I was reading in the book of Isaiah and was struck once again at how often God reminds us that He is the only God to be worshipped. There is only ONE God, not two as the WMSCOG teaches. God would not say something in the Bible that He would have to contradict later in order to reveal "Mother God" to the world. No, that would make Him out to be a liar, which He cannot be.
The following verses are from Isaiah chapters 42-46. Look how often God repeats it in these five chapters.
I'll include the Hebrew word used for God in each. You can see, it doesn't matter whether you're talking about "Elohim," "El," or "Eloah," the LORD (YHWH, Jehovah) is the only one.
"I am the LORD, that is My name;
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images." (Is. 42:8)
“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God [El] formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
I,even I, am the LORD,
And besides Me there is no savior." (Is. 43:10-11)
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
"I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God [Elohim]." (Is. 44:6)
"Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God [Eloah] besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’” (Is. 44:8)
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God [Elohim] besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other; (Is. 45:5-6)
This is what the LORD says: ... "They will bow down before you and plead with you, saying, 'Surely God [El] is with you, and there is no other; there is no other god [Elohim].'" (Is. 45:14 NIV)
For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God [Elohim],
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Is. 45:18)
"Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God [Elohim] besides Me,
A just God [El] and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.
Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God [El], and there is no other." (Is. 45:21-22)
"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God [El], and there is no other;
I am God [Elohim], and there is none like Me," (Is. 46:9)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Mothers and Fathers...and Snails
An interesting thing happened at our house. Some time ago I put a snail in our aquarium, but it died after a while. Occasionally when I cleaned the tank, I'd find some tiny "rocks" stuck on the filter. I could tell they were snail-shaped, but very, very tiny. I threw them back into the water to see what would happen.
Yesterday, we were admiring our fish and noticed many snails. Those tiny snail-shaped "rocks" were real snails that had grown and were now about the size of a pencil eraser. They are the same color as the rocks and hard to see on the bottom of the tank, but when they are crawling on the aquarium walls, it's obvious that they are living snails. You might think my family strange, but we adore our baby snails. They are cute!
How did they all get there? Snails can reproduce themselves without a partner. They don't need a mother and a father to make babies. One snail is both mother and father at the same time.
That brings me to one of the lines of thought the World Mission Society Church of God uses to show the existence of "God the Mother." Here it is:
Families here on earth have a father, a mother, sisters and brothers. Things on earth are copies and shadows of things in heaven. We have a physical father, and we have a spiritual Father (God). We have physical brothers and sisters, and we have spiritual brothers and sisters (fellow believers). We have a physical mother, therefore we must have a spiritual mother also--"Heavenly Jerusalem Mother."
They talk about how all the creatures on earth come from a mother and a father. They conclude that since all creatures must have a mother and a father to come into existence, then all creation testifies to the existence of a "Heavenly Mother." If you ever read any member blogs, you might see posts about this accompanied by cute pictures of both human and animal babies and family groups.
The official church website's page about Heavenly Mother states,
"It is written that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen and can be understood through what has been made (Rom. 1:20). Is there any creature that is given life through only their father, alone, without a mother being present?... Since it is written that God created all things by His will, a certain will of God was expressed when He created mothers on this earth. As you know, all creatures have a mother figure. There is not a single creature that can come into existence without a mother."
That is not true. Our snail was what's called a simultaneous hermaphrodite. There are also creatures that reproduce by parthenogenesis (some types of reptiles, insects, and fish). There are a variety of creatures that can come into existence with only one parent.
Just thought you might find that interesting....
Yesterday, we were admiring our fish and noticed many snails. Those tiny snail-shaped "rocks" were real snails that had grown and were now about the size of a pencil eraser. They are the same color as the rocks and hard to see on the bottom of the tank, but when they are crawling on the aquarium walls, it's obvious that they are living snails. You might think my family strange, but we adore our baby snails. They are cute!
How did they all get there? Snails can reproduce themselves without a partner. They don't need a mother and a father to make babies. One snail is both mother and father at the same time.
That brings me to one of the lines of thought the World Mission Society Church of God uses to show the existence of "God the Mother." Here it is:
Families here on earth have a father, a mother, sisters and brothers. Things on earth are copies and shadows of things in heaven. We have a physical father, and we have a spiritual Father (God). We have physical brothers and sisters, and we have spiritual brothers and sisters (fellow believers). We have a physical mother, therefore we must have a spiritual mother also--"Heavenly Jerusalem Mother."
They talk about how all the creatures on earth come from a mother and a father. They conclude that since all creatures must have a mother and a father to come into existence, then all creation testifies to the existence of a "Heavenly Mother." If you ever read any member blogs, you might see posts about this accompanied by cute pictures of both human and animal babies and family groups.
The official church website's page about Heavenly Mother states,
"It is written that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen and can be understood through what has been made (Rom. 1:20). Is there any creature that is given life through only their father, alone, without a mother being present?... Since it is written that God created all things by His will, a certain will of God was expressed when He created mothers on this earth. As you know, all creatures have a mother figure. There is not a single creature that can come into existence without a mother."
That is not true. Our snail was what's called a simultaneous hermaphrodite. There are also creatures that reproduce by parthenogenesis (some types of reptiles, insects, and fish). There are a variety of creatures that can come into existence with only one parent.
Just thought you might find that interesting....
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Is God Male or Female? Both or Neither?
Genesis 1:26-27
The WMSCOG says that since "God created man in his own image" and there are both male and female humans, then there must be two "Gods"--a God of the male image ("God the Father") and a God of the female image ("God the Mother").
I've already shown that the Hebrew word Elohim used here does not indicate that there are plural "Gods" creating the human race (see my study on Elohim, part 1, part 2, and part 3). If it did, then "said" and "created" would also have also be plural verbs, but they are singular. Plus, it would have said "their own image" and "they created," but those pronouns are singular also.
But besides that, what about gender--does God have a gender? Is God male or female, neither or both? And is that what being made "in his image" is about?
The questions below in red are what came to mind through this study.
If humans are created in God's image, does that mean God has a body like ours?
No, God is spirit, not flesh like us humans. (Yes, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, but we're talking about the overall nature of God.)
John 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
The Bible talks about "spiritual bodies," but they are different than our earthly bodies, so we cannot say that God's image is a body like ours. (1 Corinthians 15:40,44)
Is there any place for the differences between the genders in the spirit realm?
These two verses would indicate no:
Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
God is referred to as "He" throughout the Bible. Does that mean He is male?
No, not necessarily. All nouns in Hebrew are either feminine or masculine. There are no neutral nouns (it). Everything is a "he" or a "she," even the door, the rock, and the fence. It's interesting to note that while Hebrew nouns for "God" are grammatically masculine, the Hebrew word for God's "Spirit" is grammatically feminine. It's not possible in Hebrew to refer to God as gender-neutral, so there is still the possibility that He is neither male nor female (or that He is both at once).
How about the masculine images of God that we see in the Bible--the Father and the Son, and even the Bridegroom? Does that mean He's male?
There are some feminine images of God too. They appear less often, but they are there. For example, God is pictured as a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15, 66:13), a woman in labor (Isaiah 42:24), having a womb and giving birth (Job 38:29, Deuteronomy 32:18)...
Then there is "El Shaddai" -- This Hebrew title of God means "The All Sufficient God" and is usually translated "God Almighty." It comes from the word "shad" which means "breast." So it describes God's sufficiency like a mother who is able to provide all the nourishment her new baby needs. It's used 48 times. Here it is in Genesis 17:1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God [El-Shaddai]; walk before Me and be blameless."
So is this proof that there is "God the Mother" as well as "God the Father" just as the WMSCOG teaches?
No. If you look more carefully, those verses that show God in a feminine light refer to the LORD, which is YHWH, or Jehovah. The WMSCOG teaches that Jehovah is "Father God" and not "Mother God." So these verses are NOT referring to their separate "Mother God." Instead they describe feminine traits of Jehovah.
Then, is God both male and female at the same time, since He is pictured sometimes as male and sometimes as female?
No, not exactly. He is also pictured as a...
lion (Jeremiah 35:28 and 50:44)
bear (Lamentations 3:10 and Hosea 13:8)
hen (Matthew 23:37 / Luke 13:34)
rock (Deuteronomy 32:18 and 2 Samuel 22:47)
fire (Deuteronomy 4:24)
dove (John 1:32)
God is pictured as having hands (Exodus 33:22-23), feet (Isaiah 66:1; Nahum 1:3), and eyes (2 Chronicles 16:9), but also wings and feathers (Psalm 63:7 and 91:4).
Is God literally all of these things? Then neither must He be literally male or female.
All of these descriptions of God are literary devices (anthropomorphisms or personifications) to show God to us in a way we can understand.
I will conclude with a quote from a dear family friend, who is a Bible scholar, former pastor, and missionary worker. (Thank you, Brother, for your guidance with this study.)
"Being made in the image of God has nothing to do with gender or flesh, but that man and woman were made in the likeness of God's morality (holiness without sin), socially made to have fellowship both with God and man (remember God came seeking Adam and Eve in the garden to walk with them) and mentally able to make decisions and choices, reason and love all of which separated man and woman from the animal kingdom."
For more information about God as male or female, please read The Image of God here.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the
air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
The WMSCOG says that since "God created man in his own image" and there are both male and female humans, then there must be two "Gods"--a God of the male image ("God the Father") and a God of the female image ("God the Mother").
I've already shown that the Hebrew word Elohim used here does not indicate that there are plural "Gods" creating the human race (see my study on Elohim, part 1, part 2, and part 3). If it did, then "said" and "created" would also have also be plural verbs, but they are singular. Plus, it would have said "their own image" and "they created," but those pronouns are singular also.
But besides that, what about gender--does God have a gender? Is God male or female, neither or both? And is that what being made "in his image" is about?
The questions below in red are what came to mind through this study.
If humans are created in God's image, does that mean God has a body like ours?
No, God is spirit, not flesh like us humans. (Yes, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, but we're talking about the overall nature of God.)
John 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
The Bible talks about "spiritual bodies," but they are different than our earthly bodies, so we cannot say that God's image is a body like ours. (1 Corinthians 15:40,44)
Is there any place for the differences between the genders in the spirit realm?
These two verses would indicate no:
Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
God is referred to as "He" throughout the Bible. Does that mean He is male?
No, not necessarily. All nouns in Hebrew are either feminine or masculine. There are no neutral nouns (it). Everything is a "he" or a "she," even the door, the rock, and the fence. It's interesting to note that while Hebrew nouns for "God" are grammatically masculine, the Hebrew word for God's "Spirit" is grammatically feminine. It's not possible in Hebrew to refer to God as gender-neutral, so there is still the possibility that He is neither male nor female (or that He is both at once).
How about the masculine images of God that we see in the Bible--the Father and the Son, and even the Bridegroom? Does that mean He's male?
There are some feminine images of God too. They appear less often, but they are there. For example, God is pictured as a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15, 66:13), a woman in labor (Isaiah 42:24), having a womb and giving birth (Job 38:29, Deuteronomy 32:18)...
Then there is "El Shaddai" -- This Hebrew title of God means "The All Sufficient God" and is usually translated "God Almighty." It comes from the word "shad" which means "breast." So it describes God's sufficiency like a mother who is able to provide all the nourishment her new baby needs. It's used 48 times. Here it is in Genesis 17:1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God [El-Shaddai]; walk before Me and be blameless."
So is this proof that there is "God the Mother" as well as "God the Father" just as the WMSCOG teaches?
No. If you look more carefully, those verses that show God in a feminine light refer to the LORD, which is YHWH, or Jehovah. The WMSCOG teaches that Jehovah is "Father God" and not "Mother God." So these verses are NOT referring to their separate "Mother God." Instead they describe feminine traits of Jehovah.
Then, is God both male and female at the same time, since He is pictured sometimes as male and sometimes as female?
No, not exactly. He is also pictured as a...
lion (Jeremiah 35:28 and 50:44)
bear (Lamentations 3:10 and Hosea 13:8)
hen (Matthew 23:37 / Luke 13:34)
rock (Deuteronomy 32:18 and 2 Samuel 22:47)
fire (Deuteronomy 4:24)
dove (John 1:32)
God is pictured as having hands (Exodus 33:22-23), feet (Isaiah 66:1; Nahum 1:3), and eyes (2 Chronicles 16:9), but also wings and feathers (Psalm 63:7 and 91:4).
Is God literally all of these things? Then neither must He be literally male or female.
All of these descriptions of God are literary devices (anthropomorphisms or personifications) to show God to us in a way we can understand.
I will conclude with a quote from a dear family friend, who is a Bible scholar, former pastor, and missionary worker. (Thank you, Brother, for your guidance with this study.)
"Being made in the image of God has nothing to do with gender or flesh, but that man and woman were made in the likeness of God's morality (holiness without sin), socially made to have fellowship both with God and man (remember God came seeking Adam and Eve in the garden to walk with them) and mentally able to make decisions and choices, reason and love all of which separated man and woman from the animal kingdom."
For more information about God as male or female, please read The Image of God here.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Studying the Bible
I've been sharing here the many personal Bible studies I've done in examining the teachings of the WMSCOG and how they compare to the Bible and the views of mainstream Christianity. I'd like to share with you the resources and methods I use in understanding the Bible. If you aren't already, you might want to utilize these in your own studies.
God gave you the Bible, and He gave you your brain. If you don't use them both together, you risk following false doctrine. It is possible to read the Bible for yourself and understand it.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. -- 2 Timothy 2:15
- Prayer - Pray for wisdom and understanding as you read and study.
- Read the Bible, A LOT! - Don't just read verses here and there or short devotions. Read whole chapters and books! Take some time to read it through beginning to end. Get a good grasp of the Bible as a whole, so when you do just study a few verses, you understand how they fit into the whole counsel of the Bible.
- Follow principles of the Inductive Study Method - Read more about Inductive Bible Study here. Use observation, interpretation, and application to study the Bible and live by its truths. Here's an overview of this method.
- Use a variety of Bible translations - It helps you get a fuller picture of the passage. Biblegateway.com is fantastic for this.
- Pastors and teachers at your church - They have a lot of experience with the Bible. It's ok to ask them questions. If it's an unusual question that they don't have an answer for, you might be able to work on it together.
- A Concordance (or Keyword search online) - Find verses that use a particular word (English) to study what the Bible has to say about it. For example, you can look up "love" to see what the Bible has to say about love. Be sure you read around the word too to get its context.
- A Topical Bible (I use Nave's) - Find passages about a particular topic, even if the verse doesn't include the word. For example, look up passages about marriage, even if the word "marriage" isn't in the verses.
- A Hebrew and Greek Lexicon (like Strong's) - Use with a Bible or concordance that shows the reference numbers of each word. (I especially like Interlinear Bibles.) Look up the definitions of the original language to help you understand words, verses, and passages better. You can also look up other verses that use the same Hebrew or Greek word to get a clearer picture of it.
- Commentaries - These take you deeper into the Word through Bible scholars who have studied the context, language, history, etc. Be sure to check out the author's background to make sure you agree with their philosophies. For example, some have different views on such things as the work of the Holy Spirit today.
- Books by Christian authors - Browse your local Christian bookstore, such as Berean, Lifeway, or Family Christian Store. Again, check out the author.
- Online - Search for a topic online, BUT BE VERY CAREFUL! There are thousands of websites that look Christian at first glance but are not what they appear. ALWAYS look for a statement of faith, or "what we believe," or "about me", or some other way to see how their faith matches up with yours. Don't blindly accept anyone's Bible "knowledge." Know where they are coming from spiritually.
God gave you the Bible, and He gave you your brain. If you don't use them both together, you risk following false doctrine. It is possible to read the Bible for yourself and understand it.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. -- 2 Timothy 2:15
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Everlasting Covenant - One More Thing
I have to correct something I wrote in part 1 of my look at what the everlasting covenant might be. I'm not above correcting myself... :)
When I was looking at the covenants called "everlasting" and saw God's covenant with Noah I straight away remembered all the Sunday School lessons I've taught about Noah and the rainbow and how it was God's promise not destroy the earth with a flood again. I too quickly categorized it as a one-sided covenant and ruled it out of my search, BUT....
In my reading today I was reminded that the covenant with Noah DOES have requirements for the people to keep. So it is possible, after all, that this was the everlasting covenant mentioned in Isaiah 24:5. We'll call it...
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 4
God's covenant with Noah after the flood, Genesis 9:16
Focusing in on Genesis 9:4-6
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
The part required of man in this covenant is to honor life, both that of people and of animals.
Looking at society today, I'd say that this covenant it being broken every day by someone or another.
Now, looking at the 4 possibilities, I'm reminded of something Jesus said in the book of Mark when a teacher of the law came to ask what the greatest commandment was. Jesus said,
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)
I see that the first 3 possibilities can be rolled into "Love the Lord your God," and the 4th is "Love your neighbor as yourself." Interesting, isn't it?
This concludes (hopefully!...for now, at least) my personal study into the everlasting covenant.
Studying the Bible yourself is a great way to make it come alive, but it's always good to read what several other Bible scholars say. It helps to have their perspective and extensive research so you don't accidentally go way off track.
If you'd like to study more about the covenants, you might like the book, The Covenants, by Kevin Connor and Ken Malmin. It's written in an outline form and summarizes all of God's covenants.
When I was looking at the covenants called "everlasting" and saw God's covenant with Noah I straight away remembered all the Sunday School lessons I've taught about Noah and the rainbow and how it was God's promise not destroy the earth with a flood again. I too quickly categorized it as a one-sided covenant and ruled it out of my search, BUT....
In my reading today I was reminded that the covenant with Noah DOES have requirements for the people to keep. So it is possible, after all, that this was the everlasting covenant mentioned in Isaiah 24:5. We'll call it...
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 4
God's covenant with Noah after the flood, Genesis 9:16
Focusing in on Genesis 9:4-6
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
“ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
The part required of man in this covenant is to honor life, both that of people and of animals.
Looking at society today, I'd say that this covenant it being broken every day by someone or another.
Now, looking at the 4 possibilities, I'm reminded of something Jesus said in the book of Mark when a teacher of the law came to ask what the greatest commandment was. Jesus said,
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)
I see that the first 3 possibilities can be rolled into "Love the Lord your God," and the 4th is "Love your neighbor as yourself." Interesting, isn't it?
This concludes (hopefully!...for now, at least) my personal study into the everlasting covenant.
Studying the Bible yourself is a great way to make it come alive, but it's always good to read what several other Bible scholars say. It helps to have their perspective and extensive research so you don't accidentally go way off track.
If you'd like to study more about the covenants, you might like the book, The Covenants, by Kevin Connor and Ken Malmin. It's written in an outline form and summarizes all of God's covenants.
Monday, October 18, 2010
What is the Everlasting Covenant? - Conclusion
And so there are:
Circumcision, Genesis 17:7
The Sabbath, Exodus 31:16
and Jesus, Hebrews 13:20
All three are called everlasting covenants. Which is it?...
(Update--There is one more possibility in my next post "One More Thing." Don't miss it!)
The covenants of circumcision and the Sabbath are altered in the New Testament. They were not required for Gentile believers, and though the Jewish believers continued them, they recognized that the acts of circumcision and keeping the Sabbath were not what brought them salvation, but their faith--belief in the Lord Jesus. So in a way, we could say they were swallowed up into the covenent concerning Jesus. That points us to the covenant described in Hebrews 13:20.
While looking up "everlasting covenant" I saw that there are six verses that say God will make an everlasting covenant with His people. They don't say exactly what it will be, but that it will happen. Here they are:
Isaiah 55:3 and 61:8
Jeremiah 32:40 and 50:5
Ezekiel 16:60 and 37:26
Those verses point to a time which was in the future for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Jesus and His everlasting covenant was in the future for them, and so it still fits. And Isaiah 55:3 can provide confirmation:
Incline your ear, and come to Me.
Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you—
The sure mercies of David.
"David" was a prophetical name used for Christ. You can see it in Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23-24 and 37:24-25, and Hosea 3:5.
But the question that remains is, what is our part in keeping (or accepting) this everlasting covenant through Jesus. Is it keeping the Passover with all the particular regulations as the WMSCOG says, or is it something else? That's a good question for another day...
By the way, when my sister asked me this question, this is exactly what I did. I started looking in my Bible for every instance of "everlasting covenant" and listing the possibilities. That's when things got difficult with the conversation, and we didn't get any farther. I don't know if it was something about the way I was studying the Bible, or if it was the result of pent up frustrations after some heated discussions. But it's too bad, because I think we would have at least agreed on the right section of the Bible to settle on.
Click here for a little more on the Everlasting Covenant.
Circumcision, Genesis 17:7
The Sabbath, Exodus 31:16
and Jesus, Hebrews 13:20
All three are called everlasting covenants. Which is it?...
(Update--There is one more possibility in my next post "One More Thing." Don't miss it!)
The covenants of circumcision and the Sabbath are altered in the New Testament. They were not required for Gentile believers, and though the Jewish believers continued them, they recognized that the acts of circumcision and keeping the Sabbath were not what brought them salvation, but their faith--belief in the Lord Jesus. So in a way, we could say they were swallowed up into the covenent concerning Jesus. That points us to the covenant described in Hebrews 13:20.
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead,
that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant
While looking up "everlasting covenant" I saw that there are six verses that say God will make an everlasting covenant with His people. They don't say exactly what it will be, but that it will happen. Here they are:
Isaiah 55:3 and 61:8
Jeremiah 32:40 and 50:5
Ezekiel 16:60 and 37:26
Those verses point to a time which was in the future for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Jesus and His everlasting covenant was in the future for them, and so it still fits. And Isaiah 55:3 can provide confirmation:
Incline your ear, and come to Me.
Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you—
The sure mercies of David.
"David" was a prophetical name used for Christ. You can see it in Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23-24 and 37:24-25, and Hosea 3:5.
But the question that remains is, what is our part in keeping (or accepting) this everlasting covenant through Jesus. Is it keeping the Passover with all the particular regulations as the WMSCOG says, or is it something else? That's a good question for another day...
By the way, when my sister asked me this question, this is exactly what I did. I started looking in my Bible for every instance of "everlasting covenant" and listing the possibilities. That's when things got difficult with the conversation, and we didn't get any farther. I don't know if it was something about the way I was studying the Bible, or if it was the result of pent up frustrations after some heated discussions. But it's too bad, because I think we would have at least agreed on the right section of the Bible to settle on.
Click here for a little more on the Everlasting Covenant.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
What is the Everlasting Covenant? - Part 3
Continuing on...What is the everlasting covenant broken in Isaiah 24:5?
Just a note...there are a lot of verses listed here, and I think it will take too much room to write them all out. You might want to have your Bible handy...or BibleGateway.com which can look up the verses quickly for you.
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 2
The Sabbath, Exodus 31:16
Here is Exodus 31 verses 13, 16, and 17
13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”
I've already written about the Sabbath, which you can read under the topic of "Sabbath."
Colossians 2:16, Galatians 4:9-11, Romans 14, and
Acts 15:28-29 are some of the verses in the New Testament indicate that the Sabbath is not required for salvation.
But the Sabbath is a foreshadow of the rest we have with God--rest from all our work. (Hebrews 3 and 4, especially 4:9-11)
How do we enter God's rest? By believing. (Hebrews 3:18-19 and 4:3, 6, 11)
Note that in the NIV the word "disobedience" in those verses is translated "unbelief" in the KJV.
That's because the Greek word there means "disbelief, disobedience, unbelief." It's talking about the kind of true belief that results in obedience.
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 3
The everlasting covenant of Jesus, Hebrews 13:20
(It's called the "eternal covenant" in the NIV.)
Hebrews 13:20
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant
Hebrews 9:14-15 (although it's good to read the whole chapter to see the context)
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
This new, eternal covenant was put into effect by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Now, this is where the WMSCOG connects the everlasting covenant to Passover, because at the Last Supper Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
They interpret it to mean that you must physically take the bread and wine on the exact day and time of Passover (and not at any other time) to keep this covenant. For the WMSCOG, breaking this covenant means not keeping the Passover.
Mainstream Christians interpret this bread and wine as symbolic of Jesus' broken body and shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As a mainstream Christian, for me it's not a matter of breaking or keeping this covenant, but rather accepting or rejecting it. But for argument's sake, I would equate breaking this covenant as rejecting it--rejecting Jesus, His sacrifice, and therefore rejecting God totally.
-------------
I'm not quite done looking at this everlasting covenant question. The point of this little study is to show that we can search the Bible to find possible answers to our question. We don't have to blindly take the answer given to us.
Now that we've found the possibilities, it's time to evaluate them and see if we can pinpoint the one answer, since our question must have only one answer.
Click here to go on to Part 4, the conclusion.
Just a note...there are a lot of verses listed here, and I think it will take too much room to write them all out. You might want to have your Bible handy...or BibleGateway.com which can look up the verses quickly for you.
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 2
The Sabbath, Exodus 31:16
Here is Exodus 31 verses 13, 16, and 17
13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”
I've already written about the Sabbath, which you can read under the topic of "Sabbath."
Colossians 2:16, Galatians 4:9-11, Romans 14, and
Acts 15:28-29 are some of the verses in the New Testament indicate that the Sabbath is not required for salvation.
But the Sabbath is a foreshadow of the rest we have with God--rest from all our work. (Hebrews 3 and 4, especially 4:9-11)
How do we enter God's rest? By believing. (Hebrews 3:18-19 and 4:3, 6, 11)
Note that in the NIV the word "disobedience" in those verses is translated "unbelief" in the KJV.
That's because the Greek word there means "disbelief, disobedience, unbelief." It's talking about the kind of true belief that results in obedience.
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 3
The everlasting covenant of Jesus, Hebrews 13:20
(It's called the "eternal covenant" in the NIV.)
Hebrews 13:20
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant
Hebrews 9:14-15 (although it's good to read the whole chapter to see the context)
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
This new, eternal covenant was put into effect by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Now, this is where the WMSCOG connects the everlasting covenant to Passover, because at the Last Supper Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
They interpret it to mean that you must physically take the bread and wine on the exact day and time of Passover (and not at any other time) to keep this covenant. For the WMSCOG, breaking this covenant means not keeping the Passover.
Mainstream Christians interpret this bread and wine as symbolic of Jesus' broken body and shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As a mainstream Christian, for me it's not a matter of breaking or keeping this covenant, but rather accepting or rejecting it. But for argument's sake, I would equate breaking this covenant as rejecting it--rejecting Jesus, His sacrifice, and therefore rejecting God totally.
-------------
I'm not quite done looking at this everlasting covenant question. The point of this little study is to show that we can search the Bible to find possible answers to our question. We don't have to blindly take the answer given to us.
Now that we've found the possibilities, it's time to evaluate them and see if we can pinpoint the one answer, since our question must have only one answer.
Click here to go on to Part 4, the conclusion.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
What is the Everlasting Covenant? - Part 2
What is the everlasting covenant broken in Isaiah 24:5?
That is the question the WMSCOG will ask and then proceed to explain why they believe it is the Passover.
The WMSCOG takes great pains to point out that they do not believe in "interpretations of men" but only what's written in the Bible. So before stringing together a bunch of verses to support anyone's nice sounding idea, why not go straight to the Bible and see if it tells us directly what the everlasting covenant is?
I started with keyword searches to find a "covenant" that was described as "everlasting," "lasting," "eternal," or "forever." There are actually quite a few, so I ruled out covenants where it was one-sided, a promise of God to do something and didn't include any requirement from the people. You can't break the covenant if it requires nothing from you, right? Then we can see if any of the ones left fit with Isaiah 24. You can try this yourself and let me know if you found anything I missed....
I've narrowed it down to 3. (I almost included God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7--see 2 Sam. 23:5; Psalm 89:28; and 2 Chron. 13:15 and 21:7 for descriptions of it as everlasting--but God said that even if the people turned away from Him, He would still keep His promise. Therefore it's a one-sided promise.)
So here are the first one, and I'll address the others next time...
Everlasting Covenant Possibility 1
God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:7
(This covenant is passed down to Isaac and Jacob, see 1 Chronicles 16:17 and Psalm 105:10)In Genesis 17, God promises Abraham that He will make him into the father of many nations, that He will give them the land of Canaan, and that He will be their God.
Then, starting in verse 9, we see what God requires Abraham to do. Here are verses 9 and 10:
And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you
and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is
My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your
descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised
The people's part of this "everlasting covenant" is circumcision.
Physical circumcision was an outward reminder to be circumcised in your heart. (Jeremiah 4:4 and 9:25)
Jesus was circumcised. (Luke 1:59 and 2:21)
Must we be circumcised today? Not physically, it is circumcision of the heart that counts. (Romans 2:28-29 and 3:30)
So how can our part of this covenant be broken today? By not having our heart circumcised.
What does it mean to have your heart circumcised? Put off your sinful nature by having faith in Jesus.
Read Colossians 2. The whole chapter is good, but focus in on verses 11-13:
Click here to go on to Part 3.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
What is the Everlasting Covenant? - Part 1
Isaiah 24 begins with a description of the devastation of the earth, and then verses 5 and 6:
The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants,
Because they have transgressed the laws,
Changed the ordinance,
Broken the everlasting covenant.
The question posed by a commenter from this verse is… What is the everlasting covenant that was broken?
My sister asked me the same question, but she did not like my answer and the conversation stopped. (I have to admit, I was quite frustrated at the time, and the conversation got heated, so I’m sure my tone of delivery didn’t help.) She never followed up by telling me what her answer was.
I know that question was not asked simply for me to ponder over. It was asked because she wanted to tell me what the everlasting covenant was that not being kept by these people who were being destroyed. I believe she would have continued on to explain that the everlasting covenant was the Passover, and that we needed to keep the Passover so that we would not break the everlasting covenant and so we would be protected in the last days. Am I right?
So what is this “everlasting covenant” in Isaiah 24? Is it the Passover, or could it be something else?
I didn’t want to speculate, so I went straight to the Bible to search for what it says about a “covenant.” There are a number of covenants that God makes in the Bible, and more than one of them are described as “everlasting” or “eternal” or “lasting” or to be kept “forever.”
Some of those covenants are promises that God made and intends to keep, with no requirements from the human race at all. In Genesis 9, God makes an everlasting covenant never to destroy the earth and all its life with a flood again. There is nothing we need to do as part of that agreement—it’s all God. (Click here for a correction to this part about Genesis 9.) We can never break that type of covenant.
We need to look for the kind of covenant where God did give the people some responsibility to keep on their part.
So that's the direction I'll be going next. Stay tuned....
Click here to go on to Part 2.
The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants,
Because they have transgressed the laws,
Changed the ordinance,
Broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore the curse has devoured the earth,
And those who dwell in it are desolate.
Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned,
And few men are left.
And those who dwell in it are desolate.
Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned,
And few men are left.
The question posed by a commenter from this verse is… What is the everlasting covenant that was broken?
My sister asked me the same question, but she did not like my answer and the conversation stopped. (I have to admit, I was quite frustrated at the time, and the conversation got heated, so I’m sure my tone of delivery didn’t help.) She never followed up by telling me what her answer was.
I know that question was not asked simply for me to ponder over. It was asked because she wanted to tell me what the everlasting covenant was that not being kept by these people who were being destroyed. I believe she would have continued on to explain that the everlasting covenant was the Passover, and that we needed to keep the Passover so that we would not break the everlasting covenant and so we would be protected in the last days. Am I right?
So what is this “everlasting covenant” in Isaiah 24? Is it the Passover, or could it be something else?
I didn’t want to speculate, so I went straight to the Bible to search for what it says about a “covenant.” There are a number of covenants that God makes in the Bible, and more than one of them are described as “everlasting” or “eternal” or “lasting” or to be kept “forever.”
Some of those covenants are promises that God made and intends to keep, with no requirements from the human race at all. In Genesis 9, God makes an everlasting covenant never to destroy the earth and all its life with a flood again. There is nothing we need to do as part of that agreement—it’s all God. (Click here for a correction to this part about Genesis 9.) We can never break that type of covenant.
We need to look for the kind of covenant where God did give the people some responsibility to keep on their part.
So that's the direction I'll be going next. Stay tuned....
Click here to go on to Part 2.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Feast of Trumpets
The WMSCOG Feast of Trumpets has just passed, being celebrated on Oct. 8.
I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me yet on why it was kept at the beginning of the eighth month instead of the seventh month as specified in Leviticus 23:24.
I wrote previously about this mistake in their calendar here, but just to sum up...
The WMSCOG prides itself in keeping the "sacred calendar," and we can see in the Bible that months are kept from new moon to new moon (Isaiah 66:23).
The WMSCOG celebrated Passover this year on March 29, which makes the new moon of Mar. 15 as the beginning of the first month on their calendar. I'll put up the list of new moons again for you...
Mar. 15 -- 1st new moon starts the 1st month
Apr. 14 -- 2nd month starts
May 13 -- 3rd month starts
June 12 -- 4th month starts
Jully 11 -- 5th month starts
Aug. 9 -- 6th month starts
Sept. 8 -- 7th month starts
Oct. 7 -- 8th month starts
I'm not going to argue about a day (Oct. 7 vs. Oct. 8), but we are definitely in the 8th month. I don't see any way the WMSCOG can reconcile this with Lev. 23:24, especially since the records show that some years they keep the date in the seventh month, and other years in the eighth month--it's not consistent one way or the other.
I'd be very happy to get some help with this. Does anyone have anything to say?
I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me yet on why it was kept at the beginning of the eighth month instead of the seventh month as specified in Leviticus 23:24.
I wrote previously about this mistake in their calendar here, but just to sum up...
The WMSCOG prides itself in keeping the "sacred calendar," and we can see in the Bible that months are kept from new moon to new moon (Isaiah 66:23).
The WMSCOG celebrated Passover this year on March 29, which makes the new moon of Mar. 15 as the beginning of the first month on their calendar. I'll put up the list of new moons again for you...
Mar. 15 -- 1st new moon starts the 1st month
Apr. 14 -- 2nd month starts
May 13 -- 3rd month starts
June 12 -- 4th month starts
Jully 11 -- 5th month starts
Aug. 9 -- 6th month starts
Sept. 8 -- 7th month starts
Oct. 7 -- 8th month starts
I'm not going to argue about a day (Oct. 7 vs. Oct. 8), but we are definitely in the 8th month. I don't see any way the WMSCOG can reconcile this with Lev. 23:24, especially since the records show that some years they keep the date in the seventh month, and other years in the eighth month--it's not consistent one way or the other.
I'd be very happy to get some help with this. Does anyone have anything to say?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Trinity...but Not the Trinity
In my last post, there was a comment left by "Anonymous" which leads me to talk today about the Trinity.
Anonymous pointed out that the WMSCOG calls Ahnsahnghong "Father Ahnsahnghong," and "Christ Ahnsahnghong," and also the "Holy Spirit." Yet as Christians, we do not call Jesus "Father Jesus."
This is because WMSCOG's interpretation of the Trinity is different than the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
I asked a teacher at my sister's church about the Trinity during one of my study sessions with her. I was wondering how "Mother" fit into the Trinity--does she actually make the 3-in-1 God a 4-in-1 God? No they believe she is an entirely separate female "God." It is the male "God" (Ahnsahnghong) who has shown himself through the Trinity.
She described the Trinity as similar to water. Water can appear as a liquid, solid, or gas, but it's still water. Likewise, God has shown Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but all of those are still one God. Or, she said, you could imagine an actor playing different roles on the stage.
Then she went on to say that because of this, you can interchange the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout the Bible and not have a problem. You could say that God the Son gave Moses the 10 Commandments, or you could say that the God the Father died on the cross, or the disciples were baptized in God the Son on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. That's when I knew something was not quite right, but I couldn't put my finger on it until another of my readers here referred me to the term "Modalism."
The mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, coexistent Persons, each distinct from the other yet all together one God.
But the WMSCOG interpretation sounds more like Modalism, which is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different "modes" of one God, but not distinct Persons.
Modalism is apparently one of the most common errors in regards to the Trinity, and it's easy to fall into. I've noticed this myself after researching it. In trying to explain the Trinity to my own children, I found that I sometimes used examples that actually show Modalism rather than the Trinity. So it's something for us all to be aware of.
There are resources around the web about Modalism. Here are a couple links that you might use to get started if you wanted more info:
at basictheology.com
and at gotquestions.org
-----------------------
I just need to add a little note to this post...
The WMSCOG has a problem with the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They think it's confusing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be different yet the same.
The Trinity is a very difficult concept to understand. Here are two very good pages from gotquestions.org that help explain and put it in perspective:
What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?
and What is Trinitarianism? Is Trinititarianism Biblical?
They also include a different picture illustrating the Trinity than my example of a Venn diagramm in the comments below. No picture will explain the Trinity fully--it's just meant to help.
My purpose of this post is not to argue Modalism vs. the Trinity. I believe in the Trinity, but I can understand where the idea of Modalism comes from. My purpose is to point out that the WMSCOG does not believe in the Christian definition of the Trinity. They have taken the word and given it a different meaning. It's something you should be aware of when they they are talking to you about the "Trinity."
Anonymous pointed out that the WMSCOG calls Ahnsahnghong "Father Ahnsahnghong," and "Christ Ahnsahnghong," and also the "Holy Spirit." Yet as Christians, we do not call Jesus "Father Jesus."
This is because WMSCOG's interpretation of the Trinity is different than the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
I asked a teacher at my sister's church about the Trinity during one of my study sessions with her. I was wondering how "Mother" fit into the Trinity--does she actually make the 3-in-1 God a 4-in-1 God? No they believe she is an entirely separate female "God." It is the male "God" (Ahnsahnghong) who has shown himself through the Trinity.
She described the Trinity as similar to water. Water can appear as a liquid, solid, or gas, but it's still water. Likewise, God has shown Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but all of those are still one God. Or, she said, you could imagine an actor playing different roles on the stage.
Then she went on to say that because of this, you can interchange the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout the Bible and not have a problem. You could say that God the Son gave Moses the 10 Commandments, or you could say that the God the Father died on the cross, or the disciples were baptized in God the Son on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. That's when I knew something was not quite right, but I couldn't put my finger on it until another of my readers here referred me to the term "Modalism."
The mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, coexistent Persons, each distinct from the other yet all together one God.
But the WMSCOG interpretation sounds more like Modalism, which is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different "modes" of one God, but not distinct Persons.
Modalism is apparently one of the most common errors in regards to the Trinity, and it's easy to fall into. I've noticed this myself after researching it. In trying to explain the Trinity to my own children, I found that I sometimes used examples that actually show Modalism rather than the Trinity. So it's something for us all to be aware of.
There are resources around the web about Modalism. Here are a couple links that you might use to get started if you wanted more info:
at basictheology.com
and at gotquestions.org
-----------------------
I just need to add a little note to this post...
The WMSCOG has a problem with the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They think it's confusing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be different yet the same.
The Trinity is a very difficult concept to understand. Here are two very good pages from gotquestions.org that help explain and put it in perspective:
What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?
and What is Trinitarianism? Is Trinititarianism Biblical?
They also include a different picture illustrating the Trinity than my example of a Venn diagramm in the comments below. No picture will explain the Trinity fully--it's just meant to help.
My purpose of this post is not to argue Modalism vs. the Trinity. I believe in the Trinity, but I can understand where the idea of Modalism comes from. My purpose is to point out that the WMSCOG does not believe in the Christian definition of the Trinity. They have taken the word and given it a different meaning. It's something you should be aware of when they they are talking to you about the "Trinity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)