and we passed that point a long time ago. The Church has been changed, this time being dispersed not by non-Christians in government, but by mediocre Christians in leadership within the Church. Given how often clergy grant each other instant notoriety, the people who saw the EC wave on the horizon didn't have much support from the establishment. That was back in the days when pastors in my own back yard would have scorned someone for leaving Mars Hill Bible Church—until Rob Bell published _Velvet Elvis_. Then, it was about a five year scramble in Mid Michigan when no one knew what to do because, no matter what "damage control" sermons they preached, bad news just kept wiring in.

The same thing that happened to the newspaper industry also happened to the Sunday preaching industry; the same thing that happened to brick-and-mortar retail also happened to "brick-and-mortar church"—or in the last 30 years what we should probably call "Church Majal": the Internet happened. It happened to _everything_ , including families and militaries. The Internet shook the jar of raisins and members of the old guard didn't make life any easier for themselves. Was it "fair"? Gravity, weather, and the common cold aren't fair nor are they merciful, but they aren't biased either. We can withstand many of their surprises with some vitamin C and proper preparation. The problem is that most people don't prepare like they should, whether in architecture, health, business, family, or even the Church. Blaming other people isn't enough. If the Church isn't prepared to deal with all the people leaving, how in Heaven or on Earth will it be able to shepherd us through the times of the Antichrist?

At the close of the 1900s, professors at Moody warned us students about the dangers of money and entertainment taking over "professional ministry"; those warnings were overlooked by much of the Western Church, and ignoring those warnings was not without consequence. The new wine has found its new wineskins. Christians found a way to survive. The Church has been changed. There isn't any going back to romanticized nostalgia. If the paid Church leaders wanted to retain their people, they should have listened to them rather than insulting them. But, they didn't. And, here we are, in a situation every bit as fair as love and war.

**Pastoring the 'Diaspora'**

A wise friend once told me that too many Christians can't tell the difference between Jesus and the pastor. We give Christian organizations and leaders too much power, both in what we expect of them and the control we allow them to exercise over us. Eventually, they disappoint us. That happens because we make the Church into our false god.

If you're a pastor looking at your own "diaspora" leaving traditional Sunday-centered fellowships, what are you going to do to _help?_ Will you scorn and shame them; dumping blame onto the people you failed to win over? Or, will you go where the sinners are and take all your goodies from Sunday morning to them? Maybe that's hard to do since it isn't exactly financially solvent, unless you do "tentmaking", which I'll get into later. Maybe finances are what keep you from the ministry you were called to. Or, maybe you're actually afraid to reinvent.

Business owners don't have the luxury of crawling into their emotional caves and lobbing eggs at their lost customers. Maybe that's why so many wicked people have more money than the Church—it's our inability to move on when the "cheese moves". Maybe you need to love and sympathize with people who live in region of "Christian fellowship poverty" and don't have it as well as you do. Maybe they won't listen to you no matter what you say because Sunday morning is the leading cause of Atheism and that's the one place Western Christianity has conditioned you to not leave. Maybe you just need the courage to change the things you can.

So, who will write theology for the "diaspora" to study? Who will write a Christian system that encourages the basic tenants of the Faith while not trying to invalidate circumstances that are very, very real? Where can we find theology addressing a situation where the Church is under some form of "dispersed persecution"? Dispersion remains dispersion, whether it comes from within or without. The one thing that both orthodox and wayward Church teachers seem to agree on is that people must either warm the pews or else walk out on the Doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. I've pounded my stake into the ground as one voice crying out from the wilderness, saying that no one has to do either.

In some ways, I feel the heart of a shepherd to provide some kind of direction to people who were in my own situation. I tried to warn my own local Christian leaders just before the EC crud hit the fan. And, many under their care walked out on Christ within five years—usually by way of Rob Bell at Mars Hill, just down the road, not the "diaspora" who remained faithful to Jesus. I was there. I understand what happened. But, probably there are only two reasons that I have not walked out on my Faith: 1. I had a solid understanding of the Bible from having been a student at the Moody Bible Institute and 2. I also had a Christian "rich dad" mentor who taught me to be like Joseph and dream, push, stay determined, convince myself to think big picture and big potential, and not give up no matter what. While I can't be a shepherd for the diaspora, I can at least let some scraps drop from my table and keep watch for predators in my back yard. I already believe these things I write in this study, but I constantly get questions in my personal life from people asking me to explain these Scriptural teachings that seem obvious to me, but not to people who haven't been through the rigors of four years at Moody—including the 3 a.m. conversations in the dorm about Calvin and Luther's dietary preferences.

While I can't replace the Messiah, I can point to him. When it comes to the "diaspora" looking for answers, I think I need to take the role of a loving mother horse who kicks her newborn. If you are happy in a Sunday morning fellowship, don't fix what isn't broken and don't condemn people who do. If you are one of the growing number of Christian "diaspora", it's time for you to realize how capable you are, refuse to whine about the disenfranchised old guard acting like a disenfranchised old guard, and stand on your own four legs.

If Donald Cole of Moody can "pastor" Christians through the radio, then I can at least answer questions through a book on good theology. For those who feel like Michelangelo not being allowed to see his teacher's sketchbook, this theological study might help provide at least a few pointers. I hope, however, that if you are new to theology, that you will use this to whet your appetite and pursue further study.

That said, even with varied dispersion and continuing form, the Church remains strong. We have plenty in common, much more than we know.

**Doctrinal Reconciliation Today**

As Christian circles have recently become more impassioned with a desire to reconcile, a new challenge has arisen among some of the top leaders among the Faith: how to be doctrinally reconciled so we can be ecclesiastically reconciled. The Great Commission is more likely to be fulfilled if Christians can work together; to do this, we must agree on core matters of importance. From what attempts we have seen in the "least common denominator" approach to reconciling Christian doctrine (such as the statements from groups like Promise Keepers, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and other multidenominational ministry statements that serve the purpose of organizing isolated interdenominational cooperative efforts,) people have talked—which is good—but few results have been achieved. Such efforts have usually included two components: ordering behavioral unity by fiat (such as the ECT, that Evangelicals and Catholics should not try to proselytize each other,) and opining on fewer doctrinal issues. Demanding unity doesn't create unity any more than ordering people to "be employed" will create jobs that do not exist. Authoring small statements on where we share common ground may strengthen the brotherly feeling of mutual commonality, but this only neglects the barbed fences that continue to tear and scar the Body. Ignoring our differences isn't going to make them go away. Divisive doctrines must be understood, directly confronted, and overcome. Part of our task in theology today is to solve the problem of division, not diagnose it, and certainly not perpetuate it. With all the attempts and desires for doctrinal unity among Christians, we've seen few results if we use the Great Commission as our standard of measure. Something must change.

Since I first set foot on Moody's campus through today, two main questions have plagued my mind: this question of Christian unity and the question of how to "do" Christian ministry. It was with this swelling passion that I refused to accept "pat" answers and blame-shifting that demanded results, but still do not deliver, no matter how verbose and esoteric they are packaged.

It is said that Sunday morning is the most segregated time among Christians. So, in my own desire for Christian reconciliation, I focused on the most divisive area that encompasses both: Sunday morning. I visited as many Christian ministries as I was able, regularly as well as intensely. In my visits to Willow Creek in South Barrington, Illinois, I would always ask the people sitting next me why they liked their church and pastor. Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, Illinois was on my list. I saw first-hand and among close friends the many good things and sad things from Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. For one seven-month period, I drove a two-hour round-trip commute to explore a Pentecostal ministry also in Grandville, Michigan. I've driven to Kansas City to visit the International House of Prayer on several occasions over the last 13 years and maintain a loose connection with some of the staff. I've been to the Airport Christian Fellowship in Toronto (the 'Holy Laugher' church,) to see what Christians there were doing. (No one laughed until I showed up.) For the past eight years I have observed Christian ministry and in Taiwan; one of their biggest concerns is preventing Western divisiveness, another is professing Christians who still worship physical idols, and the third and most infamous dilemma in the east-Asian Church is a near-total surrender on the issue of "Asian Shame" culture. My experience in Taiwan has also taught me that doctrinal divisiveness is something more unique to the West; Asian Christians prefer argue over friendship cliques and who can't enter the tree fort. I suspect that we from the West started fighting over doctrine after we finally answered some heretics, but then, having no enemy remaining, started fighting with each other. I believe Jesus's words in Revelation 2 are very relevant to the doctrinal divisiveness in the West, "...But I hold against you that you forsook your first love... Even so, this you have: you hate the work of the Nicolaitans that I also hate." (My translation, _The End_ ) Western doctrine divisiveness will be solved when the most influential Western theologians see _love_ as the foundation of _doctrine_ , not vice versa.

Doctrinal dispute reconciliation may be simpler if we see it, partially, from an interpersonal-counseling perspective. God is a called a Counselor and reconciliation is an "interpersonal" issue, after all. Listening and "getting to the core motives" of conflicting parties is also used in conflict-resolution, perhaps we could use it in _doctrine_ conflict resolution. Also, many conflicts result when we bring our past baggage into relationships of today. Most all contemporary Christian doctrine stems from answering heretics who are no longer in the room. Since we can't stick our finger on a heretic who isn't around anymore, the tendency might be to start pointing at each other and over-emphasizing our points to _create_ conflict just so we can solve it, when we really need to realize that the only real conflict just might be in the past. Past heresies were indeed bad, and we should remember they _were_ bad, but we also should remember they were in the past. We also must make sure that we address _current_ heresies, graciously. Today will be easier to address if we first distinguish "today" from "yesterday." These distinctions between yesterday and today are old ideas from conflict-resolution, perhaps they are old ideas we can learn from.

When I visit ministries I aim to understand. I rarely walk in the doors of Sunday morning ministries only once or twice, but for extended periods of time _and I engaged the people as much as I can to learn as much as I can_. I am free to do this because I take initiative in my Christian relationships and have a tight circle I keep in contact with, even thought my travels and our rearranging in local church structures. I really love people and I just have to meet them.

My desire to see unity led to a long-term involvement with God's family. I fell in love with people from different denominations and, based on Scripture and from the perspective of my findings, I have written various articles and statements with two main goals. The first goal is to make God's truth understandable without watering down Scriptural truth. The second goal is to help Christians have better fellowship and thereby fulfill the Great Commission.

In one sense, we could say that various doctrines are merely "unfinished" and that if they are "completed" then they will be more reconciled. I submit, for your consideration, a potential solution to "finishing" Church doctrine, thereby solving the problem of Christian division:

Nearly all Christian beliefs _are_ reconcilable if they are seen from the perspective of _"questions of the heart"._ By answering questions of the heart, we achieve the true aim of doctrine, as well as promote unity—something the heart also desires.

This method is not so different from the basics of Socratic Dialogue: keep asking, "Why?" (I will point out some examples, though, my purpose is not to give a thorough treatment of historical doctrine.) For instance, Calvinist doctrine seems to be founded on the "heart-desire" for the Christian to believe in a God who is dependable whereas an Arminianist may have more of a desire to emphasize human responsibility. While the process of trying our human-best to explain the Scriptures on these subjects may lead to disagreements regarding our explanations themselves, the core heart-questions, while different, are not necessarily in conflict.

A cousin of this type of problem and solution, would be not so much in answering questions of the heart, but in explaining one's experience. For all of human history, we have had experiences that we want to explain, and from the desire for such explanation came many fields of science and exploration. For much of human history, those explanations have not been sufficient. Thales's river was moving itself until Sir Issac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree from across a campus courtyard. Thales never understood that gravity was moving the river, so he developed an entire elaboration on water as the "Unmoved Mover" itself, hence water took its place among the _four elements_. While Thales was able to predict an eclipse, and he knew water was important to sustain life, his reasons _why_ were inadequate for a thorough understanding of the newer topic he had unintentionally introduced: Origin. This does not merely explain that Thales himself had questions regarding the Creator, it proves that not even the smartest of people can provide the best explanations of our human experiences.

One of the biggest doctrinal conflicts stemming from explanations of human experience regard Evangelical v. Spirit-Focused Christian communities. (Pardon the term 'Spirit-Focused', ;Spirit-Filled' and 'Full-Gospel' are what they often call themselves, but those labels are unintentionally pretentious; and Pentecostals and Charismatics are very different in many of the ways that do not directly relate to their disputes with Evangelicals, and even those disputes themselves can be different. So term 'Spirit-Focused' works best as it is a liturgical description rather than a claim of lifestyle.) Many of their doctrines seek to explain the activity or lack thereof in miracles or signs and wonders. With all humility, I suggest that our debates on such subjects may, in God's perspective, may be similar to a dispute between the Pythagoreans and the Nicolaitans, in that, neither one really knows what is going on with the specific situations they are talking about. I think the heated emotion in disputes that wage along these denominational lines are matters of hermeneutics that are rooted in some combination of a lack of sound reason as well as tact in considering how our statements come across to others. Many people are accidentally insulted in these debates and it is sad to think of how much doctrine has simply been developed simply because we don't understand each other.

Application is another consideration. If there were two theologians in a room who disagree about ideas with only hypothetical importance, it may be easier to get them on the same page if they examined how they would advise people in specific situations. Allowing application of theology to set the systematic agenda will not cause reconciliation in all areas of dispute, though it will certainly narrow the field of the task. Even when disagreement continues in the application of theology, it is easier to deal with when heart-issues and commitment to a given lifestyle are allowed to surface. The need to develop theology, based in Scripture, but according to the questions of people with proper intentions (as opposed to developing theology _only_ in answer to heresy,) has helped me through a theological debate that has probably impacted me the most, Lordship Salvation v. Grace Theology.

**Lordship v Grace**

In regards to Lordship v. Grace, while I grew up under one and carefully examined the other, I don't hold to either. At the same time I don't hold either position in contempt. This is for the same reason I gave earlier: the core motives of the heart in developing the theology of each are not in conflict. Lordship has a deep Psalm 119 style of love for God's commands and Grace has seen the great value of, as Bridges title says, Transforming Grace. I suspect that the desire for leaders in each camp have been expressed in innocently-intended hyperbolic terms, but were then debated as if they were intended with the weight of theological statements. The many introductions to debates and books on the subject address the question of whether it is merely an argument about words. Neither perspective has proven instrumental in any breakthroughs with regards to seeing results toward general fulfillment the Great Commission. The debate itself arose in the West and has not been directly involved with the fast growth of the Church in regions such as China. I suspect that it is an argument that may have originated with misunderstood figures of speech (hyperbole,) but can now be only solved by returning to the initial desire of the heart that members in the different camps wanted to address. I've seen pain as well as progress in both camps. It is a debate that is very close to my heart and, like can be said of many Horror movies: the answer is not in the room; salvation for this issue must come from Above. We can recognize that salvation when we go back to core questions that began with the heart.

In the spirit of putting theory to practice, and knowing that I can't solve a widely-debated topic all by myself, let's give it a shot. Here is how I solved the debate of Lordship v. Grace...

I had a professor in one of my two Hermeneutics classes and the Gospel of John who was in the Grace Theological Society, Dr. John Hart. I grew up under a Lordship Theology -trained pastor, Dr. Gerhard T. deBock. My primary understanding of both comes from studying under some of their most respective avid evangelists and in real-life and conversation, not merely through literature nor as a third-hand follower. It is important to distinguish between teachings from the authors of a theological framework and (mis)understood summaries from those who are interested in studying that framework—whether they seek to learn about God and the Christian life through that framework or whether they seek to take issue with it. So, in reference to theologies we get from the proverbial "horse's mouth", I will call them "Proper".

The tenants of "Grace" Proper (not extra teachings spread by fans & followers of Grace Theology who tend to use it as a license to sin) are mainly theoretical: _In theory, sin does not remove salvation, which is by faith, not by perfect obedience to works._ They define "repentance" as "changing one's mind at a core, worldview level". Their main point is essentially that we can't lose our salvation. And, no amount of sin in a Christian's life could mean that the Cross does not save a Christian as escaping by fire. It is worth mention that Grace Theology does not often seek to answer whether someone may or may not be Christian, emphasizing that confession is our role, but that God alone will judge the heart on this matter. Lordship Theology, by contrast, does, somewhat. But, even for Lordship, a claim that someone "might" not be Christian is more of a beckoning to repentance than a condemnation—at least that's how the theology's authors seem to intend it.

The tenants of "Lordship" Proper (not the extra teachings spread by the fans & followers who tend to tone it down when it seems too extreme) are mainly behavioral: _In practice, ongoing, conscious sin in a Believer's life with no concern whatsoever is an indication that that Believer might not have become a Christian, but still can._ Though Lordship theologians are often labeled by their opponents as "condemning", their framework strongly indicates that they seek redemption of those who live in more sin than might be considered "avoidable"; they want to lay out a path to bring sheep into the fold—both stray and foreign. They define "repentance" as both mental and emotional and label it "radical repentance", missing the point that over-defining emotions makes a kind of volitional repentance (emotional theatrics) and that the decision to believe Jesus usually catches us by surprise to such a point that we have no control over how "radical" our repentance is. Lordship usually teaches that salvation can be lost, but more as a concession to explain a situation of ongoing sin, redirecting conversation to the likelihood that a Christian who appears to "lose salvation" probably was not a real Christian to begin with. Though the authors of Lordship don't want the question of lost salvation to be their main point, it is such a big question that once it comes up it dominates all other characters on set.

Both groups feel that they want to agree at some level. Both question whether they are only debating semantics. Both eventually agree that their debate is about more than semantics, but lifestyle and quality of happiness in Christ. The two seem to be offspring of Calvinism and Arminianism, and are post- Millard J. Erickson, which is why I prefer his book, Christian Theology. Both of them hold to powerful truths that don't need to conflict. Grace, though it often leads to it among followers, does not want lawlessness and strongly objects to "Grace as a license to sin". Lordship, though it often leads to it among followers, does not want legalism and strongly objects to "Works-based salvation".

The general problem, in my conclusion, is over-analysis.

It is interesting that, for both, their primary circuits are in Bible church communities (viz 'Spirit-Focused'.) These Bible churches are likely to believe that Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work, but happens at Christian conversion by definition and default. Any presence these debates have in Pentecostal and Charismatic ('Spirit-Focused') circles rarely reflects the original tenants of either Grace or Lordship and behaves more like the extra ideas added by fans and followers.

I believe that both Lordship and Grace theologies result from genuine love for Jesus in a believer who has not received the second work of baptism. By the time the debates get to "Spirit-Focused" circles, it has become a third-party understanding of the topic—the "Spirit-Focused" followers' understanding of the Evangelical Bible churches' followers of the actual authors of the theologies themselves. So, their debate is more about the behavioral eventualities of the doctrines and not so much the theological system themselves. And, that stands to reason since "Spirit-Focused" Christian circles aren't exactly known for inking the most elaborate and academically complex systems of theology; they are too busy with matters that come up by believing in Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work—both for better and for worse.

Any side caught in the debate reminds me of a movie, _Mumford,_ where a man tries to manufacture an android female companion until he falls in love with a real woman. In their over-analysis, particularly on splitting hairs over how to define "repentance", all ends of the four-cornered spectrum miss the point that humans instinctively use the term "repent" correctly, even with no theological, Biblical, Christian, or, for that matter, any kind of religious background at all—that is, we use it correctly when we use it instinctively and without over-analysis of what we mean. We know what it means to "repent". It's emotional. It is both cooperative and involuntary. It is a "come to Jesus moment" about whatever truth is on the table, particularly the truth that we didn't ask to be put on the table in front of us, but is right there nonetheless. Repentance is that moment that hits us and we say, "What have I done!" And, above all, it carries meaning that expands beyond any definition except to say that repentance is repentance. Such emotional-poetic forms of explanation usually seem uncomfortable when trying to over-analyze and paint a sunset with a micrometer. Still, this mistake of over-analysis is well-intended and not malicious, at least from the Grace and Lordship Proper theologians themselves.

The basic solution to Grace v. Lordship is the paradigm that Jesus is Bridegroom, King, and Judge. The Bible refers to these three paradigms to describe Jesus quite often. He can judge us because he is our friend. That's what being a king involves. He is not a Lord only. He is not a grace-giver only. He is our king, which means both friend and judge, and he has the authority to help and save. Only as the Bridegroom, the King, and the Judge is Jesus _described_ didactically in Scripture. "Lord" he is frequently called, but never defined. He is just "the Lord" and the reader is expected to know what that means. Likewise, grace is _demonstrated_ and explained throughout Scripture, but not didactically charted as a known illustration for who God is. Grace in the pure sense (aside from the debated 'Grace Theology' proper) is something the Christian is continuously striving to understand, and arguably only begins to understand grace at the moment of becoming a Christian. To explain Jesus as "the grace-giver", while true and useful, is a sideways manner of saying that Jesus can never be fully understood in his redeeming nature. Yes, Jesus is the _Graceful Lord_. Confused yet? I sure am and happy to be so. I like more questions. However, the Bible's didactic teaching of who God is, both illustrative-explanatory and literal, is that Jesus is the _Bridegroom, the King,_ and _the Judge._ Those aren't such a mystery as Grace nor as non-descript as the title, "Lord".

Perhaps the use of the inexhaustible and the undefined terms—"grace" and "Lord" respectively—is the reason such confusion surrounds a discussion on _Grace v. Lordship_.

The best-kept secret among both Grace and Lordship theologies is the _sensible benefit_ of works. God's commands make perfect sense, though not always to us in our situations. God's law liberates us (Ps 119:32). His command is love and life (Ezk 20:11). By making wise and moral choices, quality of life will be better. Thus, the bigger question is not whether we can or cannot sin—should or should not sin—and be Christian, but the Christian question is whether we can sin and remain happy. Both Grace and Lordship Proper teachers seem to agree to this, but rarely say so since their main focus seems to be on detailed analysis. For both groups, good works are mainly described as some combination of intrinsic pleasure and assumed obligation. Little voice is given to what both groups agree on: _good works have both intrinsic and extrinsic results that make us holistically happy._ Again, by over-analyzing, they miss another point: The Bible is not an analytical-academic work, it is poetic, whether in prose or in content. A times, we need a broad brush to understand God and discussing His Lordship and His Grace are two such times.

The essential problem with both Grace and Lordship is that they are over-analytical rather than poetic. And, most of the arising problems in the Church do not come from Proper Grace or Lordship teachings, but from followers and fans of each—both second and third party—who, not being as heavily trained in developing Biblical and Systematic-Bible Theology, just don't understand what the academic authors are really trying to get at. I, however, understand them perfectly and I love them all in both groups. I just pray they can find that second work of poetry and Spirit so that their good message might finally come across. There's still work to be done and that work, when finished, sure is a grace yet to come.

**Language: Literal and Poetic**

As I mention in the section on Anthropology, there is little value placed by the contemporary world of theology on _connotation_ associated with our use of language. Many theologians, rather, focus on literal-lexical meanings. Considering that the Scripture is largely poetic, both heavily containing and in reference to law, neither lexical-exactness nor the art of succinct meaning via connotation can be escaped. Perhaps if more theologians had a skill of poetic connotation equal to the size of their vocabularies, we would have more tools to express and thereby understand the Scriptures as well as each other in a way that would resolve many of our disputes. Skill with _connotation_ might also be useful in Biblical translation, which is something I learned living in Taiwan and in doing my translation of Revelation. In Taiwan, I had to both learn Mandarin and teach English, whether on the job or in casual conversation. There I saw firsthand how teaching _connotation_ is an eventual development in the more advanced levels of TESOL. Arguably, the poetic savvy of the Israel's first two Davidic kings (David and Solomon) were connected with their ability to understand God, write about God, and keep the hearts of the people as rulers. Once the poets were no longer ruling Israel, the kingdom divided. Was this cause and effect (one way or another) or merely simultaneous or was it just a way of God being poetic in history? I'll leave that to the theologians to decide. Suffice it to say, the similarity to our modern situation of poetically illiterate theologians setting the agendas for valiantly failed doctrinal unity, shall I say, also has a _poetic connotation_. I think it safe to say that, at least on some level, unity requires poetry.

**Supplementary Articles**

In regards to specific topics, I will each section stand for itself. However, I have written extra articles outside of this work that may address some subjects close to these. More and more people are "hearing the Lord's leading in their prayer time" or having "prophetic experiences" (depending on your preference of denominational cliché.) Some could see this as an early fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29. To sort through expected questions surrounding God's voice, I wrote some basic rules. Because Elijah is a good role model in regards to these things, I called it the _Elijah Code_.

I have also written a more concise _Statement of Faith,_ for those interested.

Finally, given the recent shifting in regards to organized Christian ministry, and given the probability that these changes may only increase, I wrote _Twelve Standards of Christian Ministry_ to anchor many issues raised in both recent and anticipated discussions.

**Starting Basics**

It can be helpful to start by remembering what Martin Luther said five hundred years ago, that the ultimate theological question is not "What do I think about God?" but, "What does God think about me?"

The answer is: Pure, Radical Love, humanly demonstrated ultimately in Christ.

The cornerstone of all Christian theology is this statement: Salvation is by faith alone (Gen 15:6, Jn 3:18, Eph 2:8-9), in Christ alone (Acts 4:12, Jn 3:13-21, 14:6), as He is revealed in Scripture alone (2 Tm 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Rev 22:18-19); the summary of all Biblical teaching is to Love God with every part of your being, and love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34, Lk 10:25-28); and the purpose of God's commands is that we have success (Josh 1:8, Jer 29:11, Jn 10:10, 15:8) because He loves us (1 Jn 4:10, Jer 31:3, Jn 15:13 cf 10:11, Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21).

**Core Purpose and Starting Premises**

The intent of this study is to make the best sense of the Scriptures as we can on a few key topics. Many things that the Lord has planned for us won't be explained until their proper time. So, Scriptural study in the meanwhile is an attempt to understand what God _has_ already revealed. _He_ sets the agenda for what we can and cannot know at any given time. We are not necessarily able to fully answer a given question simply because of our desire to have an opinion. At such times, the most educated opinion may be, simply put, "I don't know." Though even this requires Scriptural diligence; and that is our purpose here.

We must also remember that more important than our terminology is our understanding of what we mean by it. The Apostle Paul strongly objects to people who have disputes merely about words (1 Tm 6:4, 2 Tm 2:14). (Interestingly enough, these passages were meant to instruct Timothy on how to run a church. Especially in the 2 Tm passage, we see that disputes over words have no place in the Body of Christ.) If we become more concerned about our words than what we mean by them, we have become divided over doctrine that is merely superficial, and in doing so, a lesser issue of vocabulary eclipses the greater issue of unity. This would ultimately quench the work of the Holy Spirit because His temples are divided against one another over matters that do not relate to Christian fellowship and, arguably, don't even relate to what they actually believe, but only how they express beliefs which could very well be in agreement.

Some matters, however, are matters of Christian fellowship, and must be considered thoroughly and carefully. Disunity is unavoidable when a person conclusively determines to disagree with a clearly Biblical teaching. When this happens, Christians can continue to have a deep fellowship with the person, but the fellowship cannot be Christian in its fullest sense because unity must be based in truth and love together as one. Disagreements on matters of Christian fellowship are opportunities for learning and growth, if a fellowship of sorts is maintained. Only when Christians agree on which matters are matters of Christian fellowship, and to what degree, will the necessary unity exist in the Body of Christ that can transform darkness into light. Important attention to such issues must be rooted in a unified desire to achieve the power of God in the earth. Thus, this view of Christian fellowship itself is the first matter of Christian fellowship.

_A brief note on transliteration of Greek words:_ There is a discrepancy in the pronunciation of the English vowels "a" and "o" when they are used to spell Greek words (transliteration of Greek to English). In this, I use a combination of two vowels to create a new vowel sound. I use "ae" to stand-in for an eta (H) making the long ā sound, and "oe" to stand-in for an omega (w) making the long ō sound. Other "a's" and "o's" are short, so is the "e" sound as always (ă, ŏ, ĕ). This is a departure from usual transliteration, but provides more clarity for pronunciation to the English reader. As we know, there is no "proper" way to spell a Greek word in English; all transliterations of Greek words are a kind of misspelling because the Greek words are only properly spelled with Greek letters—at least my Greek professor thought so. I would rather spell them all in Greek; I only use English letters to appeal to the English reader, who will better understand the foreign pronunciation with combination stand-ins, just as I will more accurately know what Greek words I was referring to years after I burry this study and then rediscover it.

**The Terms 'Christian' and 'Christianity'**

Christians were first called "Christians" in Acts 11:26 at Antioch when Paul began teaching them in large numbers. It was becoming a "thing" and every "thing" needs a name. King Agrippa used the term "Christian" in Acts 26:28 in the context of being "persuaded" to become a Christian, meaning that the term was recognized by both non-Christians and the government. Prior to that, they were called "followers of or belonging to the Way" (Acts 9:2) because Jesus said he was the "Way" (Jn 14:6). In many places today, they are also called "Believers" because they "believe" in Jesus (Jn 3:16; 20:31). All three of these terms center on being identified with Jesus Christ. Essentially, "Christian" means believing in the "Christ", specifically that the Christ already came. We will look at this fundamental aspect of world religions' belief in whether the Christ has come in the section "Eschatology > Christ and Antichrist".

While the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" carry connotations of a culture and religious institutional structure, we must recognize the difference between "connotation" and "definition". Once we confuse connotation with definition, it becomes very difficult to understand our own ideas, not even mentioning how difficult it is to discuss our ideas with others. Christian culture should be called "Christian culture", Christian institutions should be called "Christian institutions", et cetera. "Christ" means "Messiah" or "Savior of the Word", so, "Messianites" or "Saviorites" might also work, but do not have a basis in history. Christian Jews, however, are called "Messianic Jews". The term "Christian" means "one who believes the Christ already came", and "Christianity" means "the belief that the Christ already came," not specifying, but presuming, who the "Christ" is since the only notorious candidate for being the Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. (A Christ who needs to be specified where his name is known could not be the actual Christ.) This is what the terms mean, both etymologically and in their historical origin, and is how I choose to use them.

**Note on Scripture Reference Style**

In normal, non-parenthetical sentence structure, books of the Bible are spelled fully and separations between verses and chapters use normal serial comma separation. Within parentheses, most books having names longer than six letters are abbreviated for easy recognition. Each book is abbreviated consistently throughout this study. Familiar, recognizable, and frequent names—Isaiah, Gospel authors, and Timothy—are abbreviated with two letters (Is, Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Tm). Other abbreviations follow searchable standards, usually the first three letters, or four in Deuteronomy, Chronicles, Kings, and Thessalonians (it just seems best to me, probably because the diphthongs and combination consonants seem to me as a single letter.)

Other abbreviations for denoting verses are not punctuated, this is to avoid the confusion of excess punctuation: "chapter" ch, "chapters" chs, "verse" v, "verses" vv, "verses following" ff, "cross-reference" cf. These are capitalized when beginning a sentence and are joined to numbers for simple specificity, except "cf", which falls between numerical references. In parenthetical lists of verses where there is more than one chapter of the same book, chapters are separated with a semicolon; verses, within a chapter, and books are separated with commas. This is an abbreviated version of John 3:6, John 3:16, John 10:10, Colossians 2:20, and 2 Timothy 2:15 (Jn 3:6, 16; 10:10, Col 2:20, 2 Tm 2:15). In a non-parenthetical text, John 3:6, John 3:16, and John 10:10 would be written: John 3:6, 3:16, and 10:10.

For the record, ever since I studied at Moody, I pronounce "Isaiah" as, "eye-zigh-uh," Elijah as having a "yogh" rather than a hard "j", and with books beginning with numbers I speak the number, not an ordinal. So, I pronounce the name of 2 Timothy as "Two Timothy". Also, the Book of Psalms is technically not a book, it is a collection with each psalm having a "number" that looks like a chapter, but it does not have chapters. So Psalm (number) 123 is the 123rd Psalm (both forms acceptable,) not "Psalms (chapter) 123". "A proverb" is a single saying, usually one or two verses, not an entire chapter of the Book of Proverbs. The only matters of preference are "Two Corinthians", because I prefer this old school, and Isaiah, because of how "ai" is pronounced "eye", "I", or "-igh" in English or Romanized forms; the conventional pronunciation of "a" or "-eigh", in my opinion, would need to be spelled "Isayah" since "i" does not make a "y" (IPA [j]) sound by Romance phonetic rules. Moreover, my own Hebrew name, Jesse, is pronounced "Yishay" in Hebrew with the same "a" or "-eigh" sound at the end, but follows English-Romance rules as "Je see"; Isaiah should also, in my opinion of phonetics. Elijah, however, is a matter of correct phonetics and Psalms and Proverbs are matters of correct genre types.

**Note on Non-Cited Generic References**

At some points, I may say, "It is often said," or refer to anecdotal ideas without citing published references. These are statements that we can often find said in social settings and, if someone is unfamiliar with them, then a web search engine should suffice to provide examples of the topic. These are not quotes of fact nor do they claim to be published or reviewed ideas. While I admit this is an arguable shortcoming, I did not intend for this study to only examine cited, published statements as would be necessary for publishing in an academic journal. Finding sources that prove what pop culture says would be time consuming and my purpose in this study is to respond to ideas that are either widely known or can be known with a web search engine. I say this because I hope to draw attention to the main scope of this study, which is to offer its own ideas.
Bibliology – The Bible

To understand the Bible, we must first understand its preamble, which would be Joshua 1:8 if there ever was one. This is where God gives an introduction to Joshua on how to handle and use the first five books of the Bible—what of it existed at the time, anyhow. This passage is one of the very premises on which to understand the rest of Scripture. In it, God gives a four-part instruction: meditate on Scripture, _then_ you will do it, _then_ you will prosper, _then_ you will have success.

Obeying God leads to prosperity—and this makes sense; it is not an esoteric contradiction to sound reason. While God's ways contradict the textbook methodology of the know-it-all, self-declared, so-called "experts" (Is 55:8-9 cf 1 Cor 1:18-31), His ways "just make sense" to people who have experience walking with Him. God's rules are the uncommon common-sense. We see this theme of Joshua 1:8 continue throughout Scripture, that God's commands are not arbitrary, but useful and practical (cf Ps 119:32, Ezk 20:11-13, 2 Tm 3:16-17).

But, prosperity is not an end to itself. Success (or 'victory' over evil,) not _mere prosperity_ , is the last result of God's guidance. That success, for the Church, is defined in Matthew 28:16-20 when Jesus gives the Great Commission. We also understand that the key to obeying God's commands is not mere effort, but preceding meditation on those commands. Obedience is easier when we understand what and why we are obeying. It is with this in mind that we examine what exactly the Scriptures are.

**Textual Criticism and the Nature of the Bible's Authority**

Before continuing, a few words on "lower" and "higher" textual criticism are in order. Conservative theology reveres the historical accuracy of Scripture and, therefore, terms like "lower" criticism seem almost an insult, in terms of "lower" and "higher" paths. But, the terms "higher" and "lower", in terms of textual criticism are more architectural than ethical. "Lower" criticism means to criticize the text at a foundational and basic level, rather than at "higher" levels of a metaphoric work of architecture. Lower criticism looks at our textual manuscripts and examines which variants (none of which have serious theological consequence) were most likely original. Questions like this are often answered by respecting older copies, though some question as to a possible lost origin of more numerous newer copies comes up now and again. Albeit, ancient writers did not have the reverence for original autographs as we do today. Moreover, preserving such old writings would not have been possible and has even proven difficult for the original US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Higher criticism, however, opens up other questions of whether the Bible has relevance or how it may have been contrived, all based on the presumption that 2 Peter 1:21 should not be taken in the post literal sense. Such criticism often references hypothetical and non-empirically founded sources referred to as "Q", are usually circular and self-justifying, do not agree with the literal meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and, in my opinion, seek only to filibuster the more important matters of Joshua 1:8 with the appearance of academia, yet with sources so undocumented that the same research practices could never be used to publish research in a credible scientific journal. However, it is beyond the scope of this study to examine the credibility (or lack thereof) concerning higher textual criticism.

In my own translation work, when I would come across discrepancies in the text, I developed some of my own preferences and habits. I refer the reader to my Revelation _Translation Notes_ where lower criticism comes up. Generally, I take into account older texts, but also have an awareness of possible redundancies or "phantom voices" the scribe may have had while fatigued. I have developed an opinion on how a certain word might become a phantom because it may seem more regular, rather than what was written. Usually, the older text is consistent with this model. Most importantly, I have seen in my own translation work that simple familiarity with the original language is one of the best ways for lower criticism to seem like less of a maze. For students who know the original language (at this time I only know Greek, not Hebrew,) studying the Bible daily with quality also means studying it daily in the original language, at least a little.

As one example of lower criticism, take the long and short endings of Mark. At some point in the future, I may publish my notes on this topic, verse by verse, in a separate study. Here, I will only say that I prefer the longer ending because, as I have found, almost every element of the long ending touches on themes and concepts throughout all of Mark up to that point. It fits seamlessly in flow and recap. Summaries appear more than once in Scripture, such as in Genesis 2 (vv4-8) and John 2 (vv13-22). In John, the account where Jesus cleanses the temple is not a "separate temple cleansing" as some teach "Jesus cleansed the temple twice", but I take as the same temple cleansing told in John's ad hoc historical order. I take John 2:13-24 cf 3:24 clarifying that John the Baptist had not yet been in prison because he knows he is jumping around in history and the reader needs this clarification to follow his thought train. Moreover, 20:30-31 seems to be an early ending and ch21 a kind of "epilogue". The ad hoc historical order of John makes sense since it was written with a different purpose than the Synoptic Gospels—Mathew, Mark, and Luke. John's Gospel was more of an afterthought reflection on what information the New Testament community already had about Jesus's life, which explains part of why it is so unique. Reading the longer ending of Mark has the same kind of flow as in Genesis 2:4-8 and John 2:13-3:24 & 20:30-21:25. The only part of the long ending of Mark that does not fully reflect on the rest of Mark is 16:17-18, which is consistent with the events and miracles of Acts, though Jesus did heal the sick in Mark. Mark would gladly include some of the signs and miracles of Acts since Acts was written just two years earlier by the dear doctor, Luke. Even Mark's Great Commission account (16:15-18) recaptures the concepts and topics of Mark and agrees with Matthew 28:18-20 in the "voice of Jesus v words of Jesus" hermeneutic. In this, I consider Scripture's own consistency with itself as an argument concerning questions of lower criticism. The short ending seems to me as if it was tagged on after the longer ending was lost in an early copy and someone in the New Testament community added it in what small space remained on the parchment or scroll, also keeping it brief in order to capture the main points of the longer ending that was lost, without running the risk of creating "alternative facts".

The entire section "Proseucheology Expanded: Prayer & Deliverance > Prayer and Fasting" is dedicated to textual criticism.

In terms of the Bible's historical credibility, to review the overwhelming sources proving that the Bible was written as it claims to have been, I defer the reader to more qualified men than I, to begin with Lee Stobel, Ravi Zacharias, Josh McDowell, and Albert Mohler. (For science and the Bible, begin with the _Evolution Handbook._ ) The proof is there, if you want to see what it really is.

But, many people do not accept scientific, historic, and archeological evidence. When we read and obey the Bible, our lives change as a matter of course. And, when our lives change from reading the Bible, this compels anyone who wants to live a happier life to take the Bible seriously, read it, and live by it. When people don't want those changes in their lives, they attack the Bible's less important evidence—its academic credentials—because the stronger evidence, which cannot be disputed, is not in the surmounting academic evidence, but in the results of taking the Bible 100% seriously and living by it whole-heartedly. This is the obvious motive of any "higher criticism" that disputes the Bible's evidential authority from God.

This more important matter of textual criticism is neither who "seemed" to have written what (higher criticism) or which insubstantially consequential differences were originally written (lower criticism), but what happens when the Bible is written on our hearts. In comparing these three pillars of understanding the Bible—Joshua 1:8, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21—Scripture claims that it will prove to be what it claims to be once it is written on our hearts. Once we do what Scripture teaches we will do once Scripture is written on our hearts, that is when we see the strongest evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be.

The evidential results of the Bible work two ways, both in to the Bible's credibility (Mt 7:24-27). Those who take it seriously see positive results and will naturally defend it. Those who attack the Bible's credibility lack the evidence of a Bible-led life—fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) and long-lasting victory rather than fleeting, ill-gotten gains (Ps 1:6)—and thus also prove that the Bible has authority by their demonstration of the expected failed life lived apart from the Bible. The Bible wins every time because it is what it claims to be: The Word of God, never void, and unfailing in every season (Is 40:8).

In summary, here's how the Bible works: _Meditate on it, then you will do it, then you will prosper, then you will have victory over evil, because it was not written by mere man, but was inspired by God to be useful all around._ The real question is, as a Bible student: Does your life prove the Bible is true? To the extent that your life reflects the life-results demonstrated throughout the Bible as introduced throughout Joshua and John, so is the extent of your authority to teach from and about the Bible.

**Bibliology Proper**

The Word of God has been our constant connection to the Godhead. Through God's Word, the world was made (Gen 1, Jn 1:1-3), is sustained and known (Ps 139:1-16, Is 40:8, 25-31), He communicates with us and reveals Himself and His love for us (Is 45:19, Jer 31:3), and we walk with Him and speak back to Him (Ps 119:32; 150, 1 Tm 2:5). This Word of God has revealed Himself in creation (Jn 1:14, Rom 1:20), the Holy Scriptures (2 Tm 3:16), and the historical Man Christ Jesus was the Word of God in human flesh (Jn 1:14) which increased Man's opportunity and obligation to be reconciled to God (Acts 17:30-31). The Bible in its original autograph was the Impeccable Word of God, flawless, perfectly self-cohesive. It contains the necessary truths needed for anyone to understand the God from whom it proceeds and the status of our standing with Him (2 Tm 3:16, 17), and in this sense is complete concerning what it was intended for. It was recorded through men of God by an act of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). In this process, the Scriptures became exactly what the Holy Spirit intended, while still taking on the personality and sayings of the human author, whom God had also breathed life into (Gen 2:7). Adding to the Bible's perfect content is prohibited (Rev 22:18). Scripture is the powerful tool of the Holy Spirit, likened to a sword in this sense (Eph 6:17). For spiritual purposes, it is sharper than any sword, is active, living, thus useful for all points of history, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb 4:12). God's Word, then, is a grace (Ps 119:35, 97), that we may receive guidance (Ps 119:105) toward the abundant life that Christ (the Word made flesh) spoke of (Deut 30:8-9, Josh 1:8, Jn 10:10). In the early times of the Church, councils gathered to compile early works of literature; these councils did not use their own authority to validate the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, rather, they were recognizing that God alone had validated it as such and by His own authority.

The belief that the Bible is inerrant is not a conclusion which can be reached by using the scientific method alone, rather, it must be accepted by a combination of empirical evidence and faith. The constitution of this faith is not in the fact that the Bible says of itself that it is the perfect Word of God, rather, this internal statement makes the Bible further cohesive with itself. One begins his faith in the Bible's perfection not in what the Bible says about itself, since this would be self-dependant circular reasoning, but rather that the Bible approaches an individual and issues direction concerning his life. Once given, the recipient of this direction can choose to obey it or not. Obedience results in life in its fullness, disobedience results in a progression towards death starting with suffering. So, both the follower and deviant of Biblical preaching and teaching prove that the Bible is what it claims to be. In truth, everyone has seen both results at one time or another, even deviants who follow small principles, even if only incidentally.

Such clarity in the Bible's commands and their dramatic results eventually prove to the individual that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority over the living and the dying. One comes to accept the Bible's statements concerning its own authority when upon realizing the ramifications of obedience and of disobedience. The Bible's claims of itself are self-evident in their validity. Jesus Himself uses this concept of self-evidence as the basis for conclusions of who He was (Lk 7:20-23). When the teachings of God work in our lives, they do not prove that we are Christians, they prove that it is _God_ who is at work in us. Validating and glorifying God is the purpose of our godly lives lived, not to merely prove our own salvation or spiritual attainment—which would be an abuse of such evidence. In this, fruit of God in our lives is validating in nature, but the attention is drawn to Him. Thus is the nature of how we conclude that the Bible is what it claims to be: because it does what it claims to do.

The Bible is the manual on "us" and that it comes from the very one who made "us". But unlike instructions for a toaster, the Bible is about a God who loves a people who love and need love. It is from the author of love and humanity, to humanity, thus it is likewise both beautiful and powerful in all things, big and small.

There are many good books with good ideas on the nature of people and "how we work"; many of these books express ideas that we do not find in the Bible, though they may still agree with principles derivable from the Bible. Scripture is unique because every part of it can be applied to every part of every person's life that cannot be discovered otherwise. There is nothing else like this in all creation. If an idea cannot be applied to every part of every person's life, then it will have to be discovered outside of the Bible. Every part of Scripture applies to every instance of every person's life (2 Tm 3:16, 17), whether we are aware of the applicability or not. The Bible is the only book that is perfect because it is the only book that needs to be.

The purpose of the Bible is to provide guidance and knowledge of God which, if accepted by its readers, will always result in security, spiritual life, assurance, faith, and salvation from former disobedience (Ps 119, Jn 12:50). This doctrine, that authority for such teaching comes from Scripture alone, is part of what distinguishes Protestants from Roman Catholics. More of this will be discussed in the section on Ecclesiology.

**History and Sections of the Bible**

The first five books are sometimes called "Moses" because he scribed them, though much of Genesis was passed to him through oral history. This we know from Church Tradition, known history in the Church that does not need to be documented. Looking at the genealogies of Genesis 5, and that Abraham lived around 2200 BC, we see that Genesis itself covers a span of about 3,000 years. According to the genealogies alone, the flood didn't happen until about 1,600 years after Creation. This was passed to Moses, largely through oral history, and he wrote it all down and gave it to Joshua, along with Exodus through Deuteronomy.

Because much of the first five books contain laws, they are often called "the Law". Though Genesis is more about history and genealogy, Moses gave it to Joshua with the four books of law and God referred to everything Moses wrote and gave Joshua as "this book of the law", possibly rephrased and amplified "this collection of writings, the law being most famously known among them" (Josh 1:8). The Ten Commandments are in Exodus 20. Exodus also contains blueprints for the tabernacle. Leviticus has laws about sacrifices, which Jesus completed. Numbers is mainly about Israel's journey in the desert, from which we can derive statutory law or "precedents", and also contains a few laws of its own. Deuteronomy, literally "Second Law", contains civil law, as a kind of "constitution" for Israel, both as a theocracy and to govern the era of kings, beginning with Saul.

The temple's instructions were given by God to David, who gave them, along with materials and instructions for a staff of full-time worshipers, to Solomon to build (2 Sam 7:1-29, 1 Chron 28:19; 28:1-29:9). The actual temple's plans were not part of the Mosaic Law, only the tabernacle and its practices were.

After the five books of Law, we have twelve books of "history", then five books of "poetry", then seventeen (again five and twelve) books of prophecy, the "major" (5) and "minor" (12) prophets. In the New Testament, the Old Testament was referred to as "Moses and the Prophets" or "the Law and the Prophets", which included the history books between them.

Though this study addresses Enoch later, he deserves mention at this point because the writers of the New Testament studied him, he influenced their Angelology and Eschatology, and Jude quotes him by name (vv14-15). The Book of Enoch was part of, shall we say, "required reading" for New Testament Jews, even though they were controversial. Justin Martyr refutes some discussion in the early Church that rejected the idea that that demons are fallen angels7.

" _The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God." – Trypho_

The Church today is not in full agreement about what to do with Enoch. Much more can be said by men more much, much knowledgeable than I. In this study, I only say that, while I agree that Enoch should not be in the canon, I disagree that demons are not fallen angels. I keep Enoch out of the canon because the Book of Enoch specifically says of itself that it is intended for the last generation at the End of the Age—which is hardly material for "all-time canon".

The New Testament is made of four Gospels, written over several decades after Jesus ascended. Luke wrote both Luke and Acts, as a kind of "investigative journalist". So, they are similar in style and use of words. The four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—tell Jesus's life on Earth. Acts is the only book that tells about what happened after Jesus ascended. John was written latest of the Gospels as a kind of supplement to what was already in circulation. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called "synoptic" Gospels because they give an overview of Jesus's life, while John supplements with more theological points, often jumps around in chronology, emphasizes that Jesus is the Son of God who is the Christ, and teaches that we can only have Eternal Life on the basis of believing this truth about Jesus. John keeps these themes specific to his Gospel (making it 90% unique compared to the other three Gospels) and these are not themes in his other four writings. The rest of the New Testament contains letters of teaching and correspondence. Revelation contained a vision John had on the prison islet of Patmos and that vision closed the canon around AD 95.

The New Testament was not released all at once as a kind of "textbook from a publisher". It is real, genuine, and has a true history behind it. So, it was collected slowly, over time, as Christians in the second and third centuries began to realize that the documents they passed around had a deep value—Isaiah 40:8 & 55:11 seemed to apply to the Apostle's writings about Jesus! Every book in the New Testament was written as a kind of letter when questions about who Jesus was stirred interest. So arose what we might consider to be a "popular demand" to have writings to promulgate and help spread the information. This is why the writings of the New Testament were collected slowly, and more slowly recognized as canon, in increments of both collections of books and pockets of the Church.

This collecting and canonizing finished mostly by the third century, but up to about the fifth century. It took that long for these writings to prove to the Early Church that they were, in fact, God's Word! To them, God's Word proved itself. The Church didn't decide it or invent it; they observed, for our benefit, what they had seen that it evidently was. Today, we don't believe the Bible is God's Word because of any dogma toward what the Early Church claimed, but after we read those books as they did and, thus, see that those books have the same power that they also saw.

There are multiple "canon" records and councils involving the decision of the sixty-six books of the New (27) and Old (39) Testaments; it is a field of study all to itself. These decisions, over time, reflected which books had a strong basis with clear and evident authority of God's power in the lives of people who studied them as the written Word of God. The entire New Testament was written before the year 100 and was seen as having God's authority by the year 400.

_There is some disagreement about the order in which the New Testament was written. Most larger disagreements are between Christians who believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and non-Christians who believe the Bible was made-up and use "higher criticism". Of course, reflecting their ethics on disclosure, the "higher critics" rarely identify themselves for what they are in their opinions about the Bible. When looking for an authority on the Bible and its origin, look for credible sources with a background in Bible work or renowned Bible publishers and translators. For more details to start, see the URL to article 9485 at christianity.stackexchange.com_ 5 _or the Holman Handbook of the Bible._

**The Two Great Commandments**

In Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus is asked by someone from a small mob of Pharisees and Sadducees which commandment is the greatest commandment in the Law. This was somewhat of an insult and a way for these self-important "experts" to stare down their noses at Jesus. Jesus's answer explains how to view the Bible seriously and academically, but without the arrogance of "knowledge that puffs up" (1 Cor 8:1).

Jesus says (v37), basically, to love God with the entirety of one's being—to _love Him with every part of ourselves_. Then (v38), he clarifies in a way that corrects the incorrect question, "what is the [single] greatest (superlative) command?", by saying that this is the "first" and "the great (not superlative)" command. Then (v39), he introduces the second, which is "like it", to _"love thy neighbor as thyself"_. And, like the Good Teacher he is, he closes by saying that these Two Great Commandments summarize the Law and the Prophets (v40).

The first commandment is not greater or more important than the second. The Pharisees' and Sadducees' question was wrong—there is not one, single "greatest" commandment of Scripture, there are two "greatest" commandments of Scripture. Like the Three of the Triune God, these Two Great Commandments come in sequence, one flowing out of the other, but they are equally important.

From our love for God first, greatest, foremost, and from every part of our being, we are able to love our fellow Man, neither more or less, but equally to how we love ourselves. If we do not love our fellow Man, then we must first grow in our love for God. John explains this very clearly in 1 John 4:7-8, which is an important cross-reference to Matthew 22:37-40. Peter also wrote about love, to love with all of our hearts, to love each other, and that love covers many things (1 Pet 1:22; 2:17; 4:8). This concept of love is paramount, as Paul explains in the "Love Chapter" of 1 Corinthians 13. Jesus taught about love, and Matthew, James, Paul, and Peter all wrote in agreement about love. Through love, we understand everything that Scripture teaches us, including all other Commandments of the Law.

The First and Great Command to _love God_ , notwithstanding the Second which is like it, deserves a topical section in a bookstore all to itself. Entire collections of books could and should be written on only this one subject of _loving God first and Man second_. Many already have been. According to Jesus, the most famous collection of books on the topic of love is known today as the _Old Testament_.

**The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)**

Enoch was a scribe and therefore probably wrote the Book of Enoch himself; this is based on the ancient texts alone (1 Ench 12:4; 83:2). His writings may have been given to Moses, as part of a collection of heirlooms and important memorabilia for posterity that would normally be passed on from generation to generation. Of course, this "passing on" would not usually be mentioned in the ancient texts because it would have been expected, common practice at the time. Joshua 1, however, does assume the tradition of passing on writings, as we learn many things from Scripture through its assumptions.

Being a scribe was a special thing, since writing was not a common skill, even through the New Testament. Paul didn't even scribe his own letters (Gal 6:11). Reading and writing were not a common skill among Mankind until the American Pilgrims taught their children at home in the mid 1600s in the New World, specifically so they could study the Bible—the reason they went to the New World in the first place. Humans had to sail and settle across the Atlantic in hunger of God's Word before we all learned to read and write. So, it makes sense that much of Genesis was oral history. With Genesis believed to have been finally inked by Moses, Enoch having written the Book of Enoch one-to-two thousand years beforehand is quite significant. The rare work of a scribe and Enoch being a scribe explains how this is both possible and unusual. Enoch could have also scribed Noah's experience, if Noah did not write it himself after Enoch, his grandfather, may have taught him to write—but we don't know, nor do we need to know, as long as we have these explanations, which we do either way, for the writings being authentic. This is based purely on the text itself, so I won't say more about the origins of how the Book of Enoch was written here. That is a further study. What we know, though, is that the Book of Enoch is both unusual and credible in its origin, and it is more ancient than everything past Genesis 6.

Though the Book of Enoch is apocryphal, I won't comment on apocryphal literature nor pseudoepigrapha, except to say that pseudoepigrapha is pseudoepigrapha and therefore not interesting when doing a study on inspired canon. 1 Enoch ( _the Book of Enoch_ ) is not pseudoepigrapha, 2, 3, and 4 Enoch are. So, I will only comment on 1 Enoch. While the sixty-six books of the New and Old Testaments are for all time and all people (2 Tim 3:16-17), 1 Enoch specifically says of itself that it is not for all generations, but for the generation during the Lord's return (1 Ench 1:2-3).

1 Enoch's validity has been debated and supported much more thoroughly than is appropriate to rehash here. Suffice it to say that Jude quotes 1 Enoch as Scripture itself (Jude 14-15) and the Eschatology of New Testament authors was shaped by 1 Enoch. It is also interesting that many details held by the Church concerning Angelology has little basis in the sixty-six books, take for instance the angelic rebellion without considering Revelation or even the absolute lack of any appearance of the name "Lucifer" anywhere in the Bible. In evaluating too many details about the angels, one must either speculate, rely on tradition (making the theology no longer Biblical in basis), or look to 1 Enoch. Since I do not regard 1 Enoch as a part of Scripture, I develop no Angelology this study based on Enoch, but limit it to as much as can be said of angels based on the sixty-six books.

As for 1 Enoch itself, I believe that it is truthful and real, placing it in the categories of "historical fact" and "Particular Revelation" (see 'Pneumatology > Modern Prophecy: Particular Revelation'), thereby treating it like modern prophecy that was written long ago and left in a time capsule along with six thousand year old newspapers. Nothing it claims contradicts any truth laid out in Scripture. It and the trusted books surrounding it contain a good explanation for how it got here. Albeit I would respond that any argument that it does belong in the canon involves a misunderstanding of either the sixty-six books, 1 Enoch, or both.

For me, I regard it as the oldest piece of historical, factual archeological evidence that we have with which to provide a context to the events in Scripture. For example, in my own study of 1 Enoch, what stood out to me most was his working definition of "the righteous"—not sinless people, but people who do their utmost to use single standards, not double standards. That framework has implications while reading the Old Testament, and Jesus's own teaching about the "righteous" and "unrighteous". Of course, there are many other implications from the background 1 Enoch lends us, too many, in fact, to discuss here.

**Time of Job, Enoch, and Biblical Theology of 'the Righteous'**

There is some discussion about the exact time of Job's life, placing him either within the Patriarchal Era (up through Jacob) or very soon after it. As with some matters of lower criticism, my opinion here is mostly based on Biblical Theology.

I prefer to place Job as soon possible after the Tower of Babel because of the placement of Biblical-systemic progressive development of four themes: 1. the working definition of a "righteous man", 2. the use of "ha satan" as a noun with an article rather than as a proper noun as in the New Testament, 3. The "epic-scale" interactions between the Lord God and "sons of god", and 4. the clear revelation of God as _Most High_ , comparable to Isaiah in grandeur, but only practical in mercy in Job while both mercy and salvation are taught didactically in Isaiah.

These are my Biblical arguments for placing Job earlier in history. If a strong argument can be made that brings clarity beyond these Biblical-theological considerations, then that argument's credibility would exist inasmuch as it also satisfies curiosity of these four themes. While I prefer these themes, I consider the exact placement of Job within the post-flood Patriarchal Era to be tertiary where Christian fellowship is concerned. I address each of these four in sequence below.

_A 'Righteous' Man_

1 Enoch 12:5 and 15:1 address Enoch as a "scribe of righteousness", much how Job is introduced in Job 1:1. The term "righteous/unrighteous" as a description of people is seen many times in the early part of 1 Enoch (AKA 'Book of the Watchers') (1:1, 6; 6:7; 7:15; 9:12; 10:21, 22; 13:11; 14:1). This working definition of "a righteous man" does not seem to be equal to "sinlessness" or "righteousness by atonement or faith", but in a manner of even standards and balanced scales. Enoch was a "righteous" scribe because he wrote words accurately, even for the fallen angels who asked him to appeal to the Lord God on their guilty behalves (chs 12-16).

This early history concept of equal standards and fairness—as if the concept needed to be restated and reexplained because the Law had not yet been given—also appears in the conversation between God and "the satan" (1:8-12; 2:3-6), consider "skin for skin" (2:4), and Job speaks from a value system of balanced scales of justice in his own responses—"naked I come and naked I go", explains to his wife the concept of accepting the joy with the pain, and sacrifices for his friends without feeling the need to explain why (1:21-22; 2:10; 42:1-6, 9). In the end, Job is still righteous because he judges against himself after seeing God and his judgment is: God lives and God wins; I saw God and lived. David did something similar, but in much greater and more particular detail among human affairs (2 Sam 11-12); Job ruled against himself in the context of arguments between angels and tornadoes—Job is _basic_.

The concept of "righteous" is treated very similarly in both 1 Enoch and in Job. Referring to a man as "righteous" in these two books seems to occupy the place of importance equal to citizenship, genealogy, or ethnicity in the books after Genesis, even as early as the time of Abraham in Genesis 12. Even Abraham's appeal on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33) seems more sophisticated and full of presupposition about justice than the elemental "balanced" justice of Job and Enoch. All of these indicate that Job had an early understanding of justice because Job lived early on.

It also seems that Abraham already knows what "righteous" men are since he tries to count them in the cities, as if he presupposes familiarity with the Book of [Righteous] Job. Since the Law hadn't been given through Moses, the Book of Job is the only candidate to supply both the definition and the weight of importance concerning these imaginary "righteous" people Abraham is interceding for. This would mean that by the time of Genesis 12, the Book of Job was the _Law_ Abraham knew.

This also explains why we can already suppose in Genesis 15 what "righteousness" is that God counted faith as a kind of that righteousness—unlike Abraham, Job only _did_ rightly and _judged_ rightly since _doing rightly in faith_ had not been revealed until Abraham (Gen 15:6).

This explains why Abraham would know of God what he did and why he uses "righteous men" as his bargaining chip for intercession in defense of wicked cities. Basically, in Genesis 18, Abraham says, "Lord, but what if there is a Job in the city?" and God patiently allows Abraham to arrive at the conclusion, "Not a chance."

Where Righteous Job argues with God and brings a storm that rebukes him, Father Abraham argues with God and can't stop a storm from burning two unrighteous cities.

If the events of Job did not happen before Abraham, then the conversation of Genesis 18 doesn't make half as much sense and Abraham's "righteousness by faith" of Genesis 15:16 is not nearly as splendid. If Job lived after Abraham, then Abraham learned about "righteousness" from another man much like Job that Scripture doesn't mention—which is unlikely—and Job would not have been as righteous as Abraham because he would be the only righteous man after Abraham with "righteousness in deed" not mentioning "righteousness by faith". Abraham is rightly the father of Israel because he was the first man righteous like Job _due to his righteousness by faith_.

' _The satan'_

I am not qualified to elaborate on the use of "satan" in the Book of Job, with or without the definite article, because I do not know Hebrew at the time of writing this. I do know, however, that the word "Satan" is capitalized as a proper noun in Greek in Matthew 16:23 and Romans 16:20; Matthew 4:1-11 has "the devil". While I do not know Hebrew, I do not agree with "Satan" being a proper noun in English translations of the Book of Job; it should be "satan" "a satan" or "the satan". Use of the article—with or without—only matters if the noun is not a name; "satan" is not a name in Job. This dates Job earlier in theological-developmental progressive-revelation in the Scripture, where "satan" is more or less a fallen angel's occupation and not yet a name.

_Epic-Scale Events_

The very presence of "satan" or "a satan" or "the satan [of satans]" or "the satan [aforementioned]" in this manner—and the "sons of god" (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7)—is a kind of interaction similar to 1 Enoch 12-16 (fallen angels) and thereafter (holy angels). These accounts of angelic conversation, as well as having a conversation with a tornado (Job 38:1), are similar to epic events of the Patriarchal Era—giants (Gen 6:4) and a talking snake (Gen 3). Angels sup with Abraham and smite Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:1-19:29). The last such angelic-epic event happened when Jacob wrestled with God who came in the appearance of a normal man (Gen 32:22-32).

By Jacob's time, the excitement of it all was already winding down, more or less—wrestling with God speaks more to the epic nature of Jacob himself, if not serving as a message in Scripture of how near God wants to be to us. Job, "the satan", and the talking tornado seem to fit better before Abraham, not after Jacob.

The epic-scale events of Exodus involve miracles performed by Moses, not interactions with angels. The Exodus pillar of fire did not talk Moses as the tornado talked with Job; the smaller burning bush did. Moses conversed with God as a "friend" (Ex 33:11) and after the exodus from Egypt, God began limiting His more brilliant manifestations to the Ark and Tabernacle. The angel of the Lord who spoke to Joshua (Josh 5:13-6:27) neither supped with him nor smote Jericho while Joshua retreated.

Epic events of the style in Job seem as such as would happen as close to Noah's time as possible, after the flood and after people had spread out.

_Most High and Mighty to Save_

Reference to God as "Most High" appears in 1 Enoch 9:3; 10:1. This is how God comes across in Job 38-41, speaking from a tornado, asking questions about the storehouses of snow (38:22) and how to send forth lightning (38:25). In Job 42, Job sees God personally and God is merciful, but God's salvation is not directly explained in connection with His power as in Isaiah 40-41. Likewise, in 1 Enoch 9-10, the appeal to the "Most High" is made by the people who want deliverance from evil on the earth, then the "Most High" grants their request with a global flood and deliverance for humanity via deliverance for Noah. In 1 Enoch, as in Job, God is clearly known as _God Most High_ and is _mighty to save_ , but the connection between His power and merciful salvation is demonstrated, not taught. Only later, in the Psalms and after, is God directly explained as being "mighty to save".

Even the salvation for Lot in Genesis 14 and 19, God's salvation for Ishmael (Gen 21), Isaac (Gen 22), and salvation for Israel through salvation for Joseph (Gen 37ff) seem more crystallized than the basic, elemental relationship between power and salvific mercy demonstrated in 1 Enoch 9-10 and throughout Job.

With Enoch and Job, God's actions say, "I'm big... I have mercy," while with Abraham down through Joseph and the rest of the Bible, God's actions say more and more clearly, "I'm saving you, I'm saving you, I'm saving you, I can save you, I'm saving you..." Isaiah 40 finally says it directly, more or less, "I stretch out the heavens, I can save you..." This suggests that Job's theological understanding of God is closer to the basic, foundational understanding in Enoch and Noah's day, even before Abraham and certainly before Jacob.

**Paul**

Paul's place in the Bible is worth special mention. He was not one of the twelve and he was not recorded as having seen Jesus during his earthly ministry. He authored nearly half of the New Testament, though his interaction with Jesus came last among New Testament authors, having only seen Jesus in a vision. He was also part of some controversy with Peter and "men sent from James" (Gal 2:11-12) over a disagreement that involved the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35); though Acts is silent on any conflict between Peter and Paul, Luke's record does not deny any conflict either, and Peter was a part of the discussion in 15:7, indicating that a controversy with Paul could have preceded or followed the Jerusalem Council because that is how committees behave. Also, there was the situation with Mark and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41) right after and in the same context as the Jerusalem Council, though Paul's and Barnabas's disagreement seemed to be more of an expressive-friendly personality disagreement with some "Mediterranean cultural zing" (1 Cor 9:6). Notwithstanding the fact that everyone involved in these controversies was a Jew and "Israel" means "wrestles with God", theses New Testament interpersonal conflicts do well to be interpreted with Jesus words on the Kingdom being one of "violence" (Mt 11:12) and the unity that follows is a model for the Church (1 Cor 1:10 cf 2 Cor 5:11-21, Eph 4:1-3). This controversy in the New Testament Church was eventually resolved between Paul v Mark & Barnabas (Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11) and Paul v Peter (Gal 2:7-8, 2 Pet 3:15) and does not indicate any division, disunity, or contradiction. He also taught that it is both good to not marry and to marry (1 Cor 7:1-2), but this was not his command, only concession and opinion as he says, "I, not the Lord," (1 Cor 7:6, 12, 25). He knew his teaching at that point was not infallible, yet later he says that he "thinks" he has, "the Spirit of God [agreeing with him]," but this was only an opinion (1 Cor 7:40). This conversation that Paul almost seems to have with himself as much as his audience in 1 Cor 7 demonstrates Paul's "personal culture" where infallibility was concerned. Sometimes he knows that what he says is direct from the Lord, other times, it is not, and the remainder of the time he leaves it to us to discern. Other New Testament authors did not create such discrepancy by being so selectively clear on personal ambiguities.

Paul says things that are not to be taken at face value, much more so than anywhere else in the New Testament. This does not, in any way, disqualify him as an author in the New Testament, but rather rounds-out New Testament content. Paul must be treated with a hermeneutical system differently from other New Testament authors, especially viz Jesus's teaching in the Gospels.

With these complications, Paul can neither be ignored nor treated simply. He is highly informed, highly intelligent (consider the multiple layers and parenthetical thought flow of his writing,) highly experienced (as a Pharisee, as a persecutor of Jesus, being both afflicted and healed by Jesus, healing others, logging vast travels in missions, witnessing to government officials in formal hearings on multiple occasion, and time spent under house arrest,) highly dominant in the early Church (his many letters to the churches,) highly chastened (his own persecution and thorn in the flesh,) and highly educated.

_Paul and Proverbs_

The best way to navigate these complexities in Pauline hermeneutics is to interpret Paul in a way similar to Proverbs. For example, Proverbs 26:4-5: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly... answer a fool according to his folly..." This is a classic example of what seems like a purported "contradiction" to a novice Bible student, but when understood from the hermeneutics of proverbial literature, it is perfectly consistent. Proverbs exist in a two-part plurality of application and alternation. Proverbs are not all-time, all-situation, literal rules for living; they are observations about generally wise ideas that can easily apply to many situations. This set of hermeneutics differentiates Proverbs from Leviticus, for example. And, insomuch as the "proverbial" hermeneutic distinguishes Proverbs from history books, the same proverbial hermeneutic distinguishes Paul from the Gospels, arguably the rest of the New Testament, and draws Proverbs and Paul closer together in style. If there were a Solomon of the New Testament, it would be Paul. He does not give a "Third Law". If there were a Moses of the New Testament, it was surely Jesus. Paul gives us New Covenant wisdom and we would do well to listen.

_Paul and History_

Another aspect of Paul, more of a subcategory of the "proverbial" Pauline hermeneutic, is the wicked history in the Bible. The inclusion of history in the Bible, such as Samuel and Kings, does not necessarily condone those events as any kind of role model; rather, those events are canonized for our study. Likewise, Paul also, in his dealings and his letters, is canonized for our benefit. Whether Paul's advice was admirable or objectionable (most often the former and rarely the latter if at all) should be left to the rest of Scripture. This is just as how the rest of the Bible ought to interpret the actions of the judges and kings in the Old Testament. We determine which passages of Scripture with which to interpret other passages of Scripture, not based on volume of content, but on clarity and identity. Jesus and the disciples' writings should be used as the standard with which to interpret the massive records of how the brilliant Apostle Paul conducted his leadership in the New Testament Church. Anything he does, whether good or bad, is celebrated best when we consider what the other Apostles had to say about it.

_Paul and the Church_

Given these positions, it stands to reason that Paul's leadership and writings were canonized for our consideration, benefit, and wisdom. Using the proverbial hermeneutic, this opens many doors to an elastic model of local fellowship structure. Nothing Paul did in his leadership of the Church, in and of itself, was intended to compel our methods today. We can learn from it, follow it, depart from it, and augment it, all within the constraints of Scripture, and we may do so without concern of adding or subtracting from Scripture.

Paul's instruction on Ecclesiology is not "how to run things", but "how Paul ran things". Much of our doctrine of how to manage the organizing of the Church depends on Paul, while Jesus and the disciples give no such structure at all. This mix of silence and verbosity itself has a meaning: that the behaviors of the New Testament Church were important, but not sanctioned for all the Church yet to come. Paul opined while Jesus and his disciples had little-to-nothing to say on the matter; such is the canon. In anticipation of the later section on Ecclesiology, the New Testament Church was our beginning point and it was canonized for good reason.

Once cannot develop Ecclesiology apart from Paul. But, when interpreting him, we must do so with a mature mind, not as one looking for simple, easy, one-size-fits-all answers. While Paul writes on the importance of continued fellowship of the Saints, he found himself in isolation, both voluntary and imposed. This continues the proverbial hermeneutic demanded of Paul, including that so much to say on Christian fellowship came from a man in isolation from it. He knew fellowship was not for all seasons, but in seasons without it he longed for it, which was why he wrote so much. Of all the things Paul teaches us about the New Testament Church, the biggest lesson comes from his living example: if you are in Christian isolation, write.

_Paul and Hebrews_

Regarding the theory that Paul authored Hebrews, I disagree. While defending the author of Hebrews is beyond the scope of this study, the special mention of Paul and the theory of him having written Hebrews invites some comment.

There are a few style differences between Hebrews and Paul, namely vocabulary mix and the thought flow. Paul uses parenthetical thought processes while Hebrews is linear in its process. Paul touches on a broad range of could-be systematic topics in his longer writings, even Galatians and Ephesians, but Hebrews is longer and more topic-focused. Most obviously, Paul identifies himself in all other letters, but the opening of Hebrews is different. If I had to assign a preference, I would suspect Apollos, as C. Marvin Pate suggested in one of my classes with him (Acts 18:24-28). If God wanted us to know who authored Hebrews, then the Bible would clearly tell us; but it does not. But, we do have the record of Apollos who fits the description. He was known by Paul, baptized by John, and worked with the New Testament Church. There are fewer strong, well-informed arguments that Jesus is the Christ based on the Old Testament than Hebrews. If Apollos didn't write Hebrews, his sermons would have been similar and just as powerful, merely based on the account in Acts. Still, the Bible doesn't say for sure. This was clearly a mystery God intended for us to ponder. So, any model where I might assign authorship of Hebrews to Apollos is intended for archetypal purposes of hermeneutics, for moot consideration and discussion, and would be no actual claim to historical fact. The deeper question is, what mysteries might be uncovered in pondering the implications of Hebrews being written anonymously?

**On Interpreting Scripture**

To begin understanding any teaching of the Bible, naturally, we must first consider what the Bible says of itself. Most pertinent amongst Scripture's own comments on itself is the Lord's summary of the Bible: the two Great Commands—to love God with the whole of one's being and to love each other equally and in like manner to ourselves (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34, Lk 10:25-28). All interpretation, application, and conclusion in Scripture must be in alignment with the two Great Commands. Any human experience must be interpreted by the Bible, not the other way around. If the Bible does not agree with my experience, then my experience is either erroneous or ignorant.

Today, we only have copies of copies and translations of copies of copies of the original Bible. Copies are not perfect, but they are as perfect as we need them to be. Translations, however, can often be misleading. Though translations are very beneficial to read, much study should be taken before applying any translation of the Bible too extensively.

Since the Bible is the revelation of God to mankind, we should expect that it will never make complete sense to us. Moreover, the modern reader of the text lives in a different setting than the original reader. Hence, our words, sayings, thinking patters, understanding of physics, figures of speech, styles of poetry, and even sentence structure, are very different than the original audiences of the Bible. Thus, one must take great care, enveloped in humility, when interpreting the written Word of God. What the Bible speaks in our day at face value is likely to carry a very different meaning when viewed in the context of its original setting. Furthermore, when translating ancient manuscripts into modern languages, much of the meaning of words and grammatical syntax is lost since no two languages are conterminous in definitions and structure.

**Cultural Experience and Hermeneutics**

My own experience living in Taiwan eight years (at the time of writing) has widened my awareness of what all linguistic and cultural differences might entail, both in dealing with my fellow man and the Gospel and in what assumptions I may otherwise superimpose on the linguistic and cultural differences between the Bible and my own situation. Therefore, I have found that experience in the missions field (international life, being that for every believer, life is the mission) also has a serious benefit on increasing the Christian's capacity for good hermeneutics. But, I would like to say in particular that long-term time overseas taught me things that I never could have learned in only two or three years. Some things about Taiwan I did not see and understand until my fifth or sixth year. After I began traveling to other countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, I only saw more. So, while any cross-cultural experience is beneficial, long-term life immersed in a different language and culture is exponentially more beneficial. This stands to both reason and Biblical teaching, that we only understand the Bible when we obey it and, among Jesus's commands included the command to _go_.

**Hermeneutics and Vantage Point of Homily**

Things to consider when interpreting Scripture ought to include: historical mindset and understandings of creation, historical events, historical locations, historical technology, historical sayings and figures of speech, historical poetry styles, historical customs, historical philosophy, definitions and sentence structure of the ancient words, thinking patterns and sayings of the same human author in other sections of Scripture, the original readers of the text and their setting and background, purpose and intent of each passage, when the passage was authored both in history and in relation to the rest of Scripture, and how much God had revealed about Himself up to that point in Scripture. In studying the Bible, it is worthwhile to meditate (or dwell or thing long and ponder) on these factors alone.

Once explored, the truths observed then need to be placed in terms of cultural relevance for the present times. Thus, interpretation of the Scriptures must be chalk-lined between context of the original day and context of the present—chalk-line the two; imagine all their differences, large and small; envision the transitions from that day to this; and do this over the course of hours and days and years while coming and going, waiting and working.

When teaching Bible to others, it is good to walk the students through steps of these various processes. An instructor must take heed to neither inundate nor deprive his or her listeners concerning the tools and steps of interpretation. The purpose of supplementing the text with context is to shed light on the text. Once there is either too much or not enough context, the purpose of supplementation has been compromised and the instructor then enters a superfluous discourse of verbose fodder. Remember, the purpose of explaining the Bible is not to tell people what the Bible means as if they are mindless and unwilling to study, but to help them know how to see how the Bible speaks for itself, all the while presuming that they _want_ to study the Bible on their own. To do that, they don't only need to know that the Bible teacher did those things—they need to learn how to take those steps of studying the Bible themselves.

Good Scripture interpretation also requires good science. One of the biggest mistakes a reader of Scripture can make today is overlooking these very vital aspects of Bible interpretation and communication. Too often, people read their modern translation, giving no credence to the ideas in the above paragraphs. A person can benefit greatly with a good modern translation alone if they approach it with humility and understand the profound complexity of what they are reading. When they start in such a posture of the mind and heart, they are prepared to dig deeper into historical background.

Interpreting the Genre of Dreams and Visions

In some Bible study settings, we may treat "dreams and visions" very similarly to "Apocalyptic literature" since in the Bible they are often one in the same. Technically, most Apocalyptic and/or Eschatological literature is a sub-category of dreams and visions. However, there is also Bible prophecy about the End Times, which provides a grid through which to interpret Bible dreams and visions about the End Times (eg Is 11:6 cf Ezk 47). Similarly, we can examine passages themselves where a character in the Bible gives the interpretation of a vision (eg Gen 40:12; 41:13-16, Dan 2:30; 7:16; 8:15, Rev 17:7). By using Bible prophecy and discourse about End Times to more clearly interpret Bible dreams and visions about End Times, we can develop "healthy practices" for interpreting dreams and visions in general. This may have ramifications for dreams and visions outside of canon, such as today, but the scope of this study is to understand the Bible first.

Within this framework, it is clear that dreams and visions often have an allegorical meaning. Without elaborating beyond the scope of this study, it suffices to add my own contribution to the topic of interpreting dreams. When any dream or vision has an allegorical display that can't possibly be taken literally, I consider the allegory, among many other interpretations, in terms of what it might mean if it were a modern day cartoon or comic or medieval pictorial literature. Of course, there are multiple layers of meaning and interpretation that must be considered. But, a simple look at the allegory, taking it for what it is, can often draw attention to related Scripture and interpretation. For example, rivers occur beginning, middle, and end, and they bring life and are incredibly beautiful (Gen 2:10-14, Ezk 47, Rev 22). Considering allegorical Bible visions in this manner, using somewhat of a creative-distractive-wandering imagination to ponder Bible visions as they exist at face value, sets the stage for the great exegetical diligence that must follow.

**Example: A Walk through the Elements**

There is one aspect that I feel is most overlooked in considering the ancient setting of the Bible, but is stunningly obvious once considered. For the sake of example, I will touch on it briefly. During most of the time of the Biblical community, and especially in the New Testament, the accepted periodic table of elements contained only four items. These were: water, wind, fire, and earth (dirt)—in that particular order. Each was added to the list for its qualities that seem to encompass and affect all of life. Arrival at this list of elements was based on the ancient human desire to seek the ultimate state and origin of essence.

Thales believed that water was the ultimate form of reality because it appeared to move itself in the form of a river. He did not have Newton's law of gravity in his schooling, thus, his quest to name the "unmoved mover" led him to think that the water moved itself. Not to mention that all life depended on it and it could exist as a solid, liquid, and gas. Thales's student, Anaximander believed that ultimate reality was not tangible (corporeal,) but beyond our reality (incorporeal.) His student, Anaximenes believed ultimate reality was both. Since none of them learned about atoms and molecules in their schooling (since such working theory did not exist yet,) he came to the conclusion that wind, not water, was the ultimate essence. Heraclitus, later, astutely observed that all things in our world change, the only constant he could find was that nothing seemed constant. The ultimate example in our world of change, to him, seemed to be fire because it always changed, and it mediated change (as it combusts materials into smoke and ash.) Eventually, Empedocles decided that there was not simply one ultimate essence, but that there seemed to be a plurality of ultimate essences, namely: water, wind, fire, and earth. Thus began, the ancient philosophical quest for the pinnacle of essence beyond these four, the fifth element, or if you will: " _quint_ essence". For each of these men, their ultimate reality substance was more of an impersonal "Force", never a Governor/Creator/Lover/Redeemer as we find in Judeo-Christianity, and it certainly was not based on faith instead of works. Thus, for them, the focus and burden of effort still fell on humanity, not on the Ultimate Being. Therein lays the ultimate defense of Christianity. For further information on these subjects, look into my easy-read source for this information, _The Consequences of Ideas_ , by R. C. Sproul.

Let us now take this background and apply it to some passages in Scripture. The first will be Ex 3:1-15. In v2, Moses discovers a bush that is on fire, yet is not burning, and therefore not creating smoke—calling Himself (v 6) the God of Moses's forefathers. In v14 the bush says that His name is "I AM", thus signifying that He does not change. Wow! Fire that does not burn and does not change that claims to be the God of Old and will be for generations to come (v 15). That has to really mess with Moses's thinking. Later, in Isaiah 29:14, God says that the wisdom of wise men shall perish. And, in 1 Cor 1:18-31, Paul explains that it is God's way to use things despised by the world to shame those who think they are wise. No one knows us as well as our Creator (Is 55:8, Ps 139:1-18). The spoken Word of God Created us (Gen 1, Jn 1:3), the Word of God made flesh revealed His glory and delivered us (Jn 1:14, 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10), and the written Word of God guides us (2 Tm 3:16-17) with direction not from human understanding or experience, but directly from our Creator Himself.

**God's Voice Today**

We know from Joel 2:28-29 that in Last Days, God's Spirit will be poured out on all people beyond the former limits, and, thus, many will prophesy and have visions. 1 Cor 13 says that prophesies will cease when the perfect things come, so we know that this ceasing of prophesies must happen after the events of Joel 2:28-29. This is especially true because if the activity of Joel 2:28-29 is happening, then those activities obviously have not ceased. Moreover, if all prophecy has ceased, then categorically, "the daily leading of the Holy Spirit" has also, meaning there is no purpose in seeking wisdom or direction in prayer. It is not uncommon for us to live with self-contradicting worldviews, though debunking the fast-fading Cessassionism is beyond the scope of this study. Of all passages to argue that God offers neither miracles nor prophecy today, one of their favorite passages to (mis)use for this is 1 Cor 13, the "Love Chapter". "Once perfection arrives, it ceases," so their argument goes. But darlin', I got news for ya: We ain't at perfection yet.

God's voice is active today outside of the Scriptures. In this, His voice will never conflict with the Scriptures since His active voice today would be predicated on His stated provision for it the Bible. Although the Lord may use a vision or impression or some other means of delivering a message to His people in this day, it would differ in the application possibilities of the Scripture since it would be specific to its modern audience. The Lord has sovereignly preserved the canon for its application around the globe. Hence, while God may give inherent and powerful words to select peoples or individuals in modern times, these words, no matter how beneficial or perfect they may be, do not carry the weight of Scripture, will be in full agreement with Scripture (otherwise they are phony,) and are not to be the basis for preaching to any audience, only given verbatim to those for whom they were originally intended. Anything more or less would not be consistent with the Biblical-Christian worldview.

If God delivers a clear, word-for-word prophecy, it should be delivered as such. If anyone "expounds" on that words, the orator must clearly distinguish between what God said and his own additives. If God may deliver some impression as to some topic, but the exact words of God are not known, then the message must not be treated as a word-for-word message from God. I could elaborate, and many have successfully (i.e. Jack Deer,) but this surmounts to dealing with prophecy, for the most part, by calling it whatever it is, no more, no less.

Since the Scriptures were essentially created by the same God who created humanity, all the more must it be held as the highest and final authority for guiding people in this life and in preparation for the eternal life to come. Interpreting one passage of Scripture badly on a matter that might be considered an issue of "lesser" importance could easily lead to a precedent of misinterpreting Scriptural teaching of "greater" importance. (I put "lesser" and "greater" in quotes because it is not for us to say which teachings of Scripture are truly greater or lesser.) Because of this, Christians have the vital requirement that good science and interpretation practices be used when interpreting Scripture. Any influence of tradition in our beliefs must be distinguished as an etra-Biblical (and therefore lesser) theology, though it is allowable as it is arguably necessary. Through studying Bible and living a life of obedience, we will continually understand more and more of what was meant in the Scriptures. But the highest authority of theology must be developed from the Bible as its sole source, using good interpretation. Since this teaching is the foundation of theology itself, it is a matter of Christian fellowship.
Theology Proper – Who God Is

Theology proper is one of the best kept secrets in the world, both in and outside of the Church. Basic truths about God—that He is sovereign and in control, that He is omniscient and knows everything, that He is a God of means and works through circumstances and our choices in them, that He alone is worthy of worship, and many other basic teachings about God—affect our daily lives in some of the most important ways. When we worry and try to solve our problems in our own strength, without at least recognizing that God is watching and doing something, we tend to put ourselves in God's seat. When we forget God alone is the Judge, we begin to persecute our fellow Man for sin, rather than calling each other to return to God. Encouraging sayings from Christian pop culture can include, "Jesus is my pilot, I'm just the co-pilot," and, "My boss is a Jewish carpenter," and, "Make war on the floor." These types of encouragements are rooted in Theology Proper, reminders of basic truths about God.

In our spiritual conflict (Eph 6:10-20), things can seem frightening and scary. History scared Israel when Israel's history happened. Jesus's disciples were scared when he was being crucified. As living history unfolds in our lives, we must remember that God knows what the "Heaven" He is doing.

This is the purpose of Theology Proper.

While Theology Proper can seem boring or repetitive, teaching about Theology Proper is not as repetitive as our tendency to forget it. Many times, when we face hardship, the best book we might pick up apart from the Bible is a good paper on Theology Proper. Remembering Theology Proper teaching points in our daily routines and in our challenges and when life seems most easy is what it means to be "godly", to live lives that demonstrate we know in our hearts that God is God.

Anything we know about God can only come from what Him revels about Himself to us. Therefore, an accurate understanding of God only concerns those things which He has chosen to reveal. We can never fully understand His ways, character, and nature, even as revealed. Truth about Him is far beyond our own comprehension (Is 55:8). If we were even capable of understand Him fully then our capacities to learn would be as such that He might not need to reveal anything about Himself since we might be able to figure it out on our own. But, this is not so. The creator cannot know more about the Creator than the Creator Himself. Therefore we should expect to be confused at times when studying Him.

God created everything through His Word (Gen 1:1-2:3, Jn 1:3), therefore He is omniscient, knowing all of the things that He created (Ps 147:4; Is 40:28). He reveals knowledge (Acts 15:18). He is omnipotent, having ultimate control over everything (Is 40:22-25). He is omnipresent, not that He forces every aspect of His presence everywhere like a 500 lb gorilla who wants your seat, but that He has every location at His instant and immediate disposal (Ps 139:7-12). He is eternal, having always existed and always will continue to exist (Rev 1:8), at least in the best terms a linear timeline can explain.

As the Creator, God revealed aspects of His divine nature in creation (Ps 19:1, Rom 1:20). Creation is a window through which we understand Him. The concept of an eternal, uncreated God is impossible for us to understand from our finite existence on a linear time continuum. Any words we use to describe His divine nature, like "He always existed", borrow ideas from our linear timeline and are therefore inadequate. Questions such as "If God is uncreated, where did He come from?" will always linger in our minds since we have an origin and are therefore curious about God's equivalent of what we only understand as an "origin". It's similar to a child's question, "Who takes you to school, mommy?" "Grandma does, every day." "But, she lives ten hours away. How does she get here so fast?" "One day you'll understand, sweetie." Though impossible to comprehend, and even more impossible to satisfy our curiosity, He has already answered these questions through His creation. So, if you want to know where God "came from", look at tree cells under a microscope and then look at a tree, gaze at the stars or the moon through a telescope, try to do justice to a mountain with a mere photograph, wake early and watch a sunrise, or chat with a child; there you will find the best answer He already gave. We'll understand one day.

One of the most important truths of God is His Love. He loves us (Jer 31:3)! He _is_ Love (1 Jn 4:7-8). He is benevolent, having intentions and desires to benefit us (Jer 29:11). He desires for us to pray to Him (Jer29:12) and to seek Him (Jer29:13), two ideas that are closely related in epistemology, in practice, and in revelation (being only one verse apart). Of the two, praying and seeking, prayer came first in sequence. This, also, reveals His nature of how He reveals Himself to us—reaching back and forth. His very revelation to us involves a process of love.

**The Trinity**

God is triune and yet is one essence. He is divine, having three distinct persons (Mt 28:19) without confusion yet without contradiction, namely the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit.

In all responsibility, we must take clear note that we use the term "persons" in an unconventional way. Here, "person" is a word used to _help_ _define_ an infinite Creator-God; the same term "person" is also used to merely _describe_ a human being who is simply that Creator-God's image. This word "person" can often carry a connotation of being "mutually exclusive"—that no two persons can be one-in-the-same; this aspect of the term "person" of course does not apply to our Triune God. God the Father or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit are not "persons" or "people" in the same sense that a human being is a "person" or part of a group of "people". Hence, while belief in a Triune God is a vital pillar of Christian teaching, we ought never part Christian fellowship over use of the word "person". "Person" with regard to the Trinity is used for lack of a better term and in a way that it is never used anywhere else. Moreover, the term "person" is not used in the Bible to describe these three unified distinctions of our Creator-God—so the matter of simply using the word "person" is not a Biblical discussion, it is a linguistic discussion. Perhaps some Christians might think that a different word, such as "character", is preferable, but other words would also offer their own set of disadvantages. In this discussion, we are certain that each of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not mere manifestations or shifting "modes of operation" of an otherwise eternal God. These three "persons" are each distinct and eternal in both their nature and existence of divinity, while also being united in, to, and through each other in a phenomenal way.

One term used to describe this attribute of God is "Trinity". This word "Trinity" is also not found in the Bible—it is a contrived word that aids us in our limited understanding of the amazing God who created us. Our terms simply seek to make sense out of Scripture's teaching on this subject through a best attempt at Aristotelian and Augustinian logic, thus they may require extrabiblical terms not found in Scripture to describe them. In choosing terminology we must remember that to describe God in explicitly human terms is an anthropomorphization of God, explaining the Creator in terms of His Image; this takes the focus off of God and draws the limelight to humanity. Therefore, we must begin with a God-centered set of terms which in turn sheds the light on His Image, not the other way around. In this much, the extrabiblically rooted terminology used to describe the Godhead is not, itself, to be the source of Christian fellowship as it relates to this discussion. What is of Biblical pertinence and a matter of Christian fellowship is the application and action resulting from that terminology. When living out our doctrine of the Godhead, which requires extrabiblical terms to fit our insufficient lense, our lives must be conterminous with the Biblical mandate for both our actions and the condition of our hearts. A very dominant point in this topic is: God is unified and yet diverse in His Divine Character, so must we Christians be unified and remain diverse.

Our teachings of the Christian faith must not emphasize extrabiblical terms to an exclusion of their very ideas from the corresponding Christian lifestyle those ideas lead to. Of the myriad of issues relating to the subject, these I feel are just a few worth mention: Unity with each other (Eph 4:13), not holding arguments rooted in terms (2 Tm 2:14), the unconditional command to love each other equally and to love Him with our complete selves (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34, Lk 10:25-28), Mankind as the Image of God the Creator (Gen 1:26-27), the unity of God Himself (Deut 6:14, 8:19, 10:14, 17, 20:4), the superlative nature of God's understanding and existence compared to ours (Is 55:8-9), God's unconditional love for us (Jer 31:3), and any other matter of conformity to Biblical Christian living. If there is a matter of Christian fellowship relating to this doctrine, it is that the lifestyle resulting from the doctrine be given priority, if there is any conflict between its Biblical conformity and any extrabiblical terminology for that doctrine itself. We must always remember that actual unity is only based on truth and actual truth always leads to unity.

The Father is the source of direction and decision within the Godhead (Lk 10:21, Jn 18:11, Mk 14:36). He reveals Himself through His Word (Is 45:19), the exact representation of His character and mind, and in this sense, the Word can also be called His Son (Jn 14:7,9). The Word Proceeds from the Father (Jn 16:28). The Word sends the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26). The Father has not been seen except through the Word (Jn 6:40). The Word is both God, with God, was with God in the beginning, and the world was made through the Word (Jn 1). While these truths are generally known in the Church, there is a great need for awareness that these truths have implications that are every bit as expansive and inexhaustible as the truths themselves, the searching of which is part of the Christian journey.

In these ways, God is three characters, each fully divine, one in each other, yet not the same; distinct, yet not separate. This teaching of the Trinity is very complex and difficult to understand—standing to reason concerning the creation's ability to understand the Creator. Therefore, so long as it is agreed that Scripture teaches the existence of one God, comprised of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three distinct from each other, and equal in deity, eternity, and power, and in the full humanity and deity of the historical Man Christ Jesus (Who is the second part of the Trinity call the 'Son',) no further details of the Trinity doctrine should be a matter of Christian fellowship.

God the Uncreated Author and Sustainer

Paul explained a very concise understanding of God as the Author, Judge, and Sustainer to the Areopagus council at Athens in Acts 17:22-31. Part of his explanation is a direct reflection of how the New Testament apostles understood Old Testament teaching about God the Sustainer (vv24-29)—holding the world in His hands and summoning the seasons (Gen 1:26-27, Job 38-41, Pr 21:1, Ps 24:1-2; 102:25, Is 40:21-31, Dan 2:20-22; 4:4-38). According to Paul's explanation, God's nature and role as Author-Creator has implications for Man as His Image. The Old Testament also speaks to this. The passages in Proverbs 21:1, Isaiah 40, and Daniel 2 & 4 interweave God's role as Sustainer with God's role over kings among Men. So, God's role as Sustainer and Upholder of the universe is tied to God's Image, Man, in at least two ways—to both the many inherent responsibilities of the individual and the inherent subjection of the leadership among Men under God's direction. (See also 'Anthropology > Sabbath, Work, Rest, and Death' and 'Pneumatology > Director of Wisdom and Leadership'.)

**God the Creator of Days**

The discourse in Genesis 1 describes the earth being created in 6 "days". We know that up until the fourth day of creation (1:14-19) there is no sun in the sky to enumerate a day as a 24 hr period of time. But, in vv3-13, Genesis 1 establishes the definition of a "day" as having an "evening" and a "morning". Since the text cites no alteration in the time frame of a "day" between vv3-13 and vv14-31, we cannot impose such a change on the text. Still, we are left with an "evening" / "morning" idea of a day in Gen 1. For the sake of consistency, the typical meaning of "literal 24 hr period" distinguished by having an "evening" and "morning" is best applied to the use of "day" in Gen 1. Moreover, God Himself refers to 24 hr periods which have evening followed by morning after He refers to the creation of the world in His giving of the Law (Ex 20:11; 31:17). It is clear that the text prefers the creation of the earth in six literal 24 hour period-type "days". While 24 hour periods did not necessarily exist on the earlier days of creation, an "evening" and "morning" did exist even on the first day. Therefore, it is the evening-morning trait of a day that is to be emphasized in this discussion, and the period of 24 hours by extension. While Genesis is a historical account, it is a poetic-historical account as opposed to a scientific-historical account. It is designed to delineate how things occurred, though in a beautiful sense, not in a technical-schematic sense. Thus, when we speak Biblical truth to guide our lives, we do well in referring to the earth's creation accordingly. Good hermeneutics requires that interpretation of a passage be consistent with that passage's purpose, and good science of "significant figures" requires that results not be applied beyond the measuring ability of instruments used. So, while the Bible favors the creation of the earth in six 24 hour periods, and surely periods with "evening" and "morning", this cannot be a valid earth-scientific conclusion based on the text itself. The remaining issue is to have a system of hermeneutics and physical science that each support good science and accurate Bible interpretation. This leads to a separate discussion on what good science and hermeneutics look like as they relate to each other. In that discussion, we must ensure that all Christian research aims at discovery of God and His ways with no other agendas. These matters of good science and Bible interpretation are the matters of Christian fellowship. The most important thing to note about the days in the account of Creation, however, is that the "day" did not exist until God created it and defined it so.

**God the Most High, the Merciful, and the Just**

One of the defining aspects that makes the God of the Old and New Testaments unique among all religions is His mercy and His justice. His very nature of being Most High is His very basis for being able to give such mercy and justice. Abraham describes Him as "God Most High" (Gen 14:20). Isaiah saw God "high and lifted up" with a robe that filled the temple (Is 6:1)—as a majestic ruler in the times when Israel saw so many bad and wicked kings. So are God's thoughts "higher" than ours, just as the heavens are above the earth (Is 55:8-9). God is not like earthly kings or teachers or mythological demigods; He is _High_.

The Lord God introduced Himself to Moses as, "...abounding in mercy and loving kindness... yet not letting sin go unpunished." (Ex 34:6-7) Yahweh, Adonai, Jehovah, _the Lord_ is not slow or blind or apathetic to ongoing evil, but patient to allow sinners to repent receive mercy (2 Pet 3:9). He can be this patient because He is seated _high_ above every situation, even our own sin. He holds the world and the heavens in His hand—all of which He made (Gen 1, Job 38-41, Ps 95:4-6) and this is not to our destruction; His lofty seat of power is the very reason He alone is worthy of our worship and the very reason He is with us in love, instruction, protection, and deliverance (Job 42, Ps 95:6-8, Is 40-41).

When Jesus came as the atonement for our sin, he _descended_ to do so—so he would be _with us_ (Is 7:14, Mt 1:22-23, Eph 4:8-10). In the last pages of the New Testament, God's wrath and vengeance against evil injustices, in both Heaven and Earth, is demonstrated more than anywhere else in the Bible; His wrath and deliverance in Revelation is even more intense that in Egypt and Sodom and Gomorrah. He explains His reasoning in allowing hardship for His people just before showing His wrath and deliverance, in Revelation 3:19; He "chastens those He loves". Both the mercy and the wrath of God are seen consistently through the Old and New Testament. The difference between Old and New is in severity and the explanations as to why. God loves us and does whatever it takes to deliver us from sin and its fallout, even sending His own Son as the propitiation for our sin (1 Jn 2:2). In Jesus, He gave both His wrath and His mercy like no other god.

The Lord does not "hate His enemies" because He is not a "hateful" god. This is clearly true because 1) He first loves all whom He judges, which makes His judgments just and fair and 2) He is so _High_ that there are none to be His equal or to therefore be a worthy enemy. While the holy angels could be so-called "enemies" with the fallen angels, the Lord God is above all of them. This explains His power and how He is mighty in such a way that He can help us (Job 9:4; 26:14, Ps 147:5, Is 26:4; 40:28-31, Jer 32:27, Zeph 3:17, 1 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 13:4). Adonai, the Lord God Most High sends the rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous (Mt 5:44-46).

**God of Means**

God is a God of means. He works through people and events and seasons. Like many things in Scripture, this is not taught directly; even the nature of God that He uses means is taught through means. Through all of His work in the Old Testament and the life of Christ, Paul understood that God uses the means of Creation to reveal Himself (Rom 1:20).

He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, the gold and silver is His (Ps 50:10, Hag 2:8). He raises up and tears down and He alone controls the seasons (Ps 75:7, Dan 2:21). He puts things in the hearts of kings (Pr 21:1, 2 Chron 29:10). He speaks through prophets (Jer 1:10, Deut 18:18-19) and also through angels (Dan 8:15-19; 9:21-22, Lk 1:26-28; 2:8-14) and also through a donkey (Num 22:22-30) and also through history, such as the silence of the word "God" in the book of Esther. He worked through men of God to inspire the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20).

The Word of the Lord stands forever (Is 40:8), which means that God still speaks through His Word, even today and even in our situations. He is always speaking to us and leading us, though we never see Him doing this directly since none can see Him except by means of the Son (Jn 14:6-15), through whom we learn love and love is arguably God's greatest means (Mk 12:30-31, Lk 10:26-28).

Merely by creating, God used creation as a means of demonstrating His glory and nature (Ps 19:1, Rom 1:20). In Genesis 1, the first three days of Creation and the second three days had a "means-fulfillment" relationship. Day One, God created Light and named "day and night"; Day Four, God created the sun and moon, but did not name them. Day Two, God created the sky to separate clouds from bodies of water; Day Five, God put fish in the water and birds in the sky, but did not name the birds and fish. Day Three, God created dry ground; Day Six, God put land animals and humans on the land, but He only named Man, not the animals. Man named the animals (Gen 2:19-20).

God works through Israel (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18, Jn 4:22). He works through Christians (Mt 5:16, Jn 15:5-8, Eph 3:10, Phil 2:15). He works by delivering enemies into the hands of His servants (Gen 14:20, Ex 23:31, Num 21:3, Deut 2:24; 3:2-3; 7:2, 24; 31:5, Josh 2:24; 6:2, 16; 8:1, 7, 18; 10:8, 19, 30, 32; 11:6, 8; 21:44; 24:8, 11, Jud 1:2, 4; 3:10, 28; 4:7, 14; 7:9, 14-15; 8:3; 11:21, 32; 20:28, 1 Sam 14:12; 23:4; 30:23, 1 King 20:13, 28, Neh 9:24; 21:34).

Jesus himself is the "Way" (Jn 14:6) and God is patient as He works through history for our redemption (Heb 10:20, 2 Pet 3:9). God opens our eyes, allowing us to make the choice to see (Num 22:31, 2 Kings 6:17, 20, Lk 24:45, Acts 26:18). God also blinds eyes so they have no way to see (2 Kings 6:18-20, Is 6:10, Jn 12:37-40).

The topic of God working through means is nearly impossible to exhaust. The entire Bible could be quoted in witness of this, as well as all human history and the known universe. Most of the more direct Scripture passages on God's use of means also relate to His sovereignty. This tells us about the nature of how He uses His sovereignty. He utterly controls the means all around us, but orchestrates things in a way that does not overpower our free will. God is a sovereign God who uses means.

**Dealing with "Other gods"**

Interacting with other religions from a Biblical perspective must be done carefully and thoughtfully. Many secular areas of society become intertwined with religious beliefs and, though a religion may claim those ideas as its own, some ideas and principles held by a religion may very well be compatible with Scripture, so long as they do not contradict it. Thomas Aquinas said, "All truth is God's truth." Paul said that Gentiles, not having the law, are able to do what is right as a "law unto themselves" (Rom 2:14).

Every language we know today, including Hebrew and Greek with which the Bible was written, was developed by pagans. The twelve-note musical scale used by the majority of the worldwide Church was developed by the pagan Pythagoreans, who considered music and math to be on a fundamental level that we might consider as holding a religious meaning. Of course, the Church views music as an area of study every bit as secular as the study of gravity. Some principles of "peace" and "stillness" as expressed in Buddhism are consistent with Scripture (Ps 46:10, Mk 4:39).

One common topic relates to Psychology. The general carry-over would be that Psychology, more likely in DSM-III and DSM-IV (since moral questions are more loosely defined in later editions), can provide some beneficial "semantic" vocabulary to explain behavior. Psychotherapy, however, in terms of how to help people overcome problems, may have much less to offer since the human condition cannot be solved without the Creator and Psychotherapy is secular by definition.

Having some small truth does not grant notoriety over Scripture. Likewise, praying to false gods or meditating with a falsely-founded theological or epistemological framework does not mean that one doesn't have insight into how to pick an apple or tie shoes.

The relevance of "laws unto themselves" and "all truth being God's truth" must not be treated as theses, but as hypotheses. When examining the teachings of a non-Biblical religious framework, it is good to examine the hypothesis that some or much of the truth from that religion, where it does not contradict Scripture, might be better understood as a having a kind of value as a secular science, whether we yet understand it as a science or not. Again, this must be a hypothesis to be examined, not any kind of proven thesis, and Scripture is paramount. Examining other religions for hidden treasures of Science requires a good footing in Scripture, which means reading the Bible daily and deeply.

Anthropology – Humanity

Man was created by God in the image of God and is a male-female-type being (Gen 1:26-27). Man was created good (Gen 1:31) and perfect in his original state. He had fellowship with God Himself. Soon after being created he chose to walk away from God's life-giving instruction (Gen 3), thereby bringing destruction upon himself and on all Creation (Rom 8:18-24). Thus, the entirety of Creation was dragged into a fallen broken state. In this state, God's image is still complete; not eradicated, but wounded, and able to be redeemed and restored to his original state (Eph 2:1-10). This was brought about when the first created Man, Adam, disobeyed God and turned entire the human race into a fallen species, namely a race which must grasp in order to have faith and fellowship with God. Thus, humans now bear an image of God which was once perfect, but now has been broken (Rom 5:12). This fallen state leaves its victims dead, yet not deceased, unable to function or to do anything fully good, only capable of doing things which although may be partially good, always will be tainted by and contain evil (Eph 2:1-3, Rom 7:14-24).

Now, humans have a nature which has been changed from a state of goodness to a state of sinfulness. This sin-prone tendency is permanently fused to every human's physical body, from birth until the point of that human's conversion to Christianity, at which time the struggle against sin becomes a matter of dealing with a dieing, decaying body until the resurrection, when he or she receives a new body (Rom7:14-25, 1 Cor 15:12-20, 42-44). (The only exception was Jesus Christ, the God-Man.) Sin itself, still remains attached to the physical body even after Christian conversion; what changes with conversion is the power a new Christian finds in the daily war against sin in the physical body. In this, I have personally experienced a desire to increase my meal fasting when I have the perspective that a fast weakens my physical body so that sin can't so easily use my physical body to weaken me. Through all of this, the creation of mankind, then, is a grace, even with pain in life, we have the opportunity to know our God (Phil 3:7-10) and can still walk in the abundant life God desires for us (Jer 29:11, Jn 10:10). To have this life, we must worship God alone and love God more than everything else (Ex 20:5-6, Deut 6:13-19), including family (Gen 22:2-16, Mt 10:34-37).

**Sabbath, Work, Rest, and Death**

God held His own Sabbath at the Creation, which also became a standard to be reflected by His Image, Man (Gen 1:27; 2:2-3, Ex 20:8-11). The Sabbath was created for Man's sake; Man was not created to be a slave to the Sabbath (Mk 2:27). In observing the Sabbath, we not only operate in the manner we were designed to; we also reflect the character of our Creator, as His Image, in operating as He also operates.

God rested because God is a God who works (Gen 1-2, Job 38-39, Ps 75:7-8, Pr 21:1-2, Is 40: 22-23, Dan 2:21, Mk 6:3, Eph 2:8-10, 20-22, Phil 1:6; 2:13, Heb 4:4, 1 Pet 1:2). God's role in "working" is connected to his role as Sustainer and Upholder of the created order (Gen 1:26-27, Job 38-41, Pr 21:1, Ps 24:1-2; 102:25, Is 40:21-31, Dan 2:20-22; 4:4-38, Acts 17:22-31). (See 'Theology Proper > God the Uncreated Author and Sustainer'.) So, in a sense, some of our own work involves sustaining our own lives in addition to advancing in studies and progress (Pr 25:2, Dan 2:20-23). We must bathe, groom, launder clothing, and keep household dust afloat (particularly dust that might settle on God's printed Word, thereby making our contribution to maintaining the growth of our souls viz Josh 1:8). We must manage waste disposal and, with the curse (Gen 3:17-19) we must even argue with the ground on a regular basis for it to produce our sustenance. This is both humbling and educational in that our role as Image of the Sustainer forces us to learn efficiency.

Since the Sabbath is a rest from work, it is important to reflect on the Bible's teaching that Man should work (Ps 90:17, Pr 12:24; 16:3, Ecc 5:12; 9:10, Col 3:17, 23-24, 2 Thes 3:10). When the Bible describes Man working—in the virtuous, ontological, and necessary sense—the kind of "work" it describes is not defined in detail; as with many things, the Bible's definition of "work" is also presumed by the writer to be presumed by the reader. By using terms like "whatever you do" and "whatever your hands find to do" (Ecc 9:10, Col 3:23), this presumed, working Biblical definition of "work" includes daily hobbies, side business projects, anything to provide a living, home maintenance, a known trade or craft—not only "institutionalized employment". Accordingly, so should Sabbath rest from work include rest from our regular, Biblically-widely-defined "work" done six days a week.

I'd like to add at this point, as a developer with my own web product, and in my interaction with other developers, the stories of how we each discovered our various programming languages tends to be similar. In the "classically trained" rout—what I did with music and Bible—people learn languages because a college major determined those languages for them. In this, they had some choice, but the choice was at least partially made for them. From there, either before or after college, they continued to learn on their own, just like the rest of us.

And, as for the rest of us, the languages we find are almost entirely found by accident. We have a small job, a random questions, we are looking for one language and stumble on another. By the time we become good at a language, we may not even know it. Regardless of which path we took to learn our programming languages, it is as if the language "found us" more so than we ever found it.

Many skills and crafts could be stumbled upon over the course of years; the arts usually trace back into early childhood. The stories with programming language skills tend to be a little more obvious in how we acquired them because we remember more of the process. So, the programmer's story seems to provide a small window to see the vast hall filled with how careers and skills are generally acquired. Even if we find ourselves among the few who choose a career path, set out on it, and excel in that path until the day we die, we don't decide who our clients, employers, and customers will be, nor do we decide just what content we will focus on. No matter how we look at it, the wisest king the world ever knew before Jesus, Solomon, was right. Our skills seem to find us more than we find them. Maybe the best way to describe it is, "Whatever our hands find to do."

"Resting" on the Sabbath does not merely mean we should swap our activities for one day, from institutionalized employment to an exhausting hobby. The Sabbath must be "restful". God was specific and literal with the "rest" on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:28-32). In Leviticus 23:35, about the Feast of Booths, God namely forbids "laborious work". "Work" is to be rested from on "Sabbath" occasions (v32)—whether the normal Sabbath day or a festival observed as a Sabbath. The literal definition of "work" is anything "laborious" and exhausting. And, He was very serious, threatening "cutting off" and "destruction" concerning anyone who did not truly rest at the proper time (Lev 23:29-30).

God also gives us a very plain example of what it means to be "restful" on the Sabbath when He instructs Israel to give soil a "Sabbath" rest from farming every seventh year (Lev 25:4). God's command to "rest the soil" has significant implications for Mankind's manner of Sabbath rest since Man was made from the same soil of the ground (Gen 2:7). In the Sabbath year of farming, the soil continues to grow vegetation, but it grows whatever it will and with no purposeful intervention. It continues to soak up rain and absorb rays from the sun and animals may graze on its spontaneous weeds and any perennial crops. But, food is not harvested, so the soil is neither tilled nor does it lose nutrients. In a Sabbath year of rest, the soil is freed from the normal work of Man, and in this manner, so Man must rest himself from his very own work every seventh day.

The Sabbath can be humbling, which is consistent with how God ordains things to humble Man (Ecc 3:14; 7:13, 1 Cor 1:27). Israel was commanded to humble themselves by doing no laborious work on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29-31; 23:27-39, Num 29:7)—the way to humble themselves was not with "fasting from food", so to speak, but "fasting from work". Whatever tasks or chores need finishing, everything must pause for one day. Our projects stop. Our normal labor stops. Our negotiations and cooperative efforts stop. And after, when we return to our normal work, we find that the sun still came up, the world continued to turn, and so our work continues, even though we took a vacation for a day.

By taking a Sabbath from both earning a living and our routine hobbies, the regions of "task" and "play" become somewhat blurred. This provides a slightly more serious view of "play" and a slightly more comical view of "chores". God is a God like a child who rejoices over us (Zeph 3:17, Mt 18:3-5; 19:14). By observing the Sabbath in all things it was meant for, "enjoying work" becomes much easier. And, by observing a Sabbath, to rest both from working hard and playing hard, God's own glad, celebratory, and even playful view of a "work ethic" becomes ever more stamped on our hearts, not from mere study, but from firsthand experience.

The Sabbath relates to death, in a way. Death is not only viewed as a form of sleep (Ps 13:3, Dan 12:2, 13, Mt 9:24, Mk 5:39, Lk 8:52-53, Jn 11:11-14, Acts 7:60, 1 Cor 15:51), but also a form of rest (Ecc 9:10, Rev 14:13). When we die, our bodies return to dust like soil resting from the labors of Man and our spirits go on to rest in Him until we wake, at which time we will find that death does not end our work; our work will have gone with us.

Jesus kept the Sabbath, but not according to the rules and institutions of Men (Mk 2:23-28). Since Jesus is also Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath has some New Covenant application (Mk 2:28). Philosophically speaking, since the Sabbath was made for Man, any day that a man chooses for his Sabbath may be his own day of rest. Applied under the New Covenant, where "unclean food" is allowed (Acts 10:10-16), but still not the most healthy, observation of the Sabbath is not removed, but it has more flexibility. The New Covenant did not cancel/fulfill the obligation or wisdom of the Ten Commands, but only the obligations of the Levitical and Deuteronomical Laws without canceling their wisdom. So, the Fourth Commandment is still in effect, both in obligation and wisdom.

In Exodus 20's Forth Commandment, God commanded Israel to take a day of rest and to remember "the Sabbath" and keep it holy or "separate"; this command includes the verbs "remember" and "rest", which are related, but not identical. In light of all this, under the New Covenant, it would make sense that Man is free to observe the Sabbath on any day he chooses for himself, so long as he does have a Sabbath for his own rest and so long as he remembers "the Sabbath", the Sabbath day from one week to the next as scheduled and remembered by God and His angels in the Heavens. Especially with the humility and joy related to the Sabbath, we must remember that no matter what day we may observe our own Sabbath, it is the Lord Himself alone who sets and decides "the Sabbath", which we are still commanded by Him to remember. While many Christians believe they observe the Sabbath on Sunday rather than the correct day of Saturday, they have not changed "the Sabbath" day, they have changed "their Sabbath" day, which is absolutely allowed under the New Covenant as long as they also remember the "the Sabbath" remains on Saturday.

Jesus himself commented about the Sabbath in the Olivet Discourse on the End Times (Mt 24:20). Jesus was not suggesting that an "emergency flight" shouldn't happen on the Sabbath out of any confused notion that the Sabbath is more important than human life. Even Jesus healed and allowed his disciples to eat on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9-14, Mk 2:23-3:6, Lk 13:10-17). The Sabbath comes up in Jesus teaching in only two contexts: 1. confrontation with Pharisees who want to kill him and 2. an End Times flight from a leader who wants to kill all of his disciples. Jesus is warning us to pray that our need to take flight does not happen on some government-instituted "Sabbath Law" day, when everyone else is home and we would be easily discovered by a wicked military force as hostile as the Pharisees were in confronting Jesus on the Sabbath (Mt 12:10, 14, Mk 2:24). Nazi Germany has implications here. To borrow and modify language from Dwight Eisenhower on remembering the Jewish Holocaust, God would not have commanded us to remember "the Sabbath" unless He knew, one day, some scoundrel would try to alter the Sabbath day and institute on that new day a Sabbath law as a means to lock down the masses and aid mass genocide. The alteration has already happened and the Western Church has accepted it. Western Sunday is a much easier day than Saturday or any other day for a tyrant to move against his civilian enemies. Politically, a Sabbath law would have worked powerfully for someone with Hitler's ambitions. There is nothing immoral in going about business as usual on Sunday and it certainly wouldn't make the Antichrist's attempt at genocide an easier. Though the danger is speculative, it is with good reason since Jesus teaches about the Sabbath in relation to the tyrant of the End Times. The stakes are high. But, all God commands us to do with "the Sabbath proper" day is to _remember_ which day it truly is. So, we should.

Work itself is an important Biblical teaching. Paul taught, with reference to even himself in missions, that a man who does not work should not eat (2 Thes 3:10). Taking time out of our ministries and arts, our side projects with which we hope to help our families or change the world, there is an important function of daily work to put food on the table. As we continue the mundane things to keep our bellies full and the roofs over our heads, we find special, important opportunities for artistic inspiration, otherwise impossible ministry opportunities to be salt and light (Mt 5:13-16), and ways to better understand the world in which we all live, allowing our mentoring and discipleship to be both accurate and useful. This has many other implications I won't expand on, not the least of which is "tentmaking" as Paul's model for pastors.

Since the Bible does not directly state these finer details of how the Sabbath applies under the New Covenant, even though we know that God neither forgets nor allows us to alter the times and courses of the Heavens, the only matter of Christian fellowship in regards to doctrine of the Sabbath is agreeing on the need for Christians to "observe a Sabbath as a day of rest" on the basis that Man is still made of dust. As with many things under the New Covenant, we each ought to observe the Sabbath according to conscience. Dispute over other matters relating to the Sabbath, however true and obvious they are, give no cause for breaking Christian fellowship.

In terms of our modern day, the Western Sunday culture is much more stressful with the obligation to dress well, exhaust self and family with social appointments, and even more stressful for those who keep other rituals of the weekly family trip to town, including Sunday grocery shopping and errands. Concerning Sunday today, at most it is work and at least it is "playing hard"; Sunday for mainstream institutional Western Christianity is anything but restful.

Sunday is not sacred except in the minds of some, mainly those who make it so stressful. So, there is no reason Christians may not find their times of regular Christian fellowship on some day other than Sunday and dedicate Sunday as a special day for profitable hobbies, cooperative house chores between families, or some kind of secondary work. Or, since Sunday is convenient, perhaps some Christians may hold Christian fellowship early on Sunday mornings so they can quickly move on to their work, but it is my opinion that Christian fellowship should be much more frequent than only one day a week, if it is to be healthy. Scripture never teaches anything about the Sabbath being for fellowship of any kind, but for "rest". The Sabbath rest and Christian fellowship are completely separate topics; though fellowship and rest can overlap, intense and focused Christian fellowship falls more into the category of "work". No one in right mind would ask a student to consider something called "Sunday school" to be a break in routine. If Christian fellowship and spiritual disciplines are as regular as they ought to be, a truly restful Sabbath should include the one day that we take a rest from our frequent, healthy, daily Christian fellowship. In Western culture as in Genesis, Sunday is already the first day of work. Make the most of it and let your light shine in whatever manner you please.

Saturday is the Western play day, which is a more appropriate observation of the Sabbath. Incidentally, we work the most on the first day of the work week and make "the [true] Sabbath" the most restful. Of course, as of the dawn of the third millennium, we could make Saturday much more restful than we do, especially if we reserve our side projects for Sunday. While we observe our own Sabbaths on whatever day fits with our work, we can remember the Lord's Sabbath easily. Every child looks forward to Saturday as much as the Lord should want His children to look forward to His Sabbath. God speaks through the hearts of children and children praise Him for His Sabbath (Ps 8:2, Mt 21:16). In ways too numerous to count, the Sabbath, too, is a grace.

**Men and Women: Equal in Value and Strength; Different in Nature**

The distinction of men as having a kind of leadership over women is alluded to by Paul as a component of pre-Fall nature (1 Cor 11:12, 1 Tm 2:13). So, this relationship between men and women is good and not the result of sin. Sin results in this relationship being either violated or abused by either men or women. Given the Fall of Man, it would make sense that the sinful tendency of a women would be to control men while the sinful tendency of a men would be to be either weak or abusive leaders. Nowhere do the Scriptures support the notion that men should have a kind of autocratic posture over women. When Deborah led the people of Israel in battle (Judges 4:4-9), it was not a statement of the emancipation of Man's dominance over women, it was God's deliverance to His people, through a woman, from an enemy that only maintained its occupancy because men did not step up as good, loving leaders. Jesus is the ultimate example of a good Man-leader, sacrificing his own life for those whom He leads (Jn 10:11).

Sin, is passed down to children through their fathers (Ex 20:5; 34:6-7, Num 14:18, Deut 5:9). The leadership of men (1 Tm 2:11-13) led us all into sin through Adam whereas Christ is the deliverer as a second Adam (Rom 5:11-19, 1 Cor 5:22, 45, 47). While it was the destructive choice of Adam as leader of humanity to cause our fall into sin, Eve was not innocent for her part (1 Tm 2:14), hence, women also can have sin, even as the servient gender. The term "servient", here, refers to the qualities of strength through someone who can't possibly be a servant who ironically performs seemingly menial tasks, having strength by being exempted from the possibility of harm, and thus being in the position to bring essential help that no one else can.

Two people in the Bible display this "servient" nature: Jesus and his mother, Mary. Men are called to take up this servient role in action as Christ did (Jn 10:10, Eph 5:25) while women have this by trait of nature (Gen 2:20) and can be called out of it to powerful leadership as Deborah was (Judg 4-5). This back-and-forth complement of "helpful leadership" through function and nature displays the paradoxical beauty and power of God. No one has been or will ever be as servient as God Himself.

Women cannot pass down sin as Mary was indeed sinful, yet did not pass on her sin to Jesus Christ because of the Virgin birth (See 'Christology > Virgin Birth') (Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38, cf Lk 1:35, Jn 1:35) which is explained when Paul says that women shall be saved through child bearing (1 Tm 2:15). Here we see the power and difference of men to lead into sin, yet women to be God's incorruptible tool of deliverance through their servient nature. It is this submissive make-up of women, designed and created by God Himself before the Fall, that gave a means to escape the irrevocable destruction of Adam's poor leadership. A woman was required to give birth to the perfect Man, while it must have been a Man who was the perfect sacrifice for all of mankind. While Adam had the power to lead humanity into either life or knowledge of good and evil, Eve was unable to suggest such a direction for all of humanity and, accordingly, through the one who could only arrive through a woman we all have been spared.

While Jesus and his mother, Mary, are the pinnacle examples of servience, Adam and his wife, Eve, are the worst. In Genesis 3, Eve did not have the power to eat the fruit and lead humanity to the Fall, only Adam did; but Eve had the prerequisite importance of being able to advise the Fall to Adam. Without Eve's counsel, the Serpent knew he would not be able to convince Adam to eat the fruit. Adam, in turn, failed as a leader to refuse deadly counsel and, as a result, essentially committed genocide against his own race. Through the servient power of advice, Eve could have given Adam godly counsel just as Esther gave the king through her brilliant conduct in the Book of Esther, where the king, both like and unlike Adam, followed wise counsel and delivered Israel from genocide when Esther had only the mighty power of servient counsel.

The service of men and women is equal in power, yet different in nature. The roles and functions of men and women must be distinguished and yet equally esteemed. Women are servient to men; not _sub_ servient. This means that the two genders are also equal, and equally in need of each other. With a rose, the stem is the physical foundation for the blossom's existence, just as Eve came literally _from_ Adam (Gen 2:21-23); the stem also determines where the blossom is physically located. However, without the blossom, the rose stem serves no purpose. Man has been designed as the head of the household and woman as the beauty of it. The two are intertwined in both their existence and their purpose. If explored, the rose illustration can reveal its principles in the nature of men and women as they work together in various forms of partnership, especially marriage. For more, see the related topics in Ecclesiology.

**Soul, Spirit, and Flesh**

The "soul" (ψευχη/pseuchae) is redeemable (James 1:21) though sin lives in the "flesh"/physical body (σαρχ/sarx) (Romans 7:18-19) or (σῶμα/soma). A spirit is not necessarily a being, it can be an emotion or atmosphere—"spirit of hate/joy [or something else positive or negative]" —(Jb 20:3, Pr 1:23, Is 4:4; 28:6, 57:15; 61:3, Hos 4:12, Rom 8:15a, 15b, 1 Cor 4:21, 2 Cor 4:13, Gal 6:1, Eph 1:17, 2 Tm 1:7, 1 Jn 4:6) "Spirit" (πνευμα/pneuma) also means "wind" in almost every sense, and is even taught in this way by Christ (John 3:8). The "soul" (ψευχη/pseuchae) is never referred to in any of these ways, but it is redeemable (as mentioned in James 1:21) and therefore eternal. "Soul" (ψευχη/pseuchae) and "spirit" (πνευμα/pneuma) are also contrasted against each other in Hebrews 4:12. "Unclean spirits" (Mt 10:1, 12:43; Mk 1:23, 26, 27, 3:11, 30, 5:2, 8, 13, 6:7, 7:25, 9:25; Lk 4:36, 6:18, 8:29, 9:42, 11:24) are never called "unclean souls"; "soul" (ψευχη/pseuchae) is always, then, a reference to the eternal and religious aspect of a human. A disembodied spirit (understood to be a 'self-conscious being') is always a reference to something "not human". The "spirit" (πνευμα/pneuma) of a human, then, describes more of a changing aspect, kind of like an "emotional wind" that comes from a person. The Lord's own Spirit is the Holy Wind.

**Man: A Multi-Faceted Being**

In this next section, the words "Soul, Spirit, Body, Mind, Heart, and Flesh" may be capitalized in reference to humans, to refer and treat these as "proper categories" for the sake of epistemology. This is unusual and will not be consistent with other sections in this study. Here in this section, capitalized "Spirit" unaccompanied by "God", "Jesus", "Christ", or "Holy" refers not to the "Holy Spirit", but to the "Human Spirit Proper". The same is true for capitalized "Body" not referring, here, to the "Body of Christ", but to the "Human Body Proper". If this seems complicated, please pardon and humor me for the section and do not read much into it. The capitalization has no theological meaning or implication.

The divisions within an individual human being create an extremely sticky quagmire of study. Our complex makeup rarely fits into categories of Spirit, Soul, and Flesh. For instance, the "Mind" may be seen as an "invisible" aspect of the convergence of all three... like a joint. The "psyche" may involve the same aspects as the Mind, but focus more on how the Mind is influenced by emotions. Some divisions of the human being may be best seen in lieu of their function, rather than substance of Soul, Spirit, or Flesh. Yet, other divisions may fit neatly into one of the three categories of Soul, Spirit, and Flesh; for instance: emotions—I believe them to be conterminous with the spirit; not necessarily the same, but possibly, and certainly one way of viewing the spirit and explaining its behavior.

Studying the divisions of Man serves two purposes: 1) To organize his many facets into categories that can be treated and, thus, guide practical living 2) to make better sense of related Scripture. The Bible gives no clear boundaries through which we are to view Man. If it did, the matter would not be so highly debated within the Christian community. I believe that all such debates are absolved when the pertinent texts are seen in light of their historical-philosophical context, which I will address soon. But, whatever doctrines develop regarding the divisions of Man should serve for useful functioning in the above two purposes. Before diving into the issue further, one must remember the importance of avoiding arguments over words (2 Tm 2:14). So long as one views Man essentially as a "multifaceted being"—and the fallen image of God, capable and in need of redemption by faith alone in Christ of the Bible—, viewing human beings in specific terms of Body, Mind, Soul, and Spirit are matters of semantics and categories that may or may not be useful, not matters of Christian fellowship.

Background of the ancient world plays a significant role when developing doctrine about the character of mankind. According to Friedrich1, Plato's division of Man was three-fold: Mind (νοῦς/nous), Soul (ψευχη/psuche), and Body (σῶμα/soma) or (σαρχ/sarx)2. Stoicism believed that wind/spirit (πνευμα/pneuma) was the substance of the Soul. In this division, "the Mind affects the Soul at a higher level and the Soul affects the Body at a lower level."1 This grid of thinking likely had a significant impact on the New Testament readers and authors. Considering that all other divisions of Man proceed from Plato's1, the division of Mind—Soul—Body, with wind (spirit) as the substance of the human Soul, may prove to be necessary insight when reading Scripture passages that include any of the four words. However, this is not the most favorable division. Some have argued that "soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably. But, that does not make sense since, between the two words, the Holy Ghost is always referred to as a "spirit" and never a "soul". Likewise, demons are never referred to as "souls", only as some sort of "spirits" (between the two words.) And, as stated previously, "spirit" also refers to emotions, which the term "soul" is never used for (between the two words.) The word "soul" only ever refers to a human, and at that, with a religious connotation strikingly similar to that of a sailor's reference to "souls on board a ship". The terms "spirit" and "soul" are not used interchangeably, neither in the Bible, nor in modern society. For instance, if one were to make reference to the "soul" of an organization, the immediate connotation might likely be of "values" and "roots" and "principles and goals the organization was founded on long ago" while if one referred to the "spirit" of an organization it might likely carry the connotation of "ethos" or "emotional atmosphere" or "social conditions and interaction". In this sense, some distinctions, in both contemporary society as well as in Scripture, between "soul" and "sprit" may be seen best in terms of "connotation" rather than "lexical exactness" alone. The two terms do often appear in literature, the Bible notwithstanding.

If we compare Man to the original who he is the Image of (God), we see that God has a Body, which is Christ; a Spirit, which is the Holy Spirit; and then the Father. It makes best sense that since God is never referred to as having a Soul that the Soul of a human is the human counterpart (or equivalent) to the Father in the Trinity. In Matthew 22:37 Jesus refers to Man in terms of "heart, soul, and mind"; Luke 10:27 records Jesus reference to Man in terms of "heart, soul, mind, and strength". Given the discrepancy, one stands on thin ice to formulate ontological categories of Man based on these passages alone. My preference, in light of the reasons and considerations above, is to view Man as Body, Soul, and Spirit, with the Mind as a junction/overlap of all three.

In this paradigm, I often view the Spirit in reference to a kind of wind/vapor/glow field, operating in the supernatural, surrounding the Body, and essentially an ever new product (much like light from a flame) of the eternal Soul existing at the same physical location of the Body, but only in the spiritual realm. While more study is needed before any sound conclusion can be reached, this treats the text best in Luke 8:46 when Jesus says, "Someone did touch me for I felt power go out of me." Also John 19:30, "He gave up His [wind]." And John 20:22, "He breathed on them and said, 'Now receive the Holy [Wind].'" There is such a vast array of meaning accompanied in the Bible by the term "spirit"—Elijah's "spirit" was said to rest on Elisha (2 Ki 2:15), there are countless passages in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament on the "Holy" Spirit or "Lord's" Spirit, spirits of Kings and leaders (Ps 76:12, 1 Chr 5:26, 2 Chr 36:22, Ezr 1:1, Jer 51:11, Hg 1:14), spirit of the dead (1 Chr 10:13), "spirit" of a Man (Jb 32:8, Pr 18:14; 20:27, 1 Cor 2:11), pirit of Egypt (Is 19:3), spirit of objects or activities (Is 29:10, Ezk 1:20, 21; 10:17), spirit of a virtue or sin—not reference to a kind of demon, which is also numerous—(Jb 20:3, Pr 1:23, Is 4:4; 28:6, 57:15; 61:3, Hos 4:12, Rom 8:15a, 15b, 1 Cor 4:21, 2 Cor 4:13, Gal 6:1, Eph 1:17, 2 Tm 1:7, 1 Jn 4:6), and "spirit" is even juxtaposed against the "soul" without qualification other than that Scripture can divide them as no easy achievement (Heb 4:12).

Heart & Mind: Junction of Soul, Spirit, and Body/Flesh Proper

If Christ's blood deals with our eternal "life and death" dilemma resulting from sin, then his propitiation completely addresses matters of the Soul—because, "he whom the Son sets free is free indeed." (Jn 8:36) Remaining is our volition, or free will, which abides in the Soul, producing emotions in the Spirit, and expressing itself in the Body—and, for this lifetime, the ongoing battle against the remaining sin nature affecting our will through our physical bodies. Emotions, being difficult to control because of the Body's sin and still able to be largely subdued by individual intent, fit neatly into the category of the Spirit.

Concepts of the Heart and Mind are not necessarily separate components of a human's ontological makeup—they are often placed as subcategories, of sorts, of the Soul or Spirit or Body—however my preference is to view the Mind and Heart in terms of junction points between the separate parts. For example, a ball and hitch are each separate components, but together they form a joint that can haul a trailer. Just as this joint is seen as a single object, connecting the tractor from the trailer, so could the Mind (and/or Heart) be viewed as cognitive and emotional products from Soul and Body and Spirit operating together. This would seem necessary, knowing that a Mind and Heart must be renewed through spiritual disciplines, such as meditation, prayer, repentance, community, etc., yet emotions and memory are also heavily dependent and subject to one's physical state. Memory can be altered by emotions and vice versa, chemical substances can affect the memory of the Mind or create brain damage causing strange thinking patterns or memory loss as well as emotional changes, whether positive or negative. This overlap of influence on the Heart and Mind suggest that they are not subcategories of any subdivision of mankind, but probably, rather, a product of different facets as they join together in one human being. This makes good sense of Scripture and of Science without conflict. Generally, I like to place the Mind and Heart as the same junction where the Soul, Spirit, and Body overlap, while I view in my own terms and in the Bible, that "Mind" and "Heart" have a connotative difference, not necessarily a lexical different. Specifically, while Mind and Heart are one in the same, referring to the "Mind" emphasizes an intellectual-academic capacity ponder and remember, while referring to the "Heart" emphasizes our capacity to hate, begrudge, forgive, and love.

So, the Mind and Heart can be renewed through renewal and meditation, which will aid in the fight against the broken sinfulness which the Body also possesses (Josh 1:8, Rom 12:2, Phil 4:8). The Scriptures say in Pr 27:3, "As a man thinks in his heart, so it he." The Body, then, remaining only for this life, and the Spirit, being renewed moment to moment, exist as temporary products of our eternal Soul and the Soul's continuous maturing as it regains mastery of both Body and Spirit. We will be resurrected with a new Body at the beginning of the eternal phase of life-to-come; in our flesh lies the only remaining battle of sin, which is in this present life (Rom 6:19; 7:5, 14-25, 1 Cor 15:12-20, 42-44). Even the non-Christian Spirit, then, is dependent on the will of the Soul, not of the Body. After redemption of the Soul, the Spirit, too, is free because the Soul is free, now able to, yet still having to, overcome distraction from the Body's tendency toward sin. In conclusion, the main goal of daily living, this side of eternity, is to overcome the physical Body, so that we both obey God, without damaging the Body, so we can use it to spread His Grace to others and give Him His due glory until we are more able in the next life.

These are just a few citations that provide a small glimpse into the variety of meaning this single word carries; the challenge is to define the word in a way that provides consistency in our accurate understanding of the Scriptures as well as bring unity between Christians in the process. This is where skill with _connotation_ may be useful. Reference to the word "spirit" throughout Scripture in its various forms, then, makes good sense in this light: that the Spirit is a sort of "supernatural wind-product" that surrounds the Body and has a variable state dependent on the condition of the Soul's posture before the Lord. (The state of one's Soul is not perfectly known in this life other than through the Body or the Spirit—only God can truly know our standing with Him in the fullest sense; faith in Christ can be professed to each other, but only perfectly verified by God Himself.) The reader must take clear note that this definition does not carry any fixed theological ramifications—this definition can and must be altered in whatever way keeps our understanding subordinate to the Biblical text; this was both the purpose and means for creating this definition as it has been delineated. To further serve this purpose, I annex emotions as one of many expressions of one's Spirit and the "Mind" as more of a junction point (much like a joint made of two bones and connective tissues) between Body, Spirit, and Soul. If the Soul does not have eternal life (salvation by faith in Christ), then the Spirit it produces and directs, as well as the Mind, cannot be healthy either. This would also make sense to see the Trinity in the same light, that the Father is the eternal facet that is only known in our realm through the Christ and the Spirit—each in kind.

If any other theory of these matters promotes unity and understanding of Scripture in equal measure or better than this, then I recommend taking that proposition rather than my own. I hold to this because it has empowered me to produce these Biblical qualities of love and understanding God and his Word more than any other view of the subject so far in my life.

**Prosperity and Profit**

It is said, "Money is the root of all evil." But, in 1 Timothy 3:3, Paul says that money is the root of "all kinds of evil". Money itself is neither good nor bad, like power, wind, gasoline, pig iron, and water. Money is something to neither love nor hate, but something we should be dispassionate toward. As with other resources of Earth, God's people must not be ruled by money, whether in heart or power, but have authority, self-control, and dominion over it, wielding money for good and fair purposes.

God created humans in His Image. He wants us to flourish, prosper, and live in abundance. By definition, abundance is not greed because commodities in abundance are not hoarded. We don't think about air unless we don't have enough. Money and wealth are no different.

God told Joshua that prosperity has the purpose of fueling success (Josh 1:8), so we know that prosperity is not an end in itself. Just the same, Jesus taught us to use even "unrighteous wealth" for later purposes that affect Eternity (Lk 16:9). Wealth is presumed to be good, in and of itself, through both the Old and New Testaments because of its potential to bring mercy and justice in the current life, which will reflect in Eternity in both friendship and reward for responsible stewardship.

In terms of spiritual value, wealth in itself is neither positive nor negative; God made both (1 Sam 2:7, Pr 22:2). We are born and we die naked (Job 1:21, Ecc 5:15-16). God demanded the same from both rich and poor in atonement sacrifices (Ex 30:15). The Lord controls our wealth (1 Sam 2:7, Ecc 5:19). The Bible has a theme that wealth from prosperity can result from diligent and wise work, according to God's favor (Pr 10:4; 21:17, Ecc 5, Is 5:6; 44:14, Acts 14:17, Gal 6:7). Wisdom must come before prosperity (Ex 20:12, 1 King 3:11, Mt 6:33). Neither riches nor poverty can buy happiness, but righteousness is the virtue that lasts (Job 27:19; 36:19, Ps 49:2; 62:10, Pr 3:16; 8:18; 11:4, 16, 28; 27:24; 28:6; 30:8, 20, Ecc 4:8; 5:10-12). Wise men must be cautious of their wealth because wealth can be a snare of temptation and self-deception (Pr 18:11; 28:11, 1 Tim 6:9), just as we saw in the life of Solomon (1 King 10:14-11:8).

When the Bible speaks unfavorably of wealth, the context never defines "evil wealth" as "the ability to work effectively and prosper", but evil wealth is "from theft" or "gained through oppression or injustice" or is "stored-up/hoarded physical/earthly treasures". Jesus told an unfavorable parable about a rich fool, whose sin was covetousness and he hoarded up earthly wealth, but neglected his soul and faced consequences in Eternity (Lk 12:16-21). Wealth is not a measure of positive spiritual growth or value in God in itself and many wealthy people can be evil if their gains are not godly or if they turn away from Him (Ps 49:16, Pr 22:16, Mt 6:19, 24; 19:23-24, Mk 4:19; 9:35; 10:25, Lk 1;53; 6:24; 8:14; 12:21; 14:12; 18:25, James 5:1-3, 1 Jn 3:17).

The Bible uses wealth to describe prospering in a spiritual sense, which means that wealth has a favorable standing in Scripture, otherwise terms such as "rich in spirit" would be unfavorable or insulting (Rom 2:4; 9:23; 10:12, Eph 1:7, 18; 2:4, 7; 3:8, 16, Phil 4:19, Col 1:27, Titus 3:6, Heb 11:26, 3 Jn 2). The Old Testament speaks favorably about wealth (Gen 13:2; 24:35; 26:13; 49:20 Pr 22:4; 24:4) and Israel was encouraged to keep plunder from enemies who warred with them (Ex 3:22; 12:36, Num 31:9, Josh 8:2, 2 King 7:16, 2 Chron 14:13, Esther 3:13).

While Jesus helped and spent time with the poor throughout his earthly ministry, he did not jump at every opportunity to donate all money that he possibly could to ever poor person he ever met (Mt 26:11, Mk 14:7), nor did his disciples (Acts 3:6). Many of Jesus's parables presume that wealth, abundance, material possessions, and farming produce are favorable if the wealth is earned honestly, but he speaks unfavorably about people who squander, store-up, hide what could easily be invested, or fail to generate profit from what has been given to them. Here are a few examples: The Mustard Seed (Mt 13:31-32, Mk 4:30-32, Lk 13:18-19), The Wheat and the Tears (Mt 13:24-30), The Hidden Treasure (Mt 13:44), The Pearl of Great Price (Mt 13:45-46), The Lost Sheep (Mt 18:12-14, Lk 15:3-7), The Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32), The Lost Coin (Lk 12:16-21), The Shrewd Manager (Lk 16:1-8), and The Talents and Stewards (Mt 25:14-30).

Wise and wealthy Men will tend to seek out humble places and not exalt themselves, while Jesus thought that his disciples needed to be instructed to take the humble place at the table because they did not do it on their own initiative (Pr 13:7, Ecc 10:6, Lk 14:7-10). Foolish Men, wealthy or poor, will try to exalt themselves (Mt 23:6, Lk 20:46). The riches of honest work are a blessing (Ecc 5:12). When God blesses people with hard-earned, honest wealth, God lets them enjoy some of the blessings from that wealth as His gift to them (Ecc 5:18-19). This does not mean that God wants them to squander their wealth or store it up and rely on it instead of relying on Him (Rev 3:17), but that they may enjoy some of its fruits as an "unmuzzled ox thrashing" (Deut 25:4). As recognition of good stewardship, God trusts the enjoyment of riches to those who have exercise the wisdom and self-control to gain those riches honestly and with hard, wise labor.

There is much discussion in the Church about prosperity and poverty. I find many positions in the Church to be exaggerations of a Biblical teaching, leaning toward an over-emphasis on God's ostensibly universal preference for either poverty or wealth for everyone. But, as we see, God has no universal expectation of wealth for all people since He creates both rich and poor and requires the same from them on spiritual-Eternal terms.

Biblically, wealth works in this way: we must work and, if God sends the rain, then we prosper according to our work and for the purpose of bringing justice to those around us.

Some Christians tend to think that "God hates all wealth", which I often refer to as a "poverty gospel". I used to believe this "poverty gospel" in my youth; so my understanding of the "poverty gospel" is neither objective nor condemning, it is both experienced and biased. I believe Christians hold to a "poverty gospel" for two reasons: they have not been fully studied in what all the Bible and Jesus have to say about wealth, its origin and its purpose; and, they do not understand how to earn wealth and cultivate prosperity themselves, so they truly believe that wealth comes arbitrarily from God's favor only. So, understanding wealth involves both the study of Scripture and the secular study of business, accounting, finance, economics, et cetera.

While Scripture, accounting, finance, and economics are academic studies (involving books,) business is a practical study that requires field experience and discipleship. Studying topics of leadership and management can benefit from books, but also requires much experience and mentoring; these two are largely moral and ethical topics, involving application of virtue and wisdom to hard-working diligence. When business is treated as a study to itself, topics come up such as "managing talent", which basically surmounts to leading people that the leader only understands on a theoretical level. The best way to manage talent is to be talented; to manage a company of engineers, the leader must himself have been an engineer and have gained the respect of his coworkers. This theme of being responsible in the small things and thus being given more is clearly seen through all the Scripture passages on wealth, is very clearly demonstrated in the lives of Joseph (Gen 37-50) and David (1 Sam 16 – 2 Sam 24), and is taught directly in Jesus's parable of The Talents and Stewards (Mt 25:14-30). In other words, "walk your talk" and "practice what you preach" are essential steps in any kind of successful life (James 1:22-24).

**Godly Goals, Covetousness, and Sexual Lust**

Covetousness is a very serious sin. It both encompasses and leads to many other sins. Covetousness is actually the higher category of sexual lust in the Seventh Commandment (Ex 20:17). Achan was executed by Israel for a crime that began with covetousness (Josh 7:19-26). So, it makes sense that in the Lord's love, the Old Testament strongly warns us about the dangers of covetousness (Deut 5:21; 7:25, Josh 6:18, Job 31:1, Micah 2:1-3).

Sin of any kind begins with temptation after we have a desire for it (James 1:13-15). Jesus explained that adultery begins even in the heart (Mt 5:27-28). Sexual sin begins with sexual lust and temptation, and these begin with covetousness. Understanding sins in their proper orders of sequence and hierarchy helps us to deal with them and overcome them much more effectively. Much destruction begins with covetousness and jealousy.

The Serpent's temptation of Eve was rooted in coveting the things of God (Gen 3:4). Satan himself lusts for power and dominion over the earth. To engage in any kind of covetousness is to be like him.

Pornography gains its energy by cultivating sexual covetousness. It keeps its victims from healthy interaction with real people, reduces people into objects of lust, and isolates its victims so they are easier to be tempted and destroyed. "Having" something and "coveting" something are opposites by definition; we can only covet what we do not have. By convincing people to "covet" sexual gratification, pornography makes it more difficult to "have" sexual gratification, which has a domino effect on relationships, marriage, family, and child rearing. Pornography was first sold as ostensibly "helping people be more moral", just as the Serpent came with convincing arguments to deceive Eve into getting entangled into unthinkable evil and death.

Goals and covetousness not the same thing. David is a good example of someone with "healthy ambitions" since he was chosen by God and was a man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14; 16:10-13). In his youth, prior to slaying Goliath, David was aware of Goliath for a long time because he would make frequent trips to Saul (1 Sam 17:15). David gained his courage to fight after he learned about the reward Saul offered (1 Sam 17:22-26). David was motivated to confront Goliath when, as a young man, he learned about rewards that a young man would want—marrying the princess, land, a horse, tax exemption. The Lord does not rebuke David for slaying Goliath or his motivation. David's covetousness and rebuke for it came later with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:1-12:25).

If there was a "good original" for which covetousness was the "counterfeit", that good thing would be dreams, goals, and healthy ambitions. Covetousness is an evil ambition to take something without working for it, but goals and dreams move us on to work and earn the results of excellent things that come through patient diligence. Having goals and healthy ambitions can help to satisfy the needs of the heart so covetousness has a lesser grip on us. But, we must always remain on our guard. Covetousness is not beneath any of our abilities to succumb to and covetousness is the root of incredible destruction.

Paul warned about immorality and problems of all kinds in the Last Days (2 Tim 3:1-5). All of these relate to covetousness.

Once immorality reaches a heightened point, it can't be overcome merely by computer blocking programs and so-called "accountability groups". In the Last Days, immorality will be too frequent and random. Christians will simply need to be strong. Some steps can be taken to ensure that we do not invite temptation—such as windows on office doors and men and women not being alone together—where they can possibly help it. But, sheltering ourselves too much makes us susceptible to first-time temptations.

Jesus was tempted even though he was sinless (Mt 4:1-11) and he taught that temptations must come (Mt 18:7, Lk 17:1) and we know that faith tested becomes the perfect faith of perseverance (James 1:2-4). So, the best solution to lustful situations is to remove all covetousness from one's heart, learn to build healthy dreams and goals, allowing other people's success to give us inspiration without envy, to be as strong in the Lord as possible through time in the Word and prayer, to be encouraged by normal and real fellowship with uplifting Christians, and, when the time of temptation comes, push through it with God's help. Never develop a "fallback crutch in case God doesn't come through". The only time we need such crutches is when we use them. Using such crutches is itself a form of covetousness, to have God's power to overcome temptation without relying on Him.

**Divorce and Remarriage**

Not being married at the time of authoring this, I do not feel adequate to delve into the subject of Divorce in a doctrinal opinion. There are many people who have adequate background in study and experience to help those struggling with issues of divorce. Nonetheless, I believe it is necessary for me to say something minimal about the subject, if nothing else as a guide for fellowship with those who are in such a position to opine further than I. Moreover, and on a personal note, there are few of us, if any, who have not been touched by the problem of divorce and want to know what to think of it. Surely, it is clear why God hates divorce so much. Don't we also?

God does hate divorce (Mal 2:16), but more than divorce, He hates when it becomes necessary; so He still instituted it as a second-rate option when we have refused His best. Christ explains His reasoning in Matthew 19:8-9 and then expounds. Broadly, Christ says that, while there is an unfortunate need for divorce, it is a 'Plan B' only made necessary because of sin, and we must never think that a path involving divorce was the best option we ever had. No amount of rationalizing, self-indignation, or self-justifying rhetoric can ever compensate for the truth: God hates divorce for good reason; because He loves us.

With apologies, I have chosen not to list passages on this subject because they are so numerous and would require a study in themselves that goes way beyond the mere work of our purposes this study of doctrine, let alone my own personal experience. Perhaps I will write a heavily-Scripture-dosed statement on divorce with my future wife of 50 years. Too much opining on topics with which we have little to no experience could be one reason for the escalating divorce rate, as well as numerous other failures in our world. I humbly add, one should also consider passages that may only address marriage as well as the nature of relationships between married couples where the subject of divorce may never even come up. Unlike many studies where research might be feigned with a concordance, this is a subject that involves relationships and, most of all, _conflict prevention_. The subject can't be given justice in any brief article because of its nature—it is a 'Plan B' and teaching about it must center on preserving 'Plan A'. My primary focus on the subject of Divorce and Marriage is not so much the permissions God gives, but preventing the need to exercise such permissions in the first place.

Personally, I do not plan to marry unless I have good reason to believe that my marriage will be a lasting and happy one; not merely thinking with self-denial and negligence that "bad things happen, but they won't happen to me." People ask why I am not married this _late_ in my life (36); my answer is that I do not want to be divorced this _early_ in my life because I conformed to a social model of haste.

I also think it is important to consider the role of children in the family of the married couple considering divorce, one way or another. A couple's marriage does not live in a vacuum that is separate from its children. I think the gravity and frequency of divorce in contemporary society is something that deserves priority consideration prior to marriage.

That said, some opinion is in order for everyone, even if only personal. As a general rule, I use a grid of common sense, malice, fault, and innocence. Divorcing in order to marry the person one is having an affair with is certainly not good. Note, when Jesus said, "...marries a divorcing woman..." the words "divorcing" and "marrying" are the same verb tense (Mk 10:12, aorist; Lk 16:18, present). In Greek, present tense means it is either a perpetual habit the woman has or it means that her divorce is in process and has only been recently resolved if it has been resolved at all. In Mark, the hypothetical situation seems over and done with, but that divorcing and remarrying happened about the same time in the past. In Luke, the hypothetical situation seems to happening in the present or habitually, still both divorce and remarriage occurring about the same time. The difference in tense is consistent with the "voice of Jesus" rather than the "words of Jesus" in harmonizing non-contradicting differences in the Gospels. This difference, however, has implications for both a working theory of divorce situations we encounter today as well as interpreting divorced situations as we look back on them in retrospect.

Moreover, in the Mark 10 and Luke 16 passages, Jesus was speaking to men. If he were speaking to women, then it stands to reason that the same would apply for marrying a "divorcing" man. Again, looking at these and many other examples in Scripture, we generally know if someone is remarrying to escape the fallout of having been done dirty or if the person is using divorce to justify a jealousy-based change of spouse (cf Ex 20:7). While there are no easy answers, looking at the Biblical passages on divorce with the grid of common sense, malice, fault, and innocence brings some continuity in the passages.

With regards to Romans 7:1-6, Paul is not giving new teaching about divorce, notwithstanding the fact that he is addressing broader issues and that remarriage is not the main subject of the passage. He is appealing to assumed, prior knowledge of the Law concerning divorce and remarriage. In a sense, he is referencing and demonstrating _precedent_ for remarriage as one might in a court case. What we gain from this passage is not so much about the subject of divorce and remarrying, but, actually, one of the best defenses against any form of antinomianism (lawlessness.) In this passage, Paul refers to the Law, setting a _precedent_ to illustrate how we are "dead" to the very Law that he makes reference to. Therefore, the biggest _precedent_ set here, also, is not so much about remarriage as it is about the view of Old Testament Law and Commands, that Christ did not abolish the Law; He _fulfilled_ it. Any other view would not support a Law's own precedent that it is _fulfilled_. In this, the Law foreshadowed the _precedent_ of its own _fulfillment_. If the subjects of divorce and remarriage are a _precedent_ for the _fulfillment_ of the Law, as Paul uses it, then it can only stand _fulfilled_ if it is still in force, all the more proving that God still takes the subjects of divorce and remarriage seriously, as should we.

There is the separate topic of divorcing a spouse who refuses to help the family or would be a danger to the children. Those can be difficult situations. Generally, a parent who divorces in order to protect the children from the other parent's abuse or neglect may face wrongful scrutiny. The "bad" spouse may have courted friendship with local Christians and people outside the family may have no idea what happens in the home. The test of genuineness in those situations would be whether the divorcing spouse has a next spouse in mind or whether the plan is to become a single parent for the foreseeable future. Again, common sense, malice, fault, and innocence are the common threads in Biblical discussion on divorce; the bigger problem with divorce is not divorce itself, but divorce and remarrying. This is only a starting point, however, and is by no means any kind of complete view on the matters of divorce and remarrying.

Lastly, in regards to the "freedom" a woman has to remarry after the death of her husband, my own mother is more qualified on speak to this than I, as my father, her late husband, Walter, has gone on to be with the Lord. Remarriage, though a grace to a widow, is a "freedom" she would not prefer to need. So, I return to the most important point here: second marriages are never the first preference.

**Morality, Homosexuality, and Categories of a Biblical Worldview**

The argument against homosexuality is strong from both Biology and Bible. God is responsible for creating our biological framework. Since we introduce terms like "person" and "Trinity" in our description of God, arguments from Biology for Biblical morals are not out of the question. The curt saying, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," stings because its claim is as obvious as it is irrefutable, yet it is neither edifying or helpful. While I won't make my arguments so sharp and condemning (and I do object to the 'Adam and Steve' remark for being so,) there remains a strong argument from Biology. If God knew what He was doing—which the Christian believes He did—then making us "male and female" (Gen 1:27) summarizes His view on the matter.

Separately, however, is the question of a possible intervention from Science. If scientists were somehow capable of combining the DNA of two human males or two human females to produce a human offspring, then any defense of "homosexual reproduction" would remain an argument from Science and Technology, not an argument from Biology since, in purely Biological capabilities, humans would still not be able to reproduce through homosexuality. "Test tube babies" aren't part of normal Biology proper. Thus would open the moral question of whether it is ethical to meddle with biological origins of a human, the same question that arises in the topic of human cloning. In principal and definition, a human conception that proceeds apart from natural stimuli would be a form of human cloning.

The idea that, "God made me this way", in reference to homosexuality means that one of us is confused. Given the difference in age, size, experience, capability, and understanding of God and Man, it is less likely that God is the one confused. Even not counting all the confusion that must, by definition, come with our sin nature, we certainly are confused about some things. With divorce rates being what they are, it is indefensible to say that most of us are not at least somewhat confused about our sexuality.

The Bible does not treat sexuality as a "state of being", but only as either a biology or an activity. The Bible never teaches that it is wrong to have feelings, whether good or bad; it only teaches us to focus on thoughts and feelings that will be beneficial (Pr 23:6-8, 1 Cor 6:12, Phil 4:8). While people tend to identify themselves as a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or some other term on a long and growing list of "othersexual" or "extrasexual" labels, the Bible does not even discuss "homosexual" feelings, but merely "lust" in general—not even "lust" necessarily in the sexual sense (Ex 20:17). Perhaps, the solution to the lack of sufficient labels and unquenchable thirst for more labels is to drop labels altogether and simply identify ourselves as individuals (Gal 3:28).

It seems that thoughts and feelings of both homosexual and heterosexual lust are almost presumed in the Old Testament to be quite normal, where people committing homosexual acts are not reacted to by others as if they are surprised, but only by objecting to their lust-obsessed injustice, not the inclinations of homosexual behavior. There seem to be no "homophobes" recorded in the Bible

This is far different from the excessive homophobia that governed much of the Church up until the beginning of the third millennium since Christ's birth. Even while Paul describes "homosexual feelings" as "unnatural" (Rom 1:27), he is not aghast and taken off guard by the evidence of someone having homosexual thoughts, he is merely observing Darwinian Biology—survival via nature. Perhaps in recent centuries, had "homosexual feelings" been accepted as "within normal sinfulness" rather than presumed to be "only for weird-os", more Biblical preaching might have prepared the Church to deal with the massive swelling of immorality that was foretold to come at the End of the Age (Mt 24:12, 2 Tim 3:1-5, 2 Pet 2:2). But, by treating "homosexuality" as a state of being rather than an action, and by being surprised by its evidence, the Church has been left ill prepared to answer honest questions. This is where Church leadership overlaps Anthropology. Anthropologically speaking, humans need the truth to be made as non-secret as possible. In that, the Church has failed. And, here we are today.

There are two, important parallel situations in the Bible where God's condemning judgment comes down upon a city or region engaging in homosexuality. One was Sodom and Gomorrah, the other was Benjamin in the Book of Judges. Both are harshly punished with fire among other things (Gen 19:3-11, Judg 19:16-28) and both had similar stories about a homosexual mob of men, drunk on their lust for sodomy, attempting to break down a righteous man's door in order to have homosexual relations with a foreigner, where the righteous man of the house offered the mob a woman in his house in a desperate attempt to appease the out-of-control mob (Gen 19:24-26, Judg 20). The parallel, yet not identical, similarities between the two stories are striking. Since the Bible puts impassioned homosexual lust into the larger category of covetousness (Ex 20:17), the best explanation for the Bible's contempt for acts of sodomy is that, eventually, so the Bible seems to indicate, once the practice of sodomy becomes commonplace in a local culture, because it is rooted in passionate lust, that local culture can't not turn as violent as it did both in Gomorrah of Sodom and Gibeah of Benjamin. While I have no extrabiblical evidence to collaborate that this is Scripture's application today, it seems that this is the most logical argument put forth in the Bible as to why Sodom and Gomorrah were frowned upon (Deut 29:23; 32:32, Is 13:19. Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40, Amos 4:11, Zeph 2:9, Rom 9:29, 2 Pet 2:6, Jude 7)—because of where their sodomy led them.

It almost seems that sodomy isn't the primary sin of these two passages as much as it is an indication of a people who became obsessed with sodomy as a part of uncontrollable lust and rage. James and Paul tell us that it all starts with our thought lives (Phil 4:8, James 1:13-15). By the time the groups of people got to the point they were at in these two accounts, we know that they have been thinking about sex excessively for a long, long time. At any point in their lives, they could have said, "I don't need to be engaging in sodomy. I'm becoming more obsessed with sex and more easily put on edge. Maybe I should think about other things until my passions calm down," but they didn't. These two stories, interpreted with Paul and James, tell us that sodomy is the type of hunger that only grows and is never satisfied, as the Old Testament describes on other occasions (Ecc 6:7, Micah 6:14). It makes sense that the Bible would condemn sodomy because of the thought life it comes from just as much as the destruction it leads to (Rom 1:26-27).

Passionate origins and destructive ends are enough to say, "Judging by fruit, I don't want this." But, why would God condemn sodomy itself? It could be that the posture is an artistic insult to the male-female creature; being God's Image, satirizing the male-female function could thus be an abomination to God Himself. After all, "male-female" and "Image of God" are both mentioned in God's same declaration—the declaration to create Man, which is so important that it is the only time in Scripture when He speaks in the majestic plural (Gen 1:27). That itself makes it possible to imagine the Great I AM as saying, "We do not approve."

Other than the "Imago Dei" argument, why else might God disapprove of sodomy? It could be the wasteful distraction of passionate lust from a being who needs to be working and productive, not squandering time, energy, and nutrients on playing with reproduction that produces nothing. Or, it could be no more the eventual mob rage that lust en masse leads to. Choose your reason or choose no reason at all; sodomy is at most an option, under no circumstances can it exist on Maslow's most basic level of needs.

The larger message from these two stories about sodomy mobs is, not only does God smite the lustful region once it mobs the house where a foreigner visits, but God delivers the righteous household from the mob when He does. None of this is taught directly, only through historical account—and it happened twice.

Two points make a line. If God's purpose was to clearly teach through Scripture that sodomy is good and beneficial, then He has done a lousy job. At least, he should have had one of the two sodomite mobs not be sodomites, but he didn't.

The mobs in both accounts were peppered with "offense"; they were _offended_ —becoming abusive after being denied access to the foreigner they demanded—and _offensive_ —pressuring the house owner to a point where he felt it necessary to offer them women to be killed in order to keep more people from dying. Today, violent mobs loudly advocate sodomy from the streets. They provoke anyone who does not join them, making sure their actions are known, even to those they cause heartache. They cry, "Bloody murder," over the smallest slight to their pride. This happened twice in the Bible, but it seems that some people want history to "three-peat".

Jude 7 labels Sodom and Gomorrah as "immoral", not "murderous" or "inhospitable"; his definition of "immoral" is not taught, it is assumed, but his view of Sodom was, unequivocally, that what most infamously happened there was "immoral". Sodomy's status as a sin in the Bible may be questioned by some people, not me. But, we all know, Biblically, what God eventually does to the violent mob, drunk on its own sexual passion. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't say much. More importantly, while the "good guys" in the Bible were appalled at where the mobs allowed their uncontrolled sexual lust to lead them, they were never appalled at the specific style of sexual lust itself. Homophobes don't exist in the Bible, not even among those who delivered news of God's judgment against homosexuals for their homosexual actions. These two cities of sodomites are Biblical proof that considering sodomy to be a sin does not make one a homophobe. This is not a license for the Church to become verbally abusive; it is an indictment of the Sunday morning "Churchianity" establishment that has tried to confront homosexuality, failing because they did so from the place of being homophobes themselves.

The Bible does not condemn or define much concerning sexual morals didactically; it clarifies what is and is not moral through assumptions, including the assumption that the reader already agrees that fornication is immoral and is therefore reading the Bible in search of ways to avoid a self-destructive life. Because the Bible addresses matters of morality through assumption of basic moral definition along the presumed road to a moral life, someone searching the Bible for excuses to redefine morals or otherwise escape a life of morality will find little in the Bible to the stop them (2 Tim 4:3-4), except the unmistakable results outlined in Joshua 1:8 and restated in Ezekiel 20:11ff. God's statement to Joshua that positive meditation leads to positive results, His rebuke to Israel for ignoring the rules of the road that lead to life, James's statement (1:13-15) that temptation starts by desire and leads to death, and these taken in light of Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and Gibeah in Judges 19, it is quite clear which choices lead where. I would never recommend reading the Bible in order to loosen the definitions of "sexual morality"; I read the Bible to have my heart taken captive by the beauty of God's holiness and inform my ways by the wisdom of His guidelines so I can escape from immorality and its morbid consequences so that the great life I then live outshines whatever I might think I missed out on.

If we are going to study the Bible, we must be honest with ourselves about what it says, including matters of sexuality. Even if we could dismiss the evidence and say that God wanted heterosexual and homosexual fornication, there remains the matter that sexual relations outside of mating for life are purely recreational—it's not necessary. Marriage is not only a commitment to be _only_ sexually active with one person; it is a promise to _remain_ sexually active with that person (1 Cor 7:5). Outside of marriage, there are no obligations to be sexually active. We can give up sexual activities anytime. Controlling our passions makes us stronger, not weaker.

Paul teaches in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 that God wants us to be "separate". The word "separate" from "ἁγιασμός/hagaismos", is often translated "holy" or "sanctified". While this word places strong emphasis on purity and moral elevation, the most important aspect is the means through which this moral purity is obtained: separateness. When Paul says that God's will is for us to be "sanctified", he means that God wants us to be like Him: completely "other than".

Paul's statement goes on to explain that we should abstain from sexual immorality. If God's will is that we be separate in a special way, and Paul puts this in the context that being sexually "separate" is acceptable to this end, then when not in the marriage obligation for sexual activity we have every reason to offer this "great want" up as a way of showing God how much we love Him. Those of us in marriage can have the same "separateness" by remaining loyal to our marriage vows. Love, after all, must have sacrifice.

Lusts of homosexuality and heterosexuality are considered equally sinful in the Bible. Never, in a Biblical worldview, is anyone classified as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" based on their temptations and feelings alone. Both sin and goodness begin with thoughts, but are defined by their resulting actions (Josh 1:8, James 1:14-15, Rev 2:23).

God does not make mistakes. You and I are not mistakes. The feeling of discomfort with one's own sexuality is not any indication that God mismatched someone's temptations with the wrong body; it is yet another reminder of the sin that lives in the broken nature of our fallen flesh. It could also be an indication that someone is more of an angel than he or she realizes and that, to become stronger, God has temporarily loaned him or her an uncomfortable body to learn patience for a very short eighty years on Earth. The solution to discomfort with the match between one's body and sexual emotions is not—on those grounds alone—to alter the body with knives or needles or alter one's temptations with "conversion" psychotherapy. If knives, needles, or psychotherapy are necessary, the need must go beyond the normal troubles, lusts, and confusions of the fallen flesh. Solving a problem incorrectly will only lead to more hunger for solving the same problem even more incorrectly.

Concerning any challenges we face in life, the Bible provides us with a very useful path: meditate on things other than sex, conform your mind to God's Word by intentionally focusing your thoughts on what the Bible says is good and upright by reading it daily, work and be diligent, rest at the proper times, resist temptation and don't ascribe to God the manner of your tempter, press through and don't give up, celebrate the difficult path because the narrow path leads to Life, for we know that great reward awaits us if we reject the easy road and do not make the excuses that allow us to give up. (Ex 20:8, Josh 1:8, Mt 7:13-14, Rom 12:1-2, Gal 6:9, Phil 4:8, Col 3:23-25, 2 Tim 4:6-8, James 1:2-4, 13-15; 4:7, Rev 22:12)

Some people who hold to moral definitions contrary to Scripture claim that to be silent and not supportive of their opinion is to condemn their opinion. However, the Biblical worldview would respond that one's confidence in the truth should not be dependent on approval from Man. God alone defines our morals, not democracy or consensus. For someone to say, "It's not enough for you to be silent in your disagreement with me. Tell me that you agree with me or else you are condemning me," surmounts to a crisis of conscience.

Part of a Biblical view of Anthropology requires that our emotional, spiritual, and mental states impel our own calls to action, even for problems we did not ask for and even if we do not obtain moral support from our fellow Man. By demanding that others agree with his moral behavior, that man indirectly confesses that his own conscience condemns him. The reason he demands verbal support from his friends is because he wants them to drown-out his own conscience because, as such demand implies, his conscience is shouting at him so loudly that he can't ignore it anymore. You cannot help him by agreeing with his self-diagnosis; he needs to have a discussion with his conscience and come to some sort of understanding with himself. And, to do that, he is going to need some uncomfortable silence.

People who treasure opposing views will always be stronger than people who only want friends who agree with them (Prov 9:8). The worldviews of these two types of people are different at the quantum level.

Will homosexuals be forgiven or will they burn in Hell forever? Jesus forgives all sin and none of us die having let go of every single sin that we harbored. Fornicators—whether heterosexual or homosexual—stand an equal chance of surviving the Judgment as members of gossiping church denominations. We all must consider carefully what work we accomplish in life. Do we really want our life's theme to be, "I can do what I want," or, "I ended every friendship in which someone tried to judge me," or, "I put every heretic in his place," or, "I never talked to those people."? Anyone who truly believes in Jesus will be saved, but, among those, anyone who squanders his life on "self-happiness" and "self-righteous" pursuits without reaching out, making friends with other Christians, and self-sacrificially building something for the benefit of all others will only escape the Judgment as by fire (1 Cor 3:11-15). We will not be judged by our feelings, temptations, or goals, but by our work (Rev 2:23; 20:13; 22:12).

Jesus explained what he will expect of us in his parable where the master rewards the stewards (Lk 19:11-27) and in his first sermon, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). He also said that it is very important that we be prepared like virgins who have enough oil to travel at the time of his return (Mt 25:1-13), which requires focusing on _his_ priorities—and calculating his forgiveness of fornication was not among them, especially in the context of a parable about virgins. Many pursuits and discussions are an enormous distraction from Jesus's priorities, not the least of which are at the forefront of Church pop culture today.

If a "ticket out of Hell" is someone's main question, then of course Jesus's forgiveness is vast. The sin none can survive is to accept the mark of the Antichrist (Rev 19:20). That indicates what we need to be preparing ourselves for and Christians who want nothing more than to "be forgiven" won't have given themselves many reasons to reject that mark. (See 'Eschatology > Salvation by Faith v Book' and 'Eschatology > Christ and Antichrist'.)

The more important matter about homosexuality and the Judgment is the Bible's teaching that God alone judges sin (Deut 32:35, Lk 6:36-37, Rom 12:19-21); we are not to condemn our fellow Man, nor do we need to agree with our brothers on every matter. Brothers, by definition, cannot "judge" each other; if they try they only "persecute". If we try to judge each other—either for sin or for judging us for sin—nothing good will come. However, walking without opinion, contempt, and condemnation toward each other makes for a very virtuous life. The question about Christianity and homosexuality is not what we should think of others nor what others think of us, but what each person thinks of himself as he considers the account he will give Jesus face-to-face. Above all, concerning yourself, you need to know that God loves you, right where you are. He wants you to become even better every day and He has given you the tools to become better if you follow His wise instructions. And, that should be sufficient for anyone's question about homosexuality and the Bible.

Many people debate whether fornicators—whether heterosexual or homosexual—will survive the Great White Throne Judgment. Biblically, I believe that fornicators stand an equal chance of surviving the Judgment as members of gossiping church denominations—as by fire (1 Cor 3:11-15). It is clear that we are judged not by our feelings, temptations, or goals, but by our work (Rev 2:23; 20:13; 22:12), similarly to Jesus's parable where he rewards the stewards (Lk 19:11-27). But, no one will survive the Judgment accepts the mark of the Antichrist or whose name is not written in the Book of Life. (See 'Eschatology > Salvation by Faith v Book' and 'Eschatology > Christ and Antichrist'.)

Given these things, the topic of morality and homosexuality must be matters of Christian fellowship. That does not, however, excuse the Christian from behaving in a polite and helpful manner. Even though Christian brothers may part the Christian nature of their fellowship over morality, to end all friendship over purely moral definitions would go beyond what is needed, let alone what is helpful.
Christology – The Person of Christ

The first eleven chapters of the Bible take us to Abraham. Job tells about life in Abraham's day. The entire rest of the Old Testament is about the nation of Israel, preparing and anticipating her Messiah, Jesus. The entire Bible is about Jesus. The subject of Jesus is technically a part of every subject of Biblical/Systematic Theology. So, _Christology_ is actually a subject of things _only_ pertaining to Jesus. In that, _Christology_ should be the smallest section in Systematic Theology because Jesus relates to so many things. But, even that is not the case. While Jesus relates to many other topics, the topic of _Jesus Alone_ is an immense topic unto itself.

John said that the whole world filled with books could not contain all that Jesus taught (Jn 22:25). How can anyone give a fair overview of the most famous and most impacting man in all of human history!

I won't try to do justice to the topic of who Jesus is and was because no amount of writing ever could. This is merely an introduction too brief by definition. Elaborating would feign thoroughness and would either be too narrow in focus or be too dominant against the other subjects of Systematic Theology. A worthy study of Jesus deserves at least a book to itself. Even then, any writing about Jesus, no matter how lengthy and diligent, serves as a testimony against itself to its own inadequacy. The very subject of _The Person of Christ_ can only ever be an insufficient inspiration for further study.

So, I shall introduce some basic topics to demonstrate the fantastic and diverse nature of Jesus as a person. The rest I leave both for later and for the Church.

**The Uncreated God-Man**

The historical and Biblical Jesus Christ of Nazareth is one person with two natures. He is fully God, yet fully Man, naturally, with each nature being preserved without conflict between the two, or in other words, having a "Hypo-Static Union". He is completely cohesive with Himself and His two natures with each other. He is not imagined; neither nature is dominating over the other. His human nature was born through the virgin, Mary (Is 7:14, Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38), yet He is not a created being. Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the promised one who will save the whole world. Most importantly, Jesus already came and will return. (See 'Eschatology > Christ and Antichrist' for expansion and juxtaposition.)

**Many Crowns and 'Many Hats'**

Jesus wears many crowns and "hats of occupation". There can be no exhaustive list of things he does and has done. Here are but a few topics, each of which could constitute an entire series of books to itself. (These are only topics where the Bible speaks of Jesus specifically by name.)

The Son of God (Mt 4:1-11; 8:29; 16:16, Mk 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; 15:39, Lk 1:32-35; 4:1-13, 41; 8:28; 22:69-70, Jn 1:34, 49-51; 3:18, 36; 5:25; 6:26-29; 10:24-39; 11:4; 13:31; 19:7; 20:30-31, Acts 8:36, Rom 1:4, 2 Cor 1:19, Gal 2:20, Heb 1:8; 4:14 1 Jn 4:10-15, 2 Jn 3, Rev 2:18).

Interpreter of OT and Mosaic Law (Mt 5:17-48; 7:12; 9:13; 15:1-9; 22:23-46, Mk 1:22, Lk 2:46-47; 18:31-34; 24:13-27).

The loving, respectful-sassy child (Mt 12:47-50, Lk 2:48-49, Jn 2:4).

The Master-Builder and Carpenter (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3, Jn 14:2-3, Eph 4:11-16, Rev 21:2).

Advisor to fishermen and fisher of Men (Mt 4:18-22, 13:47-48, Mk 1:16-20, Lk 5:3-11, Jn 21:3-13).

Cafeteria administrator and host of thousands (Mt 14:15-20; 15:32-38; 16:9, Mk 6:35-44; 8:1-9, Lk 8:55; 9:12-17, Jn 2:2-10; 6:5-13).

Honored guest (Lk 7:36; 11:37; 19:2-10; 24:29, 41-43, Jn 2:2; 19:28-29).

Miraculous healer (Mt 9:1-8; 14:14, 35-36; 15:30-31, Mk 7:24-37; Lk 4:38-39; 8:40-56; 9:11; 18:35-43, Jn 6:2; 9:1-34; 11:1-46).

Monitor and changer of weather (Mt 8:23-27; 14:24-32, Mk 4:36-41, Lk 8:22-25).

Monitor and Conqueror of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9).

Monitor, mover, and advisor of political leaders and affairs (Mt 10:18; 17:24-27, Mk 13:9, Lk 18:18-27).

Friend of children (Mt 7:9-11; 19:13-15, Mk 10:13-16, Lk 11:10-13; 18:15-17).

Friend of sinners and the corrupt (Mt 9:9-13; 11:19, Mk 2:15-17, Lk 3:12; 5:30-32; 7:34-39; 15:1-10; 18:9-14).

Friend and encourager in times of sorrow and hardship (Mt 5:4; 6:34, Lk 4:38, Jn 11:19, 35; 19:26-27; 20:15-18). _Note: I take John 20:17 to mean, more or less, "Hey there, don't hug me that tight, girl. This ain't goodbye. I'm still here. I haven't gone up yet. I'm here to see the guys. Go tell them that I'm here and I'm leaving to see God our Father soon." And, in the next verse, she runs to tell them the great news, indicating that v17 was a successful encouragement, not a rebuke._

The literary "goal" of the Old Testament story (Gen 3:15; 22:18, Is 7:14, Mt 1:22-23; 16:15-20; 21:4-5, Mk 8:29-30, Lk 9:20-21; 18:31-33; 24:27).

Universal and righteous judge (Mt 7:1-2; 10:15; 11:22-24; 12:27, 36-42; 19:28, Lk 6:37; 10:14; 11:19, 31-32; 18:1-8; 22:30, Jn 3:18-21; 5:22-24; 8:15-16; 9:39; 12:47-48; 16:8-11; Acts 17:30-31; Rom 2:16).

Israel's king (Mt 2:2; 21:4-5; 27:11, 37, Mk 15:2, 26, Lk 23:38, Jn 1:49; 12:13-15; 18:33-38; 19:19-22).

Global king (Phil 2:10, Rev 1:5; 15:3; 17:14; 19:16).

Legal Bridegroom of Israel (Mt 9:15; 25:1-13, Mk 2:19-20, Lk 5:34-35, Jn 3:29, Rev 21:2).

Bridegroom-friend of the Church; the Church is the friend of the Bridegroom (Mt 25:1-13, Jn 3:29).

Spiritual Bridegroom to the Christian (one of many applications of Song of Songs).

Public speaker (Mt 5:1-2; 7:28, Mk 1:21-22; 6:33; 8:1, Lk 5:1-3; 9:6, 11).

Good Shepherd and Teacher (Mt 8:19; 9:36; 19:16; 22:16, Mk 4:38; 5:35; 6:34; 10:17, Lk 3:12; 7:40; 10:25; 11:38-54, Jn 1:38, 49; 3:2; 10:11-14; 13:13-20; 20:11-18).

The military Messiah of the world and Victor over the Antichrist (Rev 14:1-5; 19:15, 21; 19:20; 20:10).

The spiritual Messiah who delivers Man from the kingdom of Satan and Darkness (Mt 12:22, Mk 1:23-27, Lk 8:26-39; 9:1; Jn 12:31, 1 Cor 15:54-57, Rev 20:2, 10).

The Redeemer from sin and reconciling Way between Man and God (Jn 1:12, 29; 3:16-17; 14:6; 20:30-31, Rom 5:1-21, 1 Thes 5:9, Heb 4:14; 7:22; 10:10, 1 Jn 2:1; 4:10).

The builder, leader, and head administrator of the Body of Christ (Mt 16:17-19, 1 Cor 1:9; 3:11; 11:3, Gal 3:26, Eph 1:3; 2:10, 20; 4:11-15; 5:23, 1 Thes 4:2; 5:23, Heb 3:1; 12:2; 13:20-21, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Jn 1:3).

But, the most important crown we can give Jesus is the crown we give him ourselves. The crown we give him, personally, defines whatever he is to us (Jn 12:47-48). If we call him the "great teacher", but not our "personal redeemer", then we will always know the greatness of his wisdom, but he will never redeem us. If we call him our redeemer and counselor, then we will have eternal redemption and great insight as we go about our lives. Jesus is a gentlemen and scholar. He will never force himself on us, but he can offer us anything good if we only ask him. He is also the great giver (Mt 6:25-33; 7:9-11; 21:22, Mk 11:24, Lk 11:10-13, Jn 16:24).

**Significance of the Virgin Birth**

This aspect of the virgin birth of Christ is of great importance. It goes without mention that the virgin birth was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Is 7:14). But more importantly, is its functional purpose. Since He is perfect, in order to be a perfect and complete sacrifice (Heb 10:12, 14, 22, 26; 11:4; 9:26), he must be borne as a human, yet without sin. As we observe in the Old Testament, the sins of fathers are visited on Children even to third and fourth generations (Ex 20:5; 34:6-7, Num 14:18, Deut 5:9). This is intrinsically tied to the nature of men as the leading gender of humanity (1 Tm 2:11-13) and is epitomized in Adam's action of leading all humanity into sin and death, while Christ is a second Adam, delivering us from sin and death (Rom 5:11-19, 1 Cor 15:22, 45, 47). However, through the virgin birth, Christ was kept sinless as the Son of God (Lk 1:35). This is because there was no father in the process of His birth to pass down the sin (Jn 1:35). Hence, though women are sinful, as seen in Eve's action (1 Tm 2:14), through the virgin birth, Mary's sin was not able to be passed on to Christ because sin is passed down through a human father. Here, the equal, yet servient posture of women was the "loop-hole" woven into humanity since creation, even before the fall. Through this "loop hole", a sinful race could produce a fully human, perfect Messiah. And, it stands to reason that the act of serving humanity in Christ's death on the cross be conceived through the servient gender of humanity. Though men set the tempo of humanity and drum the beat that we march to, the servient nature of women created an incorruptible means of our redemption that the Enemy could neither scathe nor predict. As Paul says, "Women shall be saved through child bearing if they continue in faith and love..." (1 Tm 2:15). The virgin birth personifies the incorruptible power and necessity of healing through service.

_(Related: 'Anthropology >_ **Men and Women: Equal in Value and Strength; Different in Nature** _')_

**In Regards to Christ's Nature**

Christ's birth was not the origin of his existence, but rather he was creating part of his revelation to us. Thus, Christ is not a created being, is fully God, and yet fully Man. He did not take on any new attributes, since, in the person of Jesus, God bore his own Image. He could not have added to himself the attribute of humanity for two reasons, first, humanity is his own Image and thus he would be adding to himself an attribute that he already possesses, and second, He cannot add anything to his character since he does not change (Heb 13:8). He always was and always will be (Rev 1:8). His manifestation in the form of his own Image was possible because he was the active Trinity Person who created God's Image called "Man" (Gen 1:26,27). It was fallen Man to whom he was revealing Himself (Jn 1:1-14). In doing so, God was bestowing a great grace upon us because He was revealing grace and truth at the point of His incarnation (Ps 85:10, Jn 1:14).

He is the Truth, Light, and Creator of Man, yet Man did not accept him because Man was fallen and Man had thus lost his ability to recognize the Incarnate Christ due to Man's unbelief (Jn 1:9-11, cf Jn 3:17-19). Likewise, Man did not accept his teaching and thus Man crucified Him because the sin of the world driving Man's action was not compatible with his perfect character (1 Cor 2:8). The incarnation of the Holy God into and among humanity literally offended our fallen nature. In this, the self-destructive mind of evil is also revealed: by crucifying the perfect Sacrifice, Man's sin was an inescapable accessory to his deliverance from that same sin.

Soteriology – The Work of Christ

Christ's suffering and death on the Cross was God enduring of the punishment that Man incurred at the Fall in Gen 3 and was, by nature, supposed to be inflicted upon Man, but instead God took it upon Himself (Is 53:5, Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 2:2, 1 Jn 4:10). God could do this, in part, because He is the original of His Image and it was His Image that deserved this punishment. Although likely desired, this punishment was not justified merely by the demands of Satan; rather it was demanded by God's character. By taking the punishment upon Himself, He was protecting His name from slander (now, no one could accuse Him of being a respecter of persons, nor of _not_ sympathizing with the fallen Man and thus argue that God is not loving—according to how He revealed His loving nature in the Scriptures.) In the Cross we see God's insistence that His creation obey Him, His insistence of punishing disobedience, His empathizing with our situation, and His unconditional Love—since He knew that He would suffer on the Cross even before the world was created (Ps 139:4, Rom 8:29).

Considering that God sent His Son for our sakes (Jn 3:16), it only makes sense that He has left the world without excuse for not having redemption (Acts 17:30-31 cf Rom 1:20), since the propitiation provided by His Son covers the sin of everyone in the whole world (1 Jn 2:2). Therefore we see a God who is consistent at every level and, thus, we learn more about Him, simply by observing what happened on the Cross—that He will stop at nothing to redeem His beloved (Rom 5:8). The initial application of this salvation is only through faith, not works (Gen 15:6, Jn 3:18, Eph 2:8-9), and can only be in Christ (Acts 4:12, Jn 3:13-21, 14:6), the second part of the Trinity, which would make sense that the creating Person of God would also be both the redeeming Person and the guiding Person. Salvation, by faith in the wonderful Man Christ Jesus and not by works, being so simple and acceptable, resulting in eternal bliss, heals the heart even as one ponders it. This kind of redemption, then, is a grace, in and of itself, which God has given to Man. As the Scriptures read, "Behold what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God." (1 Jn 3:1)

Since this work of Christ in 1 Jn 2:2 concerns imputing righteousness to a person (sticking it on like a sticker) (Gen 15:6), it is applied to each individual through faith alone (Eph 2:4-9, Jn 6:40), in Christ alone (justification, Jn 14:6). Through this, the recipient of this work receives the consequential ability to love as God loves (1 Jn 4:7,8), ability to obey God's commands (Jn 14:23,24), permittance to appeal to the Father directly (Jn 16:23, Eph 2:8, 9, 18, 3:12), and begins a process of being changed from having the lowly status of "fallen" (Rom 7:25) to growing the character of God Himself (sanctification, 2 Cor 3:18) and even being Sons of God (Jn 1:12-13). Once an individual has this work of 1 John 2:2 applied to himself through faith, he can then receive the Holy Spirit, the protagonist in this process of sanctification (Jn 16:13). Eventually Christ's work will bring the resurrection from the dead for those who believed in Him (1 Cor 15:12-20).

**Imputed Righteousness**

The concept of "imputed righteousness", along with any kind and context of "saving righteousness", is a "holier" kind of righteousness than the practical, pragmatic "righteousness" found in a biblical theology study of "righteous [people]" in 1 Enoch and through the Old Testament, even the New Testament. (See 'Bibliology > A 'Righteous' Man'.) All "righteousness" has a practical, "equal-standard of weight and measure" concept underlining its definition. Even "righteousness by faith" includes the elemental fact that believing the Creator and Redeemer is a fair, just, balanced, standard-measured decision on the part of the person who believes. But, believing in Jesus, though practically "just and righteous" in the basic sense of "righteousness", also imputes the more specific and otherwise inaccessible "righteousness" which alone can grant Eternal Life. This "saving righteousness" is also just and fair, which is the point of the teaching _the just shall live by faith_ (Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38).

That God saves us by faith is reasonable, just, fair, and "righteous", though undeserved, making it paradoxically just, fair, and "righteous" all the same. This "holier" kind of "righteousness" that Eternally saves us, which is the specific kind of "righteousness" that comes with "imputed righteousness", might also be dubbed "imputed holiness" or "imputed sinlessness" or even "imputed saving-righteousness", but these semantic distinctions would surmount to that of six vs half a dozen, the only purpose being to avoid confusion between the two overlapping yet different definitions of the term "righteousness". Theologians in the Church know what they mean and twenty-first century theology shows no want of excess jargon.

The point we must take home from the teaching of "imputed righteousness" is that we cannot be Eternally Redeemed by means of our practical "righteousness" alone—though that practical "righteousness" is part of Biblical living and godly stewardship, notwithstanding that the concept of practical "righteousness" contributes to the legitimacy of Christ's priestly work on the Cross— _it was finished_ justly and fairly; to receive Eternal Life we need an "imputed, holier righteousness" which came from the justly legitimate work at the Cross which can only come to us individually by our individual faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who himself finished that work on the Cross.

**On the 'Eternal Security' Discussion**

Given the breadth of content in this Statement, I find it necessary to give remarks on the matter of Salvation and whether it can be lost. However much I might desire to claim the following doctrine as my own, I must disclose that this doctrine on the security of Christian salvation is not my own; I have copied it directly word-for-word out of the Scriptures. Because of this I will connect no meaning between verses, I will simply quote the two passages that perfectly explain the doctrine I have exactly adopted from the Scriptures NASB 1995 translation. 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Hebrews 10:39, "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." For me, further inquiry would be an attempt to discern God's unrevealed thoughts; to those seek more clarity, good luck.
**Pneumatology – The Holy Spirit**

The Holy Spirit is the richest, most fabulous gift from God apart from Eternal Life itself. He gives us power, strength, insight, wisdom, physical health, and knowledge. Eastern and Aboriginal spiritual religions (including Pantheism and Druidism) attempt to tap into spiritual understanding—and they can succeed in this more so than the Western, academic-empirical worldview can—but the Holy Spirit allows us to move much beyond their capabilities. The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal "Force", though He has all the power of a "spirit-energy force" and more. He has some presence and availability to all Men, and all Men have spirits of their own, but He is not made up of the collected spirits of Mankind. He is part of the Triune God—the third in sequence not in value, nor was He created. He is part of the Creator God Himself.

He was present and involved in the Creation, mentioned in Genesis 1:2. He was the power in Jesus's earthly ministry and is the means of Jesus's current ministry to us on Earth from Heaven. Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit, calling Him the Helper and the Teacher, and Jesus was eager to give Him to all of us. The Holy Spirit was present in the Old Testament, but was not available to everyone yet because Jesus had not yet finished reconciling Man to God. Yet, God Himself was eager for us to have His Holy Spirit from the Beginning. Joel 2 even promises the wonderful gift that in the Last Days the Holy Spirit would not only be _available_ to all, _but would be poured out on all Men_.

The Holy Spirit is how we have "friendship" and "conversation" with God, what some call "a walk with Jesus". Sometimes He speaks to us with a soft whisper (1 King 19:11-12, Ps 46:10), other times in dreams and strong impressions or even what could be hallucinations, and most easily He speaks to us by giving us the insight to understand the Bible. We can't understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit opening our minds to it. And, whenever He speaks to us in ways outside the Bible, only the Bible can help us understand the deep meaning of what He spoke.

While some call this "circular reasoning", Christian understanding considers it a "spiral". We walk with the Holy Spirit in life, we read the Bible and He helps us understand it, He speaks to us in life and our understanding of the Bible helps us understand more of what He spoke, and back and forth it goes, snowballing or "spiraling" larger and larger. People who do not respect the Bible or who belittle it and the Holy Spirit do so because they do not have the Holy Spirit, so they only hear these concepts as theories, like trying to explain a sunrise to someone who has never seen one.

Of course, all this requires that we accept the truth whether we like it or not (Ps 15:1-2), then obedience to what we learn, by definition. No one would genuinely seek the Holy Spirit to ignore Him. If we disobey or otherwise reject what the Holy Spirit teaches us, since He searches our hearts (1 Sam 16:7), He will know it and withdraw (Ps 51:11, Eph 4:30), just as anyone does when sought, then ignored. Likewise, if we genuinely try to accept and obey Him, and do what He says (though we can never obey perfectly), He will know it and, just as anyone would, He will teach us even more, even if He does so through seasons of silence, moving our circumstances and waiting for us to complete some academic diligence in Scripture (2 Tim 2:15). Some people ask about "how to hear from God". Obedience, diligence in study, and walking with Him with the courtesy and manner of a Friend are all key (2 Pet 1:1-12).

If we can grasp an understanding of the Holy Spirit, how to grow in His fellowship and His power, then we can tap into fantastic abilities, self-confidence, inner happiness, powerful relationships with others, understanding, skills, physical miracles, healing and youth in our bodies, and almost anything that leads to an incredible, satisfying life. He is so helpful and necessary for these things that it is impossible to reach a "self-actualized" or fulfilled life without Him.

People who don't have a full life in the Bible have major problems and challenges that they "just can't get past"—whether they are not Christian or else Christian with large gaps in Biblical understanding. They have these problems because they haven't received certain things that only come from the Holy Spirit. Gifts of the Holy Spirit include both emotional and spiritual senses, as well as miracles and visions. Everyone has some intellectual capacity even without the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit seriously enhances intellect, academic understanding, and knowledge. All of these are available to all people to some extent, even though everyone excels in different areas; they all require the Holy Spirit before they can be mostly useful.

When anyone is looking for a breakthrough in life, even the ongoing course of what some call "self-improvement", even if it is part of a challenge not resulting from sin or any "problem" per se, that person's need involves something the Holy Spirit offers. Sometimes, we need the Holy Spirit to open our minds so we can learn something about God, the Bible, or each other, even from someone who does not know God, rejects the Bible, or has many broken relationships. All of us, everyone, is continuing to learn and will never finish growing in the Holy Spirit. So, it is very important that we pay close attention to even the smallest and most seemingly boring details about anything we can learn from Scripture about Him.

He restrains the sin of the world (2 Thes 2:6), meaning that Men who do not know God have less sin and self-destruction in their lives because the Holy Spirit chooses to "restrain" their ability to sin, but could lift that restraint at any time and often does. In this, the Holy Spirit has some level of work with all people since Creation, but Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to Man in a personal way in John 20:22 when He says "receive the Holy Spirit," then breaths on the disciples. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit's very existence depends upon the Word, but rather that our restored relationship to the Holy Spirit is based on the work of the Word performed at the Cross and Resurrection. Until that point the Holy Spirit had not been "given" to us (Jn 7:39). Before Jesus breathed on the disciples and the Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2, the world did not have the Spirit as we have Him today.

Near the End of the Age, during the time just before Jesus returns, sin will increase because the Holy Spirit will lift His restraint (Mt 24:12, 2 Tim 3:1-9). This is partly connected with God's expectation that Man will no longer have the excuse of not knowing about the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:30-31), even though they never had an excuse to deny the basic existence of the Creator God (Rom 1:20), because the fame of Jesus will have filled the earth (Mt 24:14, Mk 13:10) and the Holy Spirit's power to give us self-control will be available by choice. So, it is all the more important that we understand Him, especially as we approach the End of the Age.

Many books about the Holy Spirit, how He walks with us, prayer, miracles, academic understanding of Him—many topics about Him have already been written and have yet to be written. I will not try to duplicate those many topics in this study. Here, I will try to lay down a deep, concise framework about who He is, what He does, and His manner of working, with details about how we connect to Him. This basic study on the Holy Spirit should make further study—which is necessary—much more valuable.

Let us begin with a concentrated overview. The Holy Spirit is sent by God (Lk 11:13), specifically He proceeds to us, from the Father, through the Word (Jn 14:26; 16:7, 28). He is personal, being grievable like any friend or adversary (Eph 4:30). He is the Healer (Mk 5:25-34, Lk 8:43-48), the Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26, 16:7), the Teacher (Mt 23:8, Jn 16:13), was active in Creation (Gen 1:2), and proceeds to the Earth from Jesus, even before Jesus returns (Rev 5:6 cf 1:4; 3:1; 4:5).

**Director of Wisdom and Leadership**

Looking through Acts, and seeing how the active presence of the Holy Spirit connects with faith, it is easy to understand why the Holy Spirit empowers the Church to spread the Gospel. The Holy Spirit brings people to share the Gospel, and then by the faith received from the Holy Spirit agreeing with the Gospel, the Holy Spirit then fills Christians who then spread the Gospel more. It "snowballs" or "spirals" or "ripples" outward. No one can understand the Gospel until he or she has been saved by it (1 Cor 1:18). We can see without question how the Holy Spirit and the Gospel are closely tied together.

The Holy Spirit was sent to instruct us (Jn 14:26, Lk 12:12) and to empower us (Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and moves an individual to accept Christ, resulting in the Christian conversion (Jn 16:7-11, 1 Thes 1:5). The Holy Spirit is active and necessary in delivering the Gospel (1 Thes 1:5). In light of the free will involved in salvation (Jn 1:12, 3:16) and the requirement that the Holy Spirit help open our eyes to the truth of the Gospel, the process of a person coming to believe in Jesus is a kind of cooperative effort, like following the lead of a dance partner. Coming to believe in Jesus is a back and forth work between the person seeking and the Holy Spirit initiating as the two respond to each other. No one can come to profess Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the Son of the Lord God Most High except through a work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). Were the work of the Holy Spirit to be put in business terms, one slogan could read: _The Holy Spirit: Don't Minister Without Him!_ His involvement in the Gospel is imperative!

Faith in Christ results in the Spirit's indwelling (2 Tm 1:14), at which point the new Believer becomes the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). The term "temple" in itself does not necessarily imply or deny the Holy Spirit's _indwelling_ , especially considering that Solomon's Temple did not have the presence of the Holy Spirit until the Temple's dedication (1 Kng 8:10). But, the Holy Spirit in the Believer, unlike the departure from the Temple in the Old Testament (Ezk 10:18, 11:23), takes up permanent residence, a pledge to the believer at the time of sealing (2 Cor 1:21-22). This difference in permanency is because of the New Covenant (Lk 22:20), which was not part of the Old Covenant of Abraham in the Old Testament (Gen 15:5-6, 18; 17:2-5, Lk 1:73, Acts 3:25; 7:8). Moreover, this permanency has deeper implications—it is a term borrowed from Jewish wedding tradition dating back to Abraham's courting of a wife for his son, Isaac (Gen 24:10, 14).

This "pledge" is a gift that is given permanently and without condition, like an engagement ring that can't be given back even if the bride-to-be declines the proposal. So, Paul explains to Corinth the permanency of the Holy Spirit's presence using an illustration ('pledge') from the "Bridegroom" paradigm. Thus, we see that the conviction, instruction, empowerment, and communication of the Gospel to the heart are parts of this promise as God extends His love toward us by freely giving us His Holy Spirit, who guides us along the path to life (Ps 3:6).

The Holy Spirit is not only a gift to the individual Christian, but also to the corporate Body of Christ. He speaks to the whole Body of Christ, and appoints and directs overseers in the Church (Acts 20:28, Rev 3:22); but, as seen with the beckoning and warnings in Acts and Revelation, His leadership over the Church operates in a way that requires careful attention to His direction. The Holy Spirit's role in appointing and directing leaders in no way means that their decisions are infallible or that their position (or 'office') in the Body of Christ is permanent. Almost every Christian movement we know today began at the disapproval of Christian leaders of their day, which means that the Holy Spirit not only appoints leaders, He also appoints new leaders to rise up against the will of current and former leaders He appointed in order to take their new place in God's ever growing and thriving Body. To say otherwise would invalidate every Christian founder or fellowship that exists today.

The Holy Spirit's style of appointing and directing leaders in the Church is done much the same way as He appoints leaders in government (Rom 13:1, Tit 3:1, Heb 13:17, 1 Pet 2:13-14). Governments are appointed by Him, but not infallible, such as how He refers to Babylon and expects other nations to globalize under Babylonian rule, though not in false religion nor under Babylon forever (Jer 25:9, 27:8, Dan 3, 4:20-23). In democracies, this means by definition that all voting citizens are appointed as leaders, as well as those they elect. In countries where the people have no say in their government, their responsibility (and also in any country) is to live good and honest lives, influencing government indirectly by living contagiously honest and uncompromising lives. No government is corrupt where the people under that government are not also equally corrupt, though their corruption may take different forms and sizes. All people are and will be held accountable by the Lord. This means, by doctrine of God's sovereignty—that He controls all things and appoints leaders through His Holy Spirit—that in political revolutions, whoever the winner is, that winner was appointed by God to be so (1 Pet 2:16). Unfortunately, "God appointed me" has been the motto and defense of many tyrants, both in the Church and in governments. The one who claims "God appointed me" is most likely, therefore, to be in the process of being deposed by God Himself, otherwise He would not need to speak what should be obvious beyond words. The ultimate lesson of this is that the phrase "God appointing leaders" never means that people are wrong to disagree with those leaders. So, whether leading or serving under a leader, leading a new work or facing a wrongful rebellion, "Do all things without complaining," (Phil 2:14, 1 Pet 2:17).

Even as the Lord appoints and deposes kings (Dan 2:21), He also appoints prophets over those kings and the Lord Himself enforces what He says through them (Jer 1:10, Deut 18:18-19). When the Lord appoints anyone, that is in no way a blank check or validation of whatsoever His appointees may desire. Prophets can be wrong (2 Sam 7:3-5), rogue (Jonah), and are at or above the level of a donkey (Num 22:23-30). No government or leader will ever be perfect until Jesus reigns from Jerusalem (Is 9:6-7, Rev 20:4-6).

In terms of "rebellions", there is a difference between a respectfully handled political revolution and mindless "rebelliousness". Both enrage the leaders under whom they happen, one is godly, the other is not. This "mindless rebelliousness" is the kind Paul refers to in Romans 13:2. But, this must be placed in context of two important facts: 1) the verses that follow (Rom 13:3-4) which explain the nature of the kind of rebellion Paul is talking about and 2) the fact that Paul and all of the rest of the New Testament Apostles were in rebellion against their own "God-appointed" government, Rome, merely by believing in Jesus. This is even beyond that Pauline hermeneutic explained in the _Introduction_ of this study, that Paul be interpreted "proverbially", not universally at face value and as new law. Even Peter's comments in 1 Peter 2:13-17 have quite a rounded walk through the park on what ideas he is specifically trying to explain, even in saying, "live as free men" while talking about obedience to government in the context of Roman rule. New Testament teaching on obeying government leaders does not instruct us to obey every petty and unjust law, but to live freely within God's view of justice toward each other and to have a "submissive" and respectful manner and conduct in dealing with governments and their officials. Police are also human and in need of encouragement and the Gospel of Jesus. So, every encounter with police, or anyone else in government, is not merely a matter of permission or obligation to obey or rebel, but how to bring new truth, conviction, love, kindness, reproof, respect, and encouragement to yet another person who is just as much in need of these things as everyone else.

"Civil disobedience" was a remarkable concept given to the modern Church by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His own _Letter from the Birmingham Jail_ to the Christian leaders of his day confronted their objection that he was "making waves" in both Church and in government. God appointed those leaders, who were wrong, and God appointed MLK to tell them so—and MLK's message outlasted theirs because he followed the New Testament model of "living as a free man" in a way that was respectful. Just as much was America's own revolutionary war respectful with its well-explained _Declaration of Independence_ and all the warnings it records leading up to it. Just the same, the American Civil War was a rebellion of the formerly stated "mindless" kind since it would split the one nation that helps Israel and do so without cause, preserve enslavement of fellow Man, and, most importantly, now having seen that the American Civil War's rebellion was not ordained of God to win, only to try and fail because that is exactly what our Sovereign God allowed. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln set the model of leadership for every leader suppressing insurrection, including pastors, parents, and presidents, "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to seek the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."

It is an easy mistake for the novice Bible student to misinterpret Bible passages on government and leadership to "rubber stamp" all decisions of government and Christian leaders (and other sectors of leaders by implication and precedent). This is the "simple-easy" approach to dealing with leaders because it enables "not needing to think" and absolves us of the responsibility to weigh matters of justice carefully and with fairness. There are no easy answers in situations and matters of governance. No one is right all the time, neither a leader in power nor a servant in submission. Justice is a moment-to-moment quest that we must seek the Holy Spirit's wisdom to navigate correctly.

The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30) and Believers are commanded to be _filled_ with the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18); this means that a matter of the will is involved and that wherever God is present He also brings a developing prerogative toward obedience. Thus, being filled with the Holy Spirit and encounters with the Holy Spirit are always matters of daily obedience. If there ever were a correlation between the Holy Spirit's departure from the Temple in Ezekiel 10-11 and the life of a Christian today, it would not be that the Spirit stops _dwelling_ in the obstinate Believer, but that disobedience inhibits the moment-by-moment _filling_ of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a grace bestowed upon humanity and the Church, but His permanency does not force His way with us; while He is always with us, His gifts are ours by choice. Beginning to Eternity, the Holy Spirit's residency implies a "dance of wills".

God worked through the kings of Babylon with Daniel and kings of Persia with Esther and Nehemiah. God spoke to the pagan prophet, Balaam, through his donkey and then spoke through Balaam to his pagan ruler, Balak (Num 22-24). God used the misfit prophet, Jonah, to save Nineveh. Jesus taught that justice can come through an unjust judge (Lk 18:1-8). Whenever wisdom and justice come through any leader or prophet or subordinate, that is never an endorsement of anyone's work, beliefs, or ambitions; rather it is a testimony to the transcending power of the Holy Spirit to lead the world through any and all means He so chooses according to His immeasurable wisdom.

Wisdom is no small blessing. Whether they ascribe wisdom to God, earthly kings eagerly seek out the Holy Spirit's wisdom (Pr 25:2). Even Pharaoh of Joseph's time (Gen 41:8) and King Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel's time (Dan 5:16) were eager for guidance in their rule. Part of the Holy Spirit's gift is His availability to those who seek wisdom. Because He guides and directs all of us, in whatever capacity we lead, whether in our personal lives, in government, business, or the Church: _we are not alone_. _If we seek Him_ , God is near and can be found (Jer 29:11-13). Daniel prayed and fasted often (Dan 6:10-16; 9:3-23; 10:3), which was part of why he had that wisdom to offer the kings of his day. This hope, of wisdom offered to any and all leaders who need it so much, is an encouragement to anyone with authority of any amount and kind, and it is a call to seek Him for that which can only be found if sought and heeded when found.

Daniel took initiative to offer advice to king Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:14-16) while Joseph had to wait to be summoned (Gen 41:14). So, in any way, seek out, in any government system or any kind of leadership, whatever your position may be, to offer help and wisdom to leaders. Wisdom of leadership can be every bit as inspiring to a ruler as a healing miracle is to a wounded man. As Nebuchadnezzar said, (my pedagogical paraphrase), "Now, I know your God can solve any mystery because he solved [my] mystery." (Dan 2:47) Jesus said, (paraphrase), "Let your light shine before men... that they may glorify God." (Mt 5:16)

**Baptism and Drenching**

In John 3, Jesus explains how this salvation by faith (3:16) is rooted in the very core foundation of a person's being. This is seen when he says in v5 that a person must be borne of water and wind. The language here dates back to an ancient understanding that the very essence of life was in the four elements. A closer historical look is necessary to understand "baptisms" and the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit's methods in Acts could seem to contradict Romans 8:9 to the novice Bible student. All Believers "have" the Holy Spirit, but we have no reason to believe the that _standard procedure_ of _Baptism of the Holy Spirit through laying on of hands_ in Acts has ceased, outside of a misinterpretation of the 1 Corinthians 13 Love Chapter. Perhaps the reconciliation between the two is found in a literal definition of "baptism" coupled with the expression "receive the Spirit". The term "baptism" means "drenching" not "drinking." Christians debate whether water baptism should be by immersion or sprinkling, but no one would suggest that it be through drinking a glass of water. Drinking is done in communion, a different sacrament altogether. So, it makes no sense why "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" should ever result in "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. We have "indwelling" from salvation by faith, Romans 8:9. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is, more or less, throwing gasoline on the lantern. The fact that "baptism" means "drenching" in the New Testament culture would mean that everyone understood this. A better translation of the question in Acts 19:2 might be, "Have you been _drenched_ in the Holy Spirit, though?". The meaning was common knowledge in the New Testament community, which is why there is little to know didactic explanation about the mechanics of the Holy Spirit's Baptism in the New Testament. Its meaning is merely lexical. "Have you received the Holy Spirit" would be a kind of "Greekism" for "Have you received Baptism of the Holy Spirit because you already have the Spirit of Christ inside of you, but you want 'outdwelling' not just 'indwelling?'" But, being normal, lazy humans, they don't want to say all of that. So, when they say, "receiving" the Spirit, it is a figure of speech, not a theological distinction. Most people don't think in theological categories, remember. In a sense, this question is comparable to saying to a friend, "So, you read the book, but did you _'get'_ it?". It's almost common-slang "book talk". Likewise, the lexical terms should apply to "baptism", without an onslaught of theologically esoteric. That being said, the operating procedure for Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts never places the emphasis on "languages", but on "laying on of hands".

**On Terminology for the Holy Spirit's Presence in One's Life**

Knowing the language of ancient philosophy and physics, we can see that John 1 basically refers to Jesus as being the fifth element, the source of being. Elements for the ancient world were of both physical and spiritual. When Christ says, "water and spirit ('wind'—from πνεῦμα/pneuma)" (3:5), ancient readers understand that a person must be re-built, going back to the very foundation of their being. This is coherent with 3:6 which teaches that the flesh profits nothing. (cf Jn 6:63, Jn 1:33, 34). Wind (or spirit)—being considered a metaphysical element of life, both in our physical world and beyond—describes the need for spiritual regeneration, while water—being merely a physical element—underlines the importance of regeneration also in the natural sense. Having this perspective, Christ tells a man that his sins are forgiven and then heals his body (Mk 2:5, 11).

It is not ironic that there are also two baptisms in Christianity, water and Holy Spirit. But, their bases is only partially explained in John 3 which it is much more general, having its roots in philosophy. Christ's main point is that humanity's dilemma must be solved at the core fiber of one's being, both physical and spiritual. Placing importance on the spiritual realm rather than only the physical world is also seen from John the Baptist when offering life in the Spirit is his reason for placing priority of Christ over himself (Jn 1:31, 33). The fact of first mention of these words in John 1 on baptism calls for expansion, in ch3, and then is demonstrated in 6:36. (We also see this contrast between spirit and flesh illustrated throughout the rest of the New Testament.) Hence, we come to the inescapable issue of baptism. I will revisit the issue of water baptism in the section on Ecclesiology.

Earlier I explained how the Greek term "baptize" from "βαπτίζω/baptidzo" literally means to "drench" or "immerse". The phrase "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" in English literally means "Immersion in the Holy Wind". It is best to treat in that exact way. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is an opportunity presented by Christ (Lk 3:16, Acts 11:16). This baptism came for the first time in Acts 2:1-4 when it was accompanied by fire. The amazing thing about the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that it brings life when the flesh offers only itself (Jn 3:6 cf 6:63). It has always been the human mindset to become great through use of physical things, but true life—even human, temporal life—only comes through a spiritual reviving. Christ comes to baptize with the Holy Wind/Spirit, and thus makes dead people into living people, spiritually. But, "baptism/immersion" of the Holy Spirit (an activity with permanent results) is not to be confused with the "filling" of the Holy Spirit, which is more concerned with volition and empowerment on a daily basis. Because the events in Acts 8:15-18 were in reference to Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is reasonable to conclude that "receiving" the Holy Spirit carries the same meaning in Scripture since that is the terminology used in v18. So we have three events involving the Holy Spirit's presence in the life of a Believer: indwelling/sealing (which occurs at the moment of salvation by faith in Christ as per Romans 8:9,) baptism/immersion/receiving (which is a punctiliar event with continuous, ongoing, irrevocable results,) and "filling" (which is an instance-to-instance choice of the Believer).

**Chronological Occurrence of Baptism of the Holy Spirit**

With the Holy Spirit's power, many things happen at varying stages. It is important to have a multi-categorical framework with which to make sense of the Bible's teaching about the Holy Spirit so as to avoid the theological contradictions normal to novice Bible study. The Holy Spirit operates in powerful and diverse ways, so must our categories with which we understand Him be diverse enough for His work to make sense to us.

Based on the language and events of Acts 8:15-17, Baptism of the Holy Spirit clearly was not assumed to happen at the point of Christian conversion. In Acts, it was possible to be powerful in the Word of God without the Holy Spirit. Apollos was such a man and, when he learned that there was more available to him, he gladly accepted it (Acts 18:24-19:6). In John 20:22 Jesus "breathes" on the disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit," which happens after they had faith in him, but the actual power and signs of the Holy Spirit do not happen until Acts 2:4. Given the other passages later in Acts which demonstrate the sequence, John 20 appears to be a precedent that did not expire anywhere in Acts. The disciples had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as of John 20, but the externally observable demonstration of the Holy Spirit's power, as a result of the Spirit's indwelling being "activated" as it were, happened at a later time. So, throughout Acts, we see the same consistency of the Spirit's power coming in a multi-stage sequence.

Acts 19:1-6 records people maturing from the faith-based salvation of the Old Testament (of Abraham, Gen 15:6, and John's Baptism of Repentance, Mt 3:11, Mk 1:4, Lk 3:3) into the faith-based salvation of the New Testament (Jn 1:12, 17; 3:5, 6, 16) and simultaneously being "immersed/baptized" in the Holy Spirit when Paul laid hands on them. Apollos (Acts 18:25-28) had not been baptized in the Holy Spirit because he was only acquainted with the baptism of John (v25). Still, he was demonstrating power of the Holy Spirit through the Word since no one can teach the truth of Christ except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:13, 12:3). Furthermore, based on Romans 8:9 and 2 Timothy 1:14, Paul address the entire Church as if they assume that the Holy Spirit "indwells" all Christians. (Note that this is another example of the Bible teaching through 'assumption'. See the section in 'Anthropology > Homosexuality'.) These instances in Acts, in conjunction with Paul having been privy to them and his interpretation thereof in 1 Corinthians, Romans 8, and 2 Timothy, demonstrate a working theology of the New Testament Church that the "receiving" (immersion/baptism) of the Holy Spirit is different from "indwelling" and can, but does not always, accompany saving faith in Christ. Hence, "being immersed/baptized" ('receiving') and being "filled" by the Holy Spirit may occur at different times, and "filling" possibly even before "immersion/baptism/receiving".

The possibility of the Spirit's "filling" being able to happen before "immersion"/"baptism" would explain the somewhat bi-polar "God-Spirit-high" phenomenon and feeling of "emotional connectedness with God" coupled with easily-toppled obsession with "resolve and obedience." In my experience, Evangelicals experience a struggle with both an "emotional roller-coaster" and a "morality roller-coaster" whereas Spirit-Focused communities deal with "emotional deserts" (long periods of feeling 'distant' from God in a less instable way,) but still battle against "morality roller-coasters. (Long Deserts: Spirit-Focused; Emotional Roller-coasters: Evangelicals; Morality Roller-coaster: Both.) Experientially, I've seen the "up-down emotional feeling with God" stabilized through Baptism of the Holy Spirit among youth. After this point, the "up-down" is more limited to moral-living and consistency in prayer and Bible reading; the emotional feeling with God doesn't become perfect, it becomes more stable. That Baptism of the Holy Spirit would result in more stable emotions where a relationship with God is concerned is consistent with the Bible's teaching, notwithstanding that the Human Spirit involves one's emotions so the two would seem somewhat related. This seems to make sense given that emotions are spiritual (see section entitled 'Anthropology > Soul, Spirit, and Flesh').

Spirit-Focused communities address the "long-term spiritual dryness" in different ways, and many of their different sects draw lines along such distinctions. Among their various groups, I prefer the persuasion that "God is near to the broken-hearted" (Ps 31:7, 139:8, 119:151, 142, 147:3) and that "the dessert" can be a place of renewal and deep growth, that "winter is when roots grow deep," and not necessarily a result from belligerent sin or lack of faith. The dessert helps us to grow on the "inside" to help us deal with sin, and this was even true of Christ in Matthew 4 where He went into the desert, not to deal with His own sin (since He didn't have any sin,) but in preparation to deal with _our_ sin. Jesus went into the dessert because of His _faith_ in that process to prepare Him. Many times we go into the dessert _because_ of faith so we can prepare to deal with sin regardless of where that sin exists.

To borrow illustrations from the Bible's history, being in "the dessert" or in "the promised land" are not measures of one's standing with God. In the same way, a Christian may have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit, but as a Christian, is still indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And in this way, there are no second-class Christians in God's family.

Accordingly, like Apollos in Acts 18, should not all who already have this indwelling, and its evidence through power in the Word, seek to have power released by what is already inside them through Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Sadly not all do. Many try to validate their state rather than advance it, seeming to think that if they believe they have more to receive from God then their progress would be hindered by a feeling of invalidation of their present state. At the same time, many of those who claim to have received Baptism of the Holy Spirit express their feelings in terms that come across as invalidating to others. Those who disagree with them, in turn, can easily appear as trying to invalidate the experiences they might otherwise be excited about. This back-and-forth invalidation of each other, I believe, results from people trying to express their own ideas without due regard for how they come across to other people. Though there may be some disagreement about basic ideas, at least some part of their disagreement surmounts to tone, delivery, and choice of words.

Anyone in this codependent cycle of banter could lay-down their desire to validate and express their _own_ spiritual journey for the better joy of hearing from their fellow Believers (James 1:19), but too often they don't. The reason for this is unexplainable in my estimation, but still, all Christians, regardless of their acceptance of God's many graces, are just as valuable to Him. The value God places on us should outshine any other opinion, including our own opinions of ourselves. Perhaps, if God's opinion was more important to us, we wouldn't try to express our own opinions at times when we should be listening, whether we have Baptism of the Holy Spirit or not.

**Signs Validating Baptism of the Holy Spirit**

When considering the question of which signs validate baptism of the Holy Spirit, we must remember that this question has post-New Testament origins. The events recorded by Luke and discussed in the NT epistles do not merely serve to answer the question of whether or not a Christian has received something from the Holy Spirit. Rather, they sought to tell of the new found power from the Holy Spirit and the advance of the Great Commission. This is much like "testimonial time" Christians have today. It would insult the intent of such testimony to treat it as if we were only looking for evidence of Holy Spirit Baptism. The purpose of the records goes much deeper than that and it does not merely intend to answer our post-New Testament curiosity.

Any evidence of the Holy Spirit recorded in the New Testament served to testify of the power and validity of Christ, not the Christian's own spiritual growth and validity.

With this understanding in mind, we can more humbly proceed to extrapolate what we can from the text, concerning how the New Testament Church identified Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Still, remember that this question was not as dominant for the New Testament reader as it is for us. So, let us not impose our own questions on the intent of the author who may have likely been aiming at other matters which were considered more important at the time.

In Acts 2:4 receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time was demonstrated, largely, by speaking in tongues. In Acts 8:15-17 when the people in Samaria receive the Holy Spirit, no sign is given to attest to the validity, neither does Scripture say that there was no sign. Luke didn't seem as concerned about whether there was a sign as many people often are today. In Acts 19:1-6, however, the people receiving the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues and prophesied. In the second two instances (chs8, 19), "receiving" the Holy Spirit was through "laying on of hands" which was observed by Simon in Acts 8:18, this observation was never refuted.

In Acts 2:3, instead of laying on of hands, "tongues of fire" rested on those who received the Holy Spirit's power. This would make sense since there was no one who had "received" the Holy Spirit to lay hands on the disciples at that time. I believe that the "tongues of fire" were, more or less, God laying His own hands on them for this Baptism.

While Scripture does not distinctly state whether or not Baptism of the Holy Spirit is only demonstrated by speaking in "tongues", "tongues" is the only post-Baptism sign cited so frequently, not always, following Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Laying on of hands from other HS-Baptized Christians for Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is a norm (Acts 8:17, 19:6), outside of Acts 2 & 10:44-48 where God lays hands Himself; this norm is never didactically taught, only demonstrated. Paul demonstrates a very strong working theology that laying on of hands is a significant and effective means of receiving gifts of the Holy Spirit—and a serious responsibility (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tm 1:6). Thus, laying on of hands is a more reputable sign as a "pre-Baptism norm" than speaking in tongues as a "post-Baptism frequency".

Noting that those in the upper room of Acts 2 had been there for many days in fasting and prayer and that Peter's audience in 10:44-48 were not heckling his compelling message, the only occasion God "laid on hands Himself" for Baptism of the Holy Spirit was with Christians earnestly seeking Him. Biblically speaking, seeking Him in prayer or reception of the Word is the stronger validating sign than the manifested tongues of fire, since manifestations of the Holy Spirit come and go throughout Scripture while His work continues consistently, (Esther). The manifestation of "tongues of fire" was as a demonstration to the Church that the Holy Spirit Christ had promised (Jn 20:22) had been received for the first time, but was not so necessary the second time in Acts 10. It could be argued, in lieu of Jesus's call to all nations (Mt 28:19), by juxtaposing Acts 2 & 10, and that those in the upper room were either present or closely connected to those present in Matthew 28 while the audience in Acts 10 was not, that the purpose of "tongues of fire" was to underline the first disciples taking the Gospel to the nations for the first time, since those in the upper room immediately began speaking in foreign human languages they did not understand (ch2: vv3-4 cf vv5-13 viz 10:44-48). Though intriguing and important to the Church, that study I might call "tongues of fire to tongues of nations" would go beyond this study's scope.

Theologically, any Christian seeking Baptism of the Holy Spirit should be able to receive the Baptism from God directly and in prayer as in Acts 2 & 10. This way "laying on of hands" grants no human any patent claim to Baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are two ways to receive His Baptism, both of them involve seeking Him, whether God Himself or another Christian lays on hands, and some kind of sign follows, the strongest sign being a fruitful, godly life (Jn 15:8).

Biblically, "tongues of fire" could, but do not necessarily need to, appear on Christians Baptized in the Holy Spirit, whether or not by God's hands Himself, and, if they do, the purpose would be to further validate the Holy Spirit's Baptism to the Church. In Acts 10:44-48, those present were Baptized in the Holy Spirit while they were receptive to the preaching of the Word—and there was manifested evidence other than "tongues of fire". If God "lays on hands Himself" then it also stands to Biblical reason that there must be some kind of manifestation or sign, "tongues of fire" or otherwise. Never was anyone Baptized in the Holy Spirit in the Bible, in any manner, with no spiritual manifestation and with no fruitful or godly lifestyle that followed. The Holy Spirit always has some kind of demonstration, a fruitful life if nothing else. But, based on the "fire" manifestation of Acts 2, if a Believer claims God laid hands himself, it must have been done in prayer and should be accompanied by some kind of spiritual manifestation of the Holy Spirit, whether it be "speaking in tongues", a vision, a warm sensation, physical healing, et cetera.

We know that receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a matter of faith (Gal 3:2), just as salvation from sin (Jn 3:18). So, because laying on of hands (whether human hands, hands of 'community' or God's hands in prayer as in Acts 2) always precedes Baptism of the Holy Spirit and is seen as the unrefuted and universal cause, and because faith must be present in any person to receive anything from God at any stage of the Christian journey, it is by faith and the laying on of hands that Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs.

Since tongues is the only demonstrable post-Baptism frequency used in the NT Church to speak to the validity of having received Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is not unreasonable to apply the same principle in the Church of today—for the sake of qualifying for a hired Church office, such as a deacon. However, Christians must take heed not to emphasize "tongues" beyond what Scripture does. Deacons and overseers have many other qualifications (1 Tm 3:8-13, Tit 1:5-9) and speaking on tongues is not among them.

"Whether a Christian has been Baptized in the Holy Spirit" is a question of "rite", so it follows reason that the evaluation ought to examine "proper rite", which is laying on of hands in seeking Him. But, "rite" does not always yield results and a post-rite test must also be in place. Given all these factors, in testing validation that one was Baptized in the Holy Spirit, we ought to examine the proper rite of "laying on of hands (by God in prayer or a fellow Believer Baptized in the Holy Spirit)", then look past post-Baptism evidence that might be contrived (such as prophecy or tongues) and look for a kind of joyous change toward fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). With this, speaking in tongues only ever follows Baptism of the Holy Spirit and never precedes it and therefore has a layer of validation, laying on of hands for Baptism of the Holy Spirit while seeking is a stronger test, and living results afterward is the strongest test of all.

The Body of Christ is filled with people searching for a sign that they themselves or another has received this Baptism. Ironically, our Lord said that, "an unbelieving generation looks for a sign," (Mt 12:39, 16:4, Mk 8:11-12, Lk 11:29). It stands to reason that faith is required to believe one _has been_ Baptized in the Holy Spirit, just as faith is also required in order to _receive_ the Holy Spirit's Baptism in the first place. The same argument has been often made of Christian salvation, that faith brings salvation and faith confirms in our hearts that we have it. Paul states that tongues causes belief for unbelievers, while prophesy does this for Believers (1 Cor 14:22). Looking for an objective standard such as "tongues" is only acceptable when screening someone for a position of overseer in the Church, not in personal counsel. The argument there would be that one cannot lead concerning such a common gift of tongues that one does not have oneself. An overseer needs to teach on tongues, prophesy, evangelism, and a variety of things. This almost raises the question of how much establishment power a single person should be given, as opposed to keeping the Church ad hoc and organic, but we won't look at Church leadership and qualification here.

The point stands that, multiple qualifications validating the Spirit's presence must be seen in one's life to be an overseer. It is logical to conclude that the fruits of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5 would only increase at the time of Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If laying on of hands by another Believer, who has also received this Baptism, precedes a notable increase in the "fruits of the Spirit", then there is no greater objective standard to negate the validity of what happened; "against such things there is no law," (Gal 5:23b).

Spiritual evidence and "good works" are not equal or interchangeable. Paul does not teach that "good works" are a "fruit of the Spirit". Good works may be a sign of obedience and a healthy Christian life, as tongues or prophecy may be matters of experience prerequisite to teaching on the subjects. But, in regards to the Holy Spirit specifically, the fruits of the Spirit listed in Gal 5:22-23, not tongues or prophesy (1 Cor 13:1-2) nor good works (1 Cor 13:3), are a higher test of the Spirit's presence in the life of a Believer—whether of Baptism of the Holy Spirit or daily filling of the Holy Spirit. The greatest of these tests is love (1 Cor 13:13, 1 Jn 4:7-8). This Biblical review of what is and what is not ultimate evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence can soothe and possibly reconcile many sides of many theological debates. Unity is also a sign of a healthy Church (Eph 4:1-6).

Because of the complexity of the doctrine called "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" there is too much to make every question a simple test of fellowship. So long as the focal point remains demonstrable and Biblical fruit in the life of a Believer, the other particulars are not issues of Christian fellowship. As Paul says, "let all things be done for edification,"—which, by definition, is a higher test of fellowship where agreement on Pneumatology is concerned (1 Cor 14:12).

**Two Kinds of 'Tongues'**

In Scripture, the term "tongues" has two different meanings. The first is a human language, recorded in Acts 2:4-6 where people spoke in a human language not their own which native speakers understood. The second is a spiritual language mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4 where people who "speak in tongues" edify only themselves. 1 Corinthians 14:13, 27-28 mandates that tongues be translated, yet no translation was cited in Acts 19:6 when Christians received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Because of the weight of this mandate in 1 Corinthians, if it applied to Acts 19:6, then a translation should have been at least mentioned. But, considering that 1 Corinthians 14 was written to address occasions when Christians come together as a collective assembly (1 Cor 14:5, 19, 23, 26, 28) which was interactive (1 Cor 14:3, 5, 6, 12, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34), the mandate for interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14:13, 27-28 only applies in that same context of someone addressing assembly. The best conclusion is that speaking in tongues may be overheard without an interpretation given, but in the context of communication between people, a translation of the spiritual language is required, or that "tongues" be a human language, foreign to the speaker, yet understood by the hearer.

**On the Apparent 'Silliness' of a Prayer Language**

Consider Isaiah 28:9-11, Matthew 18:3-5; 19:14, and 1 Corinthians 1:19-31. "Silliness" by conventional standards is all the more likely to validate the Holy Spirit's work. Having worked and studied in language and phonetics, it is amazing to me how many languages are phonetically "simple" and seemingly silly from the perspective on a non-native student. The more "silly and simple" a prayer language seems, the more likely I am to think it may be an actual human language spoken somewhere in the world today. One time, I personally overheard someone praying in dialectical varieties of a known language I happened to have been studying at the time, the person was speaking the same thing in English and in Japanese back and forth, thinking it was a prayer language and not knowing it. Only imagination can tell how often this may happen and we do not know it. Just as with any language acquisition, a prayer language, also, must be something we are not paranoid about "making mistakes" with, but we need to be constantly willing to be gently corrected. Only then will we reach our full potential in these matters. No one wants the gift of tongues of other human languages to be suppressed more than Satan and making us feel "silly" about God's power is among his favorite tactics. Don't advocate for him.

**False Prophecy**

The Bible condemns "false prophets", but the definition of "false prophet" can often be neglected, being treated as if its definition is self-evident. God first defined good prophets from bad in Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:18-22 where a prophet who "wrongly predicts" is only presumptuous and does not need to be feared. Nathan spoke so presumptuously and met no harm under the Law; God gently guided Nathan when he was wrong (1 Chron 17:1-4). The dangerous prophet, who must be put to death, performs signs and wonders and teaches immorality and worshiping other gods or speaks a prophecy in the name of other gods. The greater topic of Deuteronomy 13 is idolatry and worship of other gods, not inaccurate prophecy.

Exegetical note on Deut 18 — Vv20b-21 are two parallel parenthetical interjections within the unified idea spanning vv20a, 22. Without this understanding, a novice Bible student might think that the "presumptuous prophet" of v20a is executed in v20b, then pardoned in v22, which is not the case. Rather, the "presumptuous prophet" of v20a is juxtaposed in v20b (cf aforementioned 13:1-5), elaborated on in v21, and pardoned in v22. Given first mention in ch13, we can see that 13:1-5 was a sort of sub-chapter on false prophets in the broader context of false gods while 18:18-21 is about prophets specifically with reference to an earlier mention. This is a teachable moment to underline the importance of, in Bible study, recognizing parenthetical remarks as well as earlier and later mentions of a topic or word. It is also worth noting that our Systematic Theology will have sections that overlap, just as God's own Law had such overlaps.

Two important aspects of Deuteronomy's teaching on prophecy are also easily overlooked, but are within the same Biblical construct for dealing with false prophets. Firstly, in 18:18 prophets arise from among "countrymen like you"; they don't get certified from the government or blessed by the priest after years of service in the temple; God simply "rises up" the prophet from among ordinary peers. Secondly, in 18:19, since the words of the prophet are God's words, God _Himself_ requires obedience to the prophet's words; the prophet himself is not responsible for enforcing obedience to the prophecy. These two aspects have a sweeping impact on dealing with prophets. They are ordinary and God alone enforces. Accordingly, people may easily ignore or dismiss the prophet. There is a tendency to use "God told me to tell you" as a reason to get bullish or bossy with each other. We see both of these in play when Jesus was rejected in his own hometown. Jesus's comment about where prophets are not welcome was not a model for prophets, but was the warning to the hometown of prophets (Mk 6:4, Lk 4:24) since, by definition, Jesus the Son of God could not in the wrong (Mt 11:21-24; 12:41-42). Recognition and enforcement of prophecy come in the same context of identifying false prophets and are therefore essential to identifying false prophets.

Modern Activity of Signs and Wonders

There is no evidence in Scripture to support a "cessation" (or ceasing) of supernatural wonders (signs, miracles) of the Holy Spirit, though some twist the "Love Chapter" (1 Cor 13) for this, implying that we have arrived at "perfection". Any notion that the gifts have ceased would require statements from an extrabiblical source because they did not cease in the New Testament. There is overwhelming testimony from Christians all over the world claiming the modern existence of Christian miracles today. Claiming that the surmounting testimonies are false without evidence defames the reputations of many godly people. Given these, belief in today's _possibility_ of Christian miracles throughout the world is, by definition, a matter of Christian Fellowship.

**Modern Prophecy: Particular Revelation**

Considering the situation with Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17), prophets don't need to hear perfectly; they merely need to be obedient. The Church needs to encourage prophets to try their best, and forgive them if they are wrong. Only Satan would have anything to gain by lynching a prophet for making a correctable and honest mistake, such as Nathan's, which happened according to the "presumptuous" provisions in Deuteronomy 18:18-22.

The ultimate purpose of "prophecy" or "knowing God's Voice" or "leading of the Holy Spirit" or "dreams from God that somehow help our walk with Him" is to fulfill Malachi 4:6, John 3:17, and Revelation 19:10, to give the testimony of Jesus and turn the hearts of people back to each other and toward God; the purpose of prophecy is not just be right all the time. Many supposed "prophets" are despised as being "mad prophets" who only condemn, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many people. But, many Christians who don't even believe in modern prophecy have the same condemning attitude and are often labeled "Bible thumpers". The difference between accuracy and abuse is not in whether we use the word "prophet" or "prophecy", but in the heart motive—we hope to effectively save the world, not just condemn it in detail. In Revelation, offices of Evangelist, Preacher, Pastor, Teacher, and the like are not distinguished, but the only office in reference to any such callings is "Apostle" (2:2; 18:20; 21:14) and "Prophet" (11:18; 16:6, 13; 18:20, 24; 19:20; 20:10; 22:6, 9); only Jesus is referred to as a shepherd (2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15). Revelation 10:10-11 paints a pictorial guide for ministry—when we ingest God's specific word for us, our hearts ache with the grief of reality, but our words are as sweet as honey to draw people to the abundant life of God.

Similarly to miracles, it is also difficult to argue that the "Love Chapter" (1 Cor 13) suggests a future expiry of modern prophecy since prophecy is foretold in the Last Days and has yet to be fulfilled (Joel 2, Rev 10 & 19). According to Revelation 19:10, if "prophecy" has ended, then so has the testimony of Jesus. Even then, nearly all regions of the Body of Christ understand the concept that the Lord guides us even today. Then, the real issue in modern prophecy is not whether or not God guides us, but for us in us developing a vocabulary to describe His contemporary direction.

Without thoughtfully considering our terms to describe His guidance today, we will inevitably use inaccurate terms which will then lead to inaccurate understanding. This means that an author of prophecy-related vocabulary must be versed in both hearing God's contemporary guidance accurately as well as proper handling of Scripture. Rules for hearing God's Voice today cannot be developed on theory alone; they must stem from Biblical study in the life of someone who operates in that realm. Unfortunately, many people try to walk by an emphasis of _either_ the Bible _or_ by God's contemporary direction. But, God never likes to repeat Himself. We cannot function in the realm of God's Voice effectively if we see His modern Voice and His written Word as parallel "a la carte" messages from which we pick and choose; the Bible came first and anything He wishes to clarify for today happens at His pleasure, not ours. Modern guidance is dependent upon the Scriptures and knowledge thereof _first_ , and that knowledge talks about walking with Him daily (Ps 119:133, Gal 5:25). One of my favorite statements I have heard from Pentecostal preachers more than once is, "Do you want a word from God? <holding up a Bible> I have thousands of them for you right here!" The maxim applies: If you want to know what God's will is for your life, first learn what God's will is.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 explains that all Scripture is for every part of everyone's life for all time. We may not always know how Scripture applies to us, but this does not change the fact that it does apply nonetheless. Modern prophecy, therefore, does not claim to be Scripture, as adding to Scripture is strictly forbidden (Rev 22:18-19). Thus, modern prophecy may be considered to be "particular revelation"—viz "general revelation" (Ps 19:1, Rom 1:20) viz "special revelation" (Ps 119, 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21). (Arguably, 'particular revelation' is a likely sub-category of 'special revelation', namely that it is not 'universal-special revelation'; but I won't niggle over these categorical hierarchies here.) With "particular revelation", the specific audience is limited, its applicability to that audience is limited, and the time-frame within which it is applicable is also limited. God is allowed to speak to us today without asking us to augment canon. Prophecy, then, is more a matter of practice than particulars—practicing our ability to listen.
A Needed Summary of Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, and Pneumatology

**Free Will and Predestination**

The human topic of Predestination is a Systemic Theology rather than a "Biblical" Theology; Scripture does not address the issue with the same agenda as our questions ask of it. If it did, then more Scripture would address it with specifically. Instead, we have the subject brushed over in many different passages while Scripture addresses other, broader issues. As a consequence, a solution to question must start with a wide perspective, seeing the whole of Scripture as the most important, specifically, that God is in the process of redeeming mankind. Such a loving God would never allow humanity to fall into the condemnation of Hell either arbitrarily or on a technicality. God's court is not bound to the same bureaucratic precedents of our own. With this context in mind, we can more effectively explore specific Scriptures as they allude to this afterthought of predestination in addressing their broader focus on mankind's redemption. The best vantage point from which to see the answer is from the eternal perspective of Revelation where the names of Christian souls were written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; 20:15).

Man has a free will. Romans 8:29 says that God predestined to save the ones whom He knew in advance. His decision to "predestine" must be somehow based upon one's decision to love God as stated in John 16:27, namely, that God loved us _because we loved His Son_. This however does not mean that we initiated our own salvation; we know that God initiated our salvation before we loved Him (1 Jn 4:10). Yet Romans 8:29 states that His initiation had a predication, of some sort, for each individual which was "according to" His foreknowledge of something, namely that the criteria as outlined in John 16:27 would be the response to his initiating action of 1 John 4:10. He made this initiation because He knew what the response would be from Romans 8:29. God chose us because He knew we would respond to His call. In this, God controlled each person's salvation, the saved are rightfully called "elect", and each one has a will which can be objectively and justly punished or rewarded, but only through God's omniscient knowledge in Romans 8:29. We are unable to see all of His reasoning, partially because of our fallen state. God _alone_ can judge the heart, and yes, indeed He _will_ judge every heart (Ps 44:21, Ecc 12:13, 14).

Man's brokenness is of the nature of _incomplete_ brokenness; we still have a will, yet the will's abilities to operate freely have been frustrated, not eradicated. If the abilities of our free will have been eradicated, that would leave Man completely dead, thus, nothing would remain to be redeemed, he would already be in the state of complete death, the kind of death experienced after divine judgment, and any saving effort on God's behalf would be without effect and therefore void. But, that is not the case.

In order for a God to show mercy, the object of that mercy (the human) must be in distress, such as explained in Romans 5:8. Since he is in distress, he must be somewhat alive. If he is alive enough in this way, then there is some part of him which has a will that plays a sort of role in his salvation which is done according to God's plan, not his own. But, because Man is both finite and fallen, he is unable to see that God's criterion for salvation is by favor through faith (Eph 2:8, 9). Hence, in Man's best understanding, apart from God's special revelation, human tendency is to base our salvation on our own effort. If we aren't aware that God is offering us salvation we will want to take initiative. (This arguably explains many forms of idolatry as kind of ignorance rather than willful rebellion, in regions that the Gospel has not been clearly and strongly preached; but that is another discussion.) God knew our tendency to invent our own way from the beginning, which is why the Scriptures teach us to, "not lean on our own understanding," but to look to God in everything for a path that is straight and easy to follow (Pr 3:5-6). God must be the focal point of Man's heart for Man to find Life. Our salvation is dependent on God alone, not on ourselves; _our_ role is merely to accept the truth that is beyond us, thus deflecting the focus off of ourselves and back onto our Creator/Redeemer. We understand the brokenness of Man in this sense, that imperfection, also, has been imputed to our character as a result of the fall.

Although fallen, Man still has the capacity to choose between two paths. The first is an imperfect pilgrimage in God's direction; the other is to continue an imperfect pilgrimage away from God, in any direction of our own choosing. God is Light (1 Jn 5:1) and every direction apart from Him leads to darkness. If we choose the path going away from God, then we remain isolated from God. Because of Man's broken state, even if we choose the path leading toward God, then we still remain where we are until God drags us, kicking and screaming, because our decision is not perfect. In fact no human (except Christ Jesus of course), regardless of his chosen path, has the capacity to _perfectly_ follow through with what he wants in and of himself. We can't even _travel_ to the Light by ourselves; we can only look to it. It is theologically poetic that God dwells in a light that we cannot approach (1 Tm 6:16).

In this sense of being able to approach God on our own, no Man has a free will, yet Man does have the freedom to will—to _look to_ the Light, but even then, we can only gaze imperfectly. Therefore, the question is not whether we choose to persevere toward God and love Him or else choose to remain with our brokenness; rather, the question is whether we will imperfectly choose to imperfectly want to imperfectly direct our gaze towards God or to gaze in some other direction which we can travel on our own. After that, only God can bring us along the path leading toward Life, if we choose, and at that, only by dragging us, kicking and screaming (1 Jn 4:10). Still, such an act from God is more than trustworthy and will result in Life (Jn 6:44).

And, this is the very reason why God saves the likes of us, because coming to grips with the fact that God alone can _and will_ save such belligerent and broken people, based only on our having faith, is a true demonstration of that faith which is all that God requires to stop us from drowning in our won sin. Thus, truly, faith alone in Christ alone according to how He is revealed in Scripture alone saves Man and makes him righteous before God (Gen 15:6, Jn 3:18, Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 4:12, Jn 3:13-21, 14:6, 2 Tm 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Rev 22:18-19). Hence the phrase, "The righteous shall live by faith," (Gen 15:6, Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38). Faith is the keystone of everything Christians believe in.

The purpose of the Word manifesting Himself among men was to reveal grace and forgiveness (Jn 1:17). These were ultimately revealed and accomplished through His death on the cross and resurrection. This is vital to understand because even though Christ paid the price for our souls (1 Jn 2:2), many still choose to perish (Lk 16:27-31). Hence, though great and costly, the greatest battle at the cross was not over the propitiation for our sin. The greatest battle ever fought by God on many fronts, including the Cross, was always and is always for our hearts. Satan's defeat at the Cross was guaranteed, victory over our hearts, however, involves our willingness to be subdued by God's love. The battle for our hearts is evident in everything He does in our lives; whether painful or pleasurable, everything He does to His Children is good (Jn 1:12, Jer 29:11, Rom 8:28, Rev 3:19). Once He has captivated our hearts, we obey His commands with delight (Ps 119:23), thus prosper (Josh 1:8), and thus glorify Him (Jn 15:8). So, the essence of everything we ought to do is love Him back, for all that He has done, and to love our fellow Man, whom He loved before we did (1 Jn 4:10, Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34, Luke 10:25-28).

**Faith and Works**

The evidence of God's work in and among us, by nature and by definition, gives Him glory and is undervalued when used mainly as a mere validation of our own salvation or spiritual progress. Sanctification, justification, and glorification prove God's effectiveness, not our own achievement. There is a difference between using His work in us evidence to validate our relationship with Him versus cooperating as God glorifies Himself through us. Our working emphasis when validating the salvation of the Believer must be on what causes that salvation and builds on it via spiritual growth more than celebrating the results that give glory to God. This is somewhat related to the adage, "Once you know you are humble, you are not." I argue that the more accurate test of humility is when we no longer care if other people are humble while we focus on whether we give others justice in our daily, seemingly "small" actions.

Salvation and righteousness have always been attained by faith alone throughout Scripture, even since before the Law of Moses was given (Gen 15:6, Jn 3:18, Eph 2:8-9). We know this because Abraham attained righteousness by his faith (Gen 15:6). The purpose of works (obedience to God's Laws) has always been for prosperity and success in this life (Deut 29:9; 30:8-9, Ezk 20:11-13) and in preparation for the life to come (1 Cor 3:12-15). We know this since it was God's motive for us obeying His Law (Josh 1:8). Since it is within God's will that we prosper (Jer 29:11), the entire summary of God's Law is reduced to two commands; that we love each other as we love ourselves and that we love God with humility and with every part of our being (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34. Lk 10:25-28). In essence, God commands us to prosper, since that is the effect of His Law according to Joshua 1:8. So, obeying God's Law is an issue of love for people and us prospering, thus, giving glory to God (Jn 15:8). The necessary fruit of salvation is that we love (1 Jn 4:7-8). So, faith alone leads to salvation, and once a person has faith in Christ, he or she is released from condemnation, and then possesses the righteousness of God (Gen 15:6, Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38, Rom 8:1, Rom 7:24-25). Scripture teaches that people who leave the Christian community prove that they never were a part of it, or else they would not have left (Rom 8:29, 1 Jn 2:19, 1 Cor 11:19, Acts 20:30). "Good works", then, indicate "spiritual" growth and personal maturity following salvation and are therefore not attained by focusing on "good works" in and of themselves. Having good works requires that we keep our eyes on God and His glory and His love for those around us.

Complete and permanent spiritual righteousness is a matter of faith. So God's commands to do good works, then, are a grace (Ps 119:32, 53, 97) that lead those who obey them (Ps 119:105) toward the abundant life Jesus told us about (Jn 10:10). Thus, it is not sensible to answer disobedience with rude and condemning opposition, especially since good works were intended to be a source of blessing. If someone is not living in God's commands then it is he himself who is hurt most of all, and thus, must be restored as a result of love for him and correction must be handled gently so that the person confronting does not become a victim of mistreating a fellow human and thus fall into greater temptation (Gal 6:1). It is most hypocritical to love God's Law, which was intended for love of God and people, yet harshly criticize others for not following it (James 3:8-12). This is because only in God's Word, both written and made flesh in Christ, do truth and kindness meet (Ps 85:10, Jn 1:14). In Ephesians 2, we see that we are saved by grace, on the basis of faith (vv8-9) for the purpose of good works (v10). Because Scripture is so clear on this matter, and because it relates directly to Christian fellowship by definition, the function of works, faith, and kindness thereof are necessary matters of Christian fellowship.

**Faith, Prayer, and Works as a Progression**

The relationship between faith and works might be better understood if seen in a three-step sequence that starts with _faith_ , ends with _works_ , and places _spiritual disciplines_ in the middle. Here is that process in plain terms: 1. Humankind is redeemed from sin and Eternal Life enters the life of a Christian through _faith_ in Jesus Christ because of His finished work on the Cross. 2. Eternal Life grows inside of the Christian through _spiritual disciplines_ (prayer, quality Bible study, corporate worship, meaningful Christian fellowship.) 3. Eternal Life expands to the world around the Christian through _good works_ (evangelism, charity, morality, honesty, boldness, 'small' justice, etc.) Here are some related Scripture topics: Christ's foundation is built first, then we build on that with our choices (1 Cor 3:11-15). Salvation is by faith alone in Christ (Gen 15:6, John 20:31) because He is the Atoning Substitute for our sin punishment (1 Jn 2:2). Meditation must come first, which only then leads to obedience which leads to results in life (Josh 1:8, 2 Pet 1:5-11). Our works are how we expand the life already inside of us from our growth in Christ to the world around us (Mt 5:14-16).

**Health, Prosperity, and Pain**

As I address issues involving pain, understand that I in no way take the matter lightly. I have only gotten through the sorrow in my own heart in recognizing that all of God's purposes are good. I wrote most of this section twelve years ago, at a time when my heart was very sad and I was discovering joy at a deeper level. I knew from Scripture that happy endings wait for those with patience. Twelve years later, I didn't lose my excuses for sadness, but my heart became stronger through time and I witnessed more of God's long-term work develop in my own life. Pressing on is difficult, but worth it (Gal 6:9), just as Ruth did not give up as a widow and return to her home country, but persevered with her also-widowed mother-in-law until at last she and Boaz wed to become the great grandparents of King David.

Over the last fourteen years, I have personally and Biblically come to understand the truths that _happiness is indeed a choice_ and _good things do come to those who wait_. As with many sections in this study, the following content in this section is more than a decade old and has minimal editing for style, smooth mechanics, and my translation of Matthew 7:14. Looking back, I agree with where I stood when I wrote it...

If it weren't for seasons of both prosperity and pain, I would never be able to achieve what God has for me, both now and in the future. Pain, as well as the abundance that eventually and inevitably follows for those who persevere in God, are each a necessary grace leading to life—and it thus would be a crime to despise either. Many people live their entire lives seeking ways to either avoid or rationalize pain that would become temporary if properly addressed; thus they exchange joy to live in denial and mourning, both conscious and unconscious. If they were to face their pain with fierce defense of _the virtue of patience_ , God would bring their pain to fruition where it would become blissful abundance and their own tears of sorrow would water their very roots of joy.

Job recognized that God both gave him abundance and that God took that abundance away (Job 1:21-22). Job also rebuked his wife, comparing her to "one of the foolish women", saying that we should not only accept pleasures from God, but we should also accept adversity from God (Job 2:10). And, both times, when Job recognized God as not only the _Giver_ , but also as the _Taker_ , the Bible clarifies that Job did not sin in his responses in chs1 & 2. The New Testament never says that Job's recognition that God takes away blessings expired with the New Covenant; in the New Testament, God continues to give adversity and difficulty for our benefit. God chastens those whom He loves (Rev 3:19), which can be correctional, but is always strengthening (James 1:2-4).

Through difficulty and pain, God extrapolates evil desires from our hearts, as seen in God's allegory with Hosea's harlot (Hos 2:7-8, 12-16). Pain, at least for the redeemed sinner, is a grace that allows us to identify weaknesses and shortcomings in our lives that we may eliminate them with greater ease and spur ourselves on toward deep-seated, idyllic prosperity and joy in our hearts, both in this life and in the life to come. To see the benefits of pain, one must understand it through the eyes of delayed gratification. Not being perfect, I cannot comment deeply on the benefits of pain for anyone who is not sinful (only Jesus). But, I can observe one benefit that the sinless Christ received through His pain on the Cross—he received us. As Romans 8:28 implies, all is well that ends well. This view of pain as a positive experience has given me the perspective to endure the natural and expected pain of my own growth. Therefore, I live in a constant state of joy, not because of absence of pain, but because of the joy in my heart from what Christ creates through that pain and my confidence that He will continue to create life through it.

In addressing this topic technically, I first point to the Scriptural teaching, that pain and difficulty are not always the result of our own choices, but may simply exist as a blessing from God. Pain is a vehicle for Him to deliver redemption both to and through us (Ps 119:67-68, 71-72, 75-76, Jn 9:1-3, Rom 5:3; 8:18, 2 Cor 1:8-9, Phil 2:14-15, 2 Tm 2:3, James 1:2-4, 1 Pet 1:6-7).

Scripture is filled with examples of people who were in good standing with God, including those who were extremely wealthy, those who were extremely poor, those who were healthy, and those who were afflicted. God's Word establishes no standard by which to measure spiritual health or strength of faith based only on one's health or net worth. Ecclesiastes 5:18-20 teaches that it is good when the wealthy live in luxury from their wealth, but in the next verses (Ecc 6:1-2) Solomon speaks to the futility of wealth. Having also authored Proverbs (and considering the section on the Pauline proverbial hermeneutic in the 'Introduction'), we can conclude that Solomon is being proverbial in his dichotomies here as well. Solomon's conclusion in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 teaches that serving God is the only source of true fulfillment. Solomon ends with a bias neither toward wealth nor poverty, but toward God alone. James 1:9-11 gives commands in godly living for both rich and poor. The apostle Paul had afflictions, even leading him to question whether to go on living (2 Cor 1:8), but those afflictions, however heavy, were for spiritual benefit (2 Cor 1:3ff; 12:7, Phil 3:7-11). Jesus explains that a man's blindness was not because of any sin, but only for the glory of God (Jn 9:2-3). Genesis 32:24-32 tells of Jacob wrestling with the Lord and receiving an affliction in his hip joint to serve as a reminder of the Lord's blessing given to him at the encounter. Job 1:22 cites both the prosperity and turmoil Job went through up to that point in his life and that Job had neither sinned nor blamed God in accrediting Him as the source of both. "Pain as good" is a belief demanded by Scripture because Scripture never sees pain as _the end_ , but as the path to victory.

Pain is necessary for prosperity. Prosperity is an auxiliary objective of God's work in our lives as Christians (Josh 1:8, Jer 29:11, Jn 10:10, 15:8, Rom 8:28). Whatever season we find ourselves in, whether painful or pleasurable, pain serves as a compass to lead us in that direction of goodness, according to however God's sees fit in achieving His purposes (Rom 8:28-29). Upon understanding this, we can then see that all of God's will is good, perfect, and pleasing; by recognizing that His will is good, we can know what His will is (Rom 12:1-3). So much evidence in both life and Scripture proves that beneficial pain is necessary to be happy and healthy. Thus, an indignant complaint (Job 31:35) or attempt to circumvent inevitable and necessary pain that leads toward goodness (James 1:2-4)—claiming that pain is ostensibly "bad" by definition—is unacceptable and immature, especially coming from a Bible-believing Christian. Equally immature and unacceptable is intentionally inflicting unnecessary pain upon oneself or another to avoid good blessing in the name of "suffering for Christ" (an abuse of Phil 3:7-10). Either of these two acts would be a course that sets itself against God's good will—to prune Christians so that we will bear fruit and thus glorify God (Jn 15:2b, 8). One saying goes, "Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty."

Christ offers us happiness through our conformity to His will that we have Eternal Life (Jn 10:10). This is not to say that we do not all have our moments of unacceptable immaturity, but it is immature nonetheless. Growing can be painful, but is necessary; ask any parent, including our Heavenly Parent. Since God alone is good (Mk 10:18), we are in no place to say that what He does is not (Job 38:1ff; 40:1-4; 42:1-6). Sin destroys; Godliness produces abundance; pain is initiated by God as a means for Him to weed-out sin and plant seeds of Godliness—to cultivate Eternal Life both in the current world and in the age to come. Our choices of Godliness and sin are clear when understood through the Word of God; our pain and prosperity themselves are not initiated by us, but by the Lord, according to His purposes of bringing good in our lives and beyond. Therefore, Christian-Biblical teaching stands in the place to view neither health, infirmity, poverty, wealth, nor absence or presence of miracles in one's life—none as being normative in a healthy walk with Christ (Job 1:21-22). Measuring another's or one's own progress with Christ by such things is an attempt to judge what cannot be judged. We already know where we stand with Him by faith (Rom 8:1, Heb 6:11, 10:22). Using such things to measure the spirituality of each other misuses God's good methods and can only lead toward either unnecessary despair or self-pride, which is why we are commanded not to make such judgments (Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37).

This very nature of pain and tribulation is at the core of Christianity (James 1:2-4). In Matthew 7:14, Jesus discusses the road that leads to Life and describes it using a form of the word θλίβω/thliboe—(oppress, afflict, press together, make narrow). This is the word in the passage that is commonly translated "hard" or "difficult". In the literal-cliché style I used in translating Revelation, my translation of Matthew 7:14 might be, "so is narrow the gate and pressed the road leading to the Life, and few are those finding it." The meaning, however, goes deeper than our English language has any single word for; here, "pressed" has a double meaning. In the one sense, it is a term that describes a kind of road, but the word also carries much literary baggage with it—the concept of oppression and tribulation altogether. Jesus also uses the word as a passive perfect participle, (τεθλιμμένη/tethlimmenae) which basically means it is best translated that the road leading to life "has been and still remains that [road] of being congested with tribulation". By using a form of the word "θλίβω/thliboe" Jesus is using a buzz-word-adjective commonly used to describe a kind of "narrow" road that carries with it this extra meaning; he uses the double meaning to be aloof—as he usually does when he teaches in parables and word-pictures. But, the teaching in this passage does not merely state that the road of Christ is one of pain, but that, _through Christ, pain leads to life_.

It was in Christ that the gateway of Life opened-up at the end of this road; and with Christ, the Life of benefit-through-suffering began and continues in our present age. This is just as the Apostle Paul describes in Philippians 3:7-11, where Paul seeks to know Christ in his sufferings and become like Christ in his death because it leads to the resurrection. Some contemporary preachers teach against this idea, saying that the life of suffering ended in with the Cross. However, before the Cross, the road of pain could not lead to life—so the idea of "pain unto life" couldn't have ended with the Cross; it began with it. Furthermore, if the road toward life was no longer the road of turmoil, then the Apostle Paul was wrong, which is not possible in a Biblical worldview.

In John 9:2-3, Jesus confronts his disciples' question about suffering. The conjunction "that" in v2 and "so that" in v3 both come from the Greek word "ἵνα/hina". He also uses the word "ἀλλά/alla" which is a strong adverse conjunction, probably translated in this case "but on the contrary". Christ uses a clever construction of words in his answer to tell the disciples that they have the phrase "this Man was born blind" on the wrong side of their "so that" logic. It almost seems like a Socratic dialog where the teacher says, "No, no, no... You said 'so that...' So that... so that... No. Not 'so that this man was borne blind', but 'so that I may be glorified." Jesus corrects their thought pattern this way: "[what happened] _so that_ [result: this Man was born blind]" _but on the contrary_ "[this Man was born blind] _so that_ [result: God receives glory]." The purpose of the man being borne blind was " _so that_ the works of God would be revealed in him". While the disciples saw affliction as a result and indication of sin Jesus knew the affliction was an intended means to something awesome.

Many times, we think that the pain and affliction in our lives is the result of our own sin, and sometimes it is, and, in a philosophical sense, there would be no pain if sin weren't present somewhere. However, _sometimes_ pain in our own lives—just as was _always_ true in the life of Christ—does not come because of one's own sin, but because one is on the pressed path to Life. For Christ, that path was the road to Golgotha; for the Christian, that path is the path to personal growth and fulfilling the Great Commission. As was often said to pilots in Vietnam, "If you're not taking flack, you're not over the target." For the Christian, pain comes when we enter the path leading to Life and, as we pursue that path, we will often have prosperity, not _instead_ of pain, butin the midst of pain, and, eventually, that path will lead to success and the Abundant Life Jesus came to give. It is important that we neither emphasize the Life at the end of the road nor the suffering along the road at the expense of the other. In Christ, "suffering" is the road that leads to Life. Success demands that we remember both aspects in our Christian journey. Here we see that pain, too, is a grace "unto" Life, not in "delay" of it. Maintaining this doctrine is a matter of Christian fellowship because it distinguishes Christianity from all other fellowships.

**Purpose: The Decider of Miracles and Prosperity**

In Joshua 1:8 we read that prosperity serves the higher purpose of success. Since a purpose drives an action, prosperity will come and go and change according to how it contributes to its higher purpose of success. There are many passages that address the theme of God's purposes, here are a few: Romans 8:28; 9:11, 17, 1 Corinthians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5, 9, 11; 3:11, 2 Tm 1:9, Hebrews 6:17, James 5:11, Philippians 2:13. Prosperity and any miracles that contribute to it cannot be a constant in human life. Their only constant is that they come and go—according to purpose. Without the changing of the seasons, farm crops would not be as plentiful; the time that crops do not grow is not without purpose. Some of those times come from seasons, other times it is because a wise farmer rests his land (Lev 25:4). Winter and the rainy season exist to enhance the harvest that summer prepares for. These "down seasons" cause more crops in the harvest than would normally come in a year-round summer. "Down times", by season or choice, have a _purpose_ , even in the lives of people.

We all experience times of abundance and hardship in our lives, but each of these is according to a purpose. We may experience hardship from our own foolishness, or we experience hardship because it is necessary to enhance the coming abundance all the more; but it all _makes sense_ when considering all of the factors. The same is true of "supernatural" miracles.

The process of prosperity takes on various forms—abundance, the hardship that proceeds it, supernatural healing, or the _Dark Night of the Soul_ —and it all occurs like the purposes of instruments in a symphony. If a supernatural healing would cause God's hope and good news to expand, then the healing would be fitting. If an illness would cause a person to have stronger courage, resolve, and draw near to God, then God may keep the illness for a period of time as a blessing. Pain itself is never a punishment. So long as pain has a good purpose it can be a gift. Feeling pain when you touch your hand a hot stove is not a punishment, it is a warning that gives vital information to remove your hand or else you may burn part of it off. Pain with no purpose is actually not mere pain; _it is death_ self-inflicted through foolishness. Because miracles are either given or not given—all based on purpose—then it is the purpose itself that is most powerful in such situations.

It is in knowing God's purpose for us that we know whether to have faith that miracles will happen if we pray for them, or if they won't happen whether we pray for them or not. The core issue with miracles, then, is to have our minds conformed to God's Word (Ps 15:1-2; Rom 12:1-2) so that we can know God's will, then we can know what God's will is _for us_. The pitfall, here, is in thinking that God's purpose involves a certain outcome _simply because we want things a certain way_ when God's purpose may call for a different way for things to be than we _want_.

Effective faith must be contingent on God's _true_ purpose, and knowing His purpose is contingent upon being conformed to Him and live in union with His heart. Abide in Him and His Words abide in us (Jn 15:7-1). Conform our thinking to His (Rom 12:1-2). This way, when God does or does not do this or that, clarify this or that, allow this struggle or provide that breakthrough or another breakthrough or no breakthrough for the time being—all is contingent upon His _purpose_ , and the more we are in both emotional unity with Him and conformed to His way of thinking, the more we will know what His purposes are, the more we can put our mountain-moving faith in the things that have the power to happen because they come from His will.

Clarity and power in faith, miracles, and prosperity are all tapped into when seen as distinguishable through _God's Purpose_. God has a driving purpose—whether He reveals today's purpose or not, and whether we have done what it takes to know it or not. The determining factor in the existence of things that are and the non-existence of things that are not becomes clear when seeing that everything is designed, created, and destroyed—all according to God's purpose. Purpose is the foundation of our very existence, and it is the foundation of miracles—there is a purpose for them (Jn 9:1-3). If we get in line with God's purpose and have committed faith in that regard, then our "healing faith" is based on faith in God's purpose—thus we know for certain whether a certain event or miracle will or will not happen. Faith in God's purpose brings us to the place where a miracle in our lives would advance His plan, hence, it can and does happen. The stable constant is not whether or not miracles happen, but God's purpose. God's purpose is something that we can only conform to; it does not conform to us since the Creator should not conform to the afterthought purposes of His Creation. Once we conform to the purpose of our Loving Creator, then presence and absence of miracles makes perfect sense. God must be the center of our entire understanding for us to understand anything.

**Divinization: 'Becoming gods'**

Athanasius said, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become gods." _Note: There is some Greek translation discrepancy, suffice it to say that 'might become gods' is translated from one Greek word that is likely contrived, similar to 'God-breathed' in 2 Timothy 3:16. I believe that using a capital 'G' would be not only a stretch, but run contrary to other Patristic writings which use the plural/countable 'god(s)'._

I won't dive to deeply into the writings from the Church Fathers on the Early Church topic of _Divinization_ , which I treat as, essentially, an early development of the doctrine of _Glorification_ , where Christians get new bodies with new powers and newfound glory at the resurrection, similar to the transfiguration on the Mount (Mt 17:1-13). I do, however, make two important observations on the discussion:

1. _Divinization_ is not "capital 'G' God Proper", it is the countable "a god" or "gods" in the sense of a "demigod" or "(a) son(s) of god(s)" as ancient audiences might have described an angel, such as referenced in Daniel's furnace (Dan 3:25).

2. The use of the term "gods" in the Early Church speaks more to the context of Greek Mythology's influence on the Early Church vocabulary and conceptual constructs. Paul delivered the Gospel to Mars Hill with Greek Mythology concepts (Acts 17:22-23ff). I take this to mean that they are not so much describing God and Man as they are describing _themselves_ as they explain their ideas.

I don't view myself as a "god" or as eventually becoming a "god", but others do. I see myself as the "Image of God", like a walking, breathing, thinking, loving idol of Jehovah, except that I am not made of wood nor made my Man, I am fashioned from dust by God Himself. In the Greek world where temples of Aphrodite and Athena and Artemis dominated local economics, the best way to describe Eternal Life in Christ just might well be to say, "Through Christ, we become the actual gods."

The discussion resurfaced more recently, which has been reviewed by the Christian Research Institute and found to be Biblically grounded _(CRJ 2009 vol. 32 no. 6 'We Were Wrong: A Reassessment of the "Local Church" Movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee')_. I excuse any occasion in the Lee-Nee movement wherever "God" may use a capital "G" in their literature since they were Chinese with a first language of Chinese, which does not use upper and lower case letters. They, like the Early Western Church, had only recently received the Bible's teaching since Hudson Taylor had not gone to China until the mid 1800's (making what is arguably the first positive impact for the Gospel in China, viz prior Western imperial attempts). Interestingly, the Church in China followed similar discussions as the Early Church in the West. Moreover, China also had a culture of its own demigod Mythology, as did Greek Mythology have bearing on questions of the Early Western Church. Even in those Lee-Nee Christian circles, I have found the use of terms like "...not in headship" to describe "man becoming god" used on a regular basis in their daily Christian fellowship. Whether we mean _Divinization_ of the Early Church, or _Man Becoming God_ of the Early Far Eastern Church (Nee-Lee), review concludes of this doctrine that man does not join the Godhead nor becomes an object of worship.

Generally, I consider _Divinization_ to be an "Early Church" discussion, whether Early Western in the century after the Gospel came to Asia Minor or Early Chinese in the century after the Gospel came to East Asia. As with a teenager, I consider it interesting, acceptable, informing, youthful, insightful, valuable, thoughtful, intelligent, and refreshing, but not "mature". Jesus said that the Kingdom is made of such as children (Mt 18:3-5; 19:14), so we must not dismiss the discussion that has much to teach us (Mt 21:16). This is a yeah-boo, neither here nor there; _Christian Divinization_ isn't wrong, it is Early.

As for whether the Bible uses or allows terms like "gods" in references to redeemed, resurrected Man, the best model is Jesus. In John 10:34, Jesus answered from the Old Testament, "I say you are gods," in reference to Psalm 82:6, which adds, "you are all sons of the Most High," which is the very point made in the same book, John 1:12. This term "gods" in reference to resurrected Christians is not commonly used throughout the Bible, but it is used in some places, both New Testament and Old, and certainly is allowed, provided that the meaning is "god" with a lower-case "g".

**Synopsis of the Human Dilemma**

The observed tendency toward human sin, even after the point of Christian conversion, is due to a physical body which is undergoing a raucous and obnoxious death, which, in that process, is as annoying morally as it is physically (Rom 7:14-25). In this state, one's mind has the potential to recognize goodness and truth, once that goodness and truth is forced upon us. This results in and is the result of God's Word (Heb 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit's conviction (Jn 16:8-11, 1 Thes 1:5) and regeneration of one's soul (Jn 3:6, 6:63) at the point of Christian conversion resulting in eternal life (Jn 3:16) and the situation of 1 Corinthians 1:18. Having been set free by the Son, we are then completely free from spiritually-rooted bondage—"free indeed" (Jn 8:36). The remaining struggle, then, is between our souls having been revived by the Holy Spirit of God (or 'Life Breath', as Jesus, the Life, 'blew' the disciples saying, 'Receive the Spirit,'—Jn 14:6; 20:22) and its conflict with our perishing physical bodies (Gal 3:3; 5:16, 18). Through this present life, the Holy Spirit, combined with God's Word, convicts our minds of further truth as we mature into who God planned for us to become (2 Cor 3:18, Eph 1:3-6, 2 Thes 2:16-17; 3:5, 13), and thus we become more in tune with His will (Rom 12:1-3). Still, the Christian's physical body remains in its dieing state until that state reaches fruition, perishes, and it is eventually resurrected anew (1 Cor 15:12-20, 42-44). Death, then, is a grace from above (Gen 3:22). The Christian conversion and walk thereafter is truly a paradox of free will, predestination according to foreknowledge, Christ's work on the cross, the power of God's written Word, faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit's work in the human heart, and humanity's multifaceted nature.
Ecclesiology – The Church

At the dawn of this third millennium, I strongly believe that we live in reformation times. During such times, it is vital to remember the main lesson of the European Reformers: We do not "start a new church"; we "reform the Church". This is a two-way street that requires mutual understanding.

The question about the ability for the current Church structures to handle our times is the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about. When droves of Christians walk away from the faith they grew up in, many Christian leaders defend the "doctrine of paying tithe and occupying pew real estate" more than "the doctrine of Jesus's Incarnation". Upheaval is here. We must deal with it, not blame people who say so or try to negotiate the upheaval into somehow deciding to go away.

When Christians find themselves put out of fellowship for standing against heresy or simply for refusing to waste time with shallow, so-called "fellowship" gatherings, we must encourage them that studying the Bible at home—when that is the best option—does not mean that they love Jesus less. While we must always reach out to Christians for ongoing, healthy fellowship, it can become distracting if we demand that Christians search for ways to "seem normal" when the better use of their time would be to study the Bible more intensely, praying for God to orchestrate their healthy fellowship for them. Expecting Christians to "seem normal" is a convenient litmus test that does not require us to think, but litmus paper tests very little. No fellowship of Christians is perfect; so we must not ask whether fellowship is "perfect" anymore than we should ask if it is "normal". Rather than consulting litmus papers, we must ask if each Christian's fellowship is "best" in order for the individual walk with Jesus to be "healthy".

We need to have tests to see if Christians have "healthy" fellowship, even if abnormal times do not allow "normal" fellowship. But, these questions can easily serve as a scapegoat, questioning the legitimacy of forerunners whose insight makes them seem like "rebels" when the deeper question is the legitimacy of "normal" itself. Interrogating dedicated, yet abnormal, Christians over their abnormal walks with Jesus compares to niggling over bribes on the sinking Titanic. People looking for ways to get off the sinking ship are not the problem; the problem is underwater and firing shots at oddballs won't make the sinking ship buoyant.

The Church is not a "finished project" and we must not act as if it is. Our growth is ongoing and will arguably continue through Jesus's reign on Earth. Growing pains are back, indicating a healthy Body in transition—with issues that need to be addressed. We can't ignore those issues anymore. We need to talk about the elephant in the living room. We need to ask the questions and prepare ourselves for the painful answers. There is no way to answer all the current questions in a decade, let alone one study in theology. The Church must answer these questions in community, which requires patience, love, understanding, time, and it begins with a basic review of who and "what" the Church is.

As with Theology Proper and daily life, reviewing the unchanging characteristics of the Church as Jesus continues to build up his Body (Eph 4:13-16) can give us steering and bearing as we navigate the hazy waters of necessary, changing times.

The Church is the universal, indivisible, invisibly-intangibly-ordered collection of all Believers (1 Cor 12:13), made up of many members (1 Cor 12:14-30), the Church is the Body of Christ (Eph 1:22, 23), Jesus is the Head (Col 1:18), God gives leadership within this Body to guide the Body's growth (Eph 4:11-12), and the Body is continuously growing and maturing through and into love (Eph 4:13-16). Jesus being the Head of the Church has implications, mainly that since there is _one Head_ there is also _one Body_ of Christ, which is why speaking of the Church in the plural should be done thoughtfully; the Body's plurality is its _many parts_ (1 Cor 12:12, 14). While there are many "assemblies" of the Church, there is only _one Body_ of Believers and our unity is based on our common faith in Christ (Eph 4:13). The Church is not a "league", it is a single "team"; we are _united in Christ_ , not _divided in Christ_. Believers are commanded to love one another (Jn 15, 1 Cor 12:25; 13, Eph 4:2, 3) and loving one another is the purpose of coming together.

Believers organized themselves throughout the Book of Acts—the common threads of which were personal relationships and a sense of community. Paul and other apostles wrote letters to local communities of the Church, many of which are preserved in the canon for the purpose of learning from them. The purpose of these local communities is to love each other (Jn 15:12), edify one another (1 Cor 14:12), and promote unity with one another (Eph 2:11-22; 4:3, 13). This should be high point of the mission statement of each local Christian gathering. For example, a good mission statement of a local organizing might read, "...exists to be united together, edifying in love so that ..." with this section being in the main point. All Christians serve the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20), but the more specific purpose of a local Christian community is to have love and unity while fulfilling that greater, common, Great Commission together. As our Lord taught, Christians are to be celebrated and are to shine before men so that the Father in Heaven might receive glory from all in the world who see the light of the Church (Mt 5:13-16, Phil 2:14-15). The Church, then, is a grace from God, both to each other and to the world.

**Priesthood of all Believers**

Being a Believer in Christ means two things: 1. having instant, direct access to the Father solely on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 16:23, Eph 2:8-9, 18; 3:12, Heb 4:14-16) and 2. Being fully called and capable of performing Christian ministry in its fullest and most valid sense (Mt 28:18-19, Eph 3:16-17). In summary, every Christian is a priest (1 Pet 2:5). This two-fold aspect of what it means to be Christian has often been referred to as the doctrine called "Priesthood of all Believers", one of the top three points during the Protestant Reformation, the others being Salvation by Faith and Sola Scriptura. Every Christian may administer of the sacraments of the Church. In the midst of larger assembly this Christian work may be overseen by a "supervisor" or "master of ceremonies" of sorts for the sake of local organization, but no sacrament is limited to the administration of one in a leadership role by any passage of Scripture. Qualifications of an overseer (1 Tm 3:1-13) qualify the overseer, not the one doing normal Christian ministry. An overseer's place is to facilitate the ministries of all those present and/or in a local institution. This is because whatever is done in the midst of assembly should be done for the sake of edification of the body and in an orderly manner (1 Cor 14:12, 40).

Given the context that Christians exist as one Body who must love each other in unity, Christians must each individually be involved in Christian acts of love. Overseers, therefore, exist to aid the people to be individually proactive in loving each other. Overseers, for example, do not have the role of loving the people while the Body of Believers only receives love from the overseers. Each member of the Church, therefore, is to love other members of the Body and to strive for unity with all Believers. Leaders of the Church facilitate this. Just as not all Christians are overseers, no Christian operates in all the gifts (1 Cor 12:27-31). Priesthood includes all Believers, which means that all Believers have instant, immediate access to God because of their saving faith in Christ Jesus of the Bible, and, as priests are responsible for "doing" ministry, nor merely supporting their elders, pastors, and paid professionals to do the ministry of God in their stead. This teaching, along with the teaching that Scripture alone is the source from which true authority comes, this doctrine is among those which distinguish Protestants from Roman Catholics. Therefore, any local organizing whose members are not proactive in their own personal ministry are at most partially Roman Catholic in function or, at least, partially non-Protestant.

**Objectives of the Church**

The first and last objective of the Body of Christ is to fulfill the Great Commission—the mission that Jesus gave to the first post-ascension-of-Christ group of Believers in Matthew 28:16-20. In fulfilling the Great Commission, the Rapture of the Church (likely referred to in Matthew 24 and more clearly depicted though not placed in a timeline in 1 Thessalonians 4:17) may then follow as a natural result. (See 'Eschatology > Rapture, Israel, and the Seven Churches'.) While it is fair and good for leaders in the Body of Christ to develop ministry strategy and structure, the purpose of these systems is not to direct the Church by entrenching Christians inside a Man-made rut, but to fulfill the Great Commission as soon as possible. The true test of any ministerial system is that it cannot become solidified before the Church outgrows its own boots because the Great Commission is fulfilled so quickly. Ideally, ministry continues at full-tile until the Church departs, which means that the Body of Christ is no longer here on earth to maintain its temporary scaffolding. The most lasting methods of ministry, thus, prove to be all the more ineffective, because they don't fulfill the main objective: the Great Commission. Trending ministry methods are not to be confused with spiritual disciplines such as gathering of the saints, prayer, Scriptural reading and meditation, corporate and private worship in song and psalm, charity, prayer, and so forth. Strategies beyond the basic guidelines outlined in Scripture—such as meeting at a certain hour and day of each week and whether to have a greeter at the door—are irrelevant to the cause if they have time to form a tradition.

One's view of Eschatology heavily impacts one's view of ministry in the here-and-now. This is why the view that fulfilling the Great Commission (when every Gentile accepts Christ who ever will accept Christ) causes the departure of the Church is arguably necessary to be effective in ministry. With this view of End Times, Christian labors, and the departure of the Church, Christians are then inwardly driven to work diligently toward the Gospel, thus "hastening the return of Christ" (2 Pet 3:12) while also remembering that Jesus may return at any moment, because the Great Commission could be fulfilled at any moment.

Fulfilling the Great Commission is a partnership with which Jesus is heavily involved from Heaven (Eph 3:6, Phil 1:5, Heb 3:1, 14). Once the fame of Jesus fills the earth and the Gospel message has reached every people group—not necessarily every person, yet—the work of missions will have finished and the local gatherings of the Church will have a momentum that we have not seen before. Once the name of Jesus has reached everyone's ears, the work is almost done for us. God Himself could do wonders in the earth and sky and Men would finally know whom to ascribe glory and praise. When miracles come to people who have heard Jesus's name, but not yet called on his name, they will know who healed them and at last give him the fame due his name. Those miracles and wonders may become more frequent since they would, at last, have a redemptive purpose. Preaching the Gospel does not require pausing to force every person to becoming a convert, but to shine the light and truth of Jesus everywhere, as much as possible, lingering for no one, being patient with everyone, and discipling anyone who would be discipled—because Jesus's fame is a contagion all of its own.

When not holding this view of End Times, the Gospel, and the departure of the Church, Christians are either left with a view that Christ will return at any moment, regardless of the human effort—leading to a lackadaisical religion posing as "Christianity" or else people will work hard toward the Gospel without a purpose in mind, and thus they will create their own purpose—such as an evangelism/works-based Gospel or evangelism that is ineffective (and sometimes even annoying as a result) because a message without a purpose has no end to guide its direction and conduct. When Christianity becomes about perpetuating a rut that guides us all to boredom, many people will leave their Christian communities because sin is more fascinating that a purposeless Commission. Dare I say that Steven Covey's concept to "begin with the end in mind" applies to the Church, that if our view of End Times is ridiculous, then so is our so-called "Christianity". In this, the view of the Church and its departure that I introduced here (and elaborate on in a later section) is not only seen as valid in its accurate treatment of the Scriptures, but is also verified by the fruitful results: an active Christianity that both works to fulfill the Great Commission _and_ remembers that the time of Christ's return is unknown because the time of the Great Commission's fulfillment unknowable.

From this, we understand the need for teaching on Christian conduct. When we live lives that are obedient to the Lord, we are more effective and thus more in a position to fulfill the Great Commission He gave to us _all_. With this in mind—keeping the "main thing the main thing"—we can explore more functions of the Church, our values, parameters as outlined in Scripture, and inform our strategies that will prove useful in as short a time as those strategies work until their own success makes them no longer necessary.

**Living and Growing Together**

The gathering of the saints not to be forsaken includes corporate musical worship of God (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16), corporate prayer (Acts 1:13-14), teaching (Eph 4:11), friendship in unity (Jn 17:23, Jn 13:34, 15:12, 17, Eph 4:13), helping the needy (Eph 4:12, James 1:27), and dining (Lk 22:19, Acts 2:46, 1 Cor 11:23-24, 33). Leaders in the Church should have accomplished what they lead and teach (1 Tm 3:1-13). God's plan for the Body of Christ requires that there be no special respect for any particular culture or race (Gal 3:28). Thus, the local organizing of Believers must be multi-culture-friendly, encouraging and seeking out different forms of culture in whatever they do. A single-culture Church can't be healthy by definition if for no other reason than that the New Testament teaches about Greeks, Romans, Jews, Ethiopians, and others. Because of the mandate for unity and loving each other as a part of Christ's final teaching to his disciples (Jn 13:34, 15:12, 17), the need for Christians to be open to cultures other than their own, even when this means providing for each others' faults (Eph 4:2), is a matter of Christian fellowship.

In Acts 2:42, we read about a local group of Christians coming together for teaching, fellowship, dining, and prayer. One of the most beautiful traits in all of this is their selfless giving to each other and to those in need (Acts 2:45, 1 Tm 5:3, 16, James 1:27). Out of this we see a community of people, and in that context, they can cover for each other's weaknesses and help develop the best in each other, "Just as Iron sharpens iron, so one Man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Pr 27:17) So, the gathering of Believers is a grace, not only for the world, but for the individual. We are each a gift from God to each other; just as we all are in Christ, so are we all in each other. This understanding of "unity" and is essential and it starts with individual relationships built on selflessness and higher regard for each other than for ourselves (Eph 4:1-32, Phil 2:1-4).

The power of Body of Christ working and dwelling in unity was counterfeited and exploited in the building of the Tower of Babble as a rebellion against God (Gen 11:6). Thus, it is vital to understand that the ecumenical Body of Christ has three mandates; to be unified (Jn 17:23, Eph 4:3, Col 3:14), to itself build up into prosperity (Josh 1:8, Jer 29:11, Jn 10:10; 15:8, Eph 4:12, Phil 4:19), and to evangelize through signs and wonders, first locally and then expanding into the whole world (Mt 28:18-20, Mk 16:17-18, Jn 14:12, Acts 1-2, Eph 4:11). The unity of local Christian fellowship is rooted in our common faith in Christ (Eph 4:13), which brings the Holy Spirit in His power among them (Acts 1:13-14 cf ch2). Once united, Body of Christ becomes a corporate temple of the Lord (Eph 2:21), just as each individual Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 3:16; 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16). All of this is complex, miraculous, and wonderful.

Once any gathering of Christians enters into disunity, the purpose of the Church has been compromised and the primary objective for coming together has failed. When any necessary component is missing from any local fellowship of the Body of Christ, it is no longer the gathering of the saints not to be forsaken and rectifying the situation must be top priority, otherwise it is no longer obligatory and may be departed from in a manner of integrity and clear, respectful, procedural communication (Mt 18:15ff).

**Four-Fold Ministry of Ephesians 4:11**

The list in Ephesians 4:11 is often referred to in the Church by terms such as "five-fold ministry". However, grammatically, there are only four, with the fourth containing two "sub-items".

I refer interested students to Kittel4 for "shepherd" (ποιμένας/poimenas) and his comments on this passage. The sentence has a _men-de_ (μὲν-δὲ) list with _kai_ (καὶ) between the last two items. Here is my own Greek-English hybrid translation to explain what I mean, "And He gave _men_ apostles _de_ prophets _de_ evangelists _de_ shepherds _kai_ teachers..." Both _de_ and _kai_ can mean "and". _Men-de_ is a Greek manner of listing items to mean, more or less "on the one hand, but on the other, but on the other, but on the other". Paul is merely using two methods of syntax so as to clearly create a list within a list; "shepherds and teachers" is an item to itself.

So, I interpret "shepherds and teachers" as if it were hyphenated "shepherd-teachers" since this would be the closest equivalent within the Greek syntactical framework. Kittel basically says the same. For me, however, I have no problem translating "shepherd-teachers" as "pastors" (encompassing the two words 'shepherd' and 'teacher'), since "pastor" is an English invention anyway, being based on "shepherd" (ποιμήν/poimaen). As Kittel also notes, any reference to a "shepherd" in the New Testament is a reference to Jesus, the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11). So, Paul is attempting to describe "that shepherd-type of teacher who Jesus was". This results in the list: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors.

As a cross-reference note, this four-part list is rather consistent with the beginning of 1 Corinthians 12:28, omitting both "evangelist" and the "shepherd" qualifier. Though, it is more elaborate on things that are both "pastoral" and "evangelistic" (power, miracles, helps, administration, multiple languages). I interpret these through a hermeneutic I call "the mind of Paul via his proverbial choices of words".

Regardless of whether you agree with the four-item list, "shepherd" in the New Testament is a reference to Jesus's leadership style, not a Constantinian model of a "priest other than Jesus" nor a CEO or mini-pope in a one-congregation denomination. The term "pastor", in this passage, is defined merely and only by a "shepherd and teacher", whether in a four-item or five-item list. The remaining three—apostles, prophets, and evangelists—are also left without definition beyond dictionaries and New Testament usage. The different ministry gifts describe in this list are either already understood by the original readers in Greek or explained only in that they resemble Jesus's ministry as the "Good Shepherd". This verse is no basis for the complexities we have added to "professional ministry" today.

So, what is a "shepherd"? What is a "pastor"?

In local fellowship, we generally know who the "prophets" and "evangelists" among us are. The model was set in Moses's Law, that prophets would rise up from among our brothers (Deut 18:18). With no further qualifications from Paul, the other offices in this list fit the same method. They aren't trained, hired, certified, or notarized. They just "rise up" among us and we all know who they are.

This is how we know the evangelists and prophets among us. In a Biblical worldview, we should recognize the apostles and pastors among us in exactly the same way. The problem is that we haven't seen "apostles" outside of the New Testament, so we aren't familiar enough with them to recognize them. Being that "sent" is a part of the etymology, it likely involves some level of "distance" ministry, among other things I won't explore here. Watchman Nee in _Church Affairs_ has written simple ideas on the topic of apostles that I find quite agreeable and Biblical.

As four recognizing "pastors" who rise up among us, we have complicated our definition of a "pastor" to such a point that we generally overlook the "pastoral friends" among us because they aren't "certified".

If we stay in line with Paul's train of thought, a "pastor" is that person you know you can always go to for wise, gentle, insightful counsel, whether individually or in groups. Paul doesn't treat anything in this list as any kind of graduated, certified, or hired title.

Jesus made it clear that we are not to use titles (Mt 23:6-12). Nowhere in the Church, except perhaps in rare, fringe factions, are any terms in this list of Ephesians 4:11 used as job titles except "pastor". If we are to be consistent, then the person who can bring non-Christians to Jesus and wayward Christians back to Jesus must be called "Evangelist Johnny". That annoying person who gets the future right half the time and acts as a gadfly when local leaders don't want to acknowledge the obvious—that person must be called "Prophet Jimmy". And, the one who has a personal ministry across a larger geographic region must be called "Apostle Tommy". But, whether using five-fold or four-fold grammar, we would never use these terms in this way. Yet, when we say "pastor", we mean a job with a title, whether we use that title in conversation or not. For too long we have misused the term "pastor" the very way Jesus directly told us not to and the Church needs to knock it off.

**Leadership and Beauty in Ministry, Marriage, and Assembly**

The important differences and equalities of men and women are thoroughly explained in the sections "Anthropology: Men and Women" and "Christology: Virgin Birth" – please refer to both of these sections before continuing here. This section on _Leadership_ is not focused on the character and nature of the genders, but on specifics about functions in _the Body of Christ_ and _marriage_ – the two institutions created by God for humanity.

In the context of Christian assembly, qualifications of an overseer are found in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and do not need to be restated. Women are not to have a position of authority over a man in the context of local Christian administration (1 Tm 2:12); this is based on the manner of creation (1 Cor 11:12, 1 Tm 2:13) and hence is not a matter of potential bias on Paul's behalf nor is it a matter of sin since Eve was created before the Fall. By describing the creation of men and women, Paul is explaining that the Body of Christ when gathered together needs to function like a family.

This limit on leadership has a very narrow application scope and is heavily dependent on the ancient contexts, highly subjected to a culture and context. The only problems come up when we either institutionalize what should exist as a simple family or when men or women start dominating one over the other. Remember, the New Testament had a context that was much more Eastern than the Western world is today. From my experience with extremely different cultures in Far East Asia, I have come to understand that Paul's concerns were not without good cause.

I have seen in more remote parts of Far Eastern culture where, in some families and communities, women have an incredibly autocratic and domineering position over men, in society, home, and the work place. It is strange to me, even though I don't object to women in positions of leadership. I don't object to "pastors" being women because I consider the job title of "pastor" to be secular anyhow, not Biblical. Paul's restrictions do not apply to clergy because the clergy's job description is not found in the Bible. I also have no problem with women as supervisors or leading companies from the top. Coming from my own open-minded perspective, the autocratic domination that I witnessed in East Asia was outright shocking.

In some places in East Asia, a man runs his house like a 500lb gorilla who gets whatever he wants with no explanation. Any attempt to understand him is interpreted as a confrontation. This was the trend in recent generations, however. The trend today is for female domination. East Asia has always known autocratic domination either way.

I have seen competent, trained, experienced fathers, who have been published in academic research journals, forbidden by their stay-at-home housewives from allowing their children to take the classes in school that both the children and fathers wanted for their own children because the mother thought she knew more about making money and the child's future career than the father. If he raises a finger for respectful objection, she starts shouting, pounding, stomping, and slamming things—and, even though they hate every moment of it, everyone in their culture thinks it's perfectly normal. I have seen this in many personal settings, even in multiple failed attempts from East Asian women trying to romance me.

I have seen similar things in the professional world in East Asia, where a domineering woman runs an entire office, ignores failed results, favors women in the office, loses customers, never re-evaluates her policies, and no one ever even tries to stop her because they think it's normal; and I have seen exactly the same self-destruction from a man dominating an office, favoring women in certain job positions for an entirely different set of reasons. In the West we might only see small examples in cultural pockets like "Koreatown" or restaurants owned and operated entirely by people from a foreign culture. Though unseen in the West, it is commonplace in the Far East, more so in less-densely populated areas. My imagination prepared me to see male-dominated homes and businesses, but East Asian matriarchal culture was a thing I could only see for myself. That experience gave me a refreshing perspective on what Paul was talking about.

On the topic, I want to note that my experience with matriarchal authority in Black communities (African-American, namely) has been inspiring. As a White boy, I adore the patriarchal-matriarchal dance in Black family culture, within godly context. While I also treasure the surgical skill of East Asian indirection, such as what Jesus gently used with Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:39-47), the dominating autocratic structures in East Asia break my heart—whether in the Church, family, or business. Despite this, I stay in East Asia is because I know that it breaks the hearts in the younger generations also—something that seems to be a well-kept secret in Western missions training that teaches missionaries to wave the white flag on the Eastern topic of "Shame". But, I digress.

Paul's letters often name specific people. His correspondence with Timothy addressed specific, domestic issues. Paul wasn't inventing a series of rules from a contextual vacuum with no history; he was answering specific questions that he and Timothy had a history in discussing. I believe that high-level dominance—by either men or women—was what Paul wanted to avoid. Paul tells husbands to be humble, self-sacrificial, and love their wives tenderly (Eph 4:25). Paul wasn't trying to contain or oppress women in his letters to Timothy; he was banning male supremacy and feminine elitism equally.

The statement that women are to remain silent (1 Tim 2:12) only applies to Paul's description on leadership in Christian assembly and community, not in the workplace or government. His statement came in a context when men often congregated for spontaneous democratic assembly (Acts 19:29). Men would caucus together and had an understood method of speaking in turn and talking back and forth, similarly to the House of Lords in Great Britain. One big difference between these meetings and the "Sunday morning" we know today is that the Roman-Greco New Testament assembly was addressed by more than just one lecturer. With our "monologue lecture" view of Christian assembly, Paul seems all the more confusing.

Women were not allowed to attend these Greco-democratic assemblies in the New Testament times and were therefore unfamiliar with "maintaining order" at them (1 Cor 14:40). The New Testament term "assembly" for Christian gatherings (ἐκκλησία/ekklaesia) is the same term used for the assembly that caucused about Paul in Acts 19:29-41. This was the way Christians met in the New Testament, but with one exception: _among Christians, women were also welcome_.

Not knowing how the meetings function, Paul probably wanted women to take the wiser rout and observe the procedures of Greco-democratic assembly. Paul wasn't demanding that all women keep silent everywhere in life nor was he restricting chit-chat during the "professor's" delivery; he was talking about caucusing—he was telling the recently-freed slaves to not interrupt the orientation class teacher while they were learning about their new freedoms as women in Christ.

The only reason that Paul even needs to address the matter of keeping women quiet while they learn how to caucus in Christian "assembly" is because the women were normally not allowed to attend assembly in the first place. While many readers in the early 22nd century find "don't let women speak in assembly" to seem somewhat chauvinistic, New Testament readers would have seen Paul as a radical activist— _you mean that women are allowed to attend?_

This is one of the pivotal messages of the Christian Gospel. Men and women are equally in need of salvation, and hence, both are baptized into the two-fold aspect of priesthood of all Believers.

The strong presence of Mary in Christ's life shows that women have a powerful ministry. No collection of saints should understand this as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus was the biggest advocate of women in the entire Scriptures. Consider the women that were with him in a male-Rabbinic-instruction context and his defense of harlots from Pharisees on more than one occasion (Mt 26:6-13, Lk 7:36-50, Jn 8:3-11; 12:1-8). Still, women were not among Jesus's direct disciples, but they didn't need to be. Mary Magdalene and Martha learned a lot more from Jesus than Judas ever did.

Since the man is the head in marriage (1 Cor 11:3) it makes sense that he instruct his wife in the home (1 Cor 14:34-35). But, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 the cultural context is very different from our own. Remember that servanthood is paramount in God's Kingdom (Mt 23:11-12). If the man is the leader in the home, that means he is also the servant.

The union of man and wife in marriage is in _flesh_ (Gen 2:24) and no mention is made of union in the spirit. _Flesh_ is the Biblical view of union in marriage. Thus, whatever distinctions there are between the two (Gen 1:27) only relate to the life that comes with the present body (Mt 22:30); distinction between men and women does not carry spiritual or Eternal value. The husband as "head" of household is merely a matter of function. He is no more redeemed than his wife, nor is he more loved by God, nor is he more or less human than she. In essence, from the picture we have in Matthew 23:7-12, his position of leadership calls for his servanthood and her submission to him demonstrates her Heavenly royalty.

All too often, when in the framework of addressing roles of men and women in marriage and in the Church, excessive credence is given in terms of a non-Christian paradigm, which cannot understand the very same Biblical worldview that it rejects. If we see things the way God sees them—as beautifully intertwined—the mandates given in the Bible make more sense. This is consistent with Paul's teaching on how God's ways seem foolish to those who think themselves to be wise (1 Cor 1:18-24).

When I read the Bible, I see that the only limit put on women in life is that they are not to hold a place of positional authority over a man in the two organic institutions that God created: the singular Church and marriage. This, of course, would be for the benefit of all involved, including both men and women, adults and children (Josh 1:8, Jer 29:11, Rom 8:28, Ps 119:23, Jn 10:10; 15:8). Other than that, women are left wide open to perform ministry. Let neither men, nor women think more of themselves than they ought (Gal 3:28, Phil 2-:); all ministries should be carried out in humility, pointing to Christ (Mt 23:5-12).

It is worth mention, that all women are created by God and are therefore beautiful; each husband does well to recognize the beauty in his wife. Based on all these facts and teachings, it would make most sense if a husband and a wife did ministry together—since the two are of one flesh (Gen 2:24)—having the husband as the head of the ministry since he is also head of the marriage (1 Cor 11:3) and the wife recognized as the beauty she is. After all, what rose blossom is hidden and its stem then celebrated?

**Church and the Gospel**

Christianity is a "backbone-skeletal-core" type of religion. Contrived religions of the world (those outside of Christianity and Judaism) have a heavy focus on culture, liturgy, arbitrary taboos that seem as universal as gravity to those who follow them, music style, cliché, traditions, activities, jewelry, ceremonies, and even definitions of "charity". Though Christianity may contain some such things, those things remain part of a culture, not Christianity proper. No such things are defined or described in the Bible's explanation of the Christian life. The Jewish Law of the Old Testament related to the government and political policy of Israel when it was a theocracy and for the monarchy that followed; it was never established as a foundation for the Church in the New Testament. The Bible is Gospel's core; the rest can change from one person to another or from one place to another like changing a pair of socks.

This separates Christianity from all other religions: it isn't defined by its culture; Christianity is founded on the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11-15, 1 Jn 2:2), accepted by faith (Gen 15:6, John 20:31), developed through spiritual disciplines (Josh 1:8, Phil 4:8, 2 Pet 1:5-11), and expanded to others through good works (Mt 5:14-16). Contrived religion—including much Sunday morning culture—focuses on spiritual disciplines and good works without the Substitutionary Atonement applied through faith. The result is that cultural traditions and activities, which always change with time, are deemed as being constant and yet yield no lasting and transformational impact. The key to Christian ministry is to keep the view that the foundation of Christ's work on the Cross—not culture—is that which does not change in the religion. The buildings, terms, locations, songs, taboos, methods, liturgies, and other cultural things that are not described in the Bible as essential to Christianity can change from one people group to another or even be changed by a single group of people for themselves.

A good illustration is a glove. A hand and glove are not the same. We use gloves because we value our hands, but we don't confuse the two. A hand needs a glove to perform a task and different gloves help our hands perform different tasks. But, when we take off a glove it isn't because we hate the glove, it's because the task of the glove is finished for the time being. Gloves can get old or sometimes improved or be replaced with better gloves. Christianity is able to change its culture—the things that contrived religions see as constant. Keeping this distinction clear in the minds of both clergy and parishioners is an ongoing challenge and obligation of Christian ministry and is equally central to its success as keeping a horse in front of its carriage. Christianity is centered on a core-Gospel, not a culture-Gospel. New Christians must understand that the Good News about Jesus Christ is that Christianity is a core, not a cult.

**Missions Today**

"What are you doing for the gospel in Taiwan," a strong Christian friend asked me. "I'm staying out of the way," I replied. That was eight years ago and I have not changed my position. Paul says in Romans 15:20 that he will not build on another man's foundation. Most of the missionary journeys recorded in Acts involved regions that had no news of Jesus whatsoever. By the time Paul writes to Rome that had already changed the Church had already been established.

Once a people group has the gospel, Christians in that people group need to spread the Gospel in their region themselves. We even see this demonstrated in the Ee-Taow documentary from New Tribes Mission. One tribe accepted the Gospel, then their tribesmen set out as the missionaries to their rival tribes. Paul set that model. Once a region has the Gospel, the work of outside evangelism has been completed. The task, thereafter, becomes correspondence and distance relationships with other Christians in other regions. Put more simply, after preaching the gospel, the next job is regional Church unity. In that, the West has failed on two fronts: both not stepping on toes in other nations and in having disunity at home.

My own Christian life in Asia has mainly consisted of communication, Bible study in moderate isolation, yet routine correspondence and fellowship. The need for Christian fellowship is so real that it doesn't need to be marketed. Many Christians travel to other countries to teach ESL and quickly begin starving for Christian friendship. I place much of this problem at the feet of the hyper-pampered, pre-planned fellowship groups in the Western Church. If Christians had to take more initiative in their own Christian fellowship—rather than having their fellowship centrally-planned for them—then once they go abroad, for missions or cross-regional communication, they wouldn't feel like a ten-year-old cat having just left the house for the first time.

Fulfilling the Great Commission is the main task of the Church. Missions must continue. But, that doesn't mean that we keep cranking the starter in the ignition after the engine is already running. Once a people group accepts the Gospel the entire game changes. We need to have just as much of a mid-missions strategy as we have a first-missions strategy, and that means recognizing when it is time to stop preaching the Gospel _for_ a people group and disciple them as the new Christians in that region preach the Gospel to their fellow countrymen. In my situation in Asia, that means shining the light to non-Christians and quality time in fellowship with the Christians in my neighborhood. That's basically what Paul explains in Romans 15:20.

**Missions & the Gospel: Spreading v Clarifying**

The Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) is a very generic directive. "Go into the world... every creature... make disciples... all nations..." It doesn't explain specific methods or modes. It is a wide-sweeping, generic instruction.

When a people group has not heard of Jesus, we preach the Gospel to that people in a way to inform them about Jesus for the first time. Once a people group has received the Gospel, their need changes. Paul would not go to any city that already had the Gospel and preach to them as if it were the first time (Rom 15:20-21). After a group has received the Gospel message, the work shifts to "making disciples". This stage of discipleship explains the many New Testament letters and follow-up visits to missionary journeys.

By and large, the name of "Jesus" has reached the ears of many people in the West. We are at a point in history that the New Testament Church eagerly looked forward to, when it is easier to count the places that have _not_ received the Gospel than to count the places that have. Church leaders from all corners of the world calculate the Great Commission being fulfilled within this generation. This all by itself has Escatalogical Implications (Mt 24:14, Mk 13:10).

Most theology throughout the Church had not been drafted when the completion of the Great Commission was in sight. The fact that it is changes the very nature of even writing this study on theology, along with any other functions of the Church. We are in uncharted territory because we are arriving at our destination of a two-millennium, sixty-plus-generation journey.

In nations and regions where the "name" of Jesus is known, but believing in him is scarce, the clear need falls somewhere between discipleship and preaching. People who have heard Jesus's name, but have chosen not to believe him, don't need to be lectured as if they don't know what they already know; they need to have the Gospel "clarified" and hear the "rest" of the Good News.

**Sacraments**

Scripture does not give us the construct of "Sacraments". Sacraments are an extrabiblical framework through which we understand teachings of Scripture. So, while doctrines of Sacraments must be based in Scripture, these doctrines are also open to personal interpretation.

Sacraments are Christianity-related activities seen in the Bible that require more than one believer to be present. Water baptism requires one to baptize and one to be baptized. The Lord's Supper is an event of "breaking bread together" in a way that "remembers Jesus", specifically with bread for remembering his body and wine for remembering his blood as the cup of the New Covenant. These are the two Sacraments held by many non-Roman Catholics.

Additionally, I personally believe that laying on of hands or anointing in prayer (2 Tim 1:6, James 5:14) is a kind of Sacrament, perhaps the third sacrament. Where water baptism came from Jesus's cousin, John, before Jesus earthly ministry, the Lord's Supper came from Jesus at the close of his earthly ministry, and Laying on of Hands came from Jesus's brother, James, after the Baptism of the Holy Spirit followed Jesus's earthly ministry.

Scripture never teaches that these require a kind of organized leadership; the only Scriptural prerequisite for these is that of definition—more than one believer must be involved to do things that require more than one believer. To make the most sense of the Bible's teaching, giving the defined similarities between water baptism and the Lord's Supper, I see three Sacraments, Water Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Laying on of Hands or Anointing in prayer. Preaching, matters of leadership, or public functioning in meetings do not seem to apply in precisely the same way; preaching does not require anyone to be Christian except the preacher and any other function is more about "operations". Marriage existed well before the Church and even Israel and applies to non-Christians. The Sacraments are activities specific to and requiring Christians being together, whether informal or otherwise.

**Sacrament of the Lord's Supper**

The Lord's Supper is a Christian gathering; it cannot be done by just one person, at least under normal circumstances. Just before his crucifixion, the Lord commanded us to take bread and wine in remembrance of Him (Lk 22:19-20). This was clearly understood in the Christian community because Paul rebukes the Corinthians for not coming together for the purpose of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-21), which means that the apostles had taught Paul about it and Paul had taught Corinth. This is important to note because Scripture does not record things like, "...and the disciples taught Paul about the Lord's Supper," or, "Paul and Timothy spend two weeks teaching them about the Lord's Supper and the teachings of Jesus." This kind of activity among New Testament Christians, though not recorded, was evidentially happening all the time, again reminding us that much teaching in Scripture comes through Scripture's assumptions about the original audience. Accordingly, the New Testament Christian community had some opinion about the Lord's Supper.

Jesus's statement that the bread is his body in Luke 22:19 and that the wine is his blood in v20 has some connection to John 6:53-55, but not a literal connection since wine and bread are not named in the John passage, nor is either passage written by the same human author.

In John 6:63, Jesus answers his disciples when they asked about what he said in vv51-55. He returns to the dichotomous relationship between flesh and spirit from 3:6, stating that the flesh profits nothing. V51 illustrates what we see in 1:14, that He is the Ultimate Life itself (cf 6:35, 14:6). Hence, whatever insight we gain about the Lord's Supper in John 6 is separate from teachings about the Lord's Supper itself and can be applied both to the Lord's Supper and elsewhere. John's main point remains that only by the Spirit of God can anything prosper eternally, not by flesh (Jn 3:6, 6:63).

So, if the wine and bread did become Jesus's physical body—whether empirically or through "transubstantiation"—then it wouldn't matter because, as Jesus says in what should be the very same pericope, "flesh profits nothing" (Jn 6:63). Whether "transubstantiation" is real, scientists can't know by definition and, Biblically, it doesn't matter.

For grammatical purposes, it is best to take what Jesus says in Luke 22:19-20, "this is..." as a metonymy of adjunct; he is not merely speaking about physical bread and wine mystically becoming his actual flesh and blood, but about something relating to them. Metonymy is especially consistent with his statement that the purpose of taking the elements is in "remembrance" (Lk 22:19). The Lord's Supper is symbolic and memorial. What exactly happens to the elements (bread and wine) at the communion table is only addressed in Scripture inasmuch as they are eaten (Lk 22:20a).

When Jesus says, "My body is true food and my blood is true drink," (Jn 6:55) he is not instructing some variant of cannibalism, but he is claiming that he is, in essence, the fifth element, the source of Life itself, even the life that grows the grapes for wine and the wheat for bread (v35). In the context of having just fed five thousand hungry people by miraculously creating bread (Jn 6:1-14), the masses wanted more free food (v26). In response, Jesus basically said, "You want food to live? You need _me._ That's what you need. I am the real sustenance." (Jn 6:26-59) This is consistent with what Jesus said in answer to temptation of carnal hunger, that Man must live not by physical bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord (Mt 4:4) and he is the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14). Jesus's body is not "literal food", rather he remains the quintessential food who nonetheless chose to live among us.

When many of Jesus's disciples turned away (Jn 6:66), this was not because of any ostensible "transubstantiation" doctrine where the bread of communion becomes Jesus physical body or because they thought Jesus wanted to start a cannibal cult, but because he claimed to come down from heaven (Jn 6:61-62). If the "offensive teaching" of John 6:66 were something other than purely Jesus's claim that he is the Son of God who came down from heaven, then was it the only other objectionable claim Jesus made about himself in the entire the Gospel of John and was a full reversal of everything Jesus taught about the flesh profiting nothing—but that is not the case. The Pharisees tried to stone him for the same claim to be the Son of God who came down from Heaven, only four chapters later (Jn 10:33). Claiming to be the Son of God was the theme of the Gospel of John, it offended many people, and was also the teaching that offended the people in John 6:66. This offensive fact that Jesus is the Son of God who came down to give himself for us is exactly what he called his disciples to remember in Luke 22. It only makes sense that Paul commands the Church that our Lord's Supper not be taken in an unworthy matter (1 Cor 11:26-29).

If for no other reason that God is omnipresent (Ps 139:7-12), it is reasonable to say that Christ's presence is in, under, and through the elements since Christ is in under and through everything except the souls in Hell. Because the Church is the Body of Christ (Eph 1:22, 23), we do know that the Body of Christ is present at the Lord's Supper as it is standing around the communion table—and that was what Jesus wanted.

**Sacrament of Water Baptism**

The very act of baptizing involves more than one person, thus, it requires some kind of assembly. The word "βαπτίζω/baptidzo", from Greek, literally means to "drench" or "submerge" or, for purposes of this study, "immerse". So, "baptism" can literally be exchanged for the word "immersion," and the meaning of "water baptism" is conterminous with the meaning of "water immersion." Jesus was baptized with water (Lk 3:21) thus water baptism is not necessarily in conjunction with repentance for sin. Baptism in the Bible is always treated as a punctilliar event with continuing results of some sort, but there is no prohibition in Scripture for being baptized multiple times nor for baptism by sprinkling. The people baptized in John 1 & 4 seemed to be familiar with what they were doing and its purpose. Hence, it would make sense that Scripture not explain what exactly happens at the time of water baptism. Once again Scripture teaches through its assumptions about its original audience, this time on water baptism. So, we can only understand deeper meanings behind water baptism by looking for clues as to what water baptism is assumed to mean.

John's water baptism is said to be done as an act of repentance (Mt 3:11). Paul clarifies that repentance was the purpose of John's baptism (Acts 19:4). The fact that the purpose is clarified implies that water baptism might be done for a number of reasons in New Testament traditions, but that is a study beyond the scope here. John 4:1 speaks of Jesus "making and baptizing disciples". His choice to leave Judea (v3) when he learned that the Pharisees found out he was baptizing more disciples than John shows that it makes a difference whom one is baptized by. This is Biblical evidence to suggest that baptism is seen in the Scriptures as a sign of allegiance or _becoming disciples_.

Jesus's disciples were baptizing on Jesus's behalf (Jn 4:1-2), just as all Christians are given the command to administer water baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19). We are to baptize people neither in our name nor in our organization's name, but in Jesus's name. According to the Great Commission, when we baptize people as disciples, it is considered as if the Triune Godhead baptizes them, just as Jesus's disciples' baptism counted as Jesus's baptism (Jn 4:1-2). As Jesus's disciples, we are all called and commissioned to not only preach the Gospel, but also to baptize people. So, when we baptize new disciples in water, this signifies allegiance, not to ourselves, but to God. As John the Baptist said while he was baptizing, "He must increase and I must decrease." (Jn 3:23, 30) This is consistent with what Jesus says, "One is your Teacher... One is your Father... One is your Leader," (Mt 23:8-10) and then, in the next verses, he calls us to be servants (Mt 23:11-12). Water baptism is an act of Christian service.

Any teaching on water baptism beyond Scripture is philosophical. We must tread cautiously when reading more into the doctrine of water baptism, lest we claim that it is a measure of faith or earns righteousness or some other idea contrary to God's Word. Both the action and doctrine of water baptism must draw attention back to God.

Christ's work is the propitiation for our sin, enabling the possibility for imputed righteousness by faith (1 Jn 2:2) and saving the soul (James 1:21). Meditation on God's word then begins to address the renewing of our minds (Josh 1:8, Rom 12:2). What remains is the physical aspect of Man's redemption. Being baptized in water is a physical act which involves our bodies. Hence, water baptism, being a part of the Biblical redemptive process, would then impact the physical body somehow. Paul refers to sin as living in the physical body (Rom 6:19; 7:5, 14, 18, 25). So, water baptism, when combined with saving faith in Christ, may be able to help some people break away from sinful behavior. While this particular aspect of water baptism is not a pillar doctrine of the Christian faith, there are at least Biblical grounds for someone to claim, "I struggled with this sin all my life. I even became a Christian, yet the temptation was so distracting that I couldn't live a normal life. But, then I was water baptized and, though I still had other problems, dealing with my lifelong sin somehow became a whole lot easier." This isn't always the case and should never be a promise of evangelism since the Bible makes no such promises. However, some testimonies like this have been heard from time to time and they do have a Biblical explanation for them. The point remains that water baptism was a command from Jesus Christ in the Great Commission and, as with most everything, God's ways are higher and His reasons are unsearchable (Is 55:9). We may never know all the reasons for which Jesus commanded us to baptize new Christians, but we need to obey him anyway.

Edification of the Church is priority in Christian assembly (1 Cor 14:12). Baptism is a matter of Christian assembly by definition. Categorically, water baptism serves to edify the person being baptized as well as the rest of the Body of Christ present in witness. It is a physical act through which we understand God's spiritual and mental grace. In a way, water baptism is preaching to our mind, spirit, and soul through our body, both individually and corporately. The physical experience of being immersed and washed and rising back up out of the water help our hearts to better understand what words cannot express.

**Tongues and Prophesy in Assembly**

When Christians gather together for assembly, equal attention must be given to the regulation of prophesy as well as tongues—neither is to be forbidden (1 Cor 14:39) and well-ordered public prophecy should be normative in any community filled with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 14:3, 5, 19, 24-25). In the context of assembly, there are to be no more than three prophesies, each in turn, and those prophecies should be judged by others (1 Cor 14:29). If there are more prophecies from Christians in a corporate assembly, those additional prophecies can be journaled, shared with individual leaders or friends, or "stored up and pondered in their hearts" as Jesus's mother did with prophecy more than once (Lk 2:19, 51). Likewise, when "tongues" guided by the Holy Spirit are spoken to a corporate gathering of the saints, there is also to be no more than three per gathering (1 Cor 14:27), and they must be interpreted, whether a prayer language or human language; otherwise it is not for delivery to the entire assembly ( 1 Cor 14:28). Paul's final words on the matter are that all things must be done in a manner that is orderly (1 Cor 14:40). Because God calls us to be mature on these matters, even in the same passage (1 Cor 14:20) and Scripture is so unmistakable on these matters, they are, in fact, matters of Christian fellowship.

**Christianity and Economic Models**

In some circles, it has become common practice to use the local church in Acts 2-5 as a nation-wide/market-wide economic model. The argument is that "the New Testament teaches Socialism" or "Jesus taught social justice". But, there are two distinctions between Socialism and the New Testament. Firstly, the New Testament Church was a minority group spending every penny they could on missions, never a nation-wide system governing daily economics. Secondly, Jesus helped the poor through miracles, not emptying tax money coffers from Caesar nor donations dropped into a passed basket. When Jesus passes the basket, people take from it, and the supply in the basket grows (Mt 14:19-20).

The argument for Socialism as a market-wide economic model was first attempted by the "Saints" (or as we call them 'Pilgrims') in the early 1600's. Sharing profits was a condition required by their investors. When Governor Bradford finally renegotiated the contract and assigned plots of land for private ownership (a miniature _declaration of independence_ which the investors agreed to under protest), the colony prospered and the investors at least got their money back. From a "missions" perspective, a Capitalist approach to sending people to the New World (the Americas) worked much better than mere donations, considering the Christianizing of the Western Hemisphere.

But, the Pilgrims were not only a local church; they were an entire economy with a constitutional government (via Mayflower Compact). Unlike the Pilgrims, the New Testament Church was not the entire economy, it was a break-out movement that grew so fast that economic demand couldn't keep up. Very little is taught in the New Testament on politically-governed economics. If you want to eat, you must work (2 Thes 3:10). Don't ask people to work without paying them (Deut 25:4, 1 Cor 9:9). Pay taxes (Mt 22:21, Mk 12:17).

So, Christian "communes" might semi-accurately duplicate the New Testament Church because a commune is a microcosm, not a market-wide entity. However, a Biblical Christian commune should also should include fast-growing evangelism, signs and wonders, and far-reaching missions. Jesus passing a "basket that feeds as it fills" is not a model for the normative local church nor for market-wide economics—it wasn't even normal for Jesus's ministry since the bread at the first Lord's Supper was baked; if anything, it was a model for performing miracles at an evangelism gathering—if it was a model for anything at all.

The Bible's only comments on economics are ethical, neither endorsing Socialism nor Capitalism, which are economic philosophies that are, by definition, secular. The only market-wide system of governance taught in the Bible is that all systems will, one day, fall under a one-world monarchy headed only by the Jew, Jesus Christ himself, and that monarchy will never end (Is 9:6, 2 Sam 7:16, Rev 20:4; 21:1-2).

**Tradition and Cultural Relevance**

Ultimately, the question of tradition in expression of worship and fellowship is that all forms are acceptable, as long as the Christian lives within Biblical teaching. This includes Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, house meetings, or Galatians 1 style solitude.

Since Scripture is silent on matters of tradition in the framework of Christian assembly functioning, the weight of canon cannot be applied to those traditions. The only place we find extracanonical tradition in play is concerning the extramosaic laws of the Pharisees that Jesus outright ignores while keeping God's Law perfectly (Mt 5:17-20, 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44; 7:21-23; 32:1-36, Mk 3:1-6; 12:18-40, Lk 11:37-54; 13:10-17, Jn 7:19). We also see the extramosaic law forbidding the Son of God from claiming to be the Son of God (Lk 22:67-70, Jn 10:31-35; 19:7). Though I understand little about the topic, in academic responsibility I refer the reader to do further research on the topic and history of what many Christian leaders and experts call "fence laws". For the purpose of this Biblical study, I only note on grounds of pure evidence in the Bible that Jesus blanketly ignores a set of laws held by the Pharisees which they clearly did not derive from Moses and he does so without apology or diplomacy. If anything, the Bible condemns traditions wherever they interfere with the Christian life and Jesus's own lifestyle teaches to ignore those rules, even due to mere convenience, no matter how offensive ignoring extrablical tradition may be; his disciples were hungry and could have waited so as not to "upset tradition", but so what! They were hungry (Mt 12:1-3).

Some customs need to be upheld. Taking one's shoes off at the door when everyone is asked to remove shoes at the door isn't a matter of tradition; it's a matter of loving people. We should take our shoes off sometimes. Likewise, there are many other customs that have a practical use today, going beyond traditions that are outdated in their original usefulness. None of the times that Jesus ignored Pharisee law was he injuring the Pharisees in anything beyond their pride. What remains to guide us in matters of tradition, then, is the necessary science and sound reason of applying the eternal truths of Scripture to the context of the present, not the least of which is love (1 Cor 13). This is the deciding factor of what Christians ought to do when they gather together. These optional practices must follow Scripture as they apply to today and still do not have the weight of canon and cannot be imposed as if they did.

Traditions were developed for the purpose of cultural relevance at the time of their inception. Once their relevance in history is expired, so is their usefulness. If Christian assemblies maintain such traditions after they become irrelevant to culture, then they are no longer edifying within the truths of God's Word, but only anchor a modern people in the polluted waters of past culture. Tradition in gathering of the saints, therefore, only finds it place when pertinent to the times and for no other reason. Christians are only bound to one canon: the canon of Scripture. Time, not Scripture, is the canon of tradition.

Traditions of the past are useful for review when placed in the framework of studying history, not in the framework of general, weekly assembly. Many traditions can and ought to be kept, merely for purposes of memory, as long as their purposes are well-understood, equally among all generations present, if those traditions do not interfere with contemporary function, and they are kept so for edification of the Body (1 Cor 14:26). It is good for Christians to remember their past experiences (Deut 32:7), not live in them (Phil 3:13-14).

We will stand before the Lord and be judged as _individuals_. The Bible uses terms like "each" to describe the coming judgment (Mt 16:27, Rom 2:6, Rev 2:23; 22:12). Sin committed corporately is no alibi. Church tradition, in all of its pluralities and contradictions both with itself and Scripture, will not excuse anyone. We are to be judged individually and, therefore, we must come to understand the truth individually, from the Bible above all, and with extended consideration of wise counsel (Pr 1:5-7) nonetheless subjected to the Scriptures.

**Human Institutionalization of Christian Fellowship**

Prerequisite Scripture reference and systems to this section in "Pneumatology > Director of Wisdom and Leadership"

The best epistemological structure for post-canon human institutions is the US _Declaration of Independence_ , since there is no Biblical argument for them and given the _Declaration's_ unsurpassed socio-political, economic, and technological results. The _Declaration_ essentially claims that human institutions are made and changed by humans according to human prerogative and that this is self-evidently right. The Bible presumes the existence of human institutions when the Lord explains that He directs their rulers (Dan 2:21). Again the Bible teaches through assumption because it does not explicitly say words to the effect of, "Institutions exist and are necessary." It only teaches that God controls the status, changes, and replacements of whatever institutions exist. So, those institutions among men do, of course, exist. And, this validates the basic premise of the _Declaration of Independence_ , that one country may declare its own independence from and without the permission of another country. Declaring independence from any man-made institution is Biblically acceptable since God directs such changes.

Guided by the Lord, of course, institutions are raised up among Men for the purpose of self-governance, all of which happens at the will of Man within the discretion of the Lord's sovereign hand. It happens automatically as part of human nature. So, while the existence of and need for human institutions can naturally be defended, their existence does not need to be pressed with a persuasive "sales pitch". Of course we need institutions for our governance, but institutions remain separate from and at the pleasure of the people who erect and demolish them. Jesus is the head of the Church (Col 1:18), but he is not currently on Earth in the flesh, which means that, in empirical terms, the Church itself is run by "self-governance" and therefore is at least partially governed by epistemological premises thereof. Extracanonical Church tradition, as explored previously, is no exception to both need and disposal.

A government is no more one-in-the-same with its people than a sock is the same as a foot. One is a part of the body and needs care and bathing, the other needs laundering and replacing. Once these institutions do more harm than good, like a dirty sock, they are rightly cast off and new institutions are established to secure whatever freedoms and securities the Lord incepts that the people find fitting. The only government and religious structures ever established by God _directly_ were in Jerusalem under the prophets Moses and Samuel—the temple and the throne—and by Jesus—the organic Church. Even the two Old Testament institutions saw their share of exploited notoriety. Any other system has all of the exploitation, but the notoriety quickly expires and, post-canon, no institution among Men is _directly_ ordained by God. The "institution of the Church" was established directly by Jesus during his earthly ministry. It existed under Jesus directly and was an organic, ad hoc, spontaneous, unpredictable, unplanned outbreak, which continued into Acts at the unpredictable direction of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:8). "Meeting times and places" were a human institutional annex, after the fact and extrabiblical, established among men for self governance in Jesus's absence, which is why their times, places, and inter-/intra-administrative structures were not recorded in the New Testament. There will be no future God-ordained institution again until Jesus descends and establishes it himself from David's throne in Jerusalem (Is 9:6-7, Rev 20:4-6). That brings us to the corruption and failures of these shifting and temporary, extracanonical human institutions today.

With widespread immorality and heresy in the Church, new technologies, and the progress of the Great Commission, the definition of "normal Christian fellowship" has entered a new situation in the last few decades. Mostly, it shifts so fast that one can't write any analysis of it that doesn't expired by the time that analysis can be published. Right or wrong, as of about the turn of the third millennium, "Sunday morning" is no longer the norm for Biblically-healthy Christian fellowship. The Great Commission is not finished, but is significantly close. So, there is not necessarily good Christian fellowship in every city; we can't presume there is. But, with both new Christians and new heretics every day, we are just as likely to find good Christians at the grocery store or coffee shop as we are at "Sunday morning" or Wednesday night Bible study. With transportation capabilities, we are able to visit a wider range of Christians in the same amount of time as when Sunday morning institutions were the norm. With social media, "accountability" is more difficult to evade than ever before. With technology capabilities, we don't need any kind of transportation to get good Bible teaching or ask the questions associated with discipleship.

Of course, nothing replaces in-person fellowship. Transportation allows all the more Christian fellowship, if people can be freed from the ancient shackles of fellowship via single-address Sunday. So, technology and transportation enhance Christian education and fellowship, but at the expense of the institutions set before the technology and transportation revolutions occurred. But, change meets resistance every time someone might lose money.

One of the favored arguments for institutionalized Christian fellowship is "the pile of burning embers". "A hot coal separated from the pile will quickly turn dark and cold," they say. There are two problems with this illustration. 1. The entire pile of coals eventually dies anyway; they die more slowly when they are together. Fires don't need "togetherness" to stay burning, they need a constant supply of fuel. For that, the more appropriate and Biblical illustration is a lamp that stays full of oil. 2. Hot coals and lamps of oil alike can be fueled informally, without man-made institutions centrally-planning things for them. For both reasons, the illustration, as with most deception, is true, but only partially related. That said, not every "coal cluster" argument is necessarily is an argument for State-registered Christian fellowship. Christians do need each other. But, we must remember that Jesus's "fire" illustration for the Christian life wasn't a pile of slowly-dying coals, but lamps individually fueled by oil that kept them burning (Mt 5:15-16; 25:1-13, Lk 8:16; 11:33). "Hot coals" in the Bible serve numerous other illustrations, including something poured out on an enemy (Pr 25:11-22, Rom 12:20) and that hot coals burn a bare body when touched (Pr 6:28). Unignited oil, however, not only can be handled safely; it helps prepare a Bride for the Bridegroom (Esth 2:12). Healthy Christians don't need to lie down in a bed of hot coals, they need to keep their own supply of oil.

The people promoting systems used by "Sunday morning business as usual" are not tentmakers; they stand to lose income they earn off of donations. To escape any conflict of interest, arguments for single-address, single-time, single-club Christian "membership" as the _primary test of fellowship_ must be made by theologians who don't make money from the donations they would stand to lose without those institutions. But, they aren't. The only people defending Sunday morning as the _stand alone test of fellowship_ are the people who make money from it, one way or another.

Conflict of interest is one problem. Then, we have problems of corruption. With increasing immorality and heresy in the Church, mere "membership" in the Sunday morning tradition is more likely to indicate that a Christian is masking compromise and stagnation than being seriousness about Christ. After all, if you "have a pastor", keep near-perfect attendance, and have an impeccable donation history, Christians you don't know automatically trust you, right?

The Sunday morning system almost functions like a guild.

This is not to say that meeting in local chapels was ever bad. Like a scaffold in construction, it was very valuable for "building up" the Body for a time. Now, it's time to tear down the scaffold and thrive in what the Church has longed for: the nearing of the Great Commission's completion. Fellowship and teaching can literally happen anywhere. With effective evangelism, if a Christian can't find other Christians to have fellowship with, he might just go to a local shopping district, make a new friend, lead him to Christ, and have fellowship by the end of the day. Of course, that is not long-term deep, "equal yoking" fellowship in terms of age in Christ, but it is no less trustworthy than asking life-long Believers to sit next to two-week-old Christians in a smallgroup with an equal voice on how the Bible should be interpreted through consensus.

Certification can be bribed or compromised. It offers a false sense of security, a simpleton's test that doesn't require too much thinking. Jesus taught us to know by "fruit", not certification (Mt 7:16). Human institutions become establishments with their own politics that interfere well beyond their original purposes. We need to respect and allow Christian fellowship that is ad hoc and dedicated. But, judging by fruit disallows the "easy way" to probe and test; it means that we actually have to think about each situation afresh.

Deacons existed in the New Testament; bishops and everything thereafter were instituted post-canon. The things that came after the canon closed are not necessarily good or bad, but they aren't the rule. Today's dilemma is that times and technologies change so fast that we won't be able to have an entire church council to determine how to identify who the good and bad apples are. We're going to have to learn how to identify people by their fruit. In other words, we must learn how to obey Jesus before we learn how to obey Jesus.

**Tent-Making and Professional Clergy Today**

While I have already written my _95 Theses of the Clerical System_ to explain the cascade of problems trailing the "professional pastor" system, a few things could be said here on the matter. The structure of congregational fellowship as it exists at the start of the third millennium is both extrabiblical and antiquated. The system of tax-exempt status for the organized church establishment was instituted by Constantine, as was the State recognition of profession of clergy, who also were given tax-exemption. These are not easy to defend as "all-time modes of operation" with the Bible as the primary authority. Additionally, we have the tradition of local congregational "membership", where Christians are "assigned" to a specific group and location, which began during and for the times when horseback was the fastest way to travel and a pastor who had attended seminary was probably the most educated person in town, apart from the doctor.

All of this has changed with transportation and information technology. The pastor is no longer the most educated person in the room, let alone in town. The pastor may not even be the most educated person in the room in regards to knowledge of the Bible. So, it no longer makes sense for congregational meetings to follow a "lecture" model.

Transportation allows Christians to travel to meet each other over fantastic distances in less time that the Pioneers needed to get to their local chapel. That raises another question. "How did the Pioneers have fellowship?" Are we capable of recognizing today's version of Pioneers when we meet them? Requiring people to appear at the same location week after week won't attract people who are dedicated, but who are either too preoccupied to make a large-regional impact or too bored to care.

Systems of Church structure need to undergo a "Vatican III" of sorts. We need tests of Christian fellowship. We need to know who a person is. The Shepherd of Hermes addressed the matter of Christians who move from place to place because it is important that we know and be known by each other. But, we can't use Constantinian conformity as a litmus test for a smartphone era. If we do, our results will deceive. And, being that modern forgery technology eludes outdated counterfeit security techniques, tests of fellowship that presume millennia-old technology begs counterfeits to creep up in the ranks, merely by following protocols that don't actually matter. Why is the Church in such trouble today, with morality and doctrine? We have promoted to positions of leadership all the people who support pre-telegram era fellowship methods in a world where the movers and shakers check in at airports on their portable TV sets we refer to as "handheld devices".

So, here are few suggestions to point us in the right direction. However, tests of fellowship need to be decided in fellowship. While the old guard never wants to let the new generation grow up, it may be a while before the Church can agree on what will best serve its own good. Here are some suggestions for now...

Healthy Christian fellowship needs to behave like a computer addiction. The Christian who attends the weekly Bible study might actually be the nominal or the fake. But, calling the same group of five people (and many more at other times) on the phone to talk about the Bible's relationship to the rest of the world—that indicates a strong Christian.

Another test of fellowship should include the "trade". This even came up with the Shepherd of Hermes who wanted traveling Christians to have a trade that others could "understand". This doesn't mean a particular trade or craft must be "normal" or "typical", just able to be understood by others. "Be attached to something" is a term I learned from one of my Christian friends at Hillsong.

Christians should also have some kind of initiation, not only in fellowship, not only in a walk with Christ, but also in outreach. We need to write, travel, visit, or have a strong career. Perhaps a searchable blog, podcast, vlog channel, email newsletter, or even a strong professional career with a company that requires higher-than-normal involvement in work—these indicate a Christian who takes initiative.

For Christians who find themselves in isolation of some kind, their friends and correspondents need to know their whereabouts and goings on, they must continue rigorous Bible study, and they need to journal. When someone doesn't fit the usual categories, we can make an accurate guess concerning their walk with Jesus by looking at Paul. He wasn't normal either.

Paul lived many, long years alone in what Christian standards today would consider "out of fellowship"; after all, Paul was not seeking to please Man (Gal 1:10, 16-23). Priority needs to be on having "best" fellowship available for a "healthy" walk with Christ. For Paul, that meant solitude for a season.

In his solitude, whether by choice or imprisonment, Paul set the model for not being in "normal" Christian fellowship: write and study. For nearly 17 years, he kept loose contact with only a few key Christians (Gal 1:18-2:2). Perhaps a more reliable way to know the health of a Christian's faith is with a personal journal and two names. Regular log entries carry much weight in the academic world, as with tax auditors. Though not simple, we need to have ways to examine fellowship, to determine whether Christians are "lone rangers" who "can't play well with others" or whether they are Pioneers on whatever "wild frontier" Jesus quietly called them to. Those tests cannot be defined in a single theology study like this. They need to be developed in community. But, when we can travel across the Pacific ocean in ten hours and listen to a live preacher from the opposite side of the world, "Visiting the same 200 Christians every week at the same time and place" _as the non-negotiable requirement proving true Christian fellowship_ doesn't prove anything except that someone either lives under a rock or is looking for a way to legitimize a life that is otherwise non-productive.

If Paul—who provided us with the bulk of our Christian teaching we use to build our framework of "normal" Christian fellowship—can live both as a local Christian and as a missionary, without his own structures, in the ancient world where most people traveled on foot, then we who have Internet and worldwide travel technology are certainly allowed to seek strong fellowship with Christians over greater distances rather than limit ourselves to preferential fellowship with Christians who live within a one hour drive of each other.

While Biblically optional and not always useful in today's circumstances, local congregations still serve a valuable purpose and can be of great benefit, if we understand that the Church is universal and that Sunday morning's (non-)denominational associations and payroll structures are "para-church". Pastors who live off of donations, however, aren't in a good light. They are usually amazing and brilliant people. But, their ministries would be much stronger and more credible in attracting new Christians if they followed the direction of Paul and made tents or worked with their hands to put food on the table. Mandatory tentmaking would spark more ingenuity and attract more dedication in Christian leadership. Entrepreneurs are more likely to listen to a pastor who is an entrepreneur himself. While testing attendance by address may have been outdated by technology, the Web 2.0 era has only made Paul's model of tentmaking more relevant and feasible. The test of "having a pastor" is not as telling as the test of "whether a pastor has a craftsmanship or trade". We aren't there now, but we need to start moving in that direction. With technology today, there is no reason a full-time pastor can't use gadgets or communications to earn a solid living, both at home and on the commute. Pastors do a _lot_ of research for their messages. If nothing else, those sermons could be recorded into proprietary or "freemium" podcasts and their teaching notes could be ghostwritten into ebooks.

I won't elaborate more here since I have also addressed other solutions in _Clergy don't Shepherd_ and in other articles. The important thing to consider is that our tests of fellowship need to be reviewed for how they have already been impacted by technology and tentmaking needs to be re-instituted as a norm for top-level Christian leadership, the Biblical exception being operations staff.
Proseucheology - Prayer

Prayer involves too many facets to be properly addressed within the scope of this study. Arguably, this section ought to come after the section on Eschatology because the End Times involve helped by and understood through prayer. But, I find it best to address prayer here as a kind of summary of previous sections and an introduction to the conclusion.

When addressing the issue of prayer, my heart and mind wander back to Solomon's temple. There, he had singers who praised God day and night, free from other duties (1 Chron 9:33). The disciples also did this in Acts 1:13-14. In both settings, prayer was seen as a corporate activity, though prayer can also be done in secret (Mt 6:6). Isaiah 56:7 records the Lord saying, "My house will be a house of prayer for all the peoples." In Revelation we see people worshiping God before the throne day and night, just as in Solomon's temple (Rev 4:8, 7:15). In Revelation 5:8 we see a depiction of the elders surrounding the throne with a harp for worship in one hand and a bowl for prayer in the other. This demonstrates worship and prayer happening together, giving God no rest day or night, but worshiping and praying to Him without ceasing (1 Thes 5:17). The Old Testament temple is a clear picture of what is to come, as Isaiah records in 6:1-3 where he sees the Lord seated on His throne and the whole Earth is filled with His glory. This foreshadowing purpose of the Old Testament temple is also fulfilled in Revelation 21:3 when the tabernacle of God is placed among Men and God and the people dwell together at last. There is a strong connection between the Lord's temple and prayer.

Of all praying people in the Bible, Jesus's obsession with prayer most astounding! He frequently arose early or sliped away to the wilderness or to a quiet place for prayer (Mt 14:23, Mk 1:35, Lk 5:16). He included prayer in his social life when he took two disciples up on the mountain to pray (Lk 9:28); this was almost a foreshadowing of the days when people will say, "Let us go up to the house of the Lord." (Ps 122:1, Is 4:2, Micah 4:2) Jesus's cousin, John the Baptist, also had a lifestyle of prayer and fasting (Lk 5:33). As we see from Jesus's life, prayer can be private or a social occasion. When in the processes of choosing his disciples, Jesus prayed all through the night (Lk 6:12), just as when he was preparing for the cross (Mt 26:36, 39, 42, Mk 14:35, Lk 22:41-42, 44, 45). During the last night before his crucifixion, Jesus begged his disciples to pray (Mt 26:41, Lk 22:46). In this we see, not just was Jesus a lover of prayer, he also was an advocate of prayer. And, these are only what we have recorded, as John says that Jesus did many other things that the whole world filled with books could not contain (Jn 20:30, 21:25). Of all Jesus's activities that were recorded, prayer is given substantial priority. It is no wonder that Jesus's disciples, of all rabbis and of all questions, they asked him to teach them to pray (Lk 11:1). And, in Jesus's answer is the most simple and comprehensive prayer in all of Scripture, including the Psalms—the Lord's Prayer. Just as Jesus rose to pray in the morning, so would people would rise early to hear him teach in the temple (Jn 8:2, Lk 21:38). Fascinating, it is, then, that with prayer and the temple being so intertwined in the Old Testament, and that Jesus prayed so frequently throughout his life, that Jesus also spent so much time in the temple, the house of prayer (Jn 2:17).

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul, knowing his Old Testament history well, knowing what it foreshadows, and knowing the life of Christ, taught Thessalonica to pray at all times (1 Thes 5:17). One of Paul's most famous teachings was to be "filled with the Spirit," or "walk by the Spirit," (Eph 5:18, Gal 5:25). Jesus also taught that the Holy Spirit would teach us what we need to know (Jn 16:13) and the Holy Spirit proceeds to us from him (Jn 20:22). When Jesus blows on the disciples in John 20:22 saying "receive the Spirit," he then teaches that the disciples would even know who to forgive and not forgive (v23). Paul also teaches that the Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher of all (1 Cor 2:13) and that those who are lead by the Holy Spirit are the sons of God (Rom 8:14). Christ also was lead by the Holy Spirit on multiple occasions (Mt 4:1, Lk 4:1). From these great lovers of prayer, Paul and Jesus, we learn that prayer and walking by the Holy Spirit are inseparable and must exist in the context of a lifestyle, never merely a one time or even frequent act. Only when together in this framework can one begin to truly understand either prayer or walking in step with the Holy Spirit. Since we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16), our hearts should live in a constant state of prayer and worship toward He who now abides in us, non-stop, day and night. This lifestyle is essential if we are to be imitators of Christ (1 Cor 11:1). If we live this way we will be able to experience the Christian life in its fullness and be stronger to overcome temptation (Gal 5:16-26). Prayer, then, is a grace of God to humanity. Prayer may be the most significant step toward restoration to our Creator, following Christian conversion.

**Knowing God's Will**

To know what leading comes from God, that we may know what promptings in our hearts to follow, our minds must be renewed, and in doing so, we become capable of knowing God's will (Rom 12:1-3). So, hearing God's will is a matter of right thinking, which, since the mind includes our emotions, ought to be enveloped in love. Renewing the mind has its roots in meditation on God's written Word (Josh 1:8, Phil 4:8), which always points back to radical, emotional love for others and for our Savior (Jn 15:13, Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5, Micah 6:8, Mt 22:37-40, Mk 12:29-34, Lk 10:25-28). Walking by the Holy Spirit must be drenched in constant love for Jesus Christ as a result of and resulting in meditation on God's Word—which is essential to knowing God's will for our lives. In knowing what God's will is we can then begin to walk in the abundance from Life promised to us (Jer 29:11-13 cf 1 Cor 2:9, Jn 14:6; 20:30-31). Once we walk in a life led by the Holy Spirit, then, God will reveal more or His will to us. So knowing God's will is also a matter of right doing (1 Cor 1:18). One cannot live a life or proper and healthy prayer without being compelled to actions of love and the greatest lives of Christian action cannot exist without being build on a lifestyle of prayer.
Proseucheology Expanded:

Prayer & Deliverance

It is the purpose of this section to address, simply and Biblically, some issues surrounding spiritual warfare and prayer. I personally feel that too much has been written and complicated on the subject, while nothing deals directly with the core subject and provide standard useful explanations. While I could expand on these ideas more, my purpose is not to provide a thorough instruction on the matter, but to "decrease drama" within the body of Christ by outlining some basic Biblical "systems" of related Scriptures. Here are some core beliefs that I think relate sensibly and simply to some topics of spiritual deliverance. All of this centers on a Biblically-informed concept of Forgiveness.

**Forgiveness**

The term "forgiveness" is foremost a financial term. It means "to end a debt obligation". The concept of forgiveness stretches back through the ages. When one person harmed another, monies for damages were owed. In the Old Testament it was considered "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Lev 24:20). If you forgive someone's debt for what he did against you, then he no longer owe that eye or tooth. The remaining problem is that you may still be missing an eye or a tooth. We need the ability to forgive each other, even when offenses last in this current lifetime (Lk 6:36-37, Col 3:13). This is where the completed work of Jesus Christ comes into focus.

**The Root of Strongholds**

In Genesis 1:26, the Lord grants dominion over the earth to Mankind. Though Satan became involved, the dominion of Man is never said to have been retracted in the Fall (Gen 3). There are numerous passages that address the idea of cursing something or a land through bloodshed (Gen 9:6, Deut 19:10, 13; 21:8-9) or cleansing through blood (Heb 9:22). If one human murders another, the _place_ where that human was murdered was simultaneously cursed for evil on the basis that humans are rulers of the earth and can "set zoning" or designate an area for something. The significance of bloodshed and territorial evil has been known since Genesis 4, where in Genesis 4:10 Abel's blood is crying out from the ground for justice. This verse does not describe some mystical happening, but simply that bloodshed matters as does the ground it is shed on. Jesus also died and shed his blood for this (Is 53:5).

**Release from Bondage**

Isaiah 53:5 explains that Jesus suffered in different ways for different things. But, he also rose from the dead, showing the power he has in his resurrection (Rom 8:34, Col 3:1, Heb 1:3; 10:12). This is why we must emphasize the "full, finished work of the Cross". It isn't as effective if we limit ourselves to a few technical terms like "the Blood" or "death of Jesus Christ" while creating technical vacuums because these are too specific and can _sometimes_ thereby exclude other important claims. God says, "To Me belongeth vengeance, and recompense..." (Deut 32:35). This is because Jesus bought _all_ of our sin and debt at the Cross. Whenever we describe Jesus's forgiveness of sin, we must remember and describe that _all_ sin can be forgiven because of the _entire_ work that Jesus finished at the Cross. Prayer is no exception.

**Cleansing the Ground**

As Christians, we can "cleanse" (so to speak) the ground of its sin through prayer. Many skeptics might say, "Jesus died once and for all, there is no need to pray over a specific area; that would be legalistic." But, this is a false notion. Evangelism isn't legalistic, even though it comes before saving faith for most people. Simply because Jesus died on the Cross does not mean that the good news of the gospel does not need to be spread; _humankind still needs to hear the message, as does the ground over which humankind has dominion_. As Paul explains the need for evangelism, he also elaborates on walking on the ground (Is 52:7, Rom 10:15). Physical contact of our feet with the ground is important and seen throughout the Scriptures. The simple act of "laying on of hands" appears throughout the New Testament in regards to praying for people through the work of the Cross (Acts 8:18, 1 Tm 4:14; 5:22, 2 Tm 1:6). I explained previously that "laying on of hands" could be a "third sacrament" ('Ecclesiology > Sacraments'). Likewise, the Scriptures emphasize the significance of "laying feet on the earth" (Ps 47:3, Is 52:7, Nah 1:15, Rom 10:15). Even Paul mentions our feet bringing the Good News of peace in the context of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:15. In terms of definition, this is because we have peace through our fellow man on the same basis that we have peace with God when we are released from the contract of debt through the forgiveness _that is only made possible_ through the full, completed work of the Cross of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1). Forgiveness is a basis for peace.

**Our Authority and Jurisdiction Regarding Forgiveness**

Forgiveness is used as a broad brushstroke that applies the entire human situation in the Lord's Prayer (Lk 11:4). Jesus gives us his authority as a kind of delegation to operate on his behalf in reference to "binding and loosing" (Mt 16:19). John 20:23 gives us an authoritative power in the context of receiving the Holy Spirit (v22)—that is, from a legal perspective, we can only receive the Holy Spirit if we have the right to. Jesus outlines some of our authority by saying, "If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld." (Jn 20:23, ESV) Jesus is not saying that we have the authority to deny forgiveness to someone; he is explaining that if someone has a release of bondage to Satan it will be through one of us.

Categorically, one could even do this in one's own life. Moreover, since everyone can become a Christian, no one has any patent on forgiveness except for Jesus himself, who alone gives his Holy Spirit to those who call on his name and willingly receive what he alone gives. Jesus is also not saying that we have the ability to command Eternal Life upon someone who does not willingly accept it from him. When Jesus speaks about forgiveness that releases our bondage to Satan in this lifetime, he is not only talking about the forgiveness that leads to Eternal Life. _Forgiveness Eternal_ and _forgiveness Temporal_ are related, but they are not one in the same. Forgiveness has both Eternal and Temporal ramifications.

If one man forgives another, but the other man does not accept that forgiveness, then the forgiving man has at least released himself from the burdens of debt collection and, inasmuch, has broken any obligatory debt contracts _for his part_. Naturally, if we forgive someone, but that person does not accept our forgiveness, we would be releasing ourselves from any bondage to Satan _for our part_. But also, based on what Jesus said about our ability to forgive others, that other person may find themselves in more bondage and judgment, if for no other reason than "...for not believing in the name of the only Son of God," (Jn 3:18) and perhaps no longer for whatever other sin we forgave them of.

The authority Jesus gave us is real. When we forgive others based on Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23, those others are "forgiven" in a way that makes a difference, but does not force upon them any part of Eternal Life that they reject. One way or another, our forgiveness of others is a big game changer for both them and us.

There are few things as extravagant as a life lived in the power and freedom of forgiveness, spiritual deliverance notwithstanding.

**Generational Sin**

As Isaiah 53:5 says, "He was wounded for our _transgressions_ , bruised for our _iniquity_ , and by his stripes we are healed." A wound is an injury on the _outside_ , and likewise a transgression is something we ourselves have done. A bruise, however, is a wound on the _inside_ , and iniquity is passed to us from our earthly father on the _inside_ , "genetically" in a sense. The Scriptural teaching about sins from earthly fathers is clear (Ex 34:7, Num 14:18—in the context of God's Love for us; Ex 20:5, Deut 5:9—in the context of Idolatry; Ps 79:8—in the context of desperate prayer).

When your father conceived you, whatever sin issues he had in his life that had not been dealt with were passed on to you, in practical terms, "genetically". They are as permanent for you as the color of your hair and can only be changed by the work of Jesus Christ. It is the nature of a _father_ to pass on his sin to his children as a permanent part of our character, unless changed by the finished work of the Cross. Mothers only pass on sin though _nurture_ and though it may last, it is not permanent. This is why the virgin birth resulted in the sinless Son of God being borne of a sinful human. This also could explain what Psychology calls "personality disorders", those issues we have that hurt ourselves, our relationships, and that we just can't seem to get rid of. For more on the topic, read the section "Christology > Significance of the Virgin Birth".

**Prayer and Fasting**

I wrote an introduction to textual criticism in "Bibliology > Textual Criticism and the Nature of the Bible's Authority".

There is some textual criticism question as to whether or not Matthew's and Mark's teaching on "prayer and fasting" is even in Scripture (Mt 17:21, Mk 9:29). The textual legitimacy must be addressed. The discrepancy in Matthew is missing v21 entirely, while in Mark, the only discrepancy is "and fasting". I am convinced that these verses are part of the Scriptures in their entirety. The undisputed text in Mark says that "this kind" only comes out "by prayer". Also, while most of the manuscripts that omit Matthew 17:21 are the same that omit "and fasting" from Mark 9:29, the manuscript Tbilisi omits Matthew 17:21, but contains "and fasting" in Mark. In other words, there is some discrepancy about the discrepancy. This means that it was likely removed, but not quite entirely.

Contextually, it wouldn't make sense to only say, "this kind only comes out by prayer," when Jesus did not pray on the scene in Mark 9:14-29. The phrase "prayer and fasting" also appears throughout Scripture (Judge 20:26, 1 Sam 7:6; 31:3, 2 Sam1:12; 12:6, 1 Chron 10:12, 2 Chron 20:3, Ezr 8:21, Neh 9:1, Esther 9:31, Ps 35:13; 69:10; 109:24, Is 58:3, Jer 14:12; 36:6, Dan 6:18; 9:3, Jonah 3:5, Zech 7:5; 8:19, Mt 6:16, Lk 2:37; 5:33, Acts 14:23, 1 Cor 7:5) and is not introduced as a unique or new idea in the Gospels. So, I conclude that both Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 were part of the original autographs, as the long versions to their entirety. But, if not (Dan 3:15)...

The Scripture-wide teaching of "prayer and fasting" still applies and is doctrinally what Jesus most likely said, whether those precise words were recorded in the "voice of Jesus" accounts in Matthew and Mark. It would not fit with the flow of the passage if Jesus had meant to say, "Oh, I could drive him out because I pray much, much, more than you guys do, but my fasting didn't help at all. You can drive out powerful demons with more prayer in your life, but you don't need to fast like my cousin and I do because fasting is just a waste of our time and had nothing to do with the extra power I had over this demon." Even if "...and fasting" was added to Mark 9:29 and Matthew 17:21 is totally made up, the omission would not infer that this was Jesus's meaning. Jesus still believed in the power of prayer and fasting and it would have been consistent for him to say, "...and fasting," even if he didn't.

Prayer and fasting is consistent with Jesus's teaching, his life, his cousin's life, and the rest of Scripture. So, there would be no ill gain or dubious motive in adding "...and fasting". There would only be a dubious motive to omit it. And, the fact that "some only come out by prayer" is undisputed in Mark, but completely omitted in Matthew is also cause for suspicion. Discrepancies in a manuscript should relate to repeated or similar words that might confuse a scribe or a missing piece in the parchment; discrepancies shouldn't relate topically in identical testimony of Gospel harmony. It almost seems like there was a concerted effort to remove Jesus's statement from both accounts, but that the effort was only partially complete when it came to Mark, especially in altering Tbilisi's account of Mark. This is, of course, speculation. But, there aren't better explanations and, regardless, the strange coincidences of the discrepancy cast doubt on the credibility of the discrepancy itself. Something isn't right about the manuscripts that omit this text.

Suspicious evidence is enough cause to cast reasonable doubt. But, a well-established motive can often be stronger than hard evidence itself, not to mention when that motive is coupled with a very capable means. We do know that, surrounding these circumstances, there was a great deal of spiritual warfare when Jesus drove out a demon that his own disciples did not have the authority to drive out, even under his delegation. Whatever powerful demon Jesus drove out, it wished that Jesus had kept the secret of his power to himself and not told his disciples. Criminals don't sabotage testimony that is inconsequential. This textual discrepancy does not indicate that Jesus did not say "...and fasting," but that the devils of that era wanted to cover up the truth that a lifestyle of prayer overcame the strongest among them—and they went right to work to create as much doubt about their dirty, little secret as possible. If there ever was an occasion where demons wanted to interfere with the consistency of the Gospels, this account would have been a high priority. So, from a forensics perspective, this particular discrepancy only adds to the credibility of the longer versions of the text.

Whether the proposed saboteur was human or demon remains unknown, though demonic involvement has the stronger motive and was likely involved either way. If Jesus's own disciples couldn't drive out this demon, then a scribe in the year 100 writing one of the first copies of the Gospel of Matthew and Mark might not have been immune from that demon's mental distractions either. What's to say that same demon didn't stalk early copies of Matthew and Mark and trouble fatigued scribes with mild mental distractions when they reached what happens to be the very center of both Gospels—the most exhausting part of a text to copy—the part of the story that told the secret power that drove him out? Ask any Bible student. Distractions that smell of spiritual warfare come up when studying Scripture. If demons ever wanted to trouble people studying the Bible, scribes writing the earliest copies of the Gospels would have been a much higher priority than disturbing the sermon prep of even Billy Graham or the Pope today. If the early scribes of the New Testament were exempt from the same Bible study distractions that we put up with from time to time, then we need to figure out what their secret was quickly and write the next best-seller at the local Christian bookstore. Even if the discrepancy is pure _coincidence_ —something detectives and textual critics are not allowed to believe in—Jesus drove out the demon that his disciples could not because of his lifestyle of prayer and fasting and the demon did not want anyone to know.

Even if some demons "only come out by prayer" then prayer _and fasting_ certainly wouldn't be wrong or unscriptural. Fasting makes prayer all the more powerful. This idea doesn't seem like something one would intentionally invent and add to the Bible; it is more likely something that one making the early copies would accidentally leave out or think was a mistake. The idea is counterintuitive to the young mind and repetitive to the mature. "Fasting for power" doesn't fit with conventional thinking. Not eating food gets rid of demons—!? Yeah, right! No one in Israel had thought of that, not even the disciples in Matthew 17 or Mark 9. Humans have neither motive nor creativity for adding this. But, since the phrase appears throughout the Scriptures, this is another reason why, at best, a scribe might have overlooked the phrase or, at worst, why he might have accidentally added it. For a mature, studied scribe copying Gospels decades after Jesus left, "power by prayer and fasting" was so common in the rest of the Bible it was outright mundane.

No matter which way we explain this discrepancy, every scenario ends with the same truth—that only a lifestyle of prayer and fasting can drive out some of the most powerful demons. This very discrepancy is part of what we mean when we teach that the Bible is infallible. Everything about this, even the discrepancy itself, is part of what God wanted us to see, if nothing else than to serve as an ideal historical reference to understand all that was happening at the time. We had two reports, both were skewed, the truth remains the same, and the entire controversy has evil's "defeat under protest" written all over it.

In being fully objective and laying all speculation aside, there are a few key older manuscripts that are missing the text, but many younger manuscripts have "prayer and fasting" in both passages (still ancient, just young compared to the few main older manuscripts). Where did they all consistently get this from? It could have been from some manuscript that was older which is apparently not around to defend itself.

Also, there is a cross-Biblical-reference factor. In Acts 14:23, they chose elders "by prayer and fasting". Where did the early Christians learn to do this? Whatever errors were in the manuscripts we have today, no copy of Matthew or Mark had even been written in the time of Acts. They could have gotten the idea from reports of what Jesus said in Matthew 17:21 or Mark 9:29, or they may have gotten the idea from one of the many things Jesus said that would saturate the world with books had they ever been written (Jn 21:25), which Jesus is also referring to in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. Or, they may have gotten the idea from the immense teaching on the great power of prayer and fasting in the _rest_ of Scripture.
Eschatology – End Times

Few topics can be as scary as the _End Times_. However, we must remember what Jesus said in Matthew 6:34, that we ought not worry about tomorrow because tomorrow will worry about itself, each day has enough trouble of its own.

When the extraordinary events of the last days begin to unfold, God will give His people extraordinary grace to go through those days. God never gives us challenges greater than what grace He also gives us to go through those challenges. In the context of today, with what resources we currently have at our disposal, of course it would seem scary and traumatic to consider living during different times, future or past. But, when we reach the days just before Jesus returns, we will likewise have new hope. It is for us then, in the meanwhile, to grow in study and in prayer—so that we are neither unprepared (Mt 25:1-13) nor taken by surprise for what happens.

At last, whoever is alive on Earth during those days—and have prepared themselves for them—will find both the courage and the power to go through those days just like any other. So, the greater message of the _End Times_ is for today: If God will offer strength and courage for the _End,_ surely He will also give strength for today. In this we find that preparing for _peace everyday_ may have been His message to us all along.

It is the intent of this section to provide a base for further Scriptural study, while at the same time giving a clear view on the End Times. Considering the vast degree to which the study of the End Times and parousia (the second coming of Christ) can be taken, surely you can see why this is not meant to be a comprehensive study of Scripture's teaching on the End of the Age.

There are many books that can be consulted on the End Times, including Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets, even Genesis 3, Ecclesiastes, 1 Thes 4 & 5 and, of course, the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. I have found that the best hermeneutic for these is Joshua 1:8. When you know these passages forward and backward—through the simple diligence available to anyone—seeing the connections between the passages can happen at the speed of thought rather than the slowness of search engines and page flipping.

The best study guide to the End Times is the Bible itself. This was why, rather than writing long study guides on the End Times, I read the Book of Revelation about one hundred times, and only then translated it from Greek to English. That translation had heavy cross-referencing for word consistencies. It was about 10,000 words and I kept about 100,000 words of notes on why I translated it the way I did. I wrote that translation for my own study so that I could see both word consistency and poetry because, after knowing Revelation by heart, English translations, as good as they are, no longer answered my questions. I've made that translation available completely free via ebook. I elaborate further in the translation's introduction. For now, it's enough to say that we can't know the Bible without knowing the Bible. And, with the different genres that address the End Times, the Bible provides enough "study guides" of its own, which prove useful if we are willing to read them over and over again as God instructed Joshua.

The Olivet Discourse lays out a concise road map. Jesus himself tells us many things in just two chapters, making it a good framework through which to understand the rest of what Scripture has to say. 1 Thessalonians 4-5 has a didactic-theological feel, more or less, which is good for answering some questions directly. While the allegorical vision in Daniel and Revelation are difficult to understand, the direct language of Matthew and Paul can help keep us anchored.

There are many things to discuss on this subject, not only events and their chronological order. Particular characters and topics in Scripture also appear at the End of the Age, making this the best occasion to discuss them.

**On Satan**

Firstly, review "Bibliology > Time of Job, Enoch, and Biblical Theology of 'the Righteous'".

Satan's rebellion is only touched on in Revelation 20:8. Whatever his agenda was, it is interrupted by angels of Heaven in v9. Immediately following, Satan (the serpent from Gen 3, tempter of Mt 4, and dragon of Rev 12), the Beast from the sea (of Rev 13:1, seemingly a composite from the four beasts of Dan 7, minus the 'eagle wings', which appear in Rev 12), and the second Beast or "False Prophet" (of Rev 13:11) are all three judged and thrown alive and conscious into the Lake of Fire, and their punishment is Eternal Damnation (Rev 20:10).

Unfortunately, further teaching about Satan and the fallen angels held by the Church has very little, though some, basis in Scripture. Most Angelology the Church teaches actually depends on the Book of Enoch, which I addressed in the "Introduction" and briefly concerning Job. But, since this is a study on the sixty-six books of the Bible, not extrabiblical fact, it would go beyond scope to dive too deeply into matters of Angelology. Angelology, the Study of Angels and Demons, must be either an extrabiblical study in the Book of Enoch, a mere recounting of Church tradition, or else very brief. Nothing in either the Book of Enoch or Scripture gives us any names of demons; the only names are from Enoch and the name "Lucifer" isn't found anywhere in canon. "Satan" began as a title eventually became a name and that is the most Scripture gives us. So, this is as far as we will go on Satan's name.

**The Question of Evil and God's Goodness**

Much ink has been spilled and many a candle burned over the question of how God, being both good and sovereign, could or would allow evil to persist. This question is valid even in the context that God will overcome evil _given time_ because it does not ask about evil's existence in the first place. Rather, this questions His goodness for _waiting_ to have victory over evil. The parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 addresses the need to _wait_ for those things which are good to become complete, lest they be harmed if evil were eradicated earlier. The very fact that God waits to eradicate evil proves His goodness all the more. As also referred to in Genesis 15:16, evil must reach its fullness before it can be eradicated. To remove evil too soon would damage those things which are good and would empower evil to grow back with a vengeance like mowed weeds.

There are also questions about God's goodness in His ability to know the full events of what we call the "future". Such questions presume that God, knowing that people would choose Eternal Damnation, could not possibly be good if He also knows the future. But, these questions are eclipsed by two other questions: How could God be anything but Good if He created humankind knowing that He would suffer the consequences of sin at the Cross and thereby experience more pain than any who are consigned to eternal Hell? And, how could anyone refuse the graciousness of such a God?

Only in religions that question Jesus as being both the Son of God _and_ the Christ do we arrive at the conclusion that a God who knows the future and created Earth anyway must therefore be evil. Many Muslims claim that Jesus was not the Son of God because God is too good to let His own Son be sacrificed. But, some Muslims accept that Jesus was both the Christ and the Son of God, hence the slur "Christlam" and what I call purported "Messianic Muslims". (See 'Eschatology > Christ and Antichrist'.) Truly knowing the future means not only knowing that people would choose Hell, but also that Jesus willingly would go through Hell to ensure that Hell became optional. Whether Muslims argue that Allah both knows the future and is willing to sacrifice His own Son is for Islamic scholars to delineate on their own. But, as for the Judeo-Christian God, Adonai, knowing the future doesn't mean that God is evil, it means that He is self-sacrificial.

There are times in life when we might say that, "God doesn't seem to make sense." But, in this framework of how to eradicate evil—patiently—it is the people who reject God who don't make sense. God, in these matters, makes perfect sense.

**Eternal Judgment: Punishment and Reward**

After Christ's Second Coming, after his millennial reign, and after Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet are consigned to the Lake of Fire comes the "Great White Throne" judgment. He who sits on this throne has access to everything everywhere and there is no place to hide from Him (20:11). At this second judgment, all souls from all time are judged for their deeds in life on Earth (cf Ecc 12:14, Dan 12:2-3, 1 Cor 3:13-15) and those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be thrown into the same "Lake of Fire" as the two Beasts and Satan (Rev 20:12-15). We know this is the same lake of fire, because the use of the definite article "the" comes across as both a monadic (meaning 'the' only one) use and a celebrity (means 'the' well-known, famous one) in conjunction with "the lake of fire" (the aforementioned). Moreover, Revelation never uses "lakes" in the plural.

"Annihilation" refers to the idea that an eternally judged soul ceases to exist, therefore appeasing God's wrath upon the soul and, accordingly, the soul no longer suffers—it simply ceases to exist. Since the lake of fire was previously described as being a place where there is no annihilation and torture is forever (Rev 20:10) and _no_ exception is made for the second wave of souls to be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15) same as previously described (Rev 20:10), the Bible leaves no question that the consequences for not being listed in the "Book of Life" (Rev 20:12) are eternal and that no soul is ever annihilated.

In addition, since those who had been dead in Revelation 20:12-13 had not been annihilated the first death, there is no textual reason to think they would be annihilated in the "second death" (Rev 20:14). The suffering for those not in the Book of Life clearly face the same judgment as those who worship the Beast (Rev 14:11). Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 say just as much. It is just and fair that God does this (2 Thes 1:4-10). Therefore, according to a literal-grammatical hermeneutic, Divine condemnation at the Great White Throne Judgment is eternal, final, absolute, and never-ending for all on whom it rests. To claim differently would alter objective words and meaning at least to a point where any other meaning in Scripture is no longer clear, reducing study of Scripture to a moot absurdity.

Here we have irrefutable, canonical consensus that God's final punishment for the "wicked", humans and angels alike (2 Pet 2:4), is indeed eternal, terrible, conscious, and fair because the suffering of Jesus Christ, their Judge whom they rejected, was even worse (Is 53:5, Rom 5:8, 2 Cor 5:21, Eph 4:9, Phil 2:8; 3:10-11, Heb 2:9-10, 18; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12, 1 Pet 4:1, 1 Jn 4:10).

God's reward for fairness, giving justice, and doing goodness is great (Dan 12:3). Jesus will judge us, not according to our intentions, ambitions, nor even our opinions or theology, but according to our work (Mt 7:21-23; 10:42, Mk 9:41, Lk 19:11-27, 1 Cor 3:11-15, Heb 4:3, Rev 2:23; 20:13; 22:12). Only those whose names are written in the Book of Life and who did not accept the Beast's mark will enter into this reward at the Judgment (Rev 13:8; 17:8; 19:20; 20:12-15; 21:27).

God has given us everything we need to sprint through a life of abundance, strength, and freedom (Ps 119:32). Jesus does not merely want to forgive us, though his forgiveness is like a vast ocean (Ps 103:12); he wants to reward us awesomely for the lasting work we build. Only such lasting work, strong enough to survive his cleansing fire, will keep us through the hard times of the Antichrist. And, even when the Antichrist kills many of us, our good work will not be lost; it will continue (Rev 14:13). Jesus will make sure of that.

"Unmerciful" is not the God who died and suffered, Himself in the flesh, at the Cross, and experienced all Eternal punishments for all sinners upon His own infinite self so that they would not need to suffer at the Judgment. "Unmerciful" is not the God who created the world, knowing that He would have to suffer in this way in order to redeem Man from the choices He foresaw. "Unmerciful" is not the God who reaches down into our lowly and painful circumstances to carry us through them so that we not only survive, but may come out stronger. "Unmerciful" is not the God who remembers something as small as a cold cup of water given in His name." No. "Unmerciful" is the person who would spit in the face of that merciful, self-sacrificial God and say, "How unmerciful you must be!" No, it is the souls in Hell who are unmerciful, not only to God, but to their own fellow Man, and that is exactly why they are sent there, surely and rightly.

Souls who land in Hell want nothing more than to be separated from God. They might express this by saying, "Why don't you just leave me alone?!" All of God's existence reveals things about Himself through His creation, yet some souls chose a course leading away from God—and God allows them to have it (Rom 1:18-2:1). His truth and mercy are compelling and become painful to the ears of all who reject Him. Living their entire lives, they want nothing more than for God to leave them alone, and, in the end, that is exactly what He does (Lk 16:24-26). To land in the Lake of Fire—the only place away from His presence—one must scale a mountain of God's grace (Lk 16:27-31)—His Holy Spirit, His Word, His abundance offered to Man, His wise commands, His Church, His Son, His deliverance, and even beneficial pain. The very same God who died for all of us will stop at nothing to deliver us from Eternal Damnation because that is not what He wants for us (Mt 18:10-14). He came so that we may have Life and have it abundantly (Jn 10:10). People go to Hell only because they reject everything He offers and would rather be a ruler in Hell than a servant any place else, especially in the blissful service of the Lord and all His blessings.

Hence, Eternal Damnation is also a grace, not just for the redeemed to live eternity apart from people who love evil more than Eternal Life, but Hell is a grace also for those consigned there. Given their priorities, Damnation is the most compassionate, gentle, and benevolent option that they left themselves. Having undermined the grace of pain that leads to wisdom, the grace of guidance through the Bible, the grace of Christian fellowship, the grace of the Holy Spirit's available power and conviction, and the pinnacle grace of the Cross, there is but one grace left for the taking. God has forever left them to themselves and completely removed His beloved presence and Truth from them for all Eternity because that is what they wanted (Mt 8:10-12, 13:40-43, 13:49-50, 24:48-51, 25:29-30, Lk 13:27-28, 16:24-26). And there, looking inside themselves, having attained what they strived for at every step, at any and every expense, what they find is Hell—a place originally made for Satan and his angels, but begrudgingly admits any human souls who earnestly seek entrance by their own free choice. In _The Great Divorce_ , CS Lewis says, _There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done."_

**Parousia in Conjunction with the Millennium**

Revelation 19:11-20:15 chronologically outlines the return of Christ, followed by a one thousand year reign of Jesus himself on the earth, which is in turn followed by a rebellion on behalf of Satan his human followers, living on Earth at that time. Since there is nothing to suggest that we rearrange this order from the text, or what, specifically, that other order ought to be, accepting the literal chronology of events in Revelation is preferable. This passage, then, being interpreted as chronologically literal, would lead to a view often known as a Pre-Millennial Return of Christ.

Moreover, it is worth mention that "peace on Earth without Jesus returning to establish it himself" is an ambition held by no one as radically as Satan, the Antichrist, and all who follow them. Amillennialism (rejection of a literal thousand year of Christ, replaced by the belief that Jesus is already reigning in a spiritual sense,) therefore, has dubious epistemological roots, begging questions of motive. However, given some principles of Amillennialism find defense in the existence of "resisting nations" (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10) and the power of the Church, Amillennialism and Premillennialism should not be matters over which to part Christian fellowship—as long as they are Biblically-based and acknowledge that no _final_ peace can come without Jesus parting the clouds and visibly descending, seen from east to west, to personally kill the Antichrist and his armies and finalize that peace himself in the flesh.

**Satanic Propaganda Concerning Latter Days**

Satan is obsessed with the earth because it is all he has left since his expulsion from Glory. He spreads propaganda that moves people to idolize global governments and the environment. Satan wants to turn Earth into a perfect world without the "Great Harvest" (Mt 10:34; 13:24-30, 36-43, Lk 12:49, Rev 14:14-20). Jesus wants a perfect world, but he knows that Satan must be defeated with war fought by Heaven's armies first (Rev 19:11-20:4). Satan's propaganda seeks to label Jesus as the invader of the earth and convince humanity to wage war against the True Lord of all Creation when he returns in his glory (Rev 19:19, 20:7-10). There are many forms of propaganda to that end, to distract Christians from fulfilling the Great Commission with pretentious compassion that seeks to make the world a better place for future generations without the dramatic shaking of Christ's redemption and judgment. His propaganda includes ideas that we can have Christianity with zero miracles on Earth or peace on Earth without Jesus here to enforce it in the flesh or that we are more capable of destroying the earth than God is of protecting the earth until the Judgment date He sets. Such ideas are all engineered to convince people to love mediocrity, convince themselves that they are godly, yet lack God's power (2 Tm 3:5, 7), and employ teachers who tell them whatever they want to hear (2 Tm 4:3-4). Satan fears miracles because he can neither control nor duplicate them. He fears a people who understand that Jesus is a good and benevolent leader. He fears nations who accurately understand the End Times and can thus identify the Antichrist as a fake. The only hope he has to eliminate or at least diminish our belief in the truth is to convince God's people that what happened in the New Testament no longer applies. Satan does not want us to believe in anything he fears, whether the nature of Jesus, the nature of his return, the nature of his global rule, the nature of his creation, or the nature of his miracles.

' **Armageddon'**

At Jesus's return, there is a great battle (Rev 19:11-21). Many people today call this "Armageddon". There is a second battle after Jesus's thousand year reign, after Satan is released and leads people to rebel during Jesus's peaceful rule (Rev 20:7-9). I believe that the Great White Throne Judgment, which immediately follows this second battle, will open the history books, all the battles and times of peace will be compared, and all people who ever lived will see and know that these two battles prove that Satan can never be trusted and that wicked people will follow him into rebellion for no reason, no matter how good their lives are.

Armageddon is a region of battle-worthy plains, walls, mountains, and plateaus in Israel today called "Megiddo", to which people travel and take pictures. Many battles were fought there throughout Joshua and Judges and it is where Josiah was wounded after he entered a battle the Lord told him not to (2 King 23:29, 2 Chron 35:20-24). There could actually be two "battles of Armageddon", both against Jesus and both ending in miserable defeat.

While the location of Armageddon I is named in Revelation 16:16, the location of Armageddon II is not named, only described as "the broad plain of the earth" (Rev29:9)—to the plains of Megiddo there is no equal in size or fame. Considering what John saw and how he describes things, I postulate that "the broad plain of the earth" could likely be the same plains of Armageddon since the Satan's tactics rarely change and there aren't many other convenient places where a group of armies would gather to surround Earth's Jewish king; but this is speculation. AI is the Antichrist's march against Israel when Jesus comes from the sky to deliver them. The AII armies are simply consumed by "fire from heaven". Both times, salvation comes from the sky. Neither Armageddon battle is really a battle. Since weapons will have been beat into plows with the vast peace on Earth during Christ's reign (Is 2:4), AII is probably fought with pitchforks and plows. Biblically (Rev 19:17-21), the AI battle when Jesus returns, rather than "Armageddon", should probably be called "The Great Supper of Birds".

And, what a Great Supper it will be! While the Lord's Supper had only bread and wine, the Great Supper will have protein on its menu—the multi-ethnic meats, young and old, choicest and cheap, from the diverse armies of the Antichrist. Rare, medium rare, medium, and well-done will all be in surplus at the buffet for easy pickings! It will go down in bird history as the greatest of all bird suppers, even all the birds of the earth will be gorged on the delectable and juicy armies who served the Antichrist. All leftovers must be eaten. It will be the most famous supper birds ever had or ever will have—much more famous than the Battle of Five Armies of Middle Earth—and even more famous than Bilbo Baggins's 111th birthday, which his plunder funded, even to the ends of the Shire!

Get your place while you can, lots of observation seats still left in the Upper Balcony. The Great Supper of Birds: Plenty on the menu and millions just "dying" to get there!

Note: These last two paragraphs are an amplified translation to English from Bird, the original language of what I somewhat comically refer to as the Lost Canons of Aves's rendition of Revelation 19:18. The angel's message to the birds would have been understood by those birds. Good Bible study demands that we see as much. As common among migratory-intercontinental announcements in Bird, the original text could have begun with "Chirpity-chirp, chirpum..." However, this remains unverified.

**Parousia in Conjunction with the Great Tribulation**

From Matthew we know that Christians will suffer during the End Times (Mt 24:9); the question remains, "When?". The Abomination of Desolation in v15 could easily refer to the Jerusalem "massacre" in AD 70. It could have both an earlier and later fulfillment as prophecies often do. A prophecy having been fulfilled in a small way does not remove the possibility that it could be fulfilled in a much greater way later in time. Therefore, I take issue with the prophecy-hermeneutic of any suggestion that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled in AD 70 as thereby meaning that there will be no greater fulfillment in the future on a greater scale.

The first mention of the second return of Christ in the Olivet Discourse is in vv29-30, that the sun will be darkened and Christ will return. Vv36-39 say that his return will be unexpected, and vv40-41 describe an event comparable to the one in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the remaining Believers on the earth are _caught up in the sky_. Some refer to this event as the "Rapture of the Church", though we get few specifics from the passage in 1 Thessalonians, on chronology least of all.

The Olivet Discourse in Matthew almost seems to specifically address time as a main theme (24:4, 8, 13-16, 29, 32-33; 25:1, 31), the main point about time being that we do not know, so "be ready" and "keep oil" (25:1-12). Revelation is far more elaborate than either Matthew 24-25 or 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and therefore has much more to say about the specific chronological placement of any Rapture of the Church. "Caught up in the clouds" (1 Thes 4:17) could refer to the multitude in Revelation 7:9, which is in "Heaven," which in Greek (οὐρανός/ouranos) is the same word for "sky". 1 Thessalonians 4:17 describes a kind of "rapture", but says nothing about its chronology in relation to other events of Revelation. Sound hermeneutics require that we not base chronological doctrine on a passage that does not have chronological explanation. Revelation and Matthew offer a basis for chronology; 1 Thessalonians offers us a theological explanation organized by topic, with little to say about time sequence.

Just because an event is explained does not mean that it is placed in sequence. Likewise, just because an event is placed in sequence does not mean that it has been explained. Take for example the event often referred to as "The Great Tribulation".

In Revelation 7:14, an elder explains that the multitude in v9 is "coming out of the great tribulation". With the Greek definite article "the", "the great tribulation" also emphasizes their situation, as if to say with emphasis, "These people come out of _great_ tribulation." The definite article also indicates that the elder expected John to have some prior, or at least researchable, knowledge about this "great tribulation", just as one would only say, "Close _the_ door," if the hearer already knew which door the speaker was referring to. Revelation 7:14 could refer to ch6 or ch16 or the entire Book of Revelation, but the elder doesn't specify. The statement itself does not indicate whether or not there even is a clear event known as "The Great Tribulation", just that there was a tribulation that John had or should have already had in mind. Whatever the elder was referring to could be called "The Great Tribulation" based on 7:14 alone, but 7:14 refers to it without pinpointing it.

The elder does not say much about this multitude. All we learn from 7:14 about this "great tribulation" is that it is whatever the 7:9 multitude is coming out of—because the elder is teaching John about the multitude primarily, but only about "the great tribulation" inasmuch as the multitude is connected to it. The clearest and most important quality of the 7:9 multitude is that it is victorious. In vv14-15, the elder says that they washed themselves in the blood of the Lamb, _that is why they are where they are_. The elder does not say whether the multitude contains _all people_ who are washed in the blood of the Lamb, only that _all of the multitude_ is. The elder certainly does not explain _how_ they came out of this "great tribulation", but they must have been _in_ it—in some manner or another—because they _came_ in order to now have _come out_ of it. The multitude of 7:9 did not _evade_ tribulation, they came _out_ of it; and, whatever it was that they came out of, it was _GREAT_.

It is possible that the described, unplaced event of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 refers to the undescribed, placed event of Revelation 7:14. It is also possible that they are partially connected, but in ways we don't understand. They could be those alive in 4:17 or the dead of 4:16—or both! If anyone understands exactly how the multitude of Revelation 7:9 got there, then it is the first time that any prophecy has ever been fully understood before its fulfillment.

While the 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 7 events could very well be connected, it is very easy to add descriptions and chronologies where they don't actually exist. "Great tribulation" in Revelation 7:14 could refer to Matthew 24:29, but Jesus qualifies it as "tribulation in those days", which is a different use of words and is no basis for establishing a proper noun to describe a specific event, even if they are the same event. In good Bible study, we need to look at the text for what it actually means and not merely add meaning to cheaply satisfy our curiosity, even when our questions remain unanswered. If we keep looking at the text for what it means, then answers will become all the more clear, given enough time in the Scriptures. In all of these passages, we certainly see similar themes, warnings, and instructions, similar to "be ready" and "don't give up" and "don't be deceived" and "Christ and the Church will have victory"— _and the instructions about what to do during these events deserve our primary attention._

We don't know what the future holds. We can't know, no matter how much we study the Bible, no matter how many partial prophecies and dreams God gives us of the future. But, we don't need to know everything either. We just need to be ready. Jesus already provided, proved, and explained the solution. That solution is what we need to study most of all, while we continue our diligence to learn and remember the Biblical prophecies so we will identify them in the days they are fulfilled.

Before we learn about the "144,000 sealed" in 7:3, 6:12 records the sixth seal being broken and thus the sun turning black and other things happening in the heavens. This seems to coincide with the darkening of the sun in Matthew 24:29. The only details Revelation gives concerning the 7:9 multinational multitude is that they are "coming out of the great tribulation" and have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. The ongoing present tense "coming" doesn't seem to suggest that this departure was a single, punctiliar event. If we interpret the term "great tribulation" to mean the "time since Christ's ascension", then the Revelation 7:9 appearance of this multitude would likely indicate that this "great tribulation" has been happening for two millennium and John only sees it coming to its climax.

We know that in both Matthew and Revelation, the sun is darkened before the departure of the multitude from the earth. Things involved in that process of darkening the sun could naturally call many Saints home to be with the Lord. In Revelation 6:11, Christian martyrs are told to wait until their numbers are completed, and were given "white" clothes. This doesn't necessarily mean that those in the 7:9 multitude are _only_ martyrs, but that a precedent is set in 6:11 that filling their numbers requires a span of time, which could also apply to Christians who die by causes other than martyrdom. Revelation 2:8-11 describes martyrs and 3:7-13 describes saints who are in good standing, yet _not martyred_. Revelation 3:4-5 describes a church that received some admonishment and is _not_ described as being martyred, which still received "white" clothes. This suggests that the multitude of 7:9 (who are wearing white robes) is likely made up of Christians who were both martyred and not martyred. In 7:9, after the sun is darkened and after the 144,000 are sealed and remain on the earth, this "white-clothed" multitude is in one place together in "the Sky/Heaven." Based on this placement in the story line, it seems that the final departure of the Church happens at about the same time as the marking of God's 144,000 in 7:4-8 and happens between the sixth and seventh seals.

Revelation 16:1 begins the bowls of God's wrath poured out upon the earth. Therefore it seems that both the departure of the Church and the marking of the 144,000 happen in the middle of the tribulation, yet before God's wrath. This does not mean that _all Christians_ leave the earth at the _departure of the Church_. God could leave a few people behind for His purposes, especially with the presence of "resisting nations" (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10). Egypt proves that God can steer His plagues to miss His people. Regardless of the order of events, we know certainly that God's wrath is not directed at His Church, whether or not Christians are on the earth during the time of bowls of judgment. Since Christ describes the Church as having an offensive role regarding Hell (Mt 16:18), it is best to conclude that any Christians on the earth during the time of the "great tribulation" for that matter, are participating members, used by God in the process somehow, even if only as witnesses. That said, with the 7:9 multitude in Revelation seen before the seventh seal is opened, one way or another, the vast majority of the Church will have already departed from the earth.

I don't call this a "Pre-Wrath Rapture", but a "Pre-Trumpet Departure".

Since the multitude "is departing" from "the great tribulation" before God's wrath (trumpets and bowls), a Post-Tribulation _Departure_ of the multitude of Revelation 7 is not a textual option. At most a Post-Trib Rapture would be comprised of Saints either somehow still on the earth or who were converted after the multitude enters Heaven or who were "sealed" as witnesses of God to be preserved throughout the period of bowls of judgment and wrath. While there could always be exceptions—because God always throws a joker in His deck—Revelation indicates that the only saints on the earth during the bowls of judgment seem to be the "144,000 sealed", who have victory and don't receive the judgments themselves. This is what we see in Revelation 14. They seem to have more of a role similar to those of Moses and Israel in God's judgments against Egypt (Ex 3-14), participating _with_ God, not receiving themselves the plagues that God gives _through_ His people _to_ those who stand against Him. If there are any Gentile Christians on the earth during that time, they would likely be the "two wings of _the_ great eagle" of Revelation 12:14, plucked in Daniel 7:4—the wings given to the woman, Israel. So, like the 144,000 of Israel in chs7 & 14, "the great eagle's wings", whoever they are, are not subject to the bowls of wrath—they give wings to the wrath.

**Two Bodies of Believers in Revelation 7**

In Revelation 7:3 an angel says, "Do not harm the sea until we have sealed all of the bondservants of God." Priority is not given to removing or preserving the Believers on Earth prior to harming of the earth, but to "sealing" this select group. V4 denotes the 144,000 Jews received the seal as bondservants of God, which means they must be redeemed by Christ either at that point in time or soon after. The language in v9, "After these things," denotes that that the multitude in v9 does not include those who were sealed in v4, who are still on the earth through much of the remaining discourse. Moreover, the multitude of Revelation 7:9, being of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, cannot be comprised of Jews alone, they must include Gentiles. The fact that those of the v9 multitude have been washed in the blood of the Lamb (v14) proves that they are Christians at the time John sees them. The only body of people in Scripture which could fill all of these descriptions is the Church. The 144,000 count of people in 4:4 are all listed as Jews in vv4-8. Hence, it is important to understand that there are two large bodies of redeemed people in ch7, the 144,000 redeemed Jews in 4:4-8 and the multitude of Christians in 4:9. The 144,000 Jews are described as being in the earth; the multinational multitude of Christians wearing white robes are before God in "Heaven". Based on what the elder first reveals in 4:4, with knowledge of the 7:9 multitude demonstrated in 7:14-17, the "departure" of the Church could happen, finish, or begin as early as 4:4. The 144,000 appear again in ch14, and thus remain on the earth, even after the "fury of the Antichrist" in ch13.

**Seven Churches: The Introduction to Revelation**

The Seven Churches of Revelation 2-3 likely refer to the actual literal Churches of those cities during the historical time that John had his vision, but their connection to different topics and situations in the Body of Christ is striking. Because of the applicability to different groups of Christians, it would be a much greater challenge to prove that Jesus's message of chs2-3 didn't apply figuratively as well as historical-literally. Cross-referencing chs2-3 with the rest of Revelation does not undermine the historical-literal applications about these Seven Churches, it expands on them. In fact, cross-referencing chs2-3 of Revelation with the rest of the book helps us understand the rest of the book. This is even more true since the _"Revelation"_ Jesus gave John began with ch2 (or arguably 1:10ff); ch1 is John's own introduction.

If chs2-3 apply to the Church today, that would actually argue that the Seven Churches of Revelation's time themselves had some kind of application to the Church today, even if only foreshadowing or as archetypal. This has further consequence that could be explored, such as if the different Christian audiences of the other letters of the New Testament also have special (not sole) application for certain archetypal situations of Christians and their fellowships today. But, that is both speculative and a work for further study. Jesus spoke directly to these Seven Churches in ways that other New Testament epistles did not speak to other Churches. He dictated these Revelatory epistles just before giving John this great _Revelation_ of things yet to happen. So, the diligent Bible student does well to understand Revelation 2-3. Examining these Seven Churches as more or less "archetypal", among other things, can prove useful to this end. Each of these Seven Churches is clearly very different, yet all of them believe in Jesus.

In Revelation 2-3, of the Seven Churches Jesus addresses, only two of them, Smyrna (2:8-11) and Philadelphia (3:7-13), are found without fault or "blameless". This does not mean that they were without sin, only that Jesus neither rebukes nor reproves them. For study purposes, I refer to Smyrna (2:8-11) and Philadelphia (3:7-13) as the _Two Blameless Churches_ , and the others as the _Five Rebuked Churches_ , Ephesus (2:1-7), Pergamum (2:12-17), Thyatira (2:18-29), Sardis (3:1-6), and Laodicea (3:14-22).

Smyrna is a Church of "tested" Believers who may also be "dead in Christ" martyrs (2:10), "will not be hurt by the second death" (2:11), is part of the group that rises again with Christ to reign in the millennium (20:4-6), and the work those Christians were doing before they were martyred will follow them (14:13). Smyrna's work was obviously important to them. Philadelphia "kept" Jesus's "word of perseverance" and will therefore "be kept from the hour of testing" (3:10). "Word of perseverance" uses the same Greek word for "word" (λόγος/logos) and has a similar Genitive pattern to "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge" in 1 Corinthians 12:8. Smyrna has its own "test" in 2:10, which, if not death could include prison for "ten days", which also has reference to Daniel 1:12-14, where the righteous men proved themselves to the government and they gained governmental respect.

Smyrna's call to possible prison and death, both of which are for testing, is in Revelation 2:10; Philadelphia's to perseverance and "being kept from testing" is in Revelation 3:10. Is it arrogant to think of oneself being in Smyrna or Philadelphia and therefore "blameless"? One's own calling to be a martyr is usually not a glorious thing, especially when the martyrdom will prove so difficult that it deserves special encouragement from Jesus, as he does with Smyrna (2:10). Smyrna has no kind of future that anyone would opt for with any kind of ego. Philadelphia's calling, by contrast, is even more burdensome because it involves walking a very, very fine line of "perseverance". This involves hard work without any pressure, only self-motivation. This includes frustration with people, but choosing patience when it is most difficult—and not just any patience, but _perseverance_. Perseverance is the kind of patience that requires one to continue working _for the frustrating situation calling for patience to even be necessary_. One mistake of impatience, such as Moses tapping the rock instead of speaking to it at Meribah-Kadesh (Num 20:10-12), could land a Philadelphian into martyrdom. Identifying oneself as being in either of the _Two Blameless Churches_ does not mean one is without individual sin, only without the kind of sin that deserves being rebuked corporately, and it is only a recognition of obligations and particular unpreferable burdens, not any claim to grandeur whatsoever. It might be compared to working for a government intelligence department as an agent who will never receive recognition, only a call to duty and a nameless memorial in death. Philadelphians won't be able to leave any tracks behind because covering ones tracks is, itself, a form of perseverance.

**Four Bodies of Believers throughout Revelation**

Revelation describes a body of 144,000 Messianic Jews in 7:3-8 on Earth, a body of Gentile Believers in 7:9 in Heaven's throne room, and a body of martyrs in 6:9-11 & ch15 in Heaven's tabernacle of testimony. These are three bodies clearly seen.

Then, there remains the group of "persevering" who are "kept" from "the hour of testing" who seek to count the 1,290 days and "obtain the 1,335 days" (Dan 12:12, Rev 3:10; 13:10) seeming to reflect the timeframe of the ch13 Antichrist. Except Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 15:51, this group is only spoken directly to by Michael via Daniel and by Jesus via John; the group is not seen anywhere in Revelation past ch3. They could be raptured, but unlikely since they don't appear in Heaven either. They are likely those who are "changed" at a "last trumpet" because they "don't sleep" and therefore, by definition, cannot "rise imperishable" (1 Cor 15:51-52). This is the "wisely persevering" group, a fourth group, possibly Philadelphia (3:7-13), which we will look at several times in this study.

The ch15 martyrs were likely killed before, through, and after the trumpets of chs8-9 (cf 6:9-11), during the ch13 "fury of the Antichrist". Ch15 likely contains martyrs because they have a testimony on a floor of glass mixed with fire (viz only glass, cf 4:6), which immediately precedes the ch16 bowl judgments (consider 'testimony' viz 'judgment', courtroom terms, likely implying the logic: CH15 THEREFORE CH16). Revelation describes Believers who overcame by their "testimony" (6:9, 12:11). This group in 6:9-11 and ch15 could be Smyrna, if not entirely then largely. So, Smyrna from ch2 has an explanation to be "accounted for" in the story.

The 7:9 Gentile Believers could be raptured, or they could be the collected Body of Christ through history. The text does not describe how they specifically arrived, except to say that they arrived after six seals were broken in ch6 and after 144,000 were sealed in ch7, but before the earth was "harmed", the next event after the multitude appears being that the Lamb breaks the seventh seal and the trumpets begin in ch8. Neither the ch7 Gentiles nor the ch15 martyrs could be killed by the bowl judgments since those don't happen until ch16. This massive, multinational Body is not likely from 3:10 because 3:10 only addresses one of the Seven Churches, which is not martyred like Smyrna (2:8-11), nor rebuked, but is in some kind of unusual and difficult "persevering". Philadelphia of 3:10 is just too specific and demographically small to constitute the multitude of 7:9. So, this group of Gentiles in 7:9 could likely be the Five Rebuked Churches. All this is heavily speculative, but the only point being that Smyrna and the Five Rebuked Churches have a "reasonable explanation" to be "accounted for" in the story. This leaves Philadelphia having no such explanation. Philadelphia just "isn't there", demonstrating what was said to have happened to Enoch (Gen 5:24).

A Biblical doctrine of a Rapture is relatively unclear. But, identifying these different groups can help explain the manner of how a Rapture might happen. I find it unlikely that the Five Rebuked Churches are raptured because usually being rebuked does not mean receiving special delivery from trouble (viz Elijah and Enoch). This is especially true of the Seven Churches since Philadelphia's basis for being "kept" from the "hour of testing" is their perseverance (3:10). None of the other Churches, including the blameless Smyrna, are told they will be "kept" from that hour.

**Etymology and Context of the Seven Churches**

The etymological meanings of the names of the cities of the Seven Churches in Revelation 2-3 are interesting. These etymological meanings are worth noting since Jesus gave Simon the etymologically meaningful name of Peter (Mt 16:17-18) and nicknamed John and James as Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder" (Mk 3:17). Ephesus means "desirable", with an interesting connection to "first love" (2:4). Smyrna means "myrrh", with an interesting connection to martyrdom (2:10). Pergamum means "high", with an interesting connection to "hidden manna" and seeking knowledge (2:17). Thyatira means "sacrifice of labor", with an interesting connection to "authority over the nations" (2:26). Sardis means "prince of joy", with an interesting connection to how easily they could be unsettled enough to "soil their garments" (3:4) and how easily they are satisfied by "wearing white" (3:5). Philadelphia means "brotherly love", with an interesting connection to being "pillars" in God's temple (3:12), when there actually will be no temple, rather His tabernacle will be "among men" (21:3, 22). And, Laodicea means "mere people" or "laity", which has an ironic contrast to them being "lukewarm" and indifferent enough to be rebuked (3:15-17), yet being given the reward of sitting on God's throne "with" Him (3:21).

Philadelphia is also interesting in the context of End Times literature, in both Daniel and Matthew's Olivet Discourse. At different times in history, Philadelphia was also known as the city of Ammon. The "sons of Ammon" are mentioned among the "resisting nations" (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10), which are a people not tied to residence in the city of Ammon, but the descendents of Ammon, Lot's son. Etymologically, Ammon means "people" in general and various ways. "Sons of Ammon" in Daniel 11:41 could be argued to be the audience of Philadelphia and/or "brotherly love" in Revelation 3:7-13. So, by association (or metonymy), Philadelphia could be, among other things, Revelation's reference to these "resisting nations (or 'peoples')", which include the "wings of the great eagle" given to the woman (Rev 12:14).

Though etymological and historical connections to these Seven Churches are interesting and deserve expansion, I will not elaborate on them in this study. If I did expand on these, it would be in a separate work on the Seven Churches. In the scope of this study, I only hold that that the letters to these Seven Churches _could be_ packed with meaning greater than all the other epistles of the New Testament and reiterate that chs2-3 should certainly be considered at every point possible when reading everything that follows in Revelation 4-22. And, regarding Philadelphia's special mention, I only hold in this study to the _likelihood_ that "Philadelphia" _could be_ Revelation's way of referring to the "resisting nations" (aforementioned by Daniel and Matthew) by the convenient metonymy of a single name.

**Perseverance: Smyrna and Philadelphia**

Philadelphia is largely distinguished from the other Churches by its call to the "word of perseverance" (3:10). A call to perseverance is given in 13:9-10, which includes a brief review of "sewing and reaping", which is strikingly similar language to the story of Jesus's arrest and Peter in Matthew 26:52. Peter is overcome by his urge to fight for the Kingdom of God with the sword, but all he does is injure an ear. Giving the similarity of language, I believe that Christians in the End Times may need such a strong "call" to persevere. The words, "for the sword... die by the sword," strike a strong theological chord that resounds through both Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:9-10. It is also interesting, though not conclusive, that Revelation 13:9 mentions "an ear to hear" and Peter's action just before Jesus said, "...die by the sword," (Mt 26:52) was to cut off a guard's ear. If it was difficult for Peter to persevere rather than go for the sword, it will be difficult for Christians in the Last Days to have the "ear to hear" (13:9). There is at least a figurative connection with the word "ear" as well, making not only one similarity in these passages, but two, and possibly three.

I take the Greek in 13:10 to mean "if anyone is _in favor of_ captivity, into captivity he goes". This follows the "sewing-reaping" precedent set in regards to killing with the sword (cf Mt 26:52). Taking "is for" to mean "in favor of" is a figurative interpretation of the grammar, whereas taking it to mean "is destined for" is a theological interpretation and is not consistent with the precedent in the paired statement in the first part of v10. We could argue that, just like the ear and the sword, "captivity" also related to Matthew 26 since Jesus went into captivity. However, this would also mean that Jesus went willingly, none of his disciples were "destined" for it. This could be a reference to Smyrna's test of 2:10, where some of them are thrown in prison ten days for testing, which not only has implications for Jesus's imprisonment and eventual death in Matthew, but Daniel's witness after "ten days of testing" (1:12-4). Daniel and his comrades arrived in Babylon against their will, but at God's direction (Jer 29:7). Interestingly, Daniel's "ten days of testing" happened in Babylon, which has the same name as the harlot of 17:5 If we cross-reference all of Revelation 2:10; 17:5, Matthew 26:52, Jeremiah 29:7, and Daniel 1:12, we arrive at Believers being tested in prison for ten days by an evil End Times political power (not necessarily the Antichrist) who thus gain the respect of the government when they die; they said of Jesus, "Truly this was a righteous man." (Lk 23:47) This seems to be the call of Smyrna.

In any scenario, it is likely that the _Two Blameless Churches_ are alive in ch13. And, in no uncertain terms, the third part of v10 is the call to perseverance. If someone neither kills nor imprisons his enemies, he may have to keep defending himself against them. So, "not being in favor of killing with the sword" is naturally a form of perseverance, which brings us back to Philadelphia.

As of 3:10, Philadelphia "kept" Jesus's word of perseverance, so it is possible that only Smyrna is tested in 13:10. Or, 13:10 could be an advanced call that Philadelphia will have kept because John recorded it from his vision of the future, like traveling back in time to send a warning. But, we don't know yet nor can we. At this point, it is our role to know Scripture so that we recognize its fulfillment and know how to respond in the moment. And, we know that perseverance is not something that can be learned in an instant. It takes perseverance to learn perseverance.

The "word of perseverance" in 3:10 likely includes 13:9-10, but also Daniel 12:12. The Daniel passage has extra bearing since Michael is the angel speaking in Daniel 12:12 (cf 12:1). An angel of a very similar description does and says very similar things in Revelation (10:1-2, 5-6) as Michael does in Daniel (Dan 12:6-7). Daniel 12:1 explains that Michael will come to help Israel in the Last Days, meaning that Michael is expected to make an appearance in the visions of Revelation, ch10 being as likely of a place as any. So, statements about "perseverance" in Revelation 3:10 & 13:10 need to take Daniel 12 into consideration.

Another very important aspect of the Bible's use of the word "perseverance" in relation to End Times is how it is accompanied by "wisdom" or "insight" or "having an ear to hear" (Dan 12:3, 1 Cor 15:51, James 1:2-5, Rev 13:9). The "perseverance" call of the End Times (Rev 3:10; 13:10) has the potential for "Glorification in place"—without death and resurrection. Jesus said, "The eye is the lamp of the body," (Mt 6:22-23) and his eyes were seen glowing the brightest of his luminescent body of Revelation 1 (vv13-16). Jesus's statement that the "eye is the lamp of the body" comes with a warning that if the eye is not bright, the body is in darkness. The "eye" is symbolic for _insight_ or _the ability to see and understand_ —especially for the Jewish-Greco audience of the New Testament. But also, at the beginning of Revelation, John literally saw what Jesus preached about the eye being the lamp of the body. Writers in the Bible who teach about rapture, not dying, and transformation at the End of the Age also speak about _light_ (Dan 12:3, 1 Cor 15:51-52, Phil 2:15). While the Bible teaches about "shining" in the figurative sense of blessing others by our living testimonies (Mt 5:16, 1 Pet 2:4-5), both Jesus and Michael refer to shining as _literal_ (Dan 12:3, Rev 1:12-16). A luminescent human body is accompanied by the reward for perseverance at the End of the Age, which finds its basis in _wisdom_ and _insight_. When God sends people into our lives to say, "Patience is a virtue," we do ourselves well to heed.

The "era of perseverance" is from 13:9-14:12. The phrase "here is the perseverance" in 14:12 refers to the preceding verses, after "perseverance" in 13:10. It is in this stage where the last of the martyrs of the Church of Smyrna will likely die (14:13). They rise again to reign with Christ in the millennium, their "work follows them" (14:13), and they cannot reject Christ again since they "cannot be harmed by the second death" (2:11, 20:6). Smyrna is not called to persevere during the End of the Age, but to proving themselves through testing, martyrdom, and resurrection; this only has "perseverance" by implication, not by name. Philadelphia will be raptured after their wise perseverance, then they are likely "transformed" because they don't die (Dan 12:3, 1 Cor 15:51, 1 Thes 4:17). We don't know everything about Philadelphia's role, except that Philadelphia will be permanent fixtures in the temple of God (3:12), which does not have a definitive location except that it is "among men" (21:3, 22)—a perfect place for the Church named after "brotherly love"; so, the most we know about Philadelphia relates to an archetypical personality perspective, or possible mode of operation that motivates them.

If there is a rapture of any Christians, they will likely only be the Church of Philadelphia and it would happen in, during, or after 13:11-14:12, the "era of perseverance", which they are called to in 13:9-10 and have kept as of 3:10. This time period of perseverance has some discrepancy in view of the timeframe given to Daniel (Dan 8:14; 12:11-12) and the close of this window could be the perfect time for the rapture to occur and the bowls of wrath (ch16) could be poured out in Philadelphia's raptured absence. The only basis for such a rapture in Revelation is in 3:10 when Jesus promises to "keep" the Church of Philadelphia from the "hour of testing that is about to come on the whole world". They would then be raptured in like manner of however Enoch was taken (Gen 5:24). This also carries consistent reference to those "who are alive" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, as well as 1 Corinthians 15:51, which explains that some Believers will not sleep. Departing in like manner to Enoch has remarkable significance for Israel in that day because of "first mention". Israel, in that day, would recognize a "disappearance like Enoch", but we will look at that later.

Obstinate Christians from the other Five Rebuked Churches may be killed in the dramatic events, either before or after 14:12, which is not an indication of judgment against them of a "condemning" nature, but a reflection of God's action when He did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land (Deut 32:51-52) because he did not keep God's word of perseverance, instead taking action to strike at Kadesh (Num 20:10-12), literally "escaping as though flames" (1 Cor 3:15), and serving as a means of "chastening" for the disobedient Churches Jesus loves (Rev 3:19).

There are many scenarios that could play out Revelation 2:10, 3:10, and 13:10. Combining the possibilities brings us to 13:10c "This is a call to perseverance," and we do well to study the lives of Jesus, the disciples, and the prophets who lived during their own times of perseverance.

**Rapture, Israel, and the Churches**

Understanding events like rapture, martyrdom, or death by dramatic natural catastrophe—removing all Gentile Christians from the earth—is necessary for a proper view of Revelation 14. Such events would clearly be completed by the end of ch14. It is likely that anyone killed in 13 (under fury of the Antichrist) would be those who appear in ch15. Ch15 issues the bowls to the angels and when they are poured-out in ch16. None of the people on the earth in ch16 fit the description of anyone in the Seven Churches—they either worship the Beast or they are one of the 144,000 sealed Jews.

The only Christians in the events of ch16 are sealed, Messianic Jews (7:4-8 cf 13:8). It would be a theological argument, not grammatical-figurative-literal interpretation, to say that the 144,000 sealed Jews includes Gentiles. Again, exceptions can always exist, but they aren't seen in chs14-16. Likewise, to say that Gentile Believer absence in chs14-16 means that there are no exceptions would be an argument from silence. It is possible that, the few locations the Beast does not touch (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10) include places where Philadelphians may be either transformed in place or transported to (Acts 8:39-40, 1 Cor 15:51-55). All we know is that the Church is protected from God's wrath, Christians who have not persevered based on wisdom or otherwise need further testing will not be protected from the Beast's persecution (Rev 2:10; 3:10, 19; 13:9-10 cf James 1:2-5), the multinational Church will largely in Heaven by ch7, and that if any Christians remain during the bowl judgments, we don't learn about them by reading Revelation 14-16 alone.

The _Five Rebuked Churches_ are likely either killed in the six seals of ch6 (explaining why they are seen in 7:9), or killed by the trumpets of chs8-9 without specific mention, or left on the earth during the "fury of the Antichrist" in ch13 (or, quite unlikely, alive during the bowls of ch16 since the martyr's testimony of ch15 seems to be the basis for ch16). We have no reason to believe that those _Rebuked Churches_ would go so far as to worship the Beast or his image. If they were left for longer amounts of time, it would mainly mean that they were not prepared to either confront the Beast or wait him out (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10). Any professing "Christians" who are left because they worshipped the Antichrist would not have ever really been Christian, according to John's own epistle (1 Jn 2:18-24). So, any Christians left in the later chapters would be there for the simple and more difficult test (consider God's methods, Ezk 3:20-21 cf Rev 3:19), one last chance to prove themselves "worthy" and thus "walk in white" (3:4 cf 6:11 cf 7:9), by refusing the demands of the Antichrist and joining the Body of martyrs in ch15, and in this way having victory through their testimony (6:9, 12:11). By ch13, if Believers of Smyrna are on Earth to face the "fury of the Antichrist", it is because they are tested and true and Jesus plans to have them know him in his death and attain resurrection from the dead (Phil 3:10-11) by first being martyred by the Antichrist in ch13 for their powerful testimony in both Earth and Heaven (6:9-11 cf ch15). Both Smyrna and the _Five Rebuked Churches_ are probably dead or otherwise gone by the time ch14 ends and won't be around to even see any transformation, transportation, or rapture. At this point, neither Philadelphia nor any other Believers find mention. One way or another, by ch15, the entire Church has departed from the storyline.

The "Departure" of the Church finalizes with the Lamb and His chosen 144,000 appearing at Mount Zion, prepared for war (14:1-7). If Philadelphia is on Earth at this point, then they are "hidden" and not relevant to chs14-15, nonetheless their absence could be called a "disappearance" from the storyline. It makes sense that the primary Post-Departure Christian community is the group of 144,000 Messianic Jews. It is possible that they will come to full knowledge of Christ after the disappearance of Philadelphia. This would make sense, because, being Jewish, they know the story of Enoch's disappearance from their earliest studies of Genesis (Gen 5:24) and they know the testimony of Jesus because they have so casually rejected it for two millennia, notwithstanding the fact that, in addition to rejection of Christ, they rejected many other prophets. They have been obstinate in accepting testimony of their own brethren since the story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen 50:15-21). It would be essential for a Post-Departure Christian community to be able to "evangelize themselves". Jews certainly have that capability, both the stubbornness to outlast a global revival of the Great Commission and the Old Testament insight to explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ to themselves. Jews often get to the station after the train leaves. Perhaps, being for a good purpose, this is a deeper reason why God's feistiest people are also His chosen.

But, none of this would be able to happen until every Gentile who ever would believe in Christ before his return does so. In other words, the Gospel must be preached to every nation first (Mt 24:14, Mk 13:10).

**Christ and Antichrist**

We get much theology about the Antichrist from Daniel and John. Daniel saw visions of the Christ (Dan 7:13-14); and he also saw the Antichrist and his destruction (Dan 7:8, 11, 23-26; 8:9-12, 22-25; 11:28-45). Likewise, John, who knew Jesus in life, saw the Antichrist and his destruction (Rev 13; 16; 17; 19:19-20). The Antichrist leads the world and calls everyone to worship him (Dan 7:23-24; 11:36-39, Rev 13:3-5, 12-17), though there are some "resisting nations" that he can't control (Dan 11:41; 12:12, Mt 25:8-10), and is judged and sentenced to the Lake of Fire forever (Dan 7:10-11, 26; 8:14; 12:1-2, Rev 17-18; 19:20; 20:4) where the Devil, Satan, goes also (Rev 20:10). The Antichrist will be defeated by the true Christ, Jesus (Dan 7:9-14, 23-27, Rev 14-16; 19:11-21).

There are a few things to be said of the word "antichrist". John mentions the Antichrist in his second epistle (2 Jn 7). As a non-proper noun, "antichrist" can also be used in the plural as "antichrists" (1 Jn 2:18), which indicates "mini-versions", the most infamous today being Adolf Hitler because of his Satanic connection, political power, and anti-Semitism. The term "Antichrist" does not appear in Revelation or Daniel, but is mostly used outside the Bible in Systematic Bible Theology as a technical label to identify this evil one-world leader Daniel and John saw in their visions. Most mentions of the Antichrist make him known by his unmistakable functions, role, behaviors, actions, and descriptions, and he is referred to by many terms, including "Beast" (Rev) and "Little Horn" (Dan). The three most known and recognizable traits of the Antichrist are that: he has political global domination, he is worshiped and demands to be worshiped globally and solely, and he is utterly defeated by Jesus Christ.

When he is revealed, many will hail him as the Christ. But, insight demands that we ask, "If he is the Christ, then where is the Antichrist whom the Christ defeats?"

Susceptibility and vulnerability to the Antichrist are the main hazards of institutionalized Christian fellowship. Since the Antichrist is given dominion over the governments of the world, any institutionalized, government-registered Christian fellowship has already invited itself to come under the direct control of the Antichrist once he holds the strings controlling the governments where those Christians are registered. If the Devil did not invent institutionalized Christian fellowship in anticipation of the Antichrist, then the Devil is most certainly glad that Constantine invented it for him.

From since Christ's First Coming up until the beginning of the third millennium, most of the Church has known about his Second Coming and his confrontation with the Antichrist. But, at about the year 2000, a noticeable number of Christians demonstrate little to no knowledge of the Antichrist or the context in which Jesus Christ returns. Even during my time in Taiwan, I find that many Christians are quite unaware of anything relating to the Antichrist. Even in the West, Bible teaching on the End Times started to trend downward, as popular as it was in the mid-to-late 1900s. To date, most "End Times" teaching is superstitious, largely secular, and not well informed from diligent study in Scripture. Whether widespread ignorance of the Antichrist is the direct work of the Devil or merely from apathy or complacent despair, the Devil can much more easily control people who are not aware of the coming Antichrist and how convincing he will be. In the many topics of studying the End times, the Bible's teaching about the Antichrist is less trivial, less debatable, and absolutely essential.

The Christian doctrine of the Christ and Antichrist is arguably the main ontological difference between Christianity and all other mainline religions: Christians believe the Christ has already come and will return; all others believe the Christ is yet to come. There are a few qualifications to this that need explaining.

I will not explain and expose here, but it should at least be noted for academic responsibility that "looking to the Christ" is a worthy topic of further study in non-Christian religions. Many, many religions, which will not be named here, which are widely know, both secretive and public, deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and look to a coming world leader they refer to as "God" and "the Christ" among other names and titles. Naming these religions here would expose and potentially defame, which God's purposes do not require of us when we are studying Him specifically. It is only important to know here that not all, but many, religions eagerly wait to hail the Antichrist of Scripture, already believing that the Biblical Antichrist is their Christ, even now.

Buddhists believe that a kind of Christ recurs again and again and again, though I put much of Buddhism's teaching into the category of "unfinished, ongoing secular Science", but, a science with more metaphysical-spiritual questions. So, while Buddhism is mainline and has a reputation as a religion, I consider Buddhism more comparable to Humanism, Naturalism, and Atheism—which some people view as religions anyway. Any matter, such "sciences" either believe in a plurality of Christs or deny any Christ altogether. Nonetheless, many Buddhists, Humanists, Naturalists, and Atheists—according to the Bible's teaching—will unfortunately follow the Antichrist and hail him as "the Christ".

Muslims are diverse and numerous in their views. I could say many things about the topic, but in this study only a few concepts fall within scope and they are best touched on here. Some derogatory terms like "Christlam" have been tossed around Christian circles, which are insulting and unhelpful; and for this reason alone, I refuse to use the term "Christlam" in my regular vocabulary. Name-calling is never helpful. The term came up around 2010, as I saw, during serious inquiries on behalf of IHOPKC and Saddleback among others, to describe "Muslims who profess belief in Jesus and still call themselves 'Muslim'". The concept came from among people who were raised Muslim and, in their vocabulary, believe that a person can only be virtuous if he or she is Muslim. Whether that is true is a religious question, but the Christian West (not Christian Middle East) must consider it, in part, as a vocabulary question when they evaluate the Biblical legitimacy of professing "Christian Muslims". In a Biblical worldview, we must remember that the Biblical definition of a Christian is never said in Scripture to include "...and he doesn't call himself 'Muslim'"; the Bible's definition of a Christian is to believe in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God (Jn 20:30-31). Sometimes, the term "Christian Muslim" could be an attempt at Pluralism, which would be contrary to the Bible; other times, it could be only a vocabulary distinction, if the Muslim believes that the Bible is true, Jesus was the Son of God and the Christ who already came, and that if the Karan and Bible disagree then the Bible is correct every time—but just can't stop calling him or herself a "Muslim" because in the Muslim mind, "Muslim" = "virtuous". The former is heresy; the latter is a vocabulary deficiency at worst. In the vocabulary scenario, "Messianic Muslim" might be a more accurate term worth pondering. A stronger Scripture passage arguing for the Christian to not call oneself "Muslim" or "Buddhist" would be Paul in saying that we have neither Greek nor Jew, but all in Christ (Gal 3:28). Carl Medearis has done Christian missionary work with Muslims and has been involved with the matter of "Christian Muslims" face-to-face. I won't critique or endorse what he does and says here, except to say two things: 1. Bill Hybels's "Seeker sensitive" model merely ditched complex "Evangelical jargon" vocabulary to explain the same fundamentals of Christian doctrine, but was misunderstood by the larger Christian community and, accordingly, either denounced or endorsed as a "watered down Gospel"; Carl Medearis's work would likely be so misunderstood by the same Christians, whether endorsing or denouncing their misunderstanding of his work. 2. Any strong opinion about "Christian Muslims" should distinguish whether the term implies theology or vocabulary, and anyone publishing an opinion needs to do so only after a lengthy, face-to-face conversation with Carl Medearis or someone with more experience in the "Christian to Muslim work of missions" than he.

The ultimate question for any religion's authenticity is its ability to withstand the Antichrist, Islam included. The Antichrist will insist that everyone accept him as the Christ. He will be so convincing that the only way to reject him as the Christ will be to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or to reject the existence of any Christ whatsoever. Only three religions will exist at the End of this Age: Christianity (Jesus is Christ), Globalanity (Antichrist is Christ), and Atheism (there is no Christ). Not even Agnosticism will be an option because the Antichrist will be so persuasive and powerful that everyone will have an opinion, one way or another. The distinguishing socio-political issue in that day will be Israel. I believe that only those Muslims who reject anti-Semitic genocide and proactively support Israel having a State—somewhere, whether in Palestine or elsewhere—will withstand the Antichrist. To do that, they will have to accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.

Unfortunately, many Christians, especially those tied to institutionalized Christian fellowship (listed members of a State-registered ecclesiastical entity, for instance) will also be likely to hail the Antichrist. No political or Church leader will grant as much favor to institutionalized Christian organizations as the Antichrist. To many, he will appear as the "ideal pastor" and some may even call him "the Apostle". He will deceive many (Dan 8:25, Mt 24:11, 24). While it may or may not be appropriate to avoid institutionalized Christian fellowship for this reason alone—a decision which should be left up to conscience—all Christians must be on alert and ready to heed the Bible's clear warnings of the Antichrist, especially those Christians who have already granted him in-advance control in their Christian lives. The Bible's "lamp and oil" illustration (see the previous section 'Ecclesiology > Human Institutionalization of Christian Fellowship') has bearing on the matter of Christians who may follow the Antichrist. The parable of 10 virgins and the need for "oil" came in the context of the End Times Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24-25. It is in keeping individual oil, not being present with other Christians who have oil while not having enough oil oneself, that will keep Christians strong in the Last Days.

The only other mainline religion that does not believe the Christ has already come is Judaism, but while all other religions hail the Antichrist as "the Christ", Judaism will see the Antichrist for the fraud he is and, in that time, realize that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Christ, at which moment they will call on him and the true Christ will return to save them and destroy the Antichrist. So, God allowing the Antichrist to take the power he does is also a grace because it is the only way that Israel will recognize that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the true Christ in his first coming, thus being able to foresee the Antichrist as the coming fraud, has remained the core test of Christian fellowship for the entire history of the Church and will be the ultimate test of the true Church at the End of this Age.

**Christian Suffering and Victory Regarding the Great Tribulation**

My Band director often said, "God never gives us more than we can handle." Though the statement is theologically true by definition, it is easy to forget at times, especially when God seems to know more about what we can handle than we do.

Many Bible readers see the dramatic events in the Book of Revelation as "Purgatory on Earth" and can't fathom the Biblical basis or the emotional shock of living to see such times. However, I believe that we need to look more carefully at what happens to various Christians, both in the Great Tribulation and leading up to it. The Great Tribulation is not "Purgatory on Earth"; it is more like "Hell on Earth" brought by God's "wrath" and, though some Christians may be present, they are not subjects of it.

Based on what we have considered so far, while some Believers may go through the "fury of the Antichrist", these only include Christians with a special calling and preparation for that time, or, possibly and unlikely, a few very obstinate Christians who are given one last chance to "do the right thing" (Ezk 3:20-21 cf Rev 3:19). The majority of Church, due to whatever form of "Departure" from the scene in Revelation, is not around to see the big, dramatic, "scary" events of Revelation. If reading Revelation would scare you at the time it would happen, then you probably wouldn't be around to see it. The only people who are on Earth to see the more intense events are either detached enough to ignore the warnings or have a particular grace of confidence in Christ to not be shaken by what is to come.

Paul addresses Christian confidence in different tones at different times. Follow this exegesis as much as you can, but note the last few sentences if it seems too thick. The discourse in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 is placed against the background of 4:16-17, with the transition of 4:18 ('therefore' and a kataphoric 'these words'). These verses are grammatically connected, even though they appear as separate sections from ch14 to ch15. Of course, the entire book led up to this section, and the paragraph of 4:16 begins with v13, explaining that Paul wants his audience to be informed so as to have hope. Hope is the theme of this passage, start to finish. 1 Thessalonians 4:18 & 5:11 both include the word "encouragement" from "παρακαλέω/parakaleoe". So, the main "payload" of the passage is 5:1-10, with 4:13 as the introduction, 4:16-17 as the prologue, 4:18 as the transition, and 5:11 as the epilogue.

Revelation 3:10 is an encouragement that perseverance in the past was the basis for destining Philadelphia to be "kept" from "trouble" or "testing", similar to 1 Cor 15:51-52. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 sets the same tone of _taking courage_ , but on the basis of not being destined for God's "wrath". Revelation 2:10 has encouragement because Jesus grants the power to _go through_ the trouble. Revelation 3:19 explains that "chastening" is motivated in love, which is different from "wrath". Encouragement also comes for a Believer's suffering and death in Philippians 3:7 & 10b where Christians grow in Christ through times of trouble, as in James 1:2-4. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is a general message of hope, with a backdrop of resurrection from the dead, but applies elsewhere. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, Revelation 3:10, and 7:9-17 concern the same theme of "hope by deliverance", but without mentioning the "victory through hardship" of Philippians 3:7-10, James 1:2-4, and Revelation 2:10; for the audience in 3:10, that hardship seems to have already happened in the past. Revelation 3:19 is for a separate group of Believers who are rebuked and experience God's "chastening", but not His "wrath".

Everyone must go through and overcome hardship at some point, but sooner is more beneficial, later is less painful, and those who never overcome hardship, whether through avoidance or surrender, that hardship comes at the very End of the Age, or in the next life, in the form of "wrath". Whether present in the latter days of trouble or "kept" from them based on a past lifestyle of perseverance, no one is without hope for the times God allows us to live in and, though subject to healthy chastening, no Christian undergoes God's "wrath".

In Revelation 7:15-17, the short psalm describing God's actions toward that 7:9 multitude is recapitulated in Revelation 21:3-4 which ends in the phrase, "for the old way of things will have passed away." Given the Jewish-hermeneutical importance of "first mention", especially from a Jewish author (John the Apostle), Revelation has a very strong connection between 21:3-4 and 7:15-17, which applies to the multitude in 7:9. The theme of this connection is that the "old way" of Paul's own experience of suffering (Phil 3:7, 10b, 2 Cor 12:7)—and of Revelation's author, John, who was brought to the location of his Revelation vision through his own suffering (Rev 1:9)—have passed away and the times described in these passages are under the governance of the "new way", which is not necessarily deliverance from the times of trouble, but hope and strength in the midst of them.

The Book of Revelation shows a _transition_ from "victory by martyrdom" to "victory, not martyrdom", it includes both martyrs and non-martyrs, and everyone who overcomes has all the power that Abel's blood had against Cain after his death (Gen 4:10), but also more power before martyrdom because the martyrs at the End of the Age have a contagious affect on some of their persecutors. Revelation 6:9-11 shows the martyrs in the throne room who keep asking for justice from the grave, but they were already killed in the past. While there have been "martyrs-and-only-martyrs" in the past, and there will be many Christian martyrs at the End of the Age, we do not see the deaths of "mere martyrs-and-only-martyrs who only have their justice in the next life". The martyrs at the End of the Age have more power than the martyrs of the past and many potential martyrs aren't even martyred. Across the board, hope increases at the End of the Age.

In Revelation 4:4 we see twenty-four elders around the throne of God. In Revelation 7:9 we see the great multitude from every race and language, which cannot be counted. In Revelation 7:13 an elder rhetorically questions John as to whom this multitude is; in v14 the elder explains the answer. They are coming "out" of the "great tribulation". "They washed" (ἔπλυναν/eplunan, from πλύνω/plunoe, 1 Aorist, denoting past, completed action) their robes with the blood of the Lamb. V15 says, "For this reason" they are before the throne of God. It is important to understand that these people did not come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ as a result of the dramatic events of Revelation, but prior to them. Christians in the time of the trumpets and bowls do not come to know God, but only deepen their relationship with Him through troubling times. During the trumpets and bowls it is time for Satan and his followers to suffer while the Believers prove themselves.

If Gentile Christians die in the process of the Great Tribulation, it must be prior to the bowls of judgment and wrath. If Christians are on the earth through the time of the bowls of judgment then they are part of God's work in delivering them and are not the objects of His wrath. If there is a Church Rapture, it must make sense in both time and function. Believing in a Rapture that comes before the darkening of the sun in Revelation 7 would only serve the purpose of Christians on the earth at that time not having to die as many martyrs of the past had died or not having to undergo the growth-driven suffering as all Christians have. Having a Rapture of what few, sealed-by-God, participatory Christians remained on the earth as part of God's outpouring of judgment, _at the end of the bowls_ would make sense so that they can be strategically moved to various locations when Jesus physically arrives on Earth. Having heavily qualified that any remaining saints at the commencement of the bowls of judgment are given a calling and purpose, I believe in a Pre-Trumpet Departure, Pre-Wrath-Involvement of the multitude; and Post-Tribulation Rapture of those "persevering in wisdom" near and around the appearance of the 144,000 "Sealed-and-Faithful." None of these views have cause for fear or avoidance, but love and confidence (2 Tim 1:7).

**Summary of the Final Judgment**

After the "Great White Throne Judgment" (Rev 20:11ff) "heaven" and "earth" are re-created in such a way that the first "heaven" and first "earth" pass away (Rev 21:1). Those who had not been condemned in the "Great White Throne" judgment—only those whose names had been written in the "Lamb's Book of Life" (Rev 21:27)—enter into the wonderful new life described in (Rev 21-22:6). The one who sits on the "Great White Throne" is God (21:11 cf 4:3), and God makes the same statements and claims as Christ Jesus, (22:12-13 cf 21:5-6 cf 1:8, 11a, 17; 2:8; 3:14). Scripture concludes that deliverance from the "lake of fire" into the New Heaven and New Earth is and always has been by faith alone (Gen 15:6, Jn 3:18, Eph 2:8-9), in Christ alone (Acts 4:12; Jn 14:6), as He is revealed in Scripture alone (2 Tm 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Rev 22:18-19). So, Jesus is the Judge on the throne and he alone saves.

**Salvation by Faith v Book**

Questions always arise about "the boy who never heard about Jesus". What happens to him? The underlying question is, _"Is God just?"_. Abraham's faith and the Lamb's Book of Life clear this up entirely (Gen 15:6, Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 15; 21:27; 21:27).

While salvation has always been by faith alone in Christ alone of the Bible alone, knowledge of Jesus Christ is not universal, even to those who are saved by Christ's work and also to those who are condemned. God credited faith to Abraham as righteousness (Gen 15:6) even before Jesus completed his work and before Abraham knew about Jesus. But, without Jesus's work, Abraham's faith could not have saved him since he was only looking forward to the work being finished (Jn 8:56, Heb 11:10). How could Abraham's faith save him if he didn't know how the work of the Cross would play out? People can't believe in Jesus if no one teaches them (Rom 10:14). How can Abraham be saved by faith in Christ when he didn't know about Christ? To the novice Bible student, this could seem to be a contradiction or a dilemma within God's Justice.

Jesus's work at the Cross has a deeper level of power that does not even require the person being saved to have knowledge of Jesus. It worked that way for Abraham and the redeemed community of the Old Testament. They learned about Jesus in Hades (1 Pet 3:19). Did salvation by faith to those looking forward to his salvation suddenly stop working with the New Covenant? No Scripture says it did.

I argue that there are two levels of salvation: Salvation by faith in Christ and salvation by Book of Life. The Book of Life (Rev 13:8; 20:4-6, 11-15) saves all people who are not condemned at the Second Resurrection and Great White Throne Judgment, finally and eternally; and salvation through faith in Jesus in response to the preaching of the Gospel results in the First Resurrection, which is when Jesus begins to reign in the millennium. This is mostly word-for-word from 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15.

In the end of this age, likely before 2100, a Lawless Man will arise who will capture the hearts of the masses, demand to be worshiped, and murder millions of good people simply for not agreeing with him. He is the Antichrist, the One-World President. When Jesus parts the sky (or 'enters through a wormhole' as science fiction has given us the concept) he will descend in glory with the armies of Heaven to kill and bury the Lawless Man and Jesus's armies will kill all the armies of Men who dared to help the Lawless Man. At that time, everyone who believed in Jesus's name will come back to life. This is the First Resurrection.

Paul says that the First Resurrection is for the "dead in Christ" (1 Thes 4:16). John describes the First Resurrection as including those who were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus (Rev 20:4). John's category does not necessarily exclude people who may have lived powerful lives in Jesus, but not been martyred, such as Church tradition tells of John himself dying of old age in Ephesus. John, rather, is describing the events he just saw in his vision. When all the Christians came back to life—even those who became Christian in Hades when Jesus preached to them (1 Pet 3:19)—John saw all the people coming back to life who had just been beheaded by the Lawless Man, the Beast. Remember, in Revelation, John describes a vision he sees. If John suddenly were making a theological technicality, then that would have deviated from the entire rest of the book, which literarily has no basis. The entire genre of Revelation is a vision John saw; ch20 v4 is no exception. It's what John saw. The theological point was made by Paul to Thessalonica, where he explains that this First Resurrection, that John saw, included everyone who was dead who had believed in Jesus. So, John only records that he saw Christian martyrs rising to reign with Jesus, but from what we know from Paul and John's context, all other Christians from history rise along with them.

When the dead Christians come back to life at Jesus's return, they reign with him for one thousand years and the Second Death (or eternal condemnation at the Great White Throne Judgment) has no power over them (Rev 20:6). This means that they can't fall back into sin nor can they "mess up and end up in Hell forever". Those options, choices, and decision times have passed for those in the First Resurrection. At the Second Resurrection, _another book is opened_ , the Book of Life, and that has the final say for the "ever and ever Eternal" Judgment.

Looking at the categories of the Book of Life, "dead in Christ" and the two Resurrections, there is a categorical option for people to have their names written in this Book of Life, but not be among the "dead in Christ" who come back to life at the First Resurrection. If the Book of Life and those in the First Resurrection were one-in-the-same (or coterminous, at least) then the Book of Life would have been opened to decide the roster for the First Resurrection. But, it isn't. The Book of Life doesn't even open until after all men from forever are judged by their work. While Jesus judges by our work (2 Cor 5:10, Rev 2:23), the Book of Life has the _final_ say after that. So, the Book of Life has a different categorical range than the "dead in Christ". It was written before the foundation of the earth was laid (Rev 13:8).

The term "before the foundation of the earth" refers to the same concept as "according to foreknowledge" (Rom 8:29, Heb 4:3). "Predestined" is not a preferrable word to base theology on when translating from the slang Greek in which the New Testament was written. A better word might be "pre-planned". The best and only logical flow of all this information determines that, before the earth was even made, God knew all humans, and He knew something that made some of us different from others. Because of this "foreknowledge", some names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life, while the rest of the names were not—and they were written before the earth was made.

In this, John does not stand alone. As we have seen, both Peter and Paul make statements that either agree with or are redundant of what John explains in Revelation 20. But, there is something else about how this fits with New Testament theology: John wrote both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, but the Gospel of John's theology of "salvation by faith" doesn't appear even one time in Revelation.

Consider the significance of this. A simple concordance will demonstrate that, while the rest of the entire Bible, New Testament and Old, John and other Apostles, all confirm "salvation by faith", John explains it most potently in the Gospel of John. Yet, Revelation doesn't contain the concept at all. While the rest of the Bible and the rest of John teaches a Biblical theology of "salvation by faith [in Christ]"; Revelation teaches "resurrection by testimony [of Christ]"; "faith" and "life in his name" don't come up by name in Revelation. Even John 20:30-31 says that explaining the "life that is in his name" was the purpose for writing the Gospel of John, though there were many other things that could have been written about Jesus. So, Revelation is where John writes about "other" things.

John teaches "salvation by faith" most directly and potently in the Bible, but the only salvation he describes in Revelation is "salvation by book" at the Great White Throne Judgment.

How then shall we live? It seems quite clear that this "life in his name" from the Gospel of John is not mere "fire insurance" or any kind of simple "ticket out of Hell". The "life in his name" works miracles (Mk 16:17-18), gives us His Spirit (Jn 20:22), bears fruit (Jn 15:8, Gal 5:22-23), and is an invitation to the millennium to rule with him (Rev 20:4-6). How can anyone have those things if someone does not tell them (Rom 10:14)? The Book of Life, delivering its salvation at the End of the Age, having its power of course in the Cross just as Abraham looked forward to it (Jn 8:56, Heb 11:10), clears up these questions. Those who don't learn about Jesus in life have an answer if they "would have believed if only the message of the Gospel had reached them". From this, we have all the more drive to deliver the Gospel because no one wants to condemn his fellow man to a one-thousand year nap. And, we certainly would make every effort to encourage good deeds because judgment is coming (Ecc 12:14, Ezk 3:20-21, Heb 10:24). Moreover, we can go about our efforts confidently knowing that God's solution to our questions will, unequivocally, be just and fair for everyone.

Then, we have the recurring "wedding banquet" terminology. In Revelation 22:17, the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" In Matthew 22:1-14, Jesus tells a parable of a wedding banquet where invitations are given. Revelation 19:9 uses the same terminology, "invitation" to the "wedding banquet". Revelation 19 ushers in Jesus's return and his millennial reign. Terminology from one of Jesus's parables appearing just the same in Revelation is significant. Since it refers to Jesus in the Biblically-established "Bridegroom" paradigm, it is all the more significant. Sharing the Gospel of Jesus includes many good blessings, not the least among them bearing an invitation to the great wedding banquet of the Lamb, which is Jesus's millennial reign. It is not wrong to celebrate this blessed invitation as Revelation 19:9 explains what 19:6-8 cried out, nor is it diminished by the fact that the Book of Life has the final word at the Great Judgment in 20:15, which comes after that millennial wedding banquet of 20:4-6.

This theology of "salvation by faith" unto eternal life beginning in the here-and-now and "salvation by book" at the Great White Throne Judgment answers many, many questions. God is just. I have a motive for missions. My Gospel work ethic does not tie God's hands as a just judge—whether I do or do not spread the Gospel, I affect other people in the millennium and in their eternal reward (Ezk 3:18-21), but other people do not have the threat of the Lake of Fire hinging all on my own effort. No amount of laziness or work ethic can thwart or permit God's justice to those whose hearts He alone knows. Yet, when I shine His light and share His truth, I do make an enormous impact. And, all this agrees without the appearance of contradiction, yet remains mysterious in His wondrous Justice.

Am I convinced of this theology? No, as of yet it is untested. I do believe that this idea is the "most likely unconfirmed truth so far" on the matter. I do not feel comfortable teaching a "new truth", yet it is rather word-for-word out of Revelation 20. This understanding of Scripture has no contradiction with the Gospel, the basic tenants of the faith, other sections of theology, or the Fundamentals. Salvation remains by faith in Christ and even the Book of Life depends on the Cross, just as Abraham's "salvation by looking forward". Yet, we don't see this theology taught or refuted or even addressed in the Church. We don't see it approved or condemned. It is, at this point untested. I should be glad, I suppose, for contributing a theological framework to answer some basic questions occupying many pages of Apologetics literature. But, I don't want to, not at this point anyway. Theology is the role of the Church in community. So, I submit this for your review, reminding you that your review will be reviewed by others. I think it is true, but that is for the Body of Christ to say after it has time to work and ponder and discuss.

So, the point of this theological framework I call, in purely Biblical Theology terms, "Salvation by Book" is not that I have offered something new nor that we can view the Gospel this way or that. My point is hope in God's justice. I don't develop my theology from John Lennon, but he was right, "There will be an answer." Even if this theology is a misinterpretation, then it is a misinterpretation that no one thought of, which means that the ultimate answer is still beyond our reach (1 Cor 13:12). God will give His Justice and we will see His answer. This answer seems pretty good to me. If things don't go this well, then they surely will go better. In fact, "better than we can imagine" is exactly how it will all turn out, to those of us who are saved (Jer 29:11, 1 Cor 1:18). And, no matter how you make sense of it all, the Book that has the final say was written before the earth was made. Bottom line: the Lamb is in control, always was, and always will be.

**Light, Darkness, and the New Daytime**

Revelation 21:23-25 refer to continuous light almost poetically, as if to say, "In the coming Daytime, in the New Heaven..." as if we are currently in a long period of history rightly considered "before Daytime." This is significant that night and day are discussed in the end of Scripture since light and darkness were the very first thing God separated in the Beginning (Gen 1:3-4). This is what Jesus does in separating wheat from tears (Mt 13:30) and sheep from goats (Mt 25:32). We are in a period of "knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17) where night and day revolve and rotate because evil must not be destroyed until the proper time (Gen 15:16). The two have not yet been fully separated.

Many have questioned the goodness of God because it was foreseeable that Adam would eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, I see God having planned from the beginning, not that Men would perish (1 Pet 3:9), but that He would allow His only Son to go to the Cross, also of his own free will in obedience (Lk 22:42, Phil 2:8), to become worthy to break the seals and pour out judgment on the evil that pre-existed the Fall of Man. All of our Christian names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the same world that contained the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Rev 13:8).

I believe it was God's plan to redeem pre-Earth creation through humanity from the Beginning. In His plan, no one merely "goes" to Hell—they "finally get" to Hell after scaling a mountain range of God's grace. We might say it is "easier" to get to Hell than to have Eternal Life from the perspective of an unhealthy addiction. It is "easy" to work had at anything we are addicted to, no matter how destructive that addiction may be. People who get to Hell don't get there by accident, they get there because they are addicted to the darkness (Jn 3:19).

**Summary of End Times**

In conclusion, my Eschatological view is Pre-Bowl-Departure of the majority of the Church, with bowl judgment involvement and Post-Tribulation Rapture of persevering Christians surrounding the time that the "sealed" 144,000 Jews appear with Jesus on Mount Zion, and Pre-Millennial return of Christ. After his earthly reign will come eternal damnation against those whose names are not found in the "Lamb's Book of Life" and likewise will come eternal reward of blissful presence with the Lamb for those whose name are. The words of Revelation 22:10-21 emphasize the clearest and most important message of End Times prophecy and even the purpose for preaching itself. They guide Revelation's interpretation and are also fuels for further study.

Even though Scripture is clear on this topic, that clarity requires extensive time, study, and quick recall of similar Bible passages. Reaching any conclusion through Scripture on this topic is complex and difficult to understand—and we are always growing to understand more of God's Word, so there is always more to learn. Also considering that prophecy has never been fully understood in Scripture until after it had been fulfilled—and even then it was not always understood (Lk 24:13-35)—so will we never fully understand all of what is to come in the End Times until after those times happen. Therefore, beyond details of Christ's return to defeat the Antichrist, eternal conscious punishment for non-Christians, and eternal conscious reward for those recorded in the Book of Life based on Jesus work as the Son of God and the Christ at the Cross, agreement with what else has been stated here should not be roadblocks to Christian fellowship.

###
Works Cited

Reference to all non-cited Greek terms is based on _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (BDAG)_ , by Walter Bauer, edited by F. W. Danker, published by the University of Chicago Press in 2000. In some cases, those words are also informed by Kittel (below) and also, when translating into English phrases, a thesauric understanding of the English language—authoring English phrases in terms of how people speak in American English, rather than a word-for-word, mechanical-awkward translation. For exact word studies in English, the author respects the NASB and Nestle-Aland.

New Testament Greek consulted: _The Greek New Testament – Fourth Edition_ by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, © 1998, D—Stuttgart.

Footnotes 1–4 – _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich:_

1 vol. IX, p. 614-615

2 vol. VI, p. 395, 9ff.

3 vol. III, p. 146

4 vol. VI, pp. 485ff.

Footnotes – Other works:

5 Stack Exchange – Christianity, "In what order were the books in the New Testament written?" http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/in-what-order-were-the-books-in-the-new-testament-written, with reference to the _Holman Bible Handbook_ (ISBN-13: 978-1558193321)

6 _Living by the Book: The Art and Science of Reading the Bible_ , Howard G. G. Hendricks (ISBN-13: 978-0802408235)

7 _Early Christian Fathers, Chapter 79:_ _He proves against Trypho that the wicked angels have revolted from God_ , translation by P. Schaff

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
**About the Author**

Jesse Steele is an American writer in Asia who wears many hats. He learned piano as a kid, studied Bible in college, and currently does podcasting, web contenting, cloud control, and brand design. He likes golf, water, speed, music, kung fu, art, and stories.

Jesse owns various brands, occasionally teaches writing and piano, and preaches the evangels of Linux, Open-Source, and Jesus.

Today's news, yesterday.™

Email:  books@jessesteele.com

JesseSteele.com

Other Books by Jesse Steele

Churchianity: At the Crossroads (Act II)

95 Theses of the Clerical System

The Four Planes

The End: A Bible Translation of John's Revelation

Know Each Other

