1. Why was evangelism was so much easier in the 1st century?

1.1. Textual support for my question (Act 11:19-21) = Those doing the evangelism are not the apostles but the untrained laity of the Jerusalem church (Act 7:51-8:1). Given then their evangelistic success, what advantage did the laity of the early church possess that we do not have today? Why was it so much easier?

1.2. Unlike today, everybody was religious: it was considered axiomatic truth that the events of the natural world (our world) were influenced and impacted by the decisions and actions of supernatural beings (otherwise known as gods) who not only lived in a supernatural world but often had human children (sons) who lived among us. And this belief was not compartmentalized as it is oftentimes today.  In the ancient world such beliefs impacted every aspect of daily civilian and government life (e.g.,): 1) kings (Caesars) were often revered as deity in human flesh, as the sons of the gods. 2) holidays, cities – even people’s children and homes were named after and/or dedicated to a patron deity. 3) national identity was theological rather than geographical. 4) the primary reason for all animal slaughter was propitiatory not dietary. 5) all government was viewed as divine and all service to the state a religious act (hence the reason Christians were accused of being atheists for their refusal to serve in government or the military). 6) victory in battle, economic success or good weather was viewed as not only favor from a particular deity or group of deities but a sign that they were the “god(s) on top.” 7) the manufacture and sale of idols for personal and public shrines (Act 17:16) was a vital economic industry providing a large tax revenue base to the state and income to many families (Act 19:23-29). 8) the most popular form of conversation taking place in the public square was not entertainment, sports or politics – but theology - most especially the subject of “who is the god on top?” (Act 17:17-21). 8) Most places associated with pleasure were also temples (prostitution, restaurants). In short, because of the surrounding society, the gods were very real and relevant removing that subject (the existence and need for God) as the first obstacle to overcome in evangelism. IOW: evangelistic conversations were about convincing people that Yhwh was the God on top (and the resurrection of His Son Jesus as the proof of His love for all humanity versus trying to convince people that Someone and something exists beyond the material world (Act 17:22-31). A simple testimony regarding the life, death, resurrection, rule and coming judgment of Jesus was -in most situations -all the knowledge required to be potent and effective (1Co 15:1-4).

1.3. Primitive technology and a large percentage of the population being illiterate also meant that less philosophical and theological competency was required to refute and remove people’s confusion or doubt (Act 28:17-23). Today is just the opposite. Because of our vast exposure to opposing worldviews and heresies associated with the Bible’s teaching and gospel, those functioning as effective evangelists are required to become effective apologists both philosophically and theologically (Act 17:22-23 = Confusion created by their access to many different religious views).

1.4. Such “information corruption” may be another sign that we are in the final years before Christ’s return. Jesus makes clear that in the end it will be like the days of Noah. Corruption will again have reached a tipping point making the possibility of finding salvation like finding a needle in a haystack, reducing the number of those saved to a small covenant family (Mat 24:37-38). 

2. What does it mean when Jesus says that the first greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, why do the first and second greatest commandment matter and what initial or internal way is there to assess whether or not we are fulfilling them?

2.1. What does it mean to love God w/all our heart, soul and mind (the 1st greatest commandment)? The answer is found in the phrase that connects the first to the second (Mat 22:37-39) “The second is like it” = IOW: The way we love in the second greatest commandment will be the same as the first. As such, whatever Jesus says is the way we love our neighbor (i.e., our covenant family – Lev 19:17 [“fellow countryman”]w/18 [“neighbor”]) is how also we are to love God – or what it means to love Him w/all our heart, soul and mind. So what is the answer – how are we told to love our covenant family? As ourselves. So then, loving God w/all your heart, soul and mind just means to love God in the same way as you love yourself. Both God and our covenant family are to be loved in the same way as we love ourselves. They are to be “our very heart.”

2.2. Why does it matter (why is important to have this kind of love for God and our covenant family)? (Mat 22:40 w/Mat 5:17-20) = Nobody gets to heaven who is unfaithful to love God and His people in the same way they love themselves.

2.3. The initial and internal way to assess our whether or not we love God and our covenant family as ourselves is by considering these two groups with respect to this universal truth:

As human beings we possess the ability to betray others and live with it (including those we may have great affection for). We do not however possess that ability in relation to self – or those that we choose to love in the same way as we love ourselves. It is impossible to betray yourself – or those you love as yourself - and live with it.

 2.4. Why? B/C This is how God has hard-wired us (Eph 5:29 “no one ever hated [betrayed] his own flesh but nourishes it and cherishes it”). The context of this verse is our universal truth – or the main point of our discussion: loving others as our self. Paul reveals this as the key to covenant fidelity – or Christ-like love for our wives (Eph 5:28) = This then is what is meant in v25 when it says Christ “gave Himself for her” meaning His bride, the church. He loved her in the same way He loved Himself – giving Him the power to be faithful in the most severe test: dying for her. Hence the reason then we can’t live with ourselves if we are not true to ourselves or those we love in the same way we love ourself. We can’t betray ourselves. It is an ontological impossibility created by God for our preservation and those we would place in that category. Which means five things: 1) As much as we may not want to always admit it, our actions do reveal our true self (or what we truly love) since once more we can’t betray (be unfaithful or untrue) to ourselves and live with ourselves. Those kinds of things – those actions that are not true to who we are, that betray our true self, are unsustainable – which means they won’t last long. They are unlivable – which means we would choose suicide over them – as demonstrated by Judas (Mat 27:3-5). 2) This is the reason we will be judged according to our deeds. Betrayal will never be among the deeds of those who truly love God and their covenant family as themselves (since again, they couldn’t live with that – we can’t live w/betraying ourselves). 3) Repentance (biblically defined) is what happens when we have fallen into behavior that is not – or no longer, our true self – i.e., when we have chosen to love God and His people in the same way as ourselves. 4) This is also what it means to deny (or die to) self - another requirement to getting to heaven (Mat 16:23). Living for self means that self is the only one I love in that way. It is therefore a selfish love. The moment however you attach God and God’s people to that, your love has changed. It is impossible to be selfish or guilty of betrayal since I cannot be selfish or betray myself or those who are now in the same category (they are myself, to betray them is to betray me). The key thing not to miss is that we are (again) all hard-wired to love self – which means it is not something we can remove. The only way then to change that (to make it something other than selfish and damning) is to add God and His people to this category, to love them as I love myself, to believe (and therefore truly feel) that to betray them would mean betraying myself. 5) You now know why people go apostate or can’t seem to stay the course of faithfulness toward God and their covenant family (or covenant wives). The root cause is a refusal to put those people in that place, to love them in the same way they love themselves. If that had happened, betrayal would have been impossible. This is what Jesus is talking about in (Mat 24:11) = The increase in lawlessness that marks the end of the world will cause people to stop loving God and His people as themselves causing them also to eventually betray and apostasize (v10). Given the larger context, this is also what (I believe) John is talking about in (1Jo 2:19 w/9-11) Consider also (1Jo 3:14-16) = Our love for one another is to be the same as Christ’s for the church – which according to Paul in Eph 5 means loving them in the same way we love ourselves, These verses confirm that this is the kind of love John is also demanding when he speaks of loving the brethren in his letter.

2.5. The question then is this: which category of “others” does God and your covenant family fit in? Can you betray them (in any way) and live with it or would betraying them be like betraying yourself? Unless they fit into the latter category (betraying them wb betraying self)) then you have not even begun to love those two groups (God and your covenant family) in the way God requires in order to get to heaven. If you love them as yourself then the thought of betraying them would be the equivalent of committing suicide. You couldn’t live with it. We can’t live with betraying ourselves.

2.6. Two other ways of posing this question: 1) if God let you into heaven – though you knew you were unfaithful to Him and/or your covenant family, could you live with yourself? 2) would you give into temptation more if there were no consequences for betraying God or a member of your covenant family? (e.g., men): if you could cheat on your wife w/o punishment from God, the church or your wife would things change in your marriage? Would removing the external consequences be enough for you to do it and still be able to live with yourself? If your answer is “yes” to both (or one of the two) then once more you have failed to grasp what it is that God requires when it comes to love and getting to heaven – which guarantees that you will never be able to sustain any faithfulness you may in the present possess-because this (according to God) is the pre-requisite to all that: you must love them as yourself. Otherwise what you do – especially in hard times, will become unsustainable.

2.7. This btw is what distinguishes the lasting (and last) soil from the others presented by Jesus in His parable of the soils – (Mat 13:20-23) “soil…sown on the rocky places” and “soil…sown among the thorns” = These kinds of Christians are initially happy about their choice to follow God (they “immediately [receive the word] with joy”) but because they do not love God and their covenant family in the same way they love themselves – b/c betraying those two groups is not the same as betraying themselves, then end up betraying them (“immediately [falling] away”) when things get tough or temptations come. This is in contrast to the “good soil” whose loyalty to God and their covenant family perseveres through the tough and tempting times (they keep producing fruit). Why? Because unlike the others, they love God and their covenant family in the same way as they love themselves. For them, to betray either God or their covenant family would be the same as betraying themselves – an impossibility based on the way that God has wired us.

2.8. Questions (then) to ponder this week: How do you love God and your covenant family? Could you betray them and live with it?  

“Come now, let us reason (think coherently) together says the Lord” – Isa 1:18

Coherent (def.): clear, consistent, logical and reasonable (equitable/just). Coherent things are intelligible, they make sense. Coherency is therefore a prerequisite to the identification of something as truth.

The doctrine of the Trinity believed by most of Christendom since the first and second councils of Nicaea (325 and 381 A.D.) – i.e., Nicene Trinitarianism, denies that the three fully divine and distinct persons that make up the Godhead (or Divine Family) are also three separate or distinct beings. Though three in person, those three exist as one being.[1] This study will demonstrate why this view of the Trinity (otherwise known as ontological monotheism) is incoherent and false while establishing the view presented in Scripture – otherwise known as Coherent Trinitarianism.[2]

1. The Bible teaches Coherent Trinitarianism.

1.1. DEFINTION: the one true God of heaven and earth exists as a Godhead (or Divine Family) of not only three separate or distinct persons but three separate or distinct Beings, Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who: 1) Are all fully divine (in nature and name, Yhwh). 2) Operate according to ancient monotheism or a divine hierarchy of authority: the Son being fully subordinate to the Father, the Holy Spirit being fully subordinate to the Father and the Son (Joh 14:28, 16:13-15; hence 1Co 15:28).[3] 3) Each possess their own cognitive faculties, unique personality and role within Godhead.

1.2. The fact that the Bible uses plural language at times when speaking of God, demands that we think of Him as a plurality or as three distinct Beings (e.g., Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Gen 19:24; Isa 6:8 [“who will go for Us?”]; Dan 7:13 [Divine “Son of Man”] w/Mat 26:63-65[4]; See also Mat 9:1-6[5]. Including Mat 9 and 26, Jesus is considered guilty of violating Jewish monotheistic sensibilities no less than 5 times [Joh 5:18, 8:58-59, 10:30-31]).

1.3. When the Bible uses singular language to speak of God, it most often – if not always, refers to a specific member of the Godhead

(e.g., Isa 6:8 [“Whom shall I send?”] w/Joh 12:41).

1.4. Though the OT saints knew of God the Father (Deu 32:6; Isa 9:6[6], 63:13, 64:8[7]; Joh 8:41), their personal experiences were more with Jesus. He was the Yhwh they were interacting with most of the time. It wasn’t until the teaching and propitiatory ministry of Jesus’ incarnation, that the OT saints gained personal knowledge and relationship with the Father (Joh 1:18; Joh 8:12-19, 14:6-9, 16:26-28; Mat 11:25-27; Heb 10:19-22)[8].

1.5. The enlightenment, education and access provided by Jesus w/respect to the three distinct Yhwhs of Elohim may be reason entrance in the covenant community changed from vows to the Elohim of the three patriarchs (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to the three Yhwhs themselves (Father, Son, Holy Spirit – Mat 28:18-20).    

2. Nicene Trinitarianism is incoherent in its ontological monotheism - or juxtaposition of three persons with one being given that these terms (person and being) are substantively synonymous.

2.1. If you have three distinct persons, you have three distinct beings.

2.2. For example, to say that Peter, James and John are three distinct persons is the same thing as saying they are three separate beings. The same would be true for God. Admitting to three distinct persons is admitting to three separate beings[9].

2.3. Put in terms of self, the Trinity is either one-self or three divine selves. Both however cannot be true (Law of Noncontradiction) (e.g. Mat 22:41-46) = If Jesus considered false belief those things which created a cultural contradiction (i.e., A father referring to his son as “Lord”), how much more would He have a considered false those things which created an ontological contradiction! 

“So the only reason it seems, why we do not call these three together ‘one person’ and instead call them ‘one being’ yet never say ‘three beings’ is because we want to keep at least one word (‘being’) for signifying what we mean by ‘trinity’ and not (at the same time) be reduced to silence after we have confessed there are three.” - Augustine

“The blessed trinity is three somewhats; and these three somewhats we commonly call ‘persons’, but the true notion and nature of that distinction is unknown to us” - John Wallis (17th century Anglican bishop)

“What is a ‘person’ if not a certain being? How then can Father and Son and Spirit be different ‘persons’ while being the same being? It’s a matter of logic [coherency] that these both can’t be true: there’s exactly one divine self, and there are exactly three divine selves…When it comes to [Nicene] trinitarian formulations, some will celebrate them as either uninterpretable or interpretable in incoherent ways…Equivocal [ambiguous] terms are the enemy of clear [coherent] thinking…So it is with those who claim the doctrine of the [Nicene] Trinity is a holy mystery in the sense that it has no or almost no intelligible content. ” – Dale Tuggy

“The traditional Trinitarian makes the [incoherent] claim that three selves are not three substances. And once again we are left with no reason worthy of the name for thinking that the Trinitarian is not a tritheist.” – C. Stephen Layman (“Tritheism and the Trinity”, Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers)

3. The reason Nicene Trinitarianism exists is because those who invented and embrace it falsely assume ontological monotheism to be the teaching of the OT, Jesus and the NT.

3.1. The Shema or Deuteronomy 6:4 stands as the most popular OT text for supporting ontological monotheism – or the belief that Moses was calling the Jews to a (ontological) monotheistic theology. The context surrounding this text however, warrants a different understanding (Deu 6:1-15) = The main point of Moses’ teaching in this section is that if God’s people are to continue to receive His blessings and remain in the land, they would need to make sure that their personal and parental focus was on loving God above everyone and everything else through careful obedience to His commands (1-3 w/5-9). IOW: They were to be exclusive in their loyalty to Him as God (13-14). Which means whatever Moses is calling Israel’s attention to v4 (“Hear [Heb., shema] O Israel!”) it is related to this. The phrase “is one” is therefore about exclusivity to God (as Israel’s one and only God) not God as a singular being (ontological monotheism). It is “Hear O Israel!” The LORD [Yahweh] is our God, the Lord is [the] one [and only God for us].

3.2. That this is indeed what is being communicated in verse 4 is supported not only by the context (since how is communicating God as a singular Being relevant or coherent w/the verses around it?), but also the alternate rendering conveyed by the original language (“one” [Heb., ehad = first, alone- Neh 9:6; Zec 14:9; literally then, “Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the Lord is first” or “Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the Lord alone.”). The latter is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society and the Jewish Study Bible. POINT NOT TO MISS: the primary text for supporting ontological monotheism in the OT does not support it. Deu 6:4 is not about - nor concerned with, the number of beings that exist as God (Yhwh).

3.3. Scholarly study and archeological discovery (e.g., the Halbturn amulet) have revealed that viewing the Shema as a statement on ontological monotheism (or that God exists as a singular being) was a later phenomenon in Judaism (the invention of the Second Temple period).

3.4. There is good reason to believe that the ontological monotheism established during the Second Temple period was a response to the ever-increasing pressure placed on the Jews to distinguish themselves from the polytheistic religions of the world their small nation was inextricably linked to through their perennial subjugation. From 597 BC – 70 AD Israel was in subjugation to the Babylonians then the Medo-Persians, then the Greeks and finally the Romans [e.g., Neh 9:36-37; Luk 2:1 w/Joh 11:48]. All of them were polytheistic in their religious beliefs.[10]

"The monotheistic interpretation of the Shema became… the dominant understanding of Deut 6:4 in Judean Judaism at the latest by the first century C. E.” – A. Lange (“The Shema Israel in Second Temple Judaism”, Journal of Ancient Judaism)

“Many modern readers regard the Shema [Deu 6:4] as an assertion of [ontological] monotheism, a view that is anachronistic [reading a modern understanding back into when it was originally given]. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to Yhwh as the sole Lord of Israel…The Shema isn’t really dealing with the nature of God’s Oneness, as… [modern] Judaism… reads it. Instead, it is saying that for us, Israel, the Lord is ‘the One and Only’ ...Once [ontological] monotheism became more normative in the Second Temple period [597 B.C. – 70 A.D.], this earlier perspective became unintelligible. Second Temple readers and translators of the Shema were thus forced to read this and similar passages in a way that made them consistent with [ontological] monotheism.”– Jewish (Publication Society) Study Bible notes on Deu 6:4

“Big books have appeared analyzing the sudden development of an [ontological] monotheism in late Second Temple Judaism.” – Paula Fredriksen (ibid)

“Judaism after the Exile [Second Temple period] represents a startling new development in the history of religion, in that it is the Jewish [ontological] monotheistic conception of God that makes this religion stand out from all others. [In ancient times] Judaism [was] marked by a dualistic pattern in which two divine entities are presupposed: one the supreme creator God, the other his vizier or prime minister, who really runs the show – or at least provides the point of contact between God and humanity…In order to counteract the [doctrine] of the two powers [in heaven] whose roots indeed go back to the two names for God in the Hebrew Bible, the rabbis had to incorporate this inbuilt logical contradiction [of ontological monotheism] into the personality of God…The pattern of [ancient] Jewish beliefs about God remains monarchistic throughout [i.e., it is ancient monotheism/one God on top]…For most [ancient] Jews, God [was] the sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being. In particular, there [has] always been a prominent number two in the hierarchy to whom Israel in particular relates.” – Peter Hayman (“Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”)

3.5. Though it is clear that many of the Jews in Jesus’ day were ontological monotheists and therefore viewed Jesus’ claims to deity as blasphemy, it is also clear that Jesus never attempts to quell their concerns or reinforce their monotheistic thinking through the incoherency of Nicene Trinitarianism (e.g., Joh 5:18-24). Instead, He pushes the reality that the Godhead is indeed made up of three divine beings (e.g., Mat 28:19-20 “baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” = Pledge your supreme loyalty/love to these three beings/persons as God).     

3.6. The Nicene Trinitarian attempt at defending [ontological] monotheism from Scripture proves absolutely bankrupt: 1) (Joh 10:30-33 w/38) = Jesus is not making a statement about His deity but rather His deputization and deployment by the Father. Hence His reference to Psa 82:6 (the Divine Council Psalm) (vv34-35) and mention of being “sanctified and sent” to carry out the Father’s will and works (vv36-37). The phrases, “I and the Father are One” or “the Father is Me and I am in the Father” is Jesus’ claim to possessing the Father’s backing and authority– not that He and the Father are the same Being. If that were true, then the same must be said of His ministers since Jesus requests the same would be true for us in His High Priestly Prayer (Joh 17:18-22) = I have deployed them [v18], Father please deputize them so that their ministry will also have your support and authority/power (Mat 18:19-20; Joh 20:21-23) – not, please make them into one being! 2) (Eph 4:6) = Notice Paul does not simply say “One God” but rather “One God and Father.” Paul’s failure to mention the other members of the Trinity demonstrates that this was not his intention when using “one” in relation to “God.” Paul’s point is instead to emphasize the exclusivity of the Father as God (or God on top). By “One God and father” Paul therefore means “One God Who can be identified as Father, as the supreme God over all others in authority.” 3) (Jam 2:19) = The demons don’t shudder bc God is a singular Being. Clearly what James is referring to by “one” is once more, the issue of exclusivity- that among all the powerful beings in the spiritual realm, only Yhwh – made up of three Beings possesses the power and authority to retain the title as God. 4) The Johannine Comma (1Jo 5:7-8- See Fn “A”) = Exists in forgeries created by Catholic scholars in 15th/16th c. to give NT support to Nicene Trinitarianism or ontological monotheism. 

4. An appeal to mystery does not excuse Nicene Trinitarianism’s incoherency since Scripture never uses this word when speaking about the ontological makeup of God nor as an excuse for incoherency.

(Mat 13:11) = The mysteries of the kingdom of God; (Rom 11:25) = the mystery of Israel’s partial hardening; (Rom 16:25; Col 2:2, 4:3; 1Ti 3:9, 16) = The mystery surrounding Jesus as Messiah; (1Co 15:51) = The mystery of instantaneous transformation for those alive at Jesus’ return; (Eph 1:9, 3:3-4, 9, 6:19; Col 1:26-27) = The mystery of God’s plan for the Gentiles; (Eph 5:32) = The mystery of Christ’s marriage to the church; (Rev 1:20) = The mystery of the 7 stars as the seven churches; (Rev 10:7, 17:5-7) = The mystery of Israel/Jerusalem as the Babylonian harlot and the coming judgment against her.

5. Those Christians attempting to establish a coherent version of ontological monotheism end in the heresy of Modalism/Sabellianism (F/S/HS are the same Being and Person in different forms) and/or Unitarianism/Arianism (Only the F is fully God; S and HS are lesser gods/angels).

5.1. Modalism (Sabellianism) is refuted by the fact that the F/S/HS possess separate minds and actions (e.g., Mat 3:16-17; again Dan 7:13).

5.2. Unitarianism (Arianism) is refuted by the fact that the F/S/HS are each identified as fully God (or equally divine) in the NT (Jesus is Yhwh: Joh 8:24, 28, 58-59 [Yhwh is the noun version of the to-be verb hyh or “I AM” - e.g., Exo 3:14-15]; Joh 12:41 [Isa 6:3 LORD/Yhwh]; HS is Yhwh: Heb 3:7-11 [Psa 95:6-11 [LORD/Yhwh]).  Examples of Modalism and Unitarianism: 1) “For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as the Father and the Son.” – Tertullian; 2) James White’s light bar

CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: “All of this leaves us wondering…how three persons could be parts of the same being, rather than three separate beings? Since the divine persons are, prior to the incarnation, three unembodied Minds, in virtue of what are they one being rather than three individual beings?” – William Lane Craig (ibid) 1) What thing of virtue (righteous, worthy) do Nicene Trinitarians such as Craig believe they are promoting and protecting by their unwillingness to repent of their incoherent, unbiblical and false view of the Trinity (i.e., that God is three persons yet exists as one being)? 2) What makes this thing a sacred cow rather than something truly virtuous?

[1] Though evidence exists of trinitarian language before Nicaea, (e.g., Tertullian), the formation of Nicene Trinitarian doctrine (three persons, one being) is a later development. “No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The clearest statement w/regard to NT would not happen until the 4th century, through the writings of the Cappadocian Father, Gregory Nazianzus, “The Godhead is one in three, and the three are one.” 

[2] Why this study should matter to you as a Christian: Our defense and promotion of Christianity depends on coherency. “A Christian might say that the Trinity is an utter mystery and cannot be logically explained yet insist that if a defining doctrine of another worldview is ‘an utter mystery logically,’ then that worldview must be rejected. But this will not do. If we allow opaque mysteries in our own worldview, we have to allow them everywhere. Or if we demand logical consistency in other worldviews, we must demand it of our own. That is, the criteria for rational evaluation must be objective. Special pleading should be apologetically out of bounds…If Christians desire to demonstrate the truth and rationality of Christianity to those who hold other worldviews, they must apply objective criteria to the contending worldviews. If none are given, there is no apologetic, but only preaching.” – Douglas Groothuis (Christian Apologetics).

[3] By ancient monotheism I mean two things: 1) there is only One God on top, that being the Father, Who is the final or highest authority within the Godhead. 2) this is not ontological monotheism: God is only One Being. Ancient Judaism thought of monotheism in practical terms (Who is on top?) not ontological terms (What One Being is God?). “We need to remember that in antiquity, monotheism meant not the sole existence of only one divine being but the absolute supremacy of one to whom all others are subordinate (and this was good Christian theology until Nicaea as well). Paula Fredriksen’s, ‘Mandatory Retirement’ paper is a concise, excellent presentation of this position.” – Daniel Boyarin (The Jewish Gospels: The Story Of The Jewish Christ); “Ancient monotheism spoke to the imagined architecture of the cosmos, not to its absolute (or divine) population. Ancient monotheism means ‘one god on top’ with other gods arranged beneath, lower than and in some sense subordinate to the high god. Multiple divine personalities are native to ancient monotheism. John could designate Christ as theos and still be an ancient monotheist, because the hierarchical arrangement of his heaven: ho logos is subordinate to theos, just as ‘son’ is to ‘father.’ Our unthinking dependence on [ontological] monotheism confuses not only our view of ancient Christians, but also our view of ancient Jews.” – Paula Fredriksen (“Mandatory retirement: Ideas in the study of Christian origins whose time has come to go”)

[4] It’s important to note that ancient Jews saw Daniel 7:13 as teaching what became known as the “two powers in heaven” or the co-deity of God, One of whom also shared in flesh and blood (a Son of Man deity). By the time of Jesus however, the Jews had rejected this view as heretical, embracing the novel idea of monotheism for reasons later to be discussed. “The two-thrones theophany of Daniel 7 was no doubt disturbing to at least some Jews in antiquity, such as the author of Daniel himself in the second century B.C. We know that other Jews adopted wholeheartedly, or simply inherited, the doubleness of Israel’s God, the old Ancient of Days and the young human-appearing rider on the clouds. These became the progenitors of the Judaism of Jesus and his followers.” (ibid)

[5] “The objection of the Scribes, calling Jesus’ act of forgiveness ‘blasphemy,’ is predicated on their assumption that Jesus is claiming divinity through this action; hence their emphasis that only the one God may forgive sins, to which Jesus answers in kind: the second divine figure of Daniel 7, the one like a son of man, is authorized to act as and for God. This constitutes a direct declaration of a doubleness of the Godhead.” – Daniel Boyarin (ibid)

[6] Though this passage is a reference to Jesus, the fully divine Son of God, like Isaiah 7:14 the name given to the child in this prophecy is in reference to His Father not Himself – a common practice in ancient times and important to His identity as Messiah (the son of David who received the promise of God the Father’s eternal fathership – Psa 89:27). For further study see John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6)”

[7] Given what was said earlier about Isaiah being Jesus’ mouthpiece, it is important to note the distinction in message between those words pertaining to Jesus and those pertaining to the Father. As should be expected, when in relation to Jesus, Isaiah’s words are spoken in the first person – giving the impression that Jesus is speaking directly through Isaiah (e.g., Isa 41:4 “I, the LORD,, am the first, and with the last, I am He”) whereas wen in relation to the Father, Isaiah’s words are statements about the Father not from the Father (e.g., Isa 64:8 “But now, O LORD, You are our Father”). Unlike the case with Jesus, Isaiah is not speaking as the Father’s mouthpiece.

[8] The same could be argued for the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:1-10).

[9] “This leads to an obvious question: if Peter, James and John are three men each having the same nature, then why would not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit similarly be three Gods each exemplifying the divine nature? In his letter to Ablabius ‘On Not three Gods,’ Gregory of Nyssa struggled to answer this question.” – William Lane Craig (“A Formulation And Defense Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity”)

[10] The fact that tall ancient Mesopotamian religions were polytheistic along with God’s appropriation of polytheistic religious myths to communicate ontological truths regarding Himself (e.g., Ugaritic parallel to Dan 7:13) lends additional support to polytheism as the framework of divinity presented in the Bible. For further consideration see Yisra’el Knohl’s argument that the reason Israel made a golden calf – versus a golden bull was due to their belief not only in a divine plurality, but that the Yhwh among them was Son rather than Father (Me- Ayin Banu [Where Are We From? The Genetic Code of the Bible]).  

“Come now, let us reason (think coherently) together says the Lord” – Isa 1:18

Coherent (def.): clear, consistent, logical and reasonable (equitable/just). Coherent things are intelligible, they make sense. Coherency is therefore a prerequisite to the identification of something as truth.

The doctrine of the Trinity believed by most of Christendom since the first and second councils of Nicaea (325 and 381 A.D.) – i.e., Nicene Trinitarianism,[1] denies that the three fully divine and distinct Persons that make up the Godhead (or Divine Family) are also three separate or distinct Beings. Though three in Person, those three exist as one being.[2] This study will demonstrate why this monotheistic view of the Trinity is incoherent and false while establishing the view presented in Scripture – otherwise known as Coherent Trinitarianism.

Why this study should matter to you as a Christian:

1) We are called to defend all of the doctrine handed down by Jesus and the apostles (Jud 1:3 “the Faith” = All doctrine - not simply those teachings related to “salvation” – especially since one of the main things Jesus did during His earthly ministry was challenge people’s ontological view of God).

2) Our obedience demands that we possess correct (or coherent) thinking about God (Deu 29:29 = Properly observing or obeying God’s Law requires we teach and defend what has been revealed about Him [literally, what has been made clear/coherent]; 1Co 15:34).

3) Our confidence and perseverance in what we believe depends on coherency (e.g., Mat 16:1-4, 22:41-46) = Jesus came to restore the coherency of God’s revelation/religion lost by the Judaism of His day. The lack of coherency provided by Israel’s shepherds were causing distress and doubt in the covenant community (Mat 9:36) = One of the most important jobs of the God’s shepherd is to create stability in his flock through the removal of confusion and the restoring of coherency (Jer 3:15 “understanding” = Coherency). 

4) Our defense and promotion of Christianity depends on coherency.

“A Christian might say that the Trinity is an utter mystery and cannot be logically explained yet insist that if a defining doctrine of another worldview is ‘an utter mystery logically,’ then that worldview must be rejected. But this will not do. If we allow opaque mysteries in our own worldview, we have to allow them everywhere. Or if we demand logical consistency in other worldviews, we must demand it of our own. That is, the criteria for rational evaluation must be objective. Special pleading should be apologetically out of bounds…If Christians desire to demonstrate the truth and rationality of Christianity to those who hold other worldviews, they must apply objective criteria to the contending worldviews. If none are given, there is no apologetic, but only preaching.” – Douglas Groothuis (Christian Apologetics)[3].

5) Nicene Trinitarianism’s best apologists admit (by commission or omission) the incoherency of their belief.

“All of this leaves us wondering…how three persons could be parts of the same Being - rather than three separate Beings? Since the divine persons are, prior to the incarnation, three unembodied Minds, in virtue of what are they one Being - rather than three individual Beings?” – William Lane Craig[4] (“A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity”)

My email exchange with Doug Groothuis from 8/31/24 – 9/2/24

(Me) Dr Groothuis: I am thankful for your words (in Christian Apologetics) but was wondering if (in light of such statements) you could provide me with a coherent explanation for the Trinity (three persons who are one person). Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this. I have yet to find an explanation that doesn’t end in some form of modalism. (8/31)

(DG) Scott: Read the Athanasian Creed on this and a good systematic theology, such as Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, or John Frame, Systematic Theology, or Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology. Also consult The Westminster Confession. Davis is good on philosophical theology. Godspeed for truth and goodness and beauty, Doug (8/31)

(Me) Dr Groothuis: Thank you for your reply. Your sources seem to support what you condemn: “no logical explanation…only preaching”. For example in the Athanasian Creed it says: Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one…Thus the Father is God,

the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God… Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.”

Am I missing something? Nowhere does it explain how believing that three persons can equal one is coherent. Diligently seeking to understand. (8/31)

(Me) Hi Dr Groothuis, I found something in a Ligonier (RC Sproul) video that was different from what I have heard. He explained the issue of singular (God as one) as essence or being but not person (three persons, one essence or being). This again however seems like wordplay - unless what is meant by essence or being is nature (e.g., divine versus human) but then we are left with three gods (persons) who are all fully divine (in essence/nature/being) and once more not a trinity (as you understand it). To me, at least, it seems no different than saying you and I are both human (we share the same essence) but are separate persons- no singularity to speak of. The trinity: one true God who exists as three persons is essentially tritheism [which means the Bible does not teach a monotheistic religion]. If my questions/our conversation would be better served by meeting, I am willing to pay a speaking fee. There is a group of us that would appreciate your counsel. (9/2)

(DG) I suggest you read Stephen T Davis on this, as I mentioned. (9/2)

(Me) I bought the book as you suggested and read the chapter on the Trinity. Here was the extent of his explanation: “Scripture affirms that there is one and only one God; Christianity is, after all, a monotheistic religion…We won’t be going into details as to this last claim.”

(Me) Could I pay you to meet with us to discuss this further? (9/2)

(DG) This is not the extent of Davis's explanation. He gives several models and engages the strengths and weaknesses of each. You simply give the statement of the doctrine. Philosophical theology attempts to explain and defend.

(DG) Does this help you any? I know you need more than this. (9/2)

(Me) I have read (and own) most of the systematics you mentioned as well as others - including Grudem’s with the diagram you included. They do nothing more than describe what trinitarian doctrine teaches (there is father, son and Holy Spirit, all equally divine and separate persons yet one singular God versus three gods). What I am looking for is a coherent explanation for how this can be (there distinct persons, three distinct consciouses yet one being)? As I mentioned I am not a modalist. Yet if the Bible is truth, then how can one of its most important doctrines be incoherent (e.g., 2+2 = 5)? I would be more inclined to “force the square peg into the round hole” if Scripture warranted it but such seems not to be the case. The mention of “one” in the Shema is (based on the context) dealing with exclusivity (one and only true God) versus singularity (one single being who is God; Deu 6:4; cf., Mar 12:29). The same can be said about James 2:19 or other passages. I found none requiring the “singularity (yet plurality)” incoherent view presented by the post-Nicene Church. It seems this was the problem with the Jews as well when Jesus claimed Himself to be an another deity alongside the Father (a violation of their Second Temple invention of monotheism). Not only that but He also claimed to have life in himself (John 10) a statement that doesn’t square very well with the idea of one Being or essence. Once more, thanks for taking the time. I do appreciate it and would love to talk in person if possible. I know you are a busy man. (9/2)

Dr. Groothuis has yet to reply…or share his own explanation/defense of the Nicene Trinity as coherent.

1. The Bible teaches Coherent Trinitarianism.

1.1. DEFINTION: the one true God of heaven and earth exists as a Godhead (or Divine Family) of not only three fully divine and distinct Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but also three separate or distinct Beings, each possessing their own cognitive faculties, unique personality and role within the Godhead.

1.2. The fact that the Bible uses plural language at times when speaking of God, demands that we think of Him as a plurality or as three distinct Beings (e.g., Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Gen 19:24; Isa 6:8; Mat 26:63-65 w/Dan 7:13[5]).

1.3. When the Bible uses singular language to speak of God, it most often – if not always, refers to a specific member of the Godhead

1.3.1. The Father (Eph 4:6; 1Co 15:34 w/vv20-33)

1.3.2. The HS (Act 5:4 w/v3)

1.3.3. The Son/Jesus (2Pe 1:1; Isa 45:5a) “I am the LORD [Heb., Yhwh[6]] and there is no other; Besides Me (Yhwh), there is no God (Elohim)” = IOW: In these ancient times, there is no other member of the Godhead that human beings may personally know (Isa 45:4b and 5b – Notice the reference to knowing) as the Uncreated Creator, Sustainor, Savior and Sovereign over all things (Isa 40:4, 40:28, 43:10-13, 44:8, 44:24, 45:7, 12, 18-23). We can be sure that Jesus is indeed the Yhwh speaking in Isaiah given:

1) John’s confirmation that the Yhwh Who commissioned Isaiah to be His mouthpiece/to speak on His behalf (in the first person, “I…”), was Jesus (Isa 6:5 [“LORD” = Yhwh] w/Joh 12:41).

2) He is the specific Person of God (Elohim) in the Godhead/Trinity most directly involved in the affairs of the Patriarchs (“Jacob”), OT Israel (Isa 45:3-4) and the world (i.e., He is the Chief Operating Officer of the Trinity[7] – Hence Gen 18:1-22 w/19:24 [Joh 8:56]; Exo 23:20-22 w/Jug 2:1 [Jud 1:5]; Jos 5:13-15 w/Exo 3:1-5, 14 [Joh 8:58-59]; Consider also Heb 3:4-6 [w/Isa 6:1][8]).

1.4. As additional food for thought consider:

1) Though the OT saints knew of God the Father (Deu 32:6; Isa 9:6[9], 63:16, 64:8[10]; Joh 8:41), their personal experiences were more with Jesus. He was the Yhwh they were interacting with most of the time. It wasn’t until the teaching and propitiatory ministry of Jesus’ incarnation, that the OT saints gained personal knowledge and relationship with the Father (Joh 1:18; Joh 8:19, 14:6-9, 16:26-27; Mat 11:25-27; Heb 10:19-22).[11]

2) The enlightenment, education and access provided by Jesus w/respect to the three distinct Yhwhs of Elohim may be reason entrance in the covenant community changed from vows to the Elohim of the three patriarchs (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to the three Yhwhs themselves (Father, Son, Holy Spirit – Mat 28:18-20).      

[1] Though evidence exists of trinitarian language before Nicaea, (e.g., Tertullian), the formation of Nicene Trinitarian doctrine (three persons, one being) is a later development. “No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The clearest statement w/regard to NT would not happen until the 4th century, through the writings of the Cappadocian Father, Gregory Nazianzus, “The Godhead is one in three, and the three are one.”  

[2] “The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.” – The Southern Baptist Faith And Message (Section II). Though the “three in one” idea was present – at least in germinal form, at Nicaea’s first council, it wasn’t until her second council that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were officially affirmed as consisting of the same singular ousia (essence or being). 

[3] Dr. Douglas Groothuis is a Christian apologist and author who teaches philosophy at Denver Seminary.

[4] Dr. William Lane Craig is likewise a Christian apologist and author, who teaches philosophy at Houston Christian University and Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

[5] In brief, Daniel seven’s “Son of Man” should be viewed as referring to another Divine Being for the following reasons: 1) in the Bible, only God is viewed as coming on the clouds, 2) in the Bible, only God is worthy of global worship, 3) in the Bible, only God receives a kingdom with global and everlasting dominion, 4) the close similarities between Daniel’s Son of Man and the divine figure of Ezekiel one, 5) the close similarities between Daniel’s Son of Man and the Divine King of Psalm 89 and 110. 6) its appropriation of Babylonian/Ugaritic mythology which identifies the “rider on the clouds” as co-deity with the “father of years” (Ancient of Days) (e.g., Ezekiel one and ten’s appropriation of the Babylonian zodiac [oxen/cherub, eagle, human and lion]). For further study see Markus Zehnder, “Why the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ Is a Divine Being.”; It’s important to note that ancient Jews saw Daniel 7:13 as teaching what became known as the “two powers in heaven” or the co-deity of God, One of whom also shared in flesh and blood (a Son of Man deity). By the time of Jesus however, the Jews had rejected this view as heretical, embracing the novel idea of monotheism for reasons later to be discussed. For further study on the doctrine of the two powers of heaven see Alan Segal, The Two Powers of Heaven.

[6] Otherwise known as the tetragrammaton, Yhwh is God’s official name and what distinguishes Him from (false) deities of the pagan nations (e.g., Molech, Marduk, Bel, Baal, Dagon, Artemis).

[7] A COO is a senior executive who manages the day-to-day operations of a company (insert Creation) as second in command to the CEO (think God the Father) to whom they directly report (Joh 5:19).

[8] It only makes sense that Jesus would be the Yhwh (i.e., member of the Godhead/Trinity) Who would become human (incarnate) given He was (and continues to be) the One most directly engaged and involved in the affairs of humanity – most especially those of His covenant people.

[9] Though this passage is a reference to Jesus, the fully divine Son of God, like Isaiah 7:14 (“Immanuel”) the name given to the child in this prophecy is in reference to His Father not Himself – a common practice in ancient times (e.g., OT kings) and important to His identity as Messiah (the son of David who received the promise of God the Father’s eternal fathership – Psa 89:26-28; 2Sa 7:14). For further study see John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6)”

[10] Given what was said earlier about Isaiah being Jesus’ mouthpiece, it is important to note the distinction in message between those words pertaining to Jesus and those pertaining to the Father. As should be expected, when in relation to Jesus, Isaiah’s words are spoken in the first person – giving the impression that Jesus is speaking directly through Isaiah (e.g., Isa 41:4 “I, the LORD,, am the first, and with the last, I am He”) whereas wen in relation to the Father, Isaiah’s words are statements about the Father not from the Father (e.g., Isa 64:8 “But now, O LORD, You are our Father”). Unlike the case with Jesus, Isaiah is not speaking as the Father’s mouthpiece.

[11] The same could be argued for the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:1-10).

“When disaster strikes, life becomes like molten metal…Old customs crumble, instability rules.” – Dr. Samuel Prince (“Catastrophe and Social Change”)

All signs point to Jesus’ return in 2030. And though this event will be a day of great joy and excitement for His faithful followers, getting to that day without going apostate will prove difficult – even impossible for many. Why? Because they will be ill-prepared and equipped to endure the epic levels of craziness, scariness and confusion that will become our world in the years or days prior to His return. In short, those people will not possess what is known in the fields of psychology and sociology as “disaster behavior.” To avoid becoming one of those people will therefore mean learning and applying those principles necessary to possess it. The following points represent those principles -or how to prepare for the end of the world:

1. Prepare according to the predictions.

1.1. The death rate from natural disasters has significantly dropped over the last hundred years due to our ability to predict (forecast) when these events will happen. For example, in 1927 when nothing existed to predict natural disasters, the global death toll exceeded 3.5 million. Since the 1970s and the creation of devices for predicting such things, that number has consistently stayed below 500 thousand.

1.2. The lesson (then) to be learned? If we want to increase our chances of survival, we need to prepare according to the predictions, we need to follow the forecast and be on the alert.

1.3. Jesus agrees (Mat 24:37-51) – Besides the obvious, there are two things worth noting here: 1) If you are gauging your urgency to get ready or take seriously Christ’s return based on the world around you, then you are going to miss the boat (just like they did in Noah’s day). You won’t be ready when Jesus comes because you refused to act according to the forecast – the predictions of His coming. 2) Being alert (or following the forecast) means being responsible with your life in the time you have remaining. IOW: this isn’t the time to be less committed in your walk with Christ or with the potential He has given you for advancing His gospel and Kingdom. To use a football analogy, we have hit the two-minute warning. Whatever you’ve got left, you need to leave it on the field – otherwise you may lose the game. My advice: plan exactly what you are going to accomplish for Christ over the next five years and start working that plan. Like Jesus says about the faithful slave, He needs to find you productive when He shows up – otherwise you will be “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the hypocrites…that place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (i.e., hell).”

1.4. BTW: the reason Jesus mentions hell as the place of hypocrites is because that is ultimately why people end up in hell. They go to hell bc their choices in life created a double standard (one favoring them). As a result, they are hypocrites (approving for themselves what they condemn in others). The only way to avoid such hypocrisy is by following God’s Law. It is the only law that always creates equity (impartiality/fairness) - the opposite of hypocrisy (Mat 7:12 “treat others in the same way as you would want them to treat you”).

2. Get through the denial phase as quickly as possible.

2.1. Those who study disaster will tell you that the first phase in the survival arc is denial. When disaster strikes we tend to suppress the truth of the event – or what’s happening to us. We respond in denial. Denial is just another word for disbelief/unbelief. Which means we have a hard time believing things when difficulty or disaster strikes. In our case, what the Bible says about Jesus’ return and the urgency that will be necessary to stay faithful. As a result, we will delay to act – or fail to act at all, sealing our fate.

2.2. The National Research Council found that when disaster strikes – as in the example of a fire, “people are often cool…delaying their response.”

2.3. The average response of the World Trade Center survivors was six minutes after realizing what had happened. Some waited as long as forty-five minutes before acting. About one thousand individuals spent time shutting down their computers before leaving the collapsing towers. A person on a floor in the upper sixties stated that “the building started to sway and everything started shaking” and that they “knew something was wrong.” Yet instead of immediately leaving, they ran to their desk and made several calls to relatives trying to figure out what was going on.

2.4. Scientists believe the reason we tend to fall into the denial phase is four-fold:

1) we have a “normalcy bias.” IOW: we think that disaster only happens to other people, but never us (our lives are too normal; e.g., Survey of one thousand Americans after 9/11: most believed they only had a 21 percent chance of being in a terrorist attack whereas it was 48 percent with everyone else – i.e., anyone other than them). 2) our brains are great at picking up patterns but not so good at picking up exceptions (the exception being the disaster that is now making our lives different than the normal pattern). 3) we give in to peer-pressure. We don’t want to risk embarrassment by overreacting. 4) we succumb to the “illusion of centrality.” When in trauma our feelings attempt to convince us that the problem is not that big – or is a local problem. What is happening is only true for a small group of people, everyone outside that group is fine.

2.5.  That trauma or traumatizing events create denial is something that Jesus also recognized (Mat 16:1-3) = Though the Jews possessed the ability to discern the “sign of the times” (the time of Messiah), they refused to do so. They were living in deep denial. They were traumatized by the thought that Messiah was among them. They weren’t ready for that big of a change to their life. So they asked Jesus to provide something (a “sign”) that would make them feel better about acting on what was for them an inconvenient truth. Here however is where Jesus departs from the world in His view of denial – most specifically with respect to denial linked to Him –or moral things. Jesus had no pity or toleration for such denial.  He viewed it as evil and “adulterous” (v4). Why? Because when it comes to moral things or following Christ, denial means we have now put self (or our safety) above Him and His will – the very thing we vowed we wouldn’t do the day we got married to Him (our gospel vows: die to self, live and die for Him). To live in denial when it comes to Jesus (or His final return) is to therefore commit adultery because we are going back to our former lover (self).

2.6. In agreement (then) with the other forms of denial, this too will cause us to delay and likewise seal our fate.

2.7. Great way to test whether we are living in denial is to ask yourself this question: How much urgency toward faithfulness and being bold in evangelism has the news of Jesus’ return in 2030 – or all the crazy stuff regarding UFOs (and its link to the demons) created in you?       

3. Determine to trust someone outside yourself.

3.1. One of the biggest mistakes we make as humans is believing – or behaving as though we (or self) is the person we should trust the most.

3.2. Once more, scientific studies say otherwise – especially when facing trauma, difficult situations and disaster. Due to a multiplicity of personal biases, poor thinking skills as well as our tendency to listen to our feelings far more than the facts, most humans do a poor job of assessing reality when in relation to self. In contrast, we do a far better job of assessing those things for others since our ability to be more objective and overall better thinkers vastly improves once it is not about us.

3.3. The World Trade Center again provides us with sobering examples. Many of its survivors found that had they not trusted the assessment of others, they would have convinced themselves to remain in place, that the situation was not so bad, that no immediate or drastic action was required. This goes back to the problem of denial. Trusting in self (or self’s assessment of things bathed in the bias of denial) would have guaranteed their death.

3.4. Jesus agrees (Jer 17:9; hence Pro 1:5, 3:7, 12:15, 26:12).

3.5. The question (then) is who should we trust? If your answer is “God” it means you are missing the point – most specifically the point of Scripture when its authors speak in terms of trusting God. Such statements are more about the data than the disseminator. IOW: to trust God means that we trust His words (i.e., the Scriptures) to be true and trustworthy - so much so that Jesus guarantees that those who build their lives on it, will never be toppled by the disasters of this life. But here is problem: we still need someone to properly interpret His words. Though God gives us His words, He leaves the work of correctly interpreting those words to human beings. Hence why God gave no accompanying commentary to go with the Scriptures. Which means saying “I am going to trust God” or “I am going to trust His Word” is not enough when looking for direction or wisdom. Though His Word is the absolute standard and measure of those things, we still need a human being to interpret what exactly God is saying. And once more, if we choose ourselves as the best person to do that, we are (in most cases) choosing the wrong person. Not simply because of all the personal biases, limitations in thinking or impediments caused by our feelings, but also due to the fact that God has not assigned that role to every person. Never has it been that way. It is because people view it that way that church history is filled with all kinds of funky beliefs and false teaching.

3.6. The points then NOT TO MISS: 1) you need to decide NOW (before things get crazy and confusing) who that person is going to be (and stick with your decision) when things get crazy. Who is going to be the one you trust to discern God’s Word/will until Jesus gets here? Whose hands are you going to entrust your soul? In the end, we all have to bet on someone. Who is that someone going to be? And remember, the facts show self is probably the worst choice. Also, don’t put off that decision to the time when things get crazy and confusing – when disaster strikes—because then it will (most likely) be too late. Why do I say that? Because the temptation to follow your feelings will be even stronger (and since that is what you were following up to that point – having not made the choice to follow someone else prior to that), this is where you will likely STAY. 2) choose your sources carefully (1Co 15:32-34).

4. Know the schemes of the enemy.

4.1. “Knowing is half the battle” – G.I. Joe

4.2. Paul agrees (2Co 2:6-11) = In these verses Paul calls for the Corinthians to obediently forgive (or restore) a man whose time under discipline (i.e., serving justice) was complete. What however is important to our discussion this morning, is Paul’s statement regarding Satan. According to Paul, to protect ourselves from him taking advantage of us, we must not be “ignorant of his schemes.” IOW: we must be aware of the lies he will attempt to pass off as truth. According to 1Thessalonians 5, 2Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 20, this will be at the heart of his strategy during his big reveal. He will also be very successful at it. The majority of the world will believe what he is preaching. And that most likely because what he will preach will be what he has been using to poison the well for hundreds (even thousands) of years. IOW: What the majority have already come to believe as truth (or morality) – including what many think the Bible or Jesus actually teaches.

4.3. So what is that? What are the lies – the false doctrine and dogma of Satan (or “Satan-Jesus”)?

1) GOSPEL: faith/belief is the only thing necessary to be saved. 2) LAW: there are only two moral laws: the first is love which means accepting and never judging or condemning people as long as they are true to themselves. The second is hate which only applies to those whose won’t follow love according to the aforementioned definition. Such people are the true devils and terrorists in this world. 3) FREEDOM: we are free to be and do what we want without consequence as long as it upholds the prior definition of love. 4) SLAVERY: all slavery including slavery to God is evil. 5) AUTHORITY: authority and the obligation to submit to authority is oppression. 6) PLANET: saving this planet is more important than your sexual practices. 7) PEACE/SAFETY: peace and safety are more important than justice.     

4.4. Getting out of this world alive (eternally speaking) will mean not only being able to identify this message but refute it from God’s Word.

4.5. Which means we need to possess Paul’s ability and approach to all that attempts to pass as truth (2Co 10:5).

4.6. Can you do that? If not, this should be among the first items on the list of things you will be accomplishing in the near future (not only before Jesus’ return, but more importantly, Satan’s deepfake, big reveal).

5. Guard the big picture (perspective).

5.1. We tend to lose perspective (or the big picture) when things get crazy, scary and confusing. Disaster gives us tunnel vision. In the aviation industry this is known as “task saturation” and was the cause of several commercial airplane disasters in the 1970s. Problems with the plane would so consume the pilots that they essentially forgot to fly the plane or notice where they were headed - leading to the crash of the plane.

5.2. What according to scientific studies happens when we guard the big picture – or make sure we keep our perspective (besides simply keeping us from crashing)? We gain resilience (i.e., we become intellectually and emotionally better at navigating through disaster).

5.3. A study of 9/11 survivors found that those who thought of their lives in terms of perspective - or were constantly reminding themselves of the bigger picture as the motivation for their lives, had lower levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in their saliva and rebounded much faster than others who experienced the attacks. Perspective (or guarding the big picture) had inoculated them from life’s disasters.

5.4. Paul took the same approach during his life and through the trials he faced (Phi 3:14) = Though in prison when he wrote these words, Paul never forgot why he was doing what he was doing (or suffering what he suffering). He always kept the big picture in mind: “the upward call in Christ Jesus” which is just another way of saying the reward of heaven. For us, that may only be 5 years away but the craziness/confusion we may experience in between then and now could cause us to forget that.

5.5. We therefore (like Paul) need to keep the goal in mind. We need to guard (and constantly remind ourselves what is) the big picture (the end game that we are enduring all of this for).   

6. Prioritize the group.

6.1. Experiments have found that people who complete difficult tasks or experience difficult situations with others tend to possess lower heart rates and blood pressure than those who attempt to go it alone. IOW: we fare far better together in difficulty than we do going it alone.

6.2. Satan knows this and has made it a part of his strategy (1Pe 5:8) = By “prowl around…seeking someone to devour” Peter is intimating that Satan – like lions, looks for those separated from the group; those who do not possess deep relationships with the covenant community – nor feel a strong sense of loyalty to her (the independent, non-conformist persons). For Satan, these people are easy prey since they will have a harder time staying the course when the going gets tough.

6.3. Jesus warns us that in the last days, Satan will have successfully implemented the idea that being independent or a free-thinker, or a non-conformist or loyal only to self is the wisest way to live. On the surface, this kind of worldly and satanic thinking appears attractive. It seems to work. Yet when disaster strikes – when things get crazy and confusing, it always proves to be the worst of all philosophies. History has proven this time and time again. In wars or disaster, loners always end up duped and dead. Yet again, many will (in the end) foolishly buy into this way of thinking. As a result, betrayal will be at an all-time high and loyalty at an all-time low (Mat 24:10, 12; Consider also 1Jo 2:18-19: Notice: 1] those who betray us are identified by God as antichrists, 2] lots of betrayal in the church signals we are in the last days).

6.4. God gave us the covenant community for our encouragement and protection. Those who discount or despise it, do so to their own destruction (Pro 18:1; hence why Heb 3:12-13).

6.5. Point (then) NOT TO MISS: God gave the church and her people to be more than just our ammunition depot. It also serves as our bomb shelter. It is the group designed to get us through to the other side. Guaranteed, no one is making it home without leaning hard on the church and her people. 

One of the biggest challenges to determining the proper chronology of those events relevant to Jesus’ return is deciding which portions of prophecy were fulfilled in the past (original audience relevant), have yet to be fulfilled (future audience relevant), and which portions will experience dual fulfillment (original and future audience relevant) (e.g., Isa 7:10-16 w/8:1-4 w/Isa 9:6-7; Isa 7:14)[1].

In this respect, the chronological order presented in this study assumes the following in relation to those NT prophecies most relevant to our subject (the return of Christ): 1) the book of Revelation = None of Revelation will experience dual fulfillment and the majority has already been fulfilled (1:1-20:8a). Only a small portion remains yet to be fulfilled (Rev 20:8a-22:21). 2) Jesus’ Olivet Discourse = The majority of the Discourse will experience dual fulfillment (Mat 24:4-14, 23-51). Only a small portion was fulfilled in the past (Mat 24:15-22). 3) Paul’s prophetic words to the Thessalonians = Some has yet to be fulfilled (1Th 4:13-18, 5:1-3; 2Th 1:7-10) and some will experience dual fulfillment (2Th 2:1-12).

Chronology of Fulfillment:

1. Jesus made His first return in 70 AD to bring judgment against OC Israel through the destruction of her holy city and temple.

1.1. This largely is the focus of John’s vision from the post-death/resurrected/ascended Jesus in the book of Revelation. Its scary – or otherworldly imagery realized through the breaking of seals, sounding of trumpets and pouring out of bowls is meant to depict the historical events surrounding and leading up to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple by the Roman general Titus and his armies.[2]

1.2. As its content makes clear, this destruction represents the finalization of His divorce to OC Israel – His unfaithful wife, leading to the confirmation of His marriage to his newly betrothed (and faithful) bride, NC Israel (i.e., the church). (Rev 5:1-10):

1) What is the “book” (or scroll) in the “right hand” of God the Father (“Him who sat on the throne”) “sealed up with seven seals?” A get mekushar, the special seven-sealed marriage license used by priests under the OC. In this specific case, the marriage license used by Jesus the divine Priest, in His marriage to OC Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exo 19-24 w/Jud 1:5; Exo 24:7 “the book of the covenant” = the marriage covenant document)[3].

2) How are we to understand the “strong angel[’s]” request for one “who is worthy to “open the book [or] break its seals?” As a summons for divorce. Somebody has filed a petition with the heavenly courts requesting divorce from OC Israel. For proceedings to begin, that person must not only make themselves known, but bring the proper evidence necessary for their request to be granted (i.e., they must possess grounds to make them “worthy” to receive a divorce; Mal 2:14-16 = God hates/does not approve of His priests divorcing for illegitimate reasons).  

3) Why is John crying over no one being found “worthy?” Because the confirmation of Jesus’ marriage to NC Israel (the church) and the kingdom power promised to her (v10; Mat 21:43) cannot happen until the divorce to OC Israel is finalized (until all seven seals are broken).

4) What makes Jesus (“the Lion from the tribe of Judah” and “Root of David”= The Christ) the “worthy” candidate (i.e., the One able to make a valid case for divorce)? = Not simply His role as Husband, but His position as the offended spouse. Hence why He is pictured also as the “Lamb…as if slain.” His death - though necessary for purchasing the new people of God (v9), was the result of OC Israel’s marital unfaithfulness. She murdered Him to keep playing the “harlot” with the world (Rev 19:1-7) “harlot” [Grk., porne’- Mat 5:32] = OC Israel; “bride” and “saints” = NC Israel/the church. That the church has already shown herself to be faithful is attested to in (v8). The basis for the church being viewed as already faithful to Christ are the many martyrs who remained sexually pure and obedient even though it cost them their lives (Rev 6:9-; 12:17, 13:7, 14:1-4, 20:4).

1.3. Why does Jesus’ divorce from OC Israel also include her destruction? Why does the breaking of the seven seals deliver a seven-fold judgment? IOW: Why does Israel experience both divorce and death as punishment for her adultery? B/C when Jesus wrote the marriage contract, He included the prenuptial promise of a seven-fold vengeance if Israel was found to be unfaithful ([Lev 26:18, 21, 24, 28] w/Luk 21:22).

1.4. That John’s 70 AD vision should be viewed as Jesus’ first return is supported by Jesus’ words at the beginning and the end of the book’s prophecy (Rev 1:1-7 and 22:10-12).

1.5. With respect to the destruction of Jerusalem, this too becomes abundantly obvious once we consider the identity of the prophecy’s primary target in judgment:

1) (Rev 1:7, 11:15-18) “earth” = Land, as in the land of Israel.[4]

2) (Rev 11:1-2) “holy city” “forty two months” w/8 “great city (16:17-19, 18:20-24)…where also our Lord was crucified” = Jerusalem.

1.6. During His earthly ministry (i.e., before His death), Jesus likewise prophesied that such destruction would be the result of Israel’s rejection of Him (Mat 23:37-39) = Though Jesus indicates there will be a change of fortune in the future (v39, think Rom 11:26-27), the coming state of things will not be good (v38, “Behold your house is being left to you desolate”). By house Jesus means both the Temple and the city in which she dwells (Jerusalem) as confirmed by what follows in chapter 24 and its parallel account in Luke:

1) (24:1-3) = Jesus is asked two (not three) questions, one in relation to His return to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple and the other in relation to His final return at the end of the age (Literally, “tell us when these things will happen [i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple], and what will be the sign of Your coming at the end of the age?”). Jesus answers the first question -or the question related to Jerusalem’s destruction in (24:15-22) = In fulfillment of Daniel 9:26-27 (“the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and sanctuary… And on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction.”), Josephus (Wars) records that after setting the Temple on fire, Titus (the “prince to come” and son of the current Caesar, Vespasian), led his men into its inner sanctuary, defiling it by their presence and the dead bodies they stacked upon its outer altars  (i.e., they committed “the abomination of “desolation” [same word as Mat 23:38]).

2) (Luk 21:20-24) = Notice that Luke’s versions not only repeat many of the specifics found in Matthew’s version but applies the act of “desolation” to the city itself (21:20, “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near”). Notice also, Jesus’ promise that Jerusalem would remain “trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (21:24) - another important indicator that what the future holds for Jerusalem and the Jews is a major change of fortune (Rom 11:25 [“until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”] w/26-27).

1.7. Though Jesus’ return in 70 AD was not in the manner we commonly think of - i.e., He returned spiritually not physically (as He will at the end of history), He did nonetheless return in the manner most common throughout history. Jesus’ spiritual visitation to earth for the purpose of judgment – most specifically judgment against sinful cities or nations (including His own) has occurred multiple times (e.g., Gen 19:24 = Notice two distinct/separate Yawehs are mentioned; One [God the Father] providing the fire for the Other [Jesus] to destroy the city [this has always been the job of Jesus - Mat 3:13; 2Th 1:7-8]; Isa 19:1 [similar words to Rev 1:7]). Also common is the use of other nations as His war-hammer when carrying out His judgments (e.g., Assyria against Israel - Isa 10:5-6, Babylon against Judah and other nations – Isa 13:1-5).

1.8. Lastly, it should mentioned that viewing 70 AD as Jesus’ first return helps us to understand why also the other NT authors can speak about Jesus’ return as something their 1st century audience needed to prepare for (e.g., Act 2:17-24 w/33-40 [“perverse generation” = a generation fully corrupted and therefore ripe for a near-future judgment – e.g., Gen 6:12-13; Gen 15:16 w/1Th 2:16]; 1Th 5:1-6; Jam 5:7-9; 1Pe 4:7). 

1.9. POINT (then) NOT TO MISS: What took place with respect to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans was more than just another tragic event in the history of the Jews. It was the result of divine intervention, of Jesus’ first return to earth since His ascension to heaven, a return for the purpose of carrying out the promised vengeful justice against His wife turned enemy, OC Israel (Act 2:34-36; Luk 19:43-44).

[1] Those principles used in the decision would include:

1) Know the difference between standard prophecy and visions (or vision-prophecy) (Rev 1:3 w/10-11; Rev 22:7-10) which tend not to experience multiple fulfillments (e.g., Dan 2:31-45).

3) Identify parallels as a means to confirm what will not experience dual fulfillment (Rev 1:7 [all the tribes “even those who pierced Him” compared to Mat 24:30 [all the tribes of the earth not limited to “those who pierced Him” – i.e. no mention of this phrase]; Dan 7:1-28 [v7-28] = Rev 1:1-20:6; Eze 40-48 = Rev 21-22; Eze 25-35 [1st destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians: Judgment against Israel and the Gentile nations who helped Babylon in her conquest of Israel] = Zep 1-3).

3) Use visions to determine which portions of standard prophecy will not experience dual fulfillment (e.g., Rev 5-19 [70 AD] = Mat 24:15-22; Mar 13:14-20; Luk 21:20-24a).

4) Discern which portions of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic tradition (uninspired revelation) are valid based on their agreement with Scripture (inspired revelation) (e.g., Jud 1:4-5).

5) Use non-prophetic Scripture and uninspired testimony to determine what portion of prophecy is to be viewed as literal or non-literal (e.g. For “forty two months”  the Beast is given authority to make war w/Christians and overcome them [Rev 13:5-7] and the nations will tread under foot the holy city [Rev 11:2] = Per Josephus this represents the exact length of time of the Neronic persecution [Nov 64-Jun 68 AD] and the Jewish war [Mar 67- Aug 70 AD]).  

[2] See Josephus (Wars) and Tacitus (Annals) for more details on the persons and particulars of these events which happened exactly forty years after Jesus’ death in 30 AD. For the support and significance of this timeframe see the sermon, When Did Jesus Die?[2]

[3] “Rabbinic Judaism…speaks of the Mount Sinai covenant as being Israel’s ‘Day of Espousal,’ with the Shekinah cloud’s descent upon the tabernacle portraying the marital consummation. Rabbis extolled the conclusion of the [old] covenant at Sinai as the marriage of Yaweh with Israel. Her marital ‘I do’ appears in her vocal commitment ‘All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do (Exo 24:3)…Thus… this judgment scroll is a divorce decree against [Christ’s] unfaithful wife, Israel. Revelation shows [Christ] issuing a divorce decree against his harlot-wife in a dramatic heavenly court-room setting before taking a new bride, the ‘new Jerusalem,’ the Church.”  – Kenneth Gentry (Navigating The Book Of Revelation)

[4] “The unrelenting testimony of Scripture blames Israel for Christ’s death (e.g., Act 2:23, 5:30, 7:52, 10:39, 13:13-15). So then, Revelation 1:7 promises judgment upon ‘those who pierced Him.’ The events of 70 A.D. present us with the most perfect, relevant and compelling fit. But there is more! The reader must understand that the Greek word translated ‘earth’ (ge) can also be translated ‘land.’ In fact, it often refers to the ‘land of Israel.’ When we note that this ‘land’ contains ‘tribes’ we move even closer to the proper translation. The Greek word for ‘tribe’ is phule’ which in Scripture most frequently refers to the Jewish tribes.” – Kenneth Gentry (The Book of Revelation Made Easy)

Determining the window of possible dates:

1. Jesus was condemned to death by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate.

1.1. (Mat 27:26; Mar 15:15; Luk 23:23-24; Joh 19:14-16)

1.2. “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” – Tacitus (Annals)

1.3. Josephus (Antiquities, Wars) indicates that Pilate reigned in Judea from 26 to 36 AD.

1.4. Jesus’ death could not, therefore, have taken place before 26 AD nor after 36 AD. [A 10-year window]

2. Jesus was crucified before Paul became a Christian.

2.1. While in Corinth, the Jews brought Paul before the proconsul of Achaia, Gallio (Act 18:8-13). Roman records (e.g., the Delphi or Gallio Inscription) indicate that Gallio served as proconsul from 51-52 AD.

2.2. Paul’s arrival in Corinth was just after Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome (Act 18:2). Per the ancient historian Orossius, this took place in the ninth year of Claudius’ reign – or 49 AD.

2.3. Prior to this Paul was delivering aid to Jerusalem in response to Agabus’ prophecy of a coming famine (Act 11:27-30). Per Josephus, the famine was affecting Jerusalem during the time of Queen Helena’s pilgrimage (46-47 AD).

2.4. According to Paul, this trip was 14 years after his conversion (Gal 2:1 “after an interval of fourteen years [after conversion – 1:11-17] I went up again [having visited once already 11 years prior – or three years after conversion – 1:18]).

2.5. Paul’s conversion was, therefore, between 33 and 32 AD. As such, the latest possible date for Jesus’ death is 33 AD.

[A 7-year window]

3. Jesus died on Friday, the day of preparation for a Sabbath-Passover.

3.1. Per the Law, the Passover (i.e., sacrifice and eating of the paschal lamb) had to be celebrated in the month of Nisan – the first month of the Jewish calendar (Est 3:7), at moonrise  on the 14th day - which signaled the beginning of the 15th day (Exo 12:2-8; Lev 23:5-6; Num 28:16-17; Deu 16:6). In God’s eyes, days extend from moonrise to moonrise versus sunrise to sunrise (Gen 1:5 “there was evening and there was morning, one day” [Note the order]). If Passover fell on a Sabbath (a Sabbath-Passover or “high day” – Joh 19:31[1]), then both the sacrifice and preparation of the meal (cooking the lambs and unleavened bread, etc.) had to take place the day before (Friday day – the 14th of Nisan) – or in the hours before moonrise and the beginning of the Sabbath (Friday evening, the 15th of Nisan), since no work could be done on the Sabbath. This day was called the “day or preparation.”   

3.2. All four gospels make clear that Jesus died on the “day of preparation” (Friday day, the 14th of Nisan), during one of these unique Sabbath-Passover celebrations (Mat 27:50 w/62; Mar 15:37 w/42-43; Luk 24:44-46 w/50-54; Joh 19:31-33)[2].

3.3. Jesus died, therefore, at the same time as the Passover lambs were slain (on the day of preparation). Hence the reason: 1) for Paul’s words in (1Co 5:7 “Christ our Passover [lamb]…has been sacrificed”), 2) the Passover meal celebrated by Jesus and disciples (the Last Supper/Lord’s Table) did not include a lamb. Jesus was replacing them as the eschatological Passover “lamb of God” (Joh 1:36). Hence why also, their Passover meal needed to be celebrated on Thursday evening before the actual Sabbath-Passover meal (i.e., on Friday evening[3]). By then, Jesus would be dead. The benefits of consuming Him through the bread and wine the night before made moot any need for further OC Passover observance or meals. Jesus’ supper/table had become the new – or NC, Passover. 3) Paul can also speak of Jesus’ resurrection as our “first fruits” (1Co 15:20) – no doubt an allusion to the offering of first fruits which happened on the 16th of Nisan, a Sunday during a Sabbath-Passover.  

3.4. Astronomical calculations indicate only two Sabbath-Passover dates within the 7-year window: 30 and 33 AD[4] 

***The million dollar question: Which year is the correct one?***

Considering where the additional evidence points:

4. The 46th year of Herod’s Temple project points to one date.

4.1. During Jesus’ first Passover, He is confronted regarding the time it took Herod to expand the temple (Joh 2:13-20 “forty six years”).

4.2. According to Josephus (Antiquities), Herod began his rule of Judea in 37 BC and his work on the Temple in his eighteenth year - or 19 BC. Accounting for the transition between BC and AD (there is no “0” BC/AD, it goes from 1BC to 1AD), as well as inclusive reckoning (counting, 1-2 = 1 yr, 2-3 = 2 yrs) the 46th year of Herod’s Temple project and Jesus’ first Passover, occurred in 28 AD.

4.3. Given that Jesus’ public ministry lasted for three Passovers (Joh 2:13, 23; Joh 6:4; Joh 11:55, 12:1[5]) the dates of all three would be as follows: the first in the spring of 28 AD, the second in the spring of 29 AD and the third, the Passover of His death, the spring of 30 AD. [6]

5. The 15th year of Tiberius’ reign cannot contradict the date established for Herod’s Temple project.

5.1. Jesus’ public ministry began shortly after that of John the Baptist given: 1) this was among the main reasons for John’s ministry of baptism: to identify – or make official Jesus’ public ministry as Messiah (Joh 1:19-34). 2) what Mark identifies as the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Mar 1:1-9) “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” = Mark’s unique focus is the public ministry of Jesus only. Hence no mention of His birth or genealogy. He instead begins where the “gospel” (or public) ministry of Jesus began, at His baptism by John. Scholars agree that this event took place shortly after the ministry of John began. Hence the reason for Mark’s reference “in those days” - i.e., in the days when John was baptizing “in the Jordan river.”

5.2. According to Luke, John’s ministry started “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governor of Judea” (Luk 3:1).

5.3. Those holding to the later date of AD 33 for Jesus’ death claim that Tiberius’ reign as Caesar began in 14 AD. Their evidence is Roman coins which communicate this as the starting date of His reign.

5.4. If however 14 AD is correct, Jesus’ baptism didn’t take place until 29 AD, a date too late based on the previous calculations regarding Herod’s Temple project and Jesus’ first Passover (28 AD) which comes after – not before, His baptism (Joh 1: Baptism, Joh 2: 1st Passover).

5.5. Considering however, the information provided by ancient historians Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Augustus; Tiberius), the inscription found on an ancient Roman calendar (Fasti Praenestini), and the writings of a soldier who served under Tiberius (Velleius Paterculus), we learn that Tiberius’ reign actually began in 12 AD when he was made co-regent (co-Caesar) with his step-father, Augustus.[7]

5.6.  Calculating according to this date and inclusive reckoning (counting “1-2 = 1, 2-3 = 2”), yields 27 AD as the beginning of John and Jesus’ public ministry (or baptism) which not only fits within the time that “Pilate was governor of Judea” (26-36 AD), but also the chronology of Jesus’ first Passover (again, 28 AD).

5.7. Important note regarding Luke’s reference: It can be safely assumed that Luke would’ve had little regard for (or even thought of) determining Tiberius’ reign based on the technicality of when he functioned as the sole Caesar (which is what was being communicated on Roman coins) since his original audience would’ve been far more practical in their assessment, counting the years in office based on time of active duty in that role.

6. If Jesus died in that year, then the forty years before Jerusalem’s destruction becomes historically significant. 

6.1. God often chooses a period of forty to bring a task, test, trial to completion or maturity. Its intention is to communicate that what has been done is sufficient to accomplishing the goal.  In terms of years, 40 is the number of years:

1) God left those apostate in Israel to wander adrift in the wilderness until the day they and their false religion were destroyed (Num 14:33-34, 32:13; Jos 5:6; Psa 95:10-11; Act 7:42, 13:18; Heb 3:9, 17).

2) God used to establish David’s kingdom in peace by destroying His enemies (“the Lord put them under the soles of his feet”-1Ki 2:11 w/5:3).

3) God gave those not apostate in Israel to turn to Him by placing their trust and obedience in Him and His Law (Deu 8:2-3).

6.2. If 40 years was indeed the time between Jesus’ ascension back to heaven and first His return in 70 AD (in judgment of OC Israel and the destruction of her Temple), then it is very possible that God was communicating the same three-fold goal or intention: 1) to place Jesus’ enemies under His feet (Act 2:34), 2) to leave those apostate in Israel adrift in the wilderness of their apostasy until the day they and their false religion were destroyed (Mat 23:37-39), 3) to give those no apostate in Israel time to turn to God by placing their trust and obedience in Jesus and His Law (Rom 1:16 w/Rev 14:1-8).     

6.3. Given the historical significance of these two events (Jesus’ death and the destruction of the Temple), what are the chances that the time in between also carries such historical significance (i.e., was exactly 40 yrs in length)?    

7. The Talmud records the miracle of the crimson cord ceasing in that year.

7.1. At some point in Judaism’s past, a new tradition began with respect to the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement; Lev 16:1-34). Along with his prescribed duties, the High Priest also began tying a crimson cord to the door of the Temple. If the cord miraculously turned white, the people could be assured that God had accepted their sacrifice and their sins were forgiven. Per the Talmud, this miracle was experienced every year until 30 AD. For the forty years before the destruction of the Temple (70 AD), the cord remained crimson signaling that God was no longer accepting their sacrifice or forgiving their sins through the slaughtered animals.

7.2. “Our rabbis have taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white…” (Tractate Yoma 39b, Soncino Talmud)

7.3. ‘‘Originally they used to fasten the thread of scarlet on the door of the [Temple] court on the outside. If it turned white the people used to rejoice, and if it did not turn white they were sad… For forty years before the destruction of the Temple the thread of scarlet never turned white but it remained red.” (Tractate Rosh Hashanah 31b, Soncino Talmud)

7.4. Though – like the former point, it can only serve as secondary evidence, the powerful message communicated by this event lends further credence to 30 AD date as the correct date of the crucifixion.

CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: (Ecc 11:2) “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”

[1] In Judaism this is known as Yom Tov or a festival Sabbath.

[2] The Babylonian Talmud records that Jesus' death was on the eve of Passover, i.e. on 14 Nisan, “Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged…he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 43a). 

[3] This understanding of the Last supper/Lord’s Table clears up what may seem a contradiction between the Synoptics and John regarding the timing of this event (e.g., compare Luk 22:15 “On the first day of Unleavened Bread” [Thursday eve/beginning of Friday/Day of preparation – the 14th of Nisan] and Joh 13:1 “before the Feast of the Passover” [Friday eve/beginning of Saturday/Sabbath-Passover – the 15th of Nisan].

[4] Calculations and table per Humphreys and Waddington. As support for the 33 AD date, Humphreys and Waddington show that this is the only date where we find a naturally occurring eclipse. Given Matthew’s mention of an eclipse at the time of Jesus’ death (Mat 27:45), they believe this confirms the 33 AD date. However, there are two problems with using this as support for the 33 AD date: 1) Per astronomical calculations, the eclipse would not have been visible or very subtle. According to Bradley E. Schaefer, “The eclipsed moon (of 33 AD) would not have been visible at the time of moonrise and because the umbral portion of the eclipse finished minutes later, any naked-eye effects on the appearance of the moon would have been relatively subtle and probably not detectable even to an experienced observer. I find that any ‘blood colour’ associated with the eclipse would not be visible to the unaided eye. However, the rising eclipsed moon would have an amber colour from atmospheric absorption, just like any other time when the moon is low on the horizon. In summary, at no time during the eclipse would even a serious and experienced observer in Jerusalem have realized that and eclipse was occurring…Hence, the 3 April AD 33 eclipsed moon would have appeared amber when it was rising, exactly like any other rising moon.” (Lunar visibility and the crucifixion). 2) the eclipse at Jesus’ death is communicated as supernatural rather than a naturally occurring event. In this light consider the principle established by (Num 16:29).

[5] John 5:1 mentions a “feast of the Jews.” Scholars such as F.F. Bruce agree that this is not a Passover feast, but rather (based on the teaching surrounding it) the fall festival of Rosh Hashanah, or the Feast of Trumpets (the Jewish New Year).

[6] Scholars believe that the time from Jesus’ baptism into public ministry (Joh 1) and His cleansing of the Temple at Passover (Joh 2) to be less than one year.  

[7] Tacitus, Suetonius and Velleius use language that strongly suggest that Tiberius did indeed function with the authority of a Caesar equal to his stepfather Augustus. “[Tiberius] was adopted as a son, as a colleague in empire and a partner in the tribunation power." (Tacitus, Annals 1:3); "After two years he (Tiberius) returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph …The consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him..." (Augustus 97:1; Tiberius 20-21); “After he [Tiberius] had broken the force of the enemy by his expeditions on sea and land …at the request of his father [Augustus] that he should have in all the provinces and armies a power equal to his own, the senate and Roman people so decreed. For indeed it was incongruous that the provinces which were being defended by him should not be under his jurisdiction, and that he who was foremost in bearing aid should not be considered an equal in the honour...” (Velleius Paterculus, 2.1.1.)

1. Why should we be planning for Jesus’ return in 2033 or 2034?

1.1. According to Jewish tradition and the belief of the early church, the shelf-life of God’s first Creation – before the final return of Christ and the beginning of His second and eternal Creation, would be 6,000 years, a corollary to the six literal creation days of Genesis one.

“Six thousand years the world will exist and for one thousand, [the seventh], it shall be desolate [no longer exist], as it is written, ‘And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day” (Sanhedrin 97a)

“Six eons for going in and coming out, for war and peace. The seventh eon is entirely Shabbat and rest for life everlasting.” - Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (2nd century A.D.)

“For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years (2Pe 3:8); and in six days created things were completed; it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousandth year.” - Irenaeus[1] (130-202 A.D.)

“Give heed, children, what this means; ‘He ended in six days’ (Gen 1:2): He means this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifies a thousand years; and this He himself bears me witness, saying; “Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years” (2Pe 3:8). Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.” - The epistle of Barnabas[2] (75 A.D.)

“And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works. For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they shall reign with Christ, when He comes from heaven, for ‘a day with the Lord is as a thousand years’ (2Pe 3:8). Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”  - Hippolytus[3] (170-235 AD)

1.2. Peter confirms this as God’s view (2Pe 3:1-13) = God’s first Creation was never meant to last forever. From the beginning there has been a date “reserved” when all of it will be destroyed by fire. This will be followed by a judgment of humanity to determine who is worthy to enter His new (and eternal) Creation. This day will also fulfill the “promise” of Jesus’ return and can be calculated by viewing each day of His Creation as representing 1,000 years (v8). Just as there were 6 days for man to work, there will be six thousand years allotted to humanity to do the work of God and determine who among them is worthy to enter the “new heavens and earth where righteousness dwells” (v13). Or as the writer of Hebrews refers to it, God’s eternal Sabbath (or seventh day) rest (Heb 4:9).

1.3. Peter’s preaching on Pentecost revealed only 2,000 years left after the ascension of Christ.

(Act 2:17-20) = Peter’s divinely inspired interpretation of Joel 2:28 as “And it shall be in the last days” indicates that the IPO of the indwelling Spirit marks the beginning of the final two millennia before the Sabbath millennium/time of Christ’s return. Why? 1) Peter indicates there will be plural days [or millennia] before the end – or Christ’s return (17, “last days”). 2) At the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, we were already somewhere in the range of 4,000 years – which means Peter’s reference cannot be three or more.

This puts Jesus’ return somewhere around 2033/34 (or two thousand years after Christian Pentecost which took place in 33/34 A.D.).

2. Why should we be confident that it is exactly two thousand years (versus two thousand and fifty years, etc.,)?

2.1. We serve a God Who – in human terms, is OCD and likes to do history in neat, complete and repeated packages. Which means nothing is arbitrary or imprecise. Everything has meaning and is connected. God’s past acts and intentions always establish patterns and principles that will be followed in the future. God therefore making the number of millennia for Creation’s shelf-life match exactly the number of days He took to create it should come as no surprise. It is what we should expect. Examples of other things where we see such meaningful redundancy: 1) The first verse of the Bible which introduces us to God’s week of Creation (Gen 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) is seven words (in Hebrew), followed by seven paragraphs which unpack the six days whose end goal is the Sabbath – or the seventh day. 2) There exists no overlap or spill-over with respect to the things assigned to the days of Creation (e.g., all creatures of the water and air on the fifth day only, all creatures of the earth on the sixth day only). 3) God saw to it that Jesus’ genealogy was communicated as three complete sets of 14, the numerical value of the Hebrew letters “dwd” (David) to emphasize (hence the reason for three), His identity as the Messianic son of David (Mat 1:17).

2.2. Paul communicates that Jesus’ death closed out the prior redemptive epic (Gal 4:4-5 = Jesus’ death marked the end of the OC and ushered in the NC – the time when Gentiles [those not “born under the Law” or OC] could receive “adoption as sons”).

2.3. Jewish tradition also supports this understanding:

“The world will exist for six thousand years: two millennia of waste as the Torah had not been given; Two millennia of Torah (i.e., years under the Old Covenant); and then two millennia of the age of Messiah (i.e., years under the New Covenant which was ratified – or began, at Jesus’ death – Mat 26:28 w/Heb 9:15-16).”  - Tractate Avodah Zarah [9a] (3rd century A.D.).

2.4. POINT NOT TO MISS: to bet on 2033/34 as Jesus’ return date is to bet on God based whose past behavior – which has not only been perfectly consistent but committed to repeating previously established principles or patterns. IOW: Our God is a God of redundancy.

3. Why will so many people be caught off guard by Jesus’ return?

3.1. They mistakenly believe they can’t know the year of His return and so don’t attempt to figure it out (Mat 24:32-36 w/42) = “Day and hour” cannot be known, but there will be signs that His return is “near” (i.e., signs related to specific years).

3.2. They will be reading the wrong signs. (Mat 24:37-41) = The actions and events of humanity listed in these verses indicate that humanity at the time of Christ’s return will be under the impression that they had many more years to live on this earth (e.g., marrying and giving in marriage” w/1Co 7:29-31).[4]

4. What should be our gospel witness during the time we have remaining?

We should be bold about telling people that Jesus is returning in 2033 and 34, explaining why we know that to be true and calling them to get right with God before it is too late (along with boldly telling those who think they are right with God yet believe in a false gospel that they are not) followed by sharing how the Bible says we get right and stay right w/God (i.e., we gain it by faith and must maintain it by faithfulness). This form of witnessing is one of the reasons John the Baptist was so successful in his evangelism of the lost (Luk 3:7) = John’s question (“who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”) only makes sense if this was part of his message. IOW: John was preaching (and baptizing) w/respect to a soon approaching Messianic judgment day (i.e., Jesus’ 1st return in 70 A.D. and His divorce from OC Israel; See vv15-18).

5. What should we be doing in the time we have remaining?

4.1. Abstaining from all forms of sexual sin (Rev 14:4).

4.2. Stop practicing those things that weaken our willpower and lead to apostasy (Luk 21:34-36) “have strength to escape all these things” = The things happening in the final days are sure to test the resolve of every person’s willpower – including us (i.e., our commitment to true Jesus and His gospel of gain and maintain). The end for many will be apostasy because a big part of their everyday lives was the practice of those things that weakened their willpower. This is what Jesus is getting at when He warns, “Be on guard (Be training yourself for the battle to come), so that your hearts (i.e., your willpower) will not be weighted down (i.e., weakened) by dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life.” These three represent those things that weaken the human will and make it near impossible to stand firm or be faithful when what you believe is no longer convenient (when you are now suffering because of it). For those persons, the “day” of the Lord’s return and the craziness of the world prior to it will “come on (them) like a trap.” They will be ambushed, overwhelmed and unable to sustain their right standing before Jesus (to “stand before the Son of Man”).

What (then) these three willpower-weakening words or phrases represent (or refer to):

1) “dissipation” = Activity that has no spiritual profit or is worthless for spiritual growth and strengthening (Eph 5:18 w/v17 and 19).

2) “drunkenness” = Escape from pain or reality (Pro 31:6; Luk 14:25-35).

3) “worries of this life” = Knowledge above trust (Gen 22:1-18), status above truth (2Co 13:7-8), safety above loyalty (Heb 10:32-39), pleasure above integrity (Heb 11:24-26). To keep my willpower strong (and endure to the end – Mat 24:13), I need to make sure that none of these things characterize me. Best way to find that out is by asking someone who possesses the necessary discernment and dedication to your well-being to give you an accurate answer.

4.3. Don’t grow weary in doing good (1Co 15:58; Gal 6:9 w/Eze 18:24; Mat 10:22 and 24:13).

4.4. Increase in our love/loyalty for one another/the church family (Gal 6:10; 1Th 3:12-13; 1Pe 4:8). Why increasing in our love/loyalty to the church is so important? B/C:

1) it is impossible to love/be loyal to God w/o loving/being loyal to His church. Hence why Jesus says the second greatest commandment is “Iike” the first (Mat 22:37-39) – b/c it is thru faithfulness to the second (love/loyalty to the church) that we fulfill the first (love/loyalty to God).

2) Satan has employed measures meant to cause apostasy in many whose love/loyalty in this area is weak (Mat 24:10-12) = Apostasy wb the result of covenant community betrayal (“hate [for] one another”… “love [growing] cold”) fostered by the satanic influence of false teachers preaching “lawlessness” (i.e., your salvation requires no obligation of loyalty to the covenant community).  

4.5. Gain and/or strengthen your conviction about what you believe – especially as it relates to the gospel. BTW: if you can’t biblically defend what you believe or sufficiently explain it to someone else, then you do not possess personal conviction about what you believe. Why? B/C conviction is only produced through comprehension and critical analysis (Tit 1:9 [“hold firm” = possess conviction about what he believes which comes from - and leads to, the ability to explain it and defend it -i.e., comprehension and critical analysis]; 1Th 5:21; 1Ti 4:7-8; 2Pe 3:17 w/18; Col 2:6-7 w/8; Eph 4:13 w/14; 1Pe 4:7 “sound judgment” [impossible w/ comprehension and critical analysis]).

An example to demonstrate the importance of comprehension and critical analysis to possessing conviction w/respect to biblical gospel of gain and maintain: Lack of comprehension and critical analysis of the OT - or more specifically, the distinction that must be made between sacrifice for atonement (to clean what is unclean not necessarily due to sin – e.g., things related to death such as bodily discharges) and punishment for sin (to restore justice) is one of the main reasons all current branches of Christendom hold such strong convictions regarding penal substitution and the false gospel of Faith Alone[5].

4.6. Trust and obey your pastors - especially when things get crazy: 1) only they possess the keys for binding in justice and loosing in forgiveness (and binding must happen if there is to be loosing) (Mat 18:18). IOW: you are not getting to heaven w/o them (Psa 132:15; Heb 13:17; ). 2) only they possess absolute authority (and if you are just, you want that) (Mat 16:19; Joh 20:22-23). 3) only thru them will God lead His people in the way of truth. IOW: they will be the ones possessing God’s special discernment during the difficult times/for identifying what is false and what is true (Mat 18:20; Eph 4:11-14). FOOD FOR THOUGHT: you will never meet a person in heaven who distrusted and disobeyed Jesus’ pastors (w/o biblical due process).

4.7. Be aware of what has come and what is still coming (“knowing is half the battle” – G.I. Joe; 1Th 3:1-4; See Diagram).

CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: What significant role might the red heifers play in the events leading up to Jesus’ return? [VIDEO: https://youtu.be/8Co3C7gXWGA?si=3VZgORpTI-QZYIPN]

[1] Early Church Father and disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the apostle John.

[2] Early Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) and Origen (184-253 A.D.) attributed the epistle of Barnabas to the apostle and travelling companion of Paul mentioned in the book of Acts (Act 14:14). The epistle of Barnabas was considered so important to early Christianity that it was included as an addendum in the back of early bibles until the 4th century – e.g. Codex Sinaiticus [Sinai Bible]).

[3] Early Church Father and Bishop of Rome.

[4] Though Paul’s original audience was thousands of years away from Jesus’ final return, they were less than two decades away from His first return (70 A.D.). Scholars place the writing of the first letter to the Corinthians between the years 53-55 A.D.

[5] In the final analysis, the FAG is the gospel of the Roman Catholics also since all whose possess it eventually get to heaven.

1. Like the ancient societies around them, divorce was already an axiomatic (or unquestioned) part of Jewish society when God adopted them as His people. Hence the reason there is no place in Scripture which establishes divorce but only case laws which regulate it.

1.1. (Deu 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife…and he writes her a certificate of divorce” [1]) = Not establishing divorce but regulating what already existed as part of Israelite society. Other examples of axiomatic and inalienable practices that were a part of Israel (just as they were every other ancient society): 1) marriage = Not establishing marriage but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. (Exo 21:7-10) 2) slavery (Exo 21:1-2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave…”) = Not establishing slavery but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. 3) war (Num 10:9 “When you go to war…”) = Not establishing war but regulating what already existed in Israelite society.

1.2. The POINT NOT TO MISS: Divorce was the long-established axiomatic default for dealing with unfaithfulness in marriage - not something established later as an additional option.

“Although there are not multiple instances of divorce recorded in the Pentateuch, we must assume that divorce was as prevalent in Israel then as in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Several passages speak about divorce, but none of them condemns or even discourages it… It is assumed in these passages that divorce happens, and no comment is made whether divorce itself is desirable or not.”– David Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context)

2. Under the Old Testament, God allowed divorce for almost any reason, whereas under the New Covenant, sexual immorality became the only allowable reason.

2.1. Allowance for almost any reason: 1) Under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 21:9-14 “sent her away” = divorced her). 2) Under the Old Covenant (Exo 21:11 = Notice divorce is allowable for more than sexual abandonment/sexual immorality; Deu 24:1 w/Mat 19:1-3 = The Pharisees understood divorce (or the phrase, “some indecency”) to allow for (v3) “any reason at all.” Notice that in (v8) Jesus does not correct their understanding but rather confirms it by explaining why Moses “permitted”(allowed) such large parameters (Mat 19:7-8). Priests were the only exception (Mal 2:14-16 “hates”[2]). 

2.2. Under the New Covenant, Jesus confirms not only the Law’s continuing necessity but fills it up to its fullest measure and meaning – or the meaning and measure God originally intended (As it re: continuing necessity - Mat 5:18-20; As it re: filling up to its fullest measure and meaning - Mat 5:17 “fulfill” = Confirm [LXX- 1Ki 1:14]; Fill up in measure and meaning). Hence the reason (then) for sexual immorality becoming the only valid reason for divorce. Jesus is filling up the measure/meaning of marriage to what it was intended to be “from the beginning” (v8). (Mat 19:4-6 [Gen 2:24]) = Per God’s design, when a husband and wife enter into a marriage covenant, they create a new family (v5 = Family by covenant or the covenant ratifying act of sexual activity in marriage). This new family/covenant relationship is meant to be permanent (v6, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). Why (then) is divorce allowed for sexual immorality (v9,)? Because in the case of sexual immorality, the marriage has already been broken. All sexual acts are covenant ratifying acts, making all sexual activity outside an existing marriage an attempt to replace that marriage w/another (1Co 6:16). The divorce is therefore simply the legal notice that such has taken place (i.e., the current marriage has been broken by the attempt to replace it through marriage covenant ratifying acts w/another) and per the request of the innocent party, that marriage will not be re-consummated. This however is the only time a divorce functions this way since no other act by a spouse breaks the marriage covenant. Hence why Jesus can say that divorce for any other reason makes each party guilty of adultery. Because without the prior covenant-breaking act of sexual immorality, both parties are still bound in marriage (i.e., their divorce is not recognized by God). As a result, any sexual act (including those in a new marriage) becomes adultery in relation to their still existing first marriage.

2.3. That Jesus’ actions (re: divorce) were never meant to be an override of God’s Law (Deu 4:2) but rather a restoration (a filling up) to its originally intended meaning (to its fullest meaning and measure) is supported by the following:  

1) (Mat 5:31-32) “It was said…but I say to you” = According to David Daube (The New Testament & Rabbinic Judaism) this was an ancient rabbinic way to indicate a correction was about to applied to a prior (and inaccurate) understanding of Scripture.

2) (Deu 24:4) = Defilement of the land due to remarriage to the former spouse only makes sense in the context of sexual immorality, meaning this was the reason for the first husband’s divorce. IOW: the phrase, “since she has been defiled” refers not to the fact that she was married to someone else after their divorce, but rather that the second marriage was the result of her adultery w/the new husband while still married to the former. The toleration of sexual immorality (which is what the former husband would be doing through remarrying or re-consummating marriage to his former adulteress wife), is a major reason God removed the land’s former occupants (Lev 18:1-23 w/24-28 = Toleration of adultery is viewed as a crime not only against God but the land itself). Deuteronomy 24:4’s allusion to passages like Leviticus 18 helps us to confirm adultery as the intended focus of God’s instruction regarding divorce.[3]

3) This is also how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is used by God in (Jer 3:1) = Notice, God paraphrases Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a threat to unfaithful Judah (See 2:1). However, those identified as Judah’s new husbands prohibiting her return to God (should He enact the divorce) are seen as one and the same as those she is currently guilty of “harlot[ry]” (sexual immorality) with (her “lovers.”). In support then of the previous point and the argument as a whole, God also understands the phrase, “some indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 as a reference to sexual immorality. This is its fullest -or most accurate meaning and (once more) the reason God prohibits remarriage in the text.[4] And as mentioned in previous studies, this interpretation was hidden from previous generations (Mat 19:8 - “hardness of heart” = Inability to understand produced by stubbornness or immaturity) as God’s means of leading them and preserving His purposes (e.g., Gen 21:9-14; Exo 21:7 w/10-11; also possibly, Neh 13:1-3).      

3. God’s authorization of His people to kill those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage does not therefore replace the axiomatic practice (or default) of divorce but rather becomes the new and additional option offered to the offended party.

3.1. One of the purposes of case law in any society – ancient or modern, is not only to regulate what already exists (i.e., divorce – e.g., Deu 24:1-4), but authorize the offer of new and additional options. Authorization is especially necessary when those other options involve capital punishment, as is the case with adultery. God’s law authorizes His people to treat sexual immorality in marriage the same way as sexual immorality outside of marriage as an additional option offered to the offended party (Lev 20:10) = The emphasis in carrying out the death sentence (“you shall surely put them to death”[5]) is to reassure those involved that they possess God’s full authorization and backing (similar to Mat 18:18-20). Hence the reason for the phrase that follows in verses 11 and 12 also dealing with adultery, “their bloodguiltiness shall be upon them.” IOW: Though you are the one putting them to death, you are not the one I will hold responsible for their death. Their blood is on their hands (not yours).

3.2. Why is the same reassurance (of authorization) not given in Deuteronomy 22:21-30 where we also find capital punishment for sexual immorality? Because as the name “Deuteronomy” indicates, what is found in its pages are simply a second giving of the laws (already established and authorized) in the previous books of the Pentateuch (e.g., Leviticus 20:10ff).

3.3. In Matthew 1:18-18, Jesus’ adopted father Joseph is the offended bridegroom of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 proving the existence of two options in the case of sexual immorality in marriage:

1) (Deu 22:13-21) = The offended husband paid the high bride-price to marry a virgin (up to fifty shekels [v29] equivalent to $25-30k today or roughly 7 yrs of servitude [think Jacob w/Leah and Rachel]), only to find evidence that she is not virgin. The only way for the offended husband to receive a refund (get the bride-price back), is to return his wife to her father’s house w/evidence that overrides that of her father. Fining the offended husband double the virgin bride-price (along w/chastisement) was meant to deter cases that waste the courts resources (i.e., cases w/o the necessary evidence). To get the refund however, requires that the girl also be charged with “harlotry” (i.e., prostitution) with a punishment of stoning (death).

2) (Mat 1:18-19) = Joseph pays the high bride-price to marry a virgin (Mary), only to find evidence that she is not a virgin (i.e., she is pregnant). He is in the predicament of the man in Deuteronomy 22. Being a “righteous man” means that Joseph will follow the Law’s prescription for justice. He chooses to divorce her[6]. If stoning were the only option (if Deuteronomy 22 were teaching death as the only prescription or punishment for dealing with this crime), then Joseph’s choice to divorce her would be unrighteous. He would be guilty of obstructing justice and subsequently not a righteous man. CONCLUSION: Divorce (the default) - or the additional option of death were both available as punishment (or for securing justice) against those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage. In Joseph’s specific case, the crime of sexual fraud.   

Commenting on Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Gary North writes, “If he has not been informed of her status [i.e., the girl is not a virgin], he can break the marriage through divorce, including divorce by execution, ‘because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house’ (Deu 22:21). He does not have to have her executed, for Joseph decided to put Mary away quietly for her perceived unfaithfulness (Mat 1:19), but in a biblical commonwealth, the bridegroom would have the [other] legal option of requiring her death.” (“Defrauding The Bridegroom” in Tools Of Dominion)[7]

3.4. As additional support that death was not the only recourse for punishing those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage (i.e., that divorce was the first and other option) consider (Lev 21:7) = The phrase “nor shall they take” does not exist in the original Hebrew. The sentence is an elliptical construction where the second statement functions to give further clarity to the first. A more accurate translation would therefore be, “They [the priest] shall not take [in marriage] a woman profaned by adultery, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to God.” As such the phrase “profaned by harlotry” means “a woman divorced from her husband” (because of her harlotry in her previous marriage)[8]. The prohibition against priests marrying this kind of a woman only makes sense if divorce existed as punishment for sexual immorality in marriage. If death was God’s only prescription for justice, then the prohibition becomes nonsensical since no such women would exist (they would all be dead!). Important to note also is the proximity of this verse to (Lev 20:10). If this previous injunction were prescribing death as the only option for adultery, then the level of incoherency becomes even greater with respect to God’s priestly prohibition.

3.5. The POINT (then) NOT TO MISS: When dealing w/sexual immorality in marriage today, there are two options afforded to the offended spouse: divorce or death (by excommunication) (1Co 5:1-13) (versus automatic excommunication w/the option also of divorce).

4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 therefore expands what constitutes sexual immorality in marriage to include sexual fraud.  

4.1. As discussed, all sexual activity is viewed by God as a covenant ratifying act – or as an attempt to create or confirm a marriage covenant (1Co 6:16; Hos 2:1-3, 6-7). What therefore makes an action sexually immoral (harlotry) is that action took place without the intent or ability to create or confirm a marriage covenant as is the case in adultery (sexual acts w/those bound in marriage to someone else), prostitution (sexual acts for pleasure only), perversion (sexual acts w/strange people or things – e.g., homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest) (Lev 18:6-18, 23, 20:11-16).

4.2. Pre-marital sexual activity therefore does not in and of itself constitute harlotry (i.e., prostitution). If neither the man nor the woman were betrothed or married to someone else – and consenting, then they have the ability to confirm the marriage covenant their acts were essentially attempting to create. The prescription for justice in these situations is the man must pay her father the maximum bride price for virgins and the two shall be considered legally married without the possibility of future divorce. In other words, should either party be guilty of sexual immorality in the future, death will be the only option or prescription for justice. As an additional deterrent to this pre-marital activity, the father reserves the right to refuse though the bride-price must still be paid (Exo 22:16-17).

4.3. How this relates to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and the issue of sexual fraud? Based on the evidence provided by her new husband (or lack thereof on the part of her father), the girl had participated in sexual activity prior to her betrothal/marriage to her new husband yet never reported such activity to her father. Had she done so – and her father had refused their marriage, the current situation would have been avoided (i.e., she would not be considered guilty of harlotry). She would also not have been sold as a virgin, but at the discounted price of a concubine (a nonvirgin or virgin without a dowry or inheritance from her father). Her refusal to deal with the premarital matter- and allow herself to be sold as a virgin makes her guilty of fraud -and sexual immorality in marriage (“harlotry”), once her new husband consummates the marriage in intercourse. Why? Because her premarital act no longer possesses the ability to form a marriage covenant. Through the sexual activity of her new marital state, she has forfeited any possibility pursuing marriage with respect to her former act. As such, it can only be viewed as an act done for pleasure alone – i.e., prostitution (harlotry). Hence the reason, the girl’s charge of “harlotry” is communicated as the instrument of her sexual fraud. In other words, she is (only) now a harlot “because she has committed an act of folly in Israel (a reference to defaming the reputation of virgins in Israel)[9] by playing the harlot in her father’s house.”

4.4. The POINT NOT TO MISS: the girl’s prior sexual act does not become harlotry until two things happen:

1) she refuses to pursue marriage with her former suitor by telling her father and instead allows herself to be sold as a virgin.

2) she participates in sexual activity with her new husband (i.e., the marriage is consummated in sexual intercourse).

4.5. Sexual fraud is therefore another form of sexual immorality. Per the context and proper understanding of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 the definition of this crime is as follows: the expected and biblically sanctioned sexual intimacy promised to a spouse cannot be achieved due to outstanding sexual perversion in the other spouse of which they were aware but did not share.

[1] “This is the only place in the Law where a ‘divorce certificate’ is mentioned.” David Instone-Brewer (“Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate”)

[2] Gordon Hugenberger makes a strong case that “hate” refers to divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality. See Marriage As A Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi

[3] See also Hugenberger (ibid, p.184)

[4] At the very least, Jeremiah 3:1 confirms that under the New Covenant, we can never remarry a spouse we divorced for sexual immorality. Remarriage would only be possible to those unlawfully divorced who have not been sexually active (according to Jesus [Mat 5:32, 19:9], this too constitutes adultery since all unlawful divorces are not recognized by God – i.e., the divorced couple are still married in God’s eyes).   

[5] The word “surely” does not exist in the passage. Rather, the action is repeated, “(they) shall be put to death, (they) shall put to death.” Per Durham University, “Textual repetition in the Old Testament serves to foreground [make most important] a claim…as a reliable witness to the God of Israel.”

[6] “It was considered very suspect if a man refused to divorce his unfaithful wife, which is why Joseph is described as righteous for wanting to divorce Mary, who appeared to be unfaithful (Mat 1:19).” D. Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The social and Literary Context)

[7] “Marriage in the ANE was contractual. If either partner broke the contract, the innocent partner could opt for a divorce…Exact parallels to these practices are found in the Pentateuch.” D. Instone-Brewer (ibid)

[8] Even the word translated “profaned” implies divorce for sexual immorality (Heb., halal = Adjective commonly used to communicate those defiled by divorce due to sexual immorality).

[9] See North, Tools Of Dominion

If we are to accurately discern Paul’s point (in Tit 3:10-11), we must first determine what’s going on in the letter as a whole. Why? Because context always determines meaning (e.g., reading comprehension [larger picture det’s individual parts]).

1. What’s going on? (What is the context or backstory of the letter?)

1.1. This is a pastoral epistle. It was written to Paul’s church-planting partner and pastor, Titus in regard to those churches he and Titus had started in the various cities on the island of Crete. Titus was tasked with establishing two things in each of the churches: 1) order (sound doctrine and behavior), 2) authority (ordained pastors/elders) (Tit 1:4-5) “set in order what remains” [Grk., epidiorthaoh] = To straighten out what is still out of line (i.e., what persists in going its own direction) – which implies that there were people in these churches who were not believing or acting the way they should; “and appoint [elders]” = Anoint/ordain (same word translated “anoint” in Heb 8:3). Titus needed to deputize qualified men with (Jesus’) divine authority as a means to establishing order/dealing with those out of line (Joh 20:21-23). 

1.2. Beyond the obvious, these two tasks were necessary due to the fact that the Cretans were known for causing dissension in relation to established things – most especially things related to order and authority (Tit 1:12) = Part of a poem written by the Greek poet (or “prophet”) Epimenides. The reason for his accusation? The doubt Cretans were causing among those devout to the Greek religion and its chief god, Zeus by their divisive claim that his tomb resided on one of their mountains (i.e., that Zeus was not immortal)[1].

1.3. Their proclivity for contention and dissension in relation to religious authorities and doctrine was also being felt in the churches. Hence the reason Paul makes apologetics a required skill for those serving as “God’s steward” (Tit 1:7 [Grk., theos oikonomos] = Compound word: God + house + law – Literally, the law man in God’s house; the church’s sheriff [bishop]). As it re: to apologetics - (Tit 1:9-11) “rebellious men” [Grk., anupotaktos] = People not submitted to authority in temper or teaching (hence Paul’s charge to Titus in 2:15 [“let no one disregard you” -i.e., ignore/discount your authority] and emphasis on submission to authorities in 3:1-2); “empty talkers” [Grk., mataiologos] = People whose teaching was against -or calling into question that of God’s sheriffs/bishops (elders/overseers) (v11 “teaching things they should not teach”) though what they said lacked the necessary knowledge, coherency or evidence to be considered “sound doctrine” (Tit 2:1). According to Paul, “many” of the Cretan Christians fit this profile and needed to be “silenced (literally, their mouths shut) because they were “upsetting whole families” = Their questioning of the church’s authority and their doctrine was encouraging doubt, dissension and division in the congregation. IOW: it was threatening the unity of the church and trust in her leadership.

1.4. Two likely reasons so many in Crete were this way:

1) arrogance or thinking more highly of their intellect and ability than they should. Hence the reason for Paul’s universal call to be “sensible” (Tit 2:2, 3 w/5, 6 [Grk., sophron] = To place a moderate estimate on oneself in re: to intellect/understanding, ability/expertise) and his urging of “bondslaves” to “not [be] argumentative” (9 [Grk., antilego] = To dispute, be contrary, not listen).

2) self-interest. Claiming the tomb of Zeus resided on their island, was for the Cretans, a way to make a lot of easy money off the curious. IOW: it wasn’t because they actually believed it – or could support it with evidence, but it served their financial (self) interest. Hence the reason for Epimenides’ accusation that the Cretans were not only “liars” but also “lazy gluttons.” This too is why Paul says those upsetting households (upsetting the unity of the church and trust in her leadership) were doing it for “the sake of sordid gain” (literally, gain that is for selfish or shameful reasons).

1.5. Why such attitudes and actions needed to be stifled in the Cretan churches was not only because of its threat to the unity of the church and the trust of her leadership, but also its hindrance to one of the church’s most important missions, the producing of good deeds (mentioned 4x in the letter: 2:14, 3:1, 3:8, 3:14).

1.6. How divisive people hinder the church’s ability to produce good deeds: the division and distrust they create in the church means less people willing to work together or follow the leaders’ direction. As a result, less good deeds are accomplished for the kingdom. In addition, where such division and distrust exists, what also exists is more internal conflict and fighting – or unnecessary distractions that consume resources which could have been used to advance the kingdom (produce good deeds). Hence the reason for Paul’s instruction in verse 9 (after his mention of good deeds) (Tit 3:8-9).

1.7. THE TAKEAWAY (with respect to what’s going on): Because of the arrogance and selfishness that characterized the Cretan population many of the male members in the cities’ various churches were by their attitude and actions guilty of being divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching and leadership.

2. What’s the point? (What is Paul ordering the churches to do when he says, “reject a factious man after a first and second warning”?)

2.1. Based on what’s going on (the context of the letter), the person identified as “factious” must be related to those who are guilty of being divisive – or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation.

2.2. This understanding not only fits within the semantic range of the word’s meaning (Grk., hairesis/hairetikos [heresy/heretic]) but how it is most commonly used in the NT. Though we tend to associate this word with false teaching or teachers, rarely (if ever) does it carry this limited connotation. Its emphasis is instead on the disposition of those people or things with which it is identified. IOW: they (or it) is said to be hairesis/hairetikos -not because they are necessarily wrong (i.e., they or their teaching is false), but because their attitude or actions are viewed as divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the teaching and leadership of those accusing them. In short, because they are not “getting with the program” of the religious community currently in power or to whom they belong.[2]

2.3. Some biblical examples to drive this home (i.e., in the bible hairesis/hairetikos are terms referring to those who are divisive to the teaching and leadership of the church [and not as its modern use suggests, terms devoted strictly to identifying false teaching and teachers]):

1) hairesis is used to identify Christians (Act 24:5, 14, 28:22 “sect” = Paul and Christians were obviously not false teachers but did teach what was divisive to the beliefs and leadership of the Jewish religion [e.g., that Jesus was Messiah and God]).

2) hairetikos is used to identify those who were contentious to the teaching and leadership in Corinth (1Co 11:16-19 “factions” = Those in Corinth condoning long hair on men though it stood against the teaching of the churches and her bishops/sheriffs [“we…nor the churches of God”]).

3) hairesis is never used when identifying Scripture’s biggest forms of false teaching (circumcision needed for salvation – Gal 5:2; resurrection already happened – 2Ti 2:18; okay for Christians to partake of the table of idols/demons – 1Co 10:21; we are saved by faith alone – Jam 2:24; Jesus is not the son of God – 1Jo 4:3). 

2.4. Given the context of Titus and these terms’ most common use in Scripture, it is safe to conclude that what Paul means by “factious man” is indeed a person who is guilty of being divisive – or potentially sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching or leadership. Consider Paul’s words to the Roman church as further reinforcement (Rom 16:17-19) = According to Paul, these kinds of people are a real threat to collective obedience and the innocence of the church. They are the bad apples that spoil the whole batch.[3]

2.5. Is this sin different than insurrection? Yes, but not by much. Persons guilty of insurrection have claimed that those functioning as the anointed shepherds (bishops/sheriffs) have sinfully possessed their office, or carry out the duties of their office in a way that is sinful – or are teaching what is sinful or condemned by God. In addition, they make these claims without bringing the necessary evidence to the church’s courts to support it. The result of their actions is often division, dissension and doubt in the congregation (Num 16:1-3; Mat 12:22-32; 1Ti 5:19). Those guilty of being factious, are (as discussed) also guilty of being divisive against the leadership and their teaching - or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation but never by such actions, accusing the church’s anointed shepherds (pastors) of being sinful in their office or teaching. This then is the distinction that makes the difference between insurrection and faction. Both are divisive but only one (insurrection) crosses the line of accusing the church’s anointed men of sin. That line however is a fine one. Change a few things said by the accuser, and the crime goes from faction to insurrection.

2.6. Considering the serious nature of being factious (a few degrees less than the worst sin of all, insurrection) helps us to understand Paul’s serious penal prescription (v10) “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning.” Those committing insurrection get one strike, its lesser cousin, three (the third offense will result in a declaration of apostasy).

2.7. That what Paul means by “reject” is to “declare apostate” is supported by the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn after considering two things:

1) the nature of the warnings themselves: they represent some form of official/legal notice issued by the church’s leadership.

The entire Bible was written for the purpose of establishing policy with respect to doctrine, discipleship and discipline - or law and justice for God’s covenant community, hence the reason it was not written until such communities existed. As such, these warnings must be viewed through this ecclesiological lens. They represent some form of official/legal notice (e.g., written document) issued by the church’s leadership (describing the crime and identifying the guilty party) which when accepted by the congregation, is admissible as evidence in her courts unto judgment. That Paul does indeed view these warnings in this way is supported also by his words in (1:13) = This is in reference to those being factious (see again, vv10-12) and therefore sheds light on their official nature. The word “severely” modifying the imperative, “reprove them” is used only one other place in the NT and carries legal connotations (2Co 13:10 “severe in my use of authority” = Authority used in court to prosecute the guilty based on the evidence possessed – vv1-2).

2) the nature of the factious man after a third offense: he is apostate.

(11) “perverted” (Grk., ekstrepho = Turned inside out, warped, changed for the worse, corrupt; See similar in Deu 32:20 [LXX]: Same word used to speak of the apostate first generation)… self-condemned” (Grk., autokatakritos = Self-damned - which is what apostate refers to – a person who has by their actions, chosen to damn themselves to hell).

2.8. The only reasonable CONCLUSION (based on the above two considerations: the nature of the warnings themselves and the nature of the factious man after the third offense): Apostasy is to be declared against anyone guilty of being factious three times as evidenced by official/legal notices issued by the church’s leadership and accepted by her courts.[4]

CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: What can we do to avoid being factious? 1) check you ego (Rom 13:3; e.g., young marriage or baptism), 2) trust God w/your leaders (Do you believe 1Pe 3:5? Then why not Tit 2:15?), 3) be self-suspicious (Mat 16:21-23; e.g., personal fears or instability)

[1] The Cretans were such famous “liars” that a derivation of their name came to mean this very thing (Grk., Kreitizein  = To lie).  

[2] Second century bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, uses the term (hairetikos) to refer to those in the church who were disobedient to the bishop’s teaching.

[3] William Barclay’s comments on Titus 3:10 agree. A factious (hairetikos) man is “a man who has decided that he is right and everybody else is wrong. Paul’s warning is a warning against the man who has made his own ideas the test and standard of all truth.” (Commentary on the Book of Titus)

[4] ****These verses have nothing to do with those guilty of capital crimes.

Memory is a funny thing. What we forget eventually gets replaced with something that may not be true. We call that revisionist history. Our brains are notorious for it – especially when we allow things to phase out of constant cognitive circulation. In other words, when we stop the regular reminders. This can happen with our religion. We can forget not only what should be pursuing in our quest for God, but also what the journey should look like. The result? Fear, faction and false religion. Brief reminders (or refreshers) are therefore occasionally needed to keep the church in check. As part of today’s discussion, please take note of those truths time and neglect has caused you to forget.

1. God gave to His people a religion where their seeking after Him, good standing with Him and blessings from Him would be dependent on their happy pursuit to learn and enforce every single portion of His Law.

1.1. (Deu 6:24-25; 2Ki 22:8-13 hence why 2Ki 23:1-3 = To receive God’s blessing requires seeking to learn and do all that is written in the book of the Law 1Ch 28:9; 2Ch 15:2; Neh 9:34-38 w/10:28-29; Psa 1:1-6 = Delighting and meditating on [or seeking to learn] the Law is the path of the righteous and those God blesses; Psa 27:8 w/11; Isa 55:6-7 = Seeking the LORD for pardon/salvation requires seeking to learn His Law since w/o knowledge of that it is impossible for the wicked to identify and forsake their unrighteous way; Dan 9:13; Hos 4:6; Jam 1:25; 2Pe 3:17-18; Phi 1:9-11; Rev 12:17 = The children of NC Israel [those who hold to the “testimony of Jesus”] are those who “keep the commandments of God” – a clear reference to the OT – most especially its Law. Since you can’t keep what you don’t know, this infers that like OC Israel, NC Israel [i.e., Christians] are expected to seek God through understanding all of His Law).

1.2. Hence the reason:

1.2.1. Hence the reason Israel’s kings were required to become life-long students of the Law, intimately acquainted w/every portion (Deu 17:18-19) “write for himself a copy of this Law…and he shall read it all his days” = Intimately acquainted w/every portion; “all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD his God” = Life-long student. Consider king David’s constant plea for God to teach him the Law and give him understanding. David knew that his relationship w/God was dependent on his continued pursuit to know and obey every letter and stroke of God’s Law (Psa 119:1-2 = Seeking God means learning and obeying His Law; Psa 119:17-24, 33-35 w/[77, 92-95, 113-117, 143-144, 145-148, 155, 159, 169] = Delighting and seeking to understand God’s Law is how we preserve God’s protection and salvation).    

1.2.2. Hence the reason Jesus says what He does not only in (Mat 5:17 “fulfill” = restore to its fullest measure [see LXX 1Ki 1:14], 18-19) but also (Mat 5:20) = The scribes and Pharisees were not committed to every single portion of God’s Law but rather selective, choosing to ignore or explain away those portions that did not suit their agenda or were contrary to what they wanted to believe (e.g., Mat 15:4-9 = Notice the connection to following God. A person who explains away portions of God’s Word because it doesn’t fit their agenda is considered vain worshippers – i.e., false Christians; Mat 22:42-46 = Their belief in Messiah rejected Him as also God which was contrary to other portions of Scripture).

1.2.3. Hence the reason the word God chose to identify His followers was “disciple” which means “learner” (Isa 8:16 “disciples” [Heb., limmud = learner]; Joh 8:31 “disciples” [Grk., mathaytace = learner]).

1.2.4. Hence the reason pastors are commanded to teach their people the entirety of God’s Law – including those portions they are unfamiliar -or uncomfortable with (2Ti 4:1-3 = No doubt the “word” to be preached are the OT Scriptures [most esp. the Law] given Paul’s testimony as to their usefulness – 2Ti 3:16).

1.3. The result of such pursuit will inevitably be a covenant community whose beliefs and practice experience regular change since it is impossible to grow in understanding and obedience without there also being change -including at times, big changes. Hence the reason:

1.3.1. King Josiah re-institutes the Passover which had been neglected for 400 years and required a massive commitment on the part of the people and resources (2Ki 23:21-23 w/2Ch 35:1-18).

1.3.2. Ezra re-institutes the Feast of Booths (Neh 8:13-17).

1.3.3. Nehemiah and Ezra call for those guilty in Israel to divorce and send away the foreign wives and children (Neh 13:1-3 w/23-26 [Ezr 9:1-2, 10:3]).

1.3.4. The Jews had to change their understanding of Messiah (from just a man to a man who was also fully God – Mat 22:44-46) and His agenda (Mat 16:21-23 versus Act 1:6)

1.3.5. The Jewish Christians had to change from excluding unclean people and foods to now including them as part of the new covenant community (Act 11:1-18).

1.3.6. The disciples had to change their views on the necessity of OC signs (Act 15:1-22).

1.4. Refusal therefore to grow or change will lead to false religion filled with sacred cows, canons within canons and the hypocrisy of special pleading (e.g., the Gadarenian pig farmers, the Judaizers and Evangelicals).

1.5. If it weren’t for our happy pursuit to learn and enforce God’s Law in this church, the discoveries we have made in relation to the gospel would never have happened.

1.6. Why did God make His religion this way? Why is our standing w/Him determined by our happy pursuit of learning and obeying His Law? B/C His Word (most especially His Law) is the means by which we love Him and each other (Mat 22:37-40). Why ultimately (then) God made His religion this way is because He wanted us to exist with Him and each other in a relationship of love. Its all about love (love for Him and each other) and the way we learn to love is through learning His Law – which is why (also) we should never be anxious or afraid to change or learn new things since what we are learning is how to better love Him and each other.

2. God at times hides the meaning of His Word as part of how He leads His people.

For example:

2.1. God hid the meaning of (Deu 24:1) from Moses (per Jesus in Mat 19:9) for the sake of (Neh 13:1-3).

2.2. Jesus hid teaching from His disciples until the time when they would be able to receive it (Joh 16:12-15 [Luk 18:31-34 part of what was hidden was why He had to die]).

2.3. Paul and Peter speak of God’s plan being hidden from the prophets who spoke it implying it would have hindered God’s leading of His people had they known before the time of its fulfillment (Eph 3:1-10 w/1Pe 1:10-12) = The ability for the OC church (“rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”) to fully accept God’s plan (especially one including the Gentiles) would require it first being fulfilled and “the riches of Christ” revealed.

2.3. As part of God leading us as His church, we should expect that there will be parts of His Word – or our understanding of His Law that will remain hidden, until the proper time (e.g., when we possess the maturity to receive it – Phi 3:15; Consider also Lev 24:10-16; Num 15:32-36).

3. Also a part of how God leads His people, He makes the decisions of His anointed shepherds and divine council immediately binding even when erroneous and may change in the future.

3.1. (Deu 17:10-13; Jesus deputizes His anointed shepherds w/this same authority - Mat 16:17-19 “whatever you bind on earth shall [be]have been bound in heaven”) = The infallibility of God’s shepherds and divine council is not necessary to their authority or the binding nature of their judgment. God’s will for His people will never be outside the decisions of His anointed pastors and divine council who are seeking to follow His Word – including those times when the Scriptures have been incorrectly interpreted. Wrong does not mean sinful. Appeals and help to correct their wrong thinking can change things. However, until they see it, the former judgments carry the authority of Jesus Himself (Mat 18:18-20). Hence (1Ti 5:19)[1].   

3.2. That this is part of how God also leads His people is confirmed by: 1) His role as the Great Shepherd Who always sees to it that all decisions made by fallible (even sinful) human beings work for the good of His people (e.g., Gen 50:20), 2) our history as His church (e.g., our old and unbiblical view of “you eye shall pity” – or punishment depends on the criminal [their repentance] versus the biblical view of “your eye shall not pity” - or the crime determines the punishment [not the disposition of the criminal] resulted in Trisha being prohibited from divorcing Richard, an option she is now thankful was unavailable at the time). 

4. If (therefore) we want God to continue to prosper and protect our church, then we need to believe that every challenge is solvable and every change beneficial, as long we put in the effort to understand His Word and trust His leading of our anointed shepherds and divine council. 

4.1. (Mat 7:7-11) = Jesus promises that our pursuit of understanding in relation to God’s Word will be successful as long as we are asking for God’s help, seeking to obey and putting in the effort to unlock the answers (knocking on the closed doors). That understanding God’s Word is included in what Jesus is promising in these verses is supported by the fact that there may be nothing more “good” the Father could give to us than a correct understanding of His Word.

4.2. (Rom 8:28) = Every challenge and change prompted by our pursuit of understanding and obeying all of God’s Word is a guaranteed value-add to the covenant community and her people.  

4.3. God’s purpose for taking the Israelites out of their comfort zone in Egypt and into the challenging wilderness was not to kill them or do them harm. It was instead for their prosperity and protection. Like them we can give into fear, become suspicious of God’s anointed leaders and forfeit God’s good purposes. IOW: its all about attitude and effort.

4.4. According to Malcom Gladwell, these two things are the reason Asian kids do so much better than American kids in solving math problems. The Asian kids’ attitude is that if they apply enough effort, the problem is solvable, whereas American kids’ attitude is the problem is only solvable if they possess the innate ability to do so. As a result, the American kids waste time second-guessing their ability, comparing themselves to others and eventually quit – or fail to put in the effort that would have otherwise caused them to solve the problem. American kids are easy quitters and consummate failures not because they lack ability, but the right attitude (no one is special and every problem is solvable to those who put in the effort and don’t give up). Unfortunately, this shortfall in attitude affects adults also – including some in our church (say it isn’t so!). The result? Cowardliness and factious people fearful that if we don’t stop poking at things we will eventually screw things up or do irreparable harm (though that has never happened).

4.5. God wants us to trust His leading through our anointed shepherds and beware of becoming factious (e.g., Act 15:23-29; 1Co 11:16-19) “we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God” = Paul and the other anointed shepherds of the churches; “Factions” = People who cause division in the Body by their contentious and public stand against the anointed shepherds and their understanding of Scripture (e.g., the length of hair permissible on men – 14-15); “so that those who are approved may become evident” = Those who are factious are never among those approved by God.

4.6. Last but not least, God promises to give the answers and understanding His anointed shepherds need in their proper time (2Ti 2:7 = Timothy was the anointed shepherd at Ephesus).

CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: Christ Covenant Church or Christ Cowardly Church? Do we need to change our name or our attitude? Are we operating according to God’s design or succumbing to fear, factions and false religion? What truths have you forgotten about the only religion taught in the pages of Scripture? 

[1] "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."- Ignatius (died in AD 105); "My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord."- Didache (written AD 100)