HELL, NO?

   "But I say unto you that whosever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment;and whosever is angry without a cause shall be in danger of judgment and whosever shall say to his brother , Raca, shall be in the danger of the council, but whosever shall say, 'thou fool, shall be in the danger of hell fire. (Matt 5:22) KJV

And I say unto my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea I say unto you , Fear him. LK 12:4-5 KJV.

From the Schofield Reference Bible: Greek Geena equals Gehenna, the place in the Valley of Hinnom where, anciently human sacrifices were offered (2 Chr.33:6; Jer. 7:31) and where the continuous burning of rubbish illustrated to the Jewish people unending judgment upon the wicked. The word occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28, 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk.9: 43,45,47; Lk 12:5; Jas.3:6
There is a certain bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants and has to deal with the eternal and very physical punishment who end up being hell. The influential John Stott was the last casualty of a reformed theologian who was "cut off" for wanting to debate this issue. I believe I can make a  case against eternal punishment but I need a fair hearing.

I know it is against the academic rules to use Wikipedia but nonetheless let's look at their take on the the beginnings of the word hell.."The modern English word hell is derived from old English Ref hel, helle (about 785 AD)( to refer to a netherworld of the dead)........Subsequently the word was used to transfer a pagan concept its Christian theology and it's vocabulary (however for the Judea- Christian origin of the concept Gehenna)

When Jesus spoke about hell he wasn't speaking about hell. According to WIKI that was a later pagination of the word gehenna. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna he used the word Gehenna which it should remain in our Bibles today. He was speaking of a well known physical place where rubbish burned and sacrifices had been offered..."Fear him who, after he had killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna; yea I say unto, Fear him".

So we have allowed and continually allow "hell" with all of its baggage such as art and horrific layers of suffering to continue. There is one passage in Matthew and one in Revelation that seems a slam dunk to those who hold to hell- in this case "The lake of fire":

[Jesus said:] “When the son of man comes in his glory, and all his angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the and the goats on his left.
     Then the king will  say to those on his right.'Come you are blessed by my  Father: take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
     Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord , when did we see you hungry and feed you,  or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
     The king will then reply, 'I tell you the truth , whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
     Then he will or to those on his left, Depart from me, you are cursed, into an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
     "They also will answer , 'Lord,when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did no help you?'
      "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
     "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the the righteous to eternal life" Mt. 46, 31-36
This then is the single most powerful verse for eternal conscious suffering of the unrighteous.

The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.

Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews  1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.

John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)

So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses perishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the hell fire verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face judgment

Than we have all of Paul's and Peter's Epistles. Not once doe they mention hell- rather they talk of non believers as perishing. Perishing implies termination of any suffering. See Rom.2:12,1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor4:16 , Col 2:22, 2Th2:10, Heb 1:11, 2 Pet 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9

So we have the earliest most influential letters where no eternal suffering is mentioned for the unbeliever, only perishing.

The idea of judgment is clear, along with the warning of gehenna. At the judgment how long a person suffers is not clear, although, again, perishing implies an end to suffering. Hell is a pagan perversion and it is time for Reformed and Roman Catholics to translate it back to Gehenna.

If a literal hell is to be expected than why did not the Acts, Peter and Paul not mention it in the early
Church? Why do we continually allow a pagan term, namely hell to replace gehenna?

I am not saying that a strong case cannot be made for "Lake of fire" as opposed to "hell" as in the Mathew and Revelation verses. There should be a mature discussion as to why the early church has no mention of eternal damnation, given the dire warnings that Christ and John of Revelation give.

And 2 Jude : "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness. One can see this is a view entirely different than our other quotes

In conclusion  we have Jesus talking about perishing of the lost but also portraying an awful fire that seems to exist forever. What to do? What to say? The strength of the hell position are the words of Jesus while Jesus himself introduces perishing in John's Gospel.

So we have quandary. Does Matthew's passage trump all the others because Jesus said it? Does the perishing "theory" trump the Matthew passage? I believe in a court of law the perishing theory would prevail although I would be left with reasonable doubt.

Do not get stuck on the 6 day Creation

In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth, now the earth was (a) (tohu wabohu) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,and the over the waters..Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Let me ask my audience if God ever needed two or three tries at anything- or when the Son healed someone was it ever a partial healing?

Why then after creation did God need a "second chance" ?

Please note my (a) footnote above. It is in all NIV bibles- It's no big deal except it changes what happened after creation COMPLETELY. The note is explained "or possibly became" formless and empty. The other two times when tohu wabohu is used to describe a condition produced by divine judgment in the only other two texts where the other two words compare in conjuction (isa 34:11) ( Jer 4:23) Schofield Refererence Bible

I am no Hebrew scholar so I cannot make a case for the footnote other than the Schofield note. At any rate, due to the huge sea change it brings to these verses one would think that it deserves more than a microscopic footnote.

I prefer "became formless and empty" as opposed to "was formless and empty" because God's perfect creation in verse one" "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why then would the next verse say immediately  "Now the earth was formless and empty right after God tells us "In  the beginning God created the heavens and the earth??

As I said above God does all things perfectly but something happened to His perfect creation. Some of the speculation is that Lucifer, trying to exceed God, was thrown out with his minions. Isa 14:12. Eze 28:12

Something big happened that God seemingly started over.

So if you are in the sciences and people mock the creation remember the tiny footnote which make it impossible to know the age of the earth.

Did the Father and His Son have two distinct wills?

The vast majority believe that Jesus did have his own distinct will, different from his Father' s.
This appears evident when he went through his trial at the Mount of Olives just before his being crucified.

Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and  his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not enter into temptation. He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them,  knelt down and prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done. An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthen him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Lk.22, 39-44

Notice first that Jesus exhorts his disciples to pray that they not enter temptation. Jesus always puts others ahead of himself except for the few times when he wanted to be alone with his father.

Now this appears to be a  trial  that he perspired to the point of blood falling down to the ground. The intensity of his anguish cannot be underestimated.

If one hears 100 sermons on this passage 99 are going to state that  Jesus' cup  was supped by the Lord, and that Christ in his humanity asked the Father in vain to escape this cup..

Yet this is not true. I have to give credit to Donald Grey Barnhouse who uses the whole of scripture to shed light on this:

 During the days of Jesus' life he offered up prayers and petitions  with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Heb 5:7

According to Hebrews the "cup" must have been some kind of death. We are not talking about the crucifixion in that he obviously went through that death for his elect.  Perhaps the thought that made him sweat blood was an eternal death that he saw in his humanness as possible. The thought of being separated from his Father from eternity? I am simply guessing here.

To reiterate there was never two wills here. Think about the eternal Godhead having more than one will. Imagine His saying no to His Son in "whom HE was well pleased". Of course it was the Father's will to have this feared cup pass from his Son from eternity. What Jesus wanted Jesus received from the Father. How else could it be?

Anyone who preaches that Christ "sucked it up" and drank the cup is proof texting one verse and is wrong.

The Father and Son could never have two wills. Thanks to the author of Hebrews we know the whole story.

P is for Perseverance of?

The reformation's TULIP is for Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.

While going through my father's things years ago I found a little slip of paper with TULIP spelled out.

What was so exciting the was his description of which I have never read before or after!

He wrote after "P" "perseverance of God in the saints.

This simple addition was so exciting, not only because it was unique but because it is the truth of scripture backing it. .

Without God guaranteeing our "finishing well" we are on our own to make sure that happens.

Philippians 2:12:

"Therefore my dear friends, as you have always obeyed- not only in my presence , but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."  

Romans 8:30

"And those he predestined, he also called,those he called, he also justified, he also glorified."

I have written about this before-- one is either in the kingdom or not. One is either a Christian or he is not. There are no in between stages.

Also I Corinthians 3:16, I Corinthians 6:19, Galatians 3:20

"P" is for Perseverance of  God in his saints. We can trust God to have us persevere in our faith!! Now what that may look at we don't know....only God knows.

Because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen

We human beings have extremely short memories when it comes to epic events. The stock market has had three significant sell offs in three years and yet there is almost complete complacency out there of our having another even as we face "a cliff". Millions live in known flood zones and think that "it won't happen to me". Over and over this occurs.
We can only imagine our forgetfulness of our Lord's return in that it has been nearly two thousand years. We tend to make the illogical mistake  that the peers of Noah did which is thinking "because it hasn't happened it won't."
As usual our thinking is backward. Rather we should be saying "Everyday that passes brings us closer to the Lord's return". Most scholars concentrate on the lengthy Matthew 24 when studying the second coming . while Luke 17 is shorter, it has two "signs", absent in Matthew, that will be active before Christ returns.

The fist sign is that of Noah: " Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will also be in the days of the Son of Man". Lk 17: 26 One can scour the Scripture about Noah but only one cause is given for the flood....

"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts  of his heart was only evil all the time." The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." So God destroys everyone save Noah and his family.

Millennial-ists are those that believe that we Christians will usher in  the Millennium through evangelism and our good works.

NO!! Christ clearly warns us that things will get worse as the time for his return approaches. We will see "wickedness" increase as birth pangs ebb and flow with greater and greater intensity until the birth (his return). (Mt 24:8)

Do I have to argue that violence is on the increase just as in the time of Noah? We cannot help but be horrified at senseless massacres on a worldwide scale, yet we must expect them in increasing tendency.

Another Noahic sign was disbelief in the coming flood. Oh how Noah was mocked for building the ark. Again why? Because of the logic that there had never been a flood and thus there never will be one. The idea was preposterous. So Christians that confess the return of Christ are mocked and hated. It is amazing in light of the natural peace of Christianity how we are despised and yet this hatred is  is an epidemic around the globe , but not surprising (you will be hated for my names sake) Mt 10:22

Now for the second sign,- the sign of Lot. Lot chose of his own volition an area to live "Abram lived in the land of Canaan while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord." (Gen. 13:12-13)
Next scene: Lot is at the city gates implying that he was a respected man. Now as I will show, the sins of Sodom was aggressive homosexual sin. Do you think he would have enjoyed his standing if he was speaking up against this sin? Does today's fear of speaking against sexual sin remind you of Lot's attitude? This apprehension by God's elect is a sign of Lot imo.


While Lot is at the city gates two angels (lit messengers) appear to Lot and Lot is adamant that they stay at his home. The next scene is violent.  "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom- both young and old surrounded the house. They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4-5) This is like  is a feeding frenzy for foreign flesh. Active homosexual behavior and it's bold advocacy  is a sign of Lot. All sexual activity outside of marriage is forbidden as well. (Acts 15:20)

The third sign of Lot comes from learning about his wife. It  says that as God is providing his family a way of escape from Sodom, the command of God is to not look back. "But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen 19) When we are in bondage to some evil place or even some substance and God provides a way out, do we look back?

Lot is a great example of a "worldly Christian". But you may say I doubt he was a believer at all- and yet Peter calls Lot "a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless, 2 Peter 2:15 Again, the question is whether Lot kept all his pains about the wickedness around him to himself. It appears he kept his mouth shut due due to his being respected in Sodom.  We all know what would happen to us if we were especially vigilant against the worldwide pro homosexual lobby.

In conclusion we must not be overcome by the violence getting increasingly worse- nor as the homosexual agenda enjoys official ecclesiastical standing which is absurd in light of scripture.  ( Romans 1: 26,27 and  1 Corinthians 6:9 ) "Scholars" tell us that the sin of Sodom was Lot's lack of "hospitality". This is absolutely pathetic statement in light of scripture in order to justify homosexual behavior.

As we see these signs  it adds to our faith because Jesus' warnings are coming to pass in front of our very eyes. Say no to the thoughts that it has been two thousand years so forget about the second coming. In God's timetable it has been only two days! (2 Peter 3:8)

I should say something about those who struggle with homosexuality; my advice is to live a single celibate life and not to marry. Paul  practically begs all people to stay single. (1 Cor 7) Follow his words if you struggle with these urges. The time is near. Christ tells us to take up our cross. Every Christian has a burden from time to time.

When did Jesus know?

When did Jesus know?

Have you ever thought about Jesus' first recorded miracle- the turning of water into wine?

How it  seemed Christ was perturbed at his mother's insistence?

This isn't the only time Christ was weary over performing miracles.

I have a theory why this was.

We have all heard of OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder.

The hallmark of this disorder is the need for certainty. If we examine the best known OCD, that of hand washing , the desire is to be certain that one's hands are perfectly clean which of course is impossible to know. OCD applies especially to the serpent's promise in Genesis: "you shall know good and evil"

The cutting edge treatment for OCD is to expose oneself to the bacteria one fears and telling the patient the hard truth that he cannot know that his hands are pure. Reassurance that they are clean is the worst thing to say to and OCD'er.

What does this have to do with Jesus? Picture Jesus growing up - we DO NOT know what Mary and Joseph told him as a young boy. Rather it says that Mary pondered her knowledge of whom Christ was in her heart.

We are told that Jesus knew from an early age the Scriptures and argued with the teachers of the Law.

Yet we simply cannot know when he discovered that he was the Christ child, the Savior of the world.

In my opinion it was a learning process  just as we learn that we are loved by God so Jesus learned who he was strictly through the scriptures. "I was born in Bethlehem of a Virgin, could it be that I am
He? He must have flinched in horror at the reading of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

But you say, where is the record of his early miracles? There is none, which goes to my theory.

The act of miracles would confirm to him, OUTSIDE OF FAITH, that he was the messiah. It would be like the OCD patient being told his hands are clean. Jesus had to believe in his being the messiah just as we have to believe in Christ- by his word.

Thus when Mary pushed Jesus into turning water into wine Jesus did not want the reassurance the miracle would provide. It says Hebrews He was tempted in all things we are...which must include faith and the lack of it.....It's almost like she wanted to brag on him- come on Son, it's time!

So we too are to rest in God's word, "Therefore since the promise of entering his rest stands be careful that none of you be found let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" Heb 4:1

"There remains, then, a sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. " Heb 4:11

Not that we shouldn't do good works to prove our faith, but rest assured Christ didn't need to do a thing in order to know who he was. Let us rest in the scriptures too when we doubt our being the Children of God because "our hands are dirty".

"Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those are being tempted" Heb

The thought I want to leave with you is that ALL of Christ's miracles were done for our lack of faith, certainly not his. In fact says that all of God;s works were done at creation "And on the seventh day God rested from all his works." Heb 4:12

In the raising of Lazarus "Lazarus is dead and for your sake I am glad I was not there so you may believe Jn10. Just before Lazarus is raised "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I know that thou always hear me. I knew that you always hear me, but I say this for the benefit of the people standing here. 

Hebrews exhorts us is to enter that rest.

This next  statement may be heretical ..."Jesus did not know he was the Son of God, he had faith he was the Son of God."

Backing up my premise is when Jesus was in the wilderness and refused to do any signs or wonders. Rather what was his retort? He quoted scripture alone to Satan. Faith springs from believing, not doing. sola fide

But you say Christ had to be certain of his Son-ship and yet the Bible is clear that Jesus voluntarily "emptied himself" of his divine prerogative.......

Your attitude should be that of Christ Jesus
Who, being in the very nature God., did not consider equality  with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on the cross!

Then we have the real stumbler....when Christ was asked by his disciples...when the end of things would be and he answered that only the Father knew that.

There is no certainty in this life but we have been given the gift of faith. That's as good as it gets.




For JOANNE

The Secret to Understanding the New Testament.

Big claim. Yet another secret to life. No one told me this, it isn't talked about. As far as I know, there are no books about it or sermons given concerning this secret. It took me to the age of 50 to figure it out. But then it hit me- big. As far as I know it is mine, so I pass it on to you. For being a faithful reader.
Who is the most prolific writer in the NT? It is Luke, the "beloved physician" . A full 27% of the NT. He wrote a two part screenplay, if you will. . What most of us do is read part 1 and try to conclude what part 1 means without having read Part 2. This is ridiculous. Tell me if I am wrong. The secret to understanding any two part screenplay is to read part #2 like a hawk in light of what he has learned in #1. It is the sequel (if it is any good) that informs or should interpret the first part. The first part should leave us a bit baffled and hungry for more. It is the first part that gives us clues and questions on how it is all going to play out. The lead actor in a two part drama cannot be understood completely until the author completes his character at the conclusion. In some dramas there are often large twists that make one totally rethink who the lead really is. Ask yourself this- if you had to take an exam about the meaning of a book would you pick the first half or the latter? Ok, call my bluff- I know nothing about literature and drama. Help someone.

The two part drama is known as Luke-Acts. Most scholars believe it was one book written by the same author. As you know the Church fathers took the first part, namely Luke and made it the third book in the NT...Matthew, Mark, Luke- known as the Synoptic Gospels. Then they took "The Acts of the Apostles," namely part #2 and had it follow John's Gospel. So the novel was in effect broken up.

I implore you to put them back together again and read them as a unit, the way Luke intended. 

The Synoptics were always a very difficult read for me. That is because Jesus is often portrayed as a taskmaster who keeps raising the bar of the hearers. You thought the 10 commandments ( Decalogue) were tough? He now says that if you even think of these things you are guilty. It seems that we have to give more and more in order to make it into heaven...our righteousness "must exceed those of the Pharisees" . I would presume that each of us has his or her own frightening stories. It is the Synoptics where hell is introduced by Christ. No wonder I almost always preferred  to read John- where one  finds  forgiveness and atonement and eternal life. 

I have mentioned this before that for the Reformers scripture MUST be separated into law and gospel, for Paul tells us that God gave the commands (or Law) in order for us to sin more! Thus we would stop being self deluded and come to Christ for forgiveness. This is the Reformers "secret" to interpreting the Bible, the separation at all times between law and Gospel. They would say that there is a lot of law in the Synoptics; that is Christ high commands are laid out in order to bring us to him for forgiveness.

Trying to unify the bible without this separation is impossible. It turns into, "Jesus says this, but over here he says that, and we will lose our minds trying to put together.

My Luke- Acts "secret" is really a different slant on the Reformers separation between Law and Grace. Luke is often tinged with Law. Christ tells of hell in the "Rich man and Lazarus" and of radical self denial as the path to his kingdom.

The Acts on the other hand is full of Grace, of Resurrection and how to obtain eternal life. This life is clearly received through faith alone in Christ. As to Law the Jerusalem Church had a big Pawwah about whether or not gentiles had to effectively become Jews in order to follow the Law and than follow Jesus. This proposition was rejected. The council did not want the Gentiles burdened by keeping the Law! The Gentiles had only to believe in Christ. Oh- there were two other bits of advice, and this is humorous- to abstain from meats offered to idols and from sexual immorality. Obviously the first is no problem in today's society- as to the second- how are we doing?

So I urge everyone when confounded with a parable or story that Christ gives in Luke (or even Matthew or Mark)  - Read it in light of Acts- where Luke tells us what Christ must have meant because in his mind there could not have been a contradiction! Right? Either Luke himself holds to a contradictory religion or he sees ALL of it as in harmony. My argument again- is to use the Theology in Acts to understand the theology of the Gospels- in fact one could take it to the limit and say that it is a key book in understanding the entire Bible.

I will do a rewrite - it is messy- special request to get it out early.