From the Philippines: “I’m happy to report to you that we have now two locations where we distribute your booklets. We want to expand this more because in our area alone there are so many who don’t know the truth. Thanks for your help… for everything.”
Will the Jews build a temple in Jerusalem, prior to Christ's return?
When we consider all the Biblical Scriptures related to this topic, it appears very likely that a temple will be built in the near future, prior to Christ’s return.
When Christ was asked by His disciples what the sign of His coming and of the end of the age [of this present civilization] would be (Matthew 24:3), He referred to the “great tribulation” (verse 21) and, at that same time, “‘the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (verse 15; compare, too, Mark 13:14, adding, “where it ought not”). In Luke 21:20, in the parallel account, Christ is quoted as saying, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.”
From these passages, we see that the abomination of desolation refers to foreign armies which will desolate Jerusalem. But is this ALL that the term, “abomination of desolation” refers to? Christ pointed out that the prophet Daniel spoke about the “abomination of desolation.” He did do so on three occasions — in Daniel 9:27; 11:31 and 12:11. (An additional similar reference can be found in Daniel 8:13). The way those passages are worded, they seem to refer to more than just armies. Daniel 11:31 states that a king of the North shall muster forces, “and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and PLACE THERE the abomination of desolation.” Daniel 12:11 states: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is SET UP…”
These end-time prophecies predict that a future “king of the North” will invade Jerusalem and take away daily sacrifices — indicating that the Jews will, in the future, begin to bring again daily sacrifices in Jerusalem. It is true that the Jews don’t need to have a temple to bring daily sacrifices (compare Ezra 3:6) — but this does not mean that the Jews will NOT build a temple, to bring daily sacrifices there.
Returning to the prophecy in Daniel 11:31, most commentaries agree that particular passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, at least as a forerunner for another end-time fulfillment. As The Nelson Study Bible points out, “Antiochus polluted the altar by offering a sow upon it. He declared the daily sacrifices and other Mosaic ceremonies illegal and committed an abomination of desolation by erecting an image of Zeus in the holy place (9:27; 12:11). Jesus said a similar thing would happen just prior to His return (see Matt. 24:15).”
We should take note of the fact that at the time when the first “abomination of desolation” was set up, Antiochus overran Jerusalem with armies; did away with the daily sacrifices, which were brought AT THE TEMPLE; and erected an image of Zeus (or Jupiter) in the “holy place” — the TEMPLE.
Please note the following comments published on June 24, 2004, by the Arutz Sheva National News: “After their conquest and occupation of Judea, the Syrian Greek Hellenists (c. 168 BCE) attempted to ‘break’ the Jews. They set up an idol and began offering pigs to their pagan deity in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. When they began to spread their heresy among the Jews, they started in a small town called Modi’in. They set up an altar in the town square and instigated some weak Jew to offer a pig up as a sacrifice in plain public view. Public acceptance was meant to imply that the Jews were repudiating the Torah and their covenant with the [God] of their fathers. But in a clear example of the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’, it sparked a national revolt instead, when a priest by the name of Matityahu took a sword, stabbed the turncoat Jew and the Syrian Greek officials, and declared, ‘Whoever is zealous for the Torah and is steadfast in the Covenant, let him follow me.’ The revolt spread, and ultimately was successful, leading to a liberation of the Judean homeland from occupation. The Jews cleaned-up the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and re-lit the menorah. And Hanukah is celebrated until this day, throughout the Jewish world, as a holiday of the liberation of the Jews and Judaism from pagan culture.”
Since the original abomination, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, involved the existence of the temple, it is reasonable to conclude that the final abomination of desolation will likewise involve an existing temple. Other Biblical passages confirm this conclusion:
We read in Revelation 11:1-2 that an angel of God tells John: “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months [or 3 1/2 years].” Some rightly point out that the term “temple” or “temple of God” in the New Testament can refer to God’s Church [compare Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17]. They claim that the reference in Revelation 11:1-2 speaks exclusively to the Church. Although the Church might be included here, the more obvious and intended meaning is a reference to a literal temple in Jerusalem. After all, the Gentiles will tread the holy city (!) underfoot for 3 1/2 years, and the court which is outside the temple will be given to those Gentiles. It is difficult to see how all these references could just exclusively refer to the Church.
The Nelson Study Bible comments: “John is given a reed like a measuring rod, much like that used by Ezekiel (see Ezek. 40: 3, 5) in his vision of the measuring of the temple (see Ezek. 40-48)… This is the temple of the tribulation period that will eventually be desecrated (see 13:14, 15; Dan. 9:27; Luke 21:24; 2 Thess. 2:4)… Luke 21:24 prophesies that the Gentiles will tread the holy city underfoot until ‘the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’ Apparently the period of forty-two months is the conclusion of ‘the times of the Gentiles.’ ‘Gentile’ here may also be translated ‘nations’ (v. 9; 10:11).”
Another Scripture, indicating the existence of a future temple in Jerusalem, just prior to Christ’s return, can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. Paul writes:
“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [of Christ’s return] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
This “man of sin,” who is also called “the lawless one” in verses 8 and 9, is identified in the book of Revelation as “the false prophet” (compare, for example, Revelation 16:13; 19:20; see, too, Revelation 13:13-14). This religious figure will deceive people through “great signs” (Revelation 13:13; 19:20). We read in 2 Thessalonians 2:9 that the coming of the lawless one is “according to the working of Satan, with all power, SIGNS and lying wonders.” This false prophet will receive his powers to perform great signs from Satan and his demons (compare Revelation 16:13-14).
Herbert W. Armstrong wrote the following about the man of sin, in the Plain Truth of June 1967:
“This European power, resurrecting for a VERY short while the Roman Empire, will take over the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2.) They will take the Temple, and plant the palace of their headquarters there. With this coming military leader, pictured in Revelation 17 as the symbolic ‘beast,’ will be a supreme religious leader, called ‘the False Prophet,’ [Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10] and the ‘man of sin.’ So will you turn next to II Thessalonians 2:3-4: ‘Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day’ — the Day of the Lord, verse 2 — ‘shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and THAT MAN OF SIN be revealed, the SON OF PERDITION; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.’ So there will have to be the Temple there!”
The Ryrie Study Bible comments:
“… the Antichrist [this is an incorrect designation — rather, the passage speaks about the false prophet] will desecrate the rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem by placing himself there to be worshipped… This will be the climax of man’s great sin of self-deification, in open defiance of God.”
The Nelson Study Bible adds:
“The man of sin will proclaim himself to be divine and will sit in the temple of God, acting as if he were a god… The man of sin will probably stand in a physical temple in Jerusalem, and declare himself to be a god, the ultimate fulfillment of the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel (Dan. 7:23; 9:26, 27; 11:31, 36, 37; 12:11) and Jesus (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). These prophecies may have been partially fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes erected a pagan altar to Zeus in the temple of Jerusalem in 167 B.C. (175-164 B.C.), or when Titus destroyed the temple in A.D. 70. Others have interpreted Paul’s reference to the temple of God as a reference to the church.”
However, we read that the returning Christ will consume the man of sin “with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Therefore, this man of sin will exist at the time of Christ’s return. He will proclaim himself to be God, not just “a god.” It is highly unlikely that Paul was talking about the Church as the temple of God in this context. There is no Biblical evidence that the false prophet will be sitting in God’s true Church, proclaiming himself to be God. However, Christ warned His Church in Matthew 24:11 that “many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.”
One argument that has been advanced for the idea that the “man of sin” is or will be a religious leader within the true Church of God is that he allegedly has to fall away from the truth, which he once knew. This is, however, not in accordance with Scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not say that the end-time “man of sin” must fall away from the truth, which he once understood. Rather, the passage only states that Christ will not return “unless the falling away comes first, AND the man of sin is revealed.” It does not say that that man of sin once knew the truth and that he will fall away from the truth.
An additional passage which suggests that the Jews will build an end-time temple in Jerusalem, just prior to Christ’s return, is Psalm 79:1-7. This is an end-time psalm, as verse 6 shows. God is asked to pour out His wrath on the nations — a reference to God’s pouring out of the end-time plagues of His wrath, as described in Revelation 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19. In this context, Psalm 79:1 says: “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; Your holy temple they have defiled. They have laid Jerusalem in heaps.”
Another Scripture, which seems to make reference to a future physical temple in Jerusalem, can be found in Psalm 122:1: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go into the house of the LORD.’ Our feet have been standing Within your gates, O Jerusalem!” David wrote this psalm before there ever was a temple–the house of the LORD– in Jerusalem.
Other prophetic references to a future temple in Jerusalem could perhaps be found in Ezekiel 8:5, 16, as well as in Ezekiel 9:1-7. All these Scriptures are prophecies for the end-time, and they seem to refer to a physical temple and the abominations which will be practiced in it.
Finally, we find detailed descriptions of a future physical temple in Jerusalem in the book of Ezekiel, beginning in chapter 40. We know from those Scriptures that a literal temple will be in Jerusalem after Christ’s return. Ezekiel 40-46 do not tell us, however, when this future temple will be built. Is it possible that Ezekiel 40-46 describe the very same temple which the Jews will begin to build just prior to Christ’s return?
In conclusion, considering all the Scriptures on the topic, it appears very likely that a temple will be built in Jerusalem just prior to Christ’s return. Most certainly, God will give a clearer understanding about these things, as the time draws nearer.
Our Reward and God's Heavenly Books
On Saturday, March 19, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Our Reward and God’s Heavenly Books.”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
There has been much discussion over the years on the question of homosexuality, and particularly recently with the ordination of a homosexual bishop in the USA. What is your Biblical understanding on this issue?
The Bible must always be the last word on all doctrinal matters, not the personal opinions of man. Unfortunately, there can be an attitude of “pick and mix” where doctrines can be summarily dismissed that may not suit someone’s personal life-style; that are “uncomfortable,” or “not acceptable” in today’s society; or that don’t fit in with someone’s general approach. On the other hand, if the Bible purportedly backs up personal opinions and beliefs, then Biblical teaching is readily accepted. This means that there are those who, because of their own personal behavior, amend their understanding of Scripture in order that their practices can be (in their own eyes) accommodated by the Word of God. The subject of homosexuality is just one example.
But God does not play games. As Proverbs 14:12 tells us, there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. The Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Therefore, all Scripture from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelation is valid — irrespective of human traditions, customs or politically correct or incorrect viewpoints.
One pro-homosexual website puts forward the following observations when talking about quotations from the book of Leviticus (which condemns homosexuality, as we will see): “Clearly many of these laws reflect the cultural mores of their time and can have little or no relevance for us. The problem comes when we try to decide when a law or a piece of teaching has relevance today or when it should be rejected or disregarded.”
It is plain from such attitudes that the Word of God is used when supportive and discarded when inconvenient, but it must be remembered that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews 13:8 explains. Clear Biblical instructions are therefore not open to alterations or amendments, when cultural views change.
The instruction in the Old Testament on homosexuality is clear. In Leviticus 18:22 it states that: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” This is but one of the instructions on illicit sexual behavior where the Israelites are told that such conduct not only defiles them but also the land (verse 27). Some may conclude that ungodly conduct affects only the perpetrators and those around them, but the lack of righteousness — including sexual immorality — affects the very land on which we dwell. In verse 28, God reminds the Israelites that because the Canaanites (see verse 3) committed abominable sexual acts, the land was going to “vomit them out.” This reveals a very real spiritual law: When a nation becomes sinful, even its land is defiled because sin affects everything.
Two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13, God again rejects homosexual conduct, when He states: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”
If the practice of homosexuality was acceptable to God, why would God mention this practice in condemnatory terms on so many occasions? In Genesis 2:24 we read that “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Here, at an early stage of Biblical instruction, we see that the natural union was to consist of a man and a woman — not of a man and several women, and not of two people of the same sex.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is well known. In Genesis 18 and 19 we read about their depravity. The men of the city (Genesis 19:4), both old and young, surrounded the house where the two angels dwelled as Lot’s guests. They wanted to know them carnally (verse 5). This means, the Sodomites practiced homosexuality. [Today, the word “sodomite” is also used in respect to another form of depraved sexual conduct.] We know from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that the iniquity of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was not limited to this sexual practice, but it was certainly a hugely contributory factor.
There are a number of references that refer to sodomites, in the Authorized Version (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Sodomites were the inhabitants of Sodom. As we saw, the term refers to those practicing homosexuality. They were to be banished from the land — hardly a ringing endorsement!
In the New Testament, we continue to find the same condemnation of this practice. We read in the first chapter of Romans: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting…” (verses 24-28).
While the Western world today seeks to popularize and legitimize homosexuality, the Word of God clearly reveals that it is not acceptable to God. God has set in motion certain laws, and those who misuse their bodies receive in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. The word “debased” in verse 28 means “unapproved” or “undiscerning.” Since they had suppressed the truth of God revealed to them, they did not retain God in their knowledge and consequently, God gave them up (or over) to what they wanted to do all along. The results were and still are disastrous.
l Corinthians 6:9-10 clearly states that neither homosexuals nor sodomites will inherit the Kingdom of God: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
However, in verse 11 we read: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
Notice what Paul said: “Such were some of you.” This is a telling phrase. Paul cited the fact that there were some in the congregation who were formerly characterized in the catalogue of sinful conduct listed in verses 9 and 10. But Paul makes also clear that there is hope for those who are willing to repent and turn from their evil ways. With the help of God, they can be washed, sanctified and justified — but only on genuine, sincere repentance. This shows, then, that homosexuality CAN be repented of — it is not something men are just born with, and which they cannot overcome, even if they wanted to. Unfortunately today, many have convinced themselves that homosexuality is acceptable to God, or even the way God created some men, merely because it has become culturally acceptable. The Bible clearly reveals otherwise. As was wisely observed by someone: “Fashions may change but standards do not.”
In the final book of the Bible, this same theme is repeated in Revelation 21:8, pointing out that those who refuse to repent, including the “sexually immoral”–including those who practice homosexuality and other unacceptable sexual conduct–will have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone.
Some might ask the question: Does it matter? Of course it does! It is amazing to observe the lengths that those who support their homosexual practice will go to in order to justify it. If we believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then we should live by every word of God (Matthew 4:4). And the Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, roundly condemns the practice of homosexuality.
At the same time, we must be careful that we don’t lose God’s perspective on the matter of homosexuality, by replacing one extreme viewpoint with another. As we saw, the practice of homosexuality is most certainly a sin which MUST be repented of, if one wants to enter the Kingdom of God. We are told that if we don’t repent and give up wrong habits, replacing them with God’s righteousness, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. Homosexuality is most certainly a SIN that must be overcome — but it is NOT the ONLY sin that must be overcome. Notice Revelation 21:7-8:
“He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly [those who know better, but are afraid to change and stand up for what is right], unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Those who know better, but WILLFULLY and with HATE AND ANGER permanently and irrevocably REFUSE to repent of their evil conduct will end up in the lake of fire. They will NOT enter the New Jerusalem. Revelation 22:14-15 states:
“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs [compare Philippians 3:2] and sorcerers and sexually immoral [including homosexuals, AS WELL AS those who engage in other sinful sexual conduct, such as fornication and adultery] and murderers and idolaters, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE.”
For some, it is easy to see that homosexuality is sinful. At the same time, it is very difficult for them to see that lying or killing (even in war) is sinful and must be repented of as well. God calls homosexuality an “abomination.” Note, however, what else is an “abomination” in God’s eyes:
“These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an ABOMINATION to Him: A proud look, A LYING tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A FALSE witness who speaks LIES, And one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
The Biblical teaching is clear and consistent: EVERY SIN that we REFUSE to repent of — including, but not limited to the sinful practice of homosexuality — will keep us out of the Kingdom of God.
The House of God
On Saturday, March 12, 2005, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “The House of God.”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream
Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flo
Our new booklet on war and related issues has reached our final review cycle. It is anticipated to distribute the printed booklet by Passover.
I understand that recently, pastors and elders ordained one of your ministers to the rank of evangelist. Isn't that procedure contrary to Scripture?
We assume that you are referring to the concept, taught by some, that ministers can only ordain other ministers to a rank equal to or lower than the rank held by the ordaining minister. Although it is true that the Bible does contain examples reflecting such a procedure, there are other examples reflecting a different procedure.
A correct understanding of this question includes the correct concept of ranks in the ministry. We read in Ephesians 4:11-12 that Christ “Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”
Although this passage addresses “ranks or positions of responsibility” (Compare W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 21, under “Elder, Eldest”), it also clearly talks about functions. We read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 that there are “differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but the same God who works all in all.” Paul goes on to explain, in verses 28-29: “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues [languages]. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?”
In 1 Corinthians 12:5-6, 28-29, Paul is clearly addressing functions, rather than ranks. Note that “evangelists” and “pastors” are not even mentioned in that Scripture. But Paul says that God has appointed “teachers” in the “third” position. If Paul was addressing ranks, he would have had to list them in the “fifth” position, in order to not contradict his statements in Ephesians 4:11-12.
It is for this very reason, that the passages also emphasize functions of responsibility, that Paul referred to himself, not just as an apostle, but also as “a preacher… and a teacher of the Gentiles” (2 Timothy 1:11). These functions are also explained in 1 Timothy 2:7: “I was appointed [by Christ] a preacher and an apostle… a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” In addition, Peter, an apostle, called himself a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), and John, who was also one of the original apostles, called himself “the elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1).
Although God has always used His ministry to ordain others into the ministry [and “raising them in rank”], through the laying on of hands and prayer, it is likewise evident that it is God who must inspire those ordinations. We read about this principle in Hebrews 5:4, addressing the ordination to the office of high priest: “And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.”
We also find, in the Old Testament, that the prophet Samuel anointed Saul and David as kings, but it can be hardly said that the office of prophet was “above” the office of king. Again, we see how certain men were chosen by God to fulfill certain functions. We might also remember how Elisha, when he received Elijah’s mantle, also received a double (!) portion of the Holy Spirit, that had dwelt in Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-14).
When we analyze Paul’s life, baptism and ordination, we find that Christ had already set aside Paul (known at that time as Saul) for the purpose of the ministry, before he became converted (compare Acts 9:15-16). When the time had come, the disciple Ananias (most likely a minister, compare our Q&A in Update #171) baptized Saul and laid hands on him for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit and for being healed from his blindness. We find, in Acts 11:26, that Barnabas and Saul assembled with the church at Antioch for one year “and taught a great many people.” Then they went to Jerusalem to bring the elders of the church relief from the famine that plagued the areas. Acts 12:25 continues to report that “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem [to Antioch] when they had fulfilled their ministry, and they also took with them John whose surname was Mark.”
At this juncture, we read, in Acts 13:1: “Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” We notice that all these prophets and teachers were functioning in the church at Antioch, and that both Barnabas and Saul were included in the group referred to as teachers and prophets at that time. Continuing in verse 2: “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘NOW, separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'”
It was at that moment in time that Christ made it clear to the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch that Barnabas and Saul were to be “separated” for a particular aspect or function of the work of Christ. Notice verse 3: “Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.”
The word “apostle” means, “one who is sent.” We read, in Matthew 10:1-8, that Christ SENT OUT the original twelve apostles to preach the gospel, heal the sick and cast out demons. It is of special note that Jesus Himself established the office of apostle–even selecting that name as the title: “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles” (Luke 6:13). Consider, also, that first, Jesus prayed about those whom He should choose to be apostles: “Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12).
The same was now happening with Barnabas and Saul. The prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch ordained them to the office of apostles, to be sent forth to do a particular work. We know this to be true as they were never referred to as apostles before, but they were subsequently called apostles (compare Acts 14:4, 14). This has also been the long-held understanding of the Church of God. In addition, Paul said that he was ordained as an apostle (compare 1 Timothy 2:7, Authorized Version). The only record of his ordination can be found in Acts 13:1-3.
What is important to realize is that Barnabas and Saul were appointed to the office of apostle by “prophets and teachers” — that is, by ministers of lower positions than that of apostle. But, this was inspired and approved by God, as we have seen.
Some believe that the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch were actually sent by the apostles from Jerusalem, charging them with the task of ordaining Saul and Barnabas to the office of apostle. This, however, is mere speculation, and cannot be proven from Scripture. In fact, Scripture strongly suggests the opposite. We need to realize that Paul and Barnabas had just been in Jerusalem, and returned to Antioch. It was THERE, in Antioch, that Christ inspired the ministry to ordain Paul and Barnabas as apostles — not in Jerusalem. Also, the fact that prophets came from Jerusalem is normally specifically mentioned in Scripture (compare Acts 11:27; 21:10).
In any event, it is THE Apostle, Jesus Christ (compare Hebrews 3:1), Who directs the ministry to ordain people in His Church. And it was Christ Who inspired the prophets and teachers (ministers of lower positions than that of apostle) in the church at Antioch to ordain Barnabas and Saul (who belonged to the group of prophets and teachers), to the rank and office of apostle. It is therefore clear, from Scripture, that pastors and elders are authorized, by God, and under God’s inspiration and direction, to ordain a fellow minister to a higher rank and office — such as evangelist.
Responsibilities in Judgment
On Saturday, March 5, 2005, Edwin Pope will give the sermon, titled, “Responsibilities in Judgment.”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
Preaching the Gospel & Feeding the Flock
We would like to thank all of you for your prayers for a successful Church Conference, which ended on Wednesday. We will announce soon exciting new projects to be implemented, to fulfill our God-given duties to preach the gospel and feed the flock.
Did Jephthah sacrifice his own daughter? If so, how could he still be granted access to the Kingdom of God?
The account referred to can be found in Judges 11:30-31, 34-40. We read:
“And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, ‘If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’… When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah [after having defeated the Ammonites], there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.’ So she said to him, ‘My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth… let me alone for two months, that I… bewail my virginity…’ And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.”
Before addressing whether Jephthah actually sacrificed his own daughter, let us point out that Jephthah will be resurrected, as an immortal spirit being, at the time of Christ’s return, to enter the Kingdom of God, as Hebrews 11:32, 39-40 clearly implies. This fact alone does not answer the question, however, whether or not Jephthah committed the abominable act of killing his own daughter — we understand that EVERY sin can and will be forgiven by God upon true repentance.
Commentaries are divided as to the question whether Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The Ryrie Study Bible explains:
“Some understand that Jephthah’s daughter was only dedicated to the service of God in a life of celibacy and not actually slain. Others hold that she was killed according to Canaanite practices which Jephthah had embraced.”
Rienecker, Lexicon of the Bible, points out:
“The question of Jephthah’s vow is not clearly resolved. He had vowed to offer to the LORD as burnt offering what (or possibly, according to the Hebrew, who) would meet him upon his victorious return (Judges 11: 30, 31). That was his only daughter. After granting her two months to bemoan her virginity, he did what he had vowed (verse 39). This seems to indicate, in combination with his grief (verse 35), that the burnt offering was actually completed. On the other hand, the law of the Israelites did not allow human sacrifices, but it permitted to redeem a person who had been dedicated to the LORD (Leviticus 27:1-8). Some have concluded that Jephthah, who is mentioned with approval in 1 Samuel 12:11 and Hebrews 11:32, was able to circumvent the literal fulfillment of his vow. Some have speculated that a celibate, withdrawn life (Judges 11:39) could also show complete dedication to the LORD, as a burnt offering would have shown. The right conclusion is difficult, as the Holy Scriptures only report, without expressly judging either the vow itself or its fulfillment.”
The Nelson Study Bible seems to prefer the understanding that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter. The following is stated in support of that view:
“Some have interpreted Jephthah’s vow ‘whatever comes out of the doors’ as a clear intention to offer a human sacrifice. His surprise then is not that he had to sacrifice a human being, but that the unfortunate person was his daughter. The phrase ‘to meet me’ seems to refer more appropriately to a human than to an animal… Undoubtedly, Jephthah knew that human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 19:5; Ezek. 20:30, 31; 23:37, 39), but his foolishness and lack of faith impelled him to make a reckless vow in order to try to manipulate God (11:39).
“… But did Jephthah have to follow through on his vow? Ordinarily the answer would be yes. Vows were made only to God, and they were solemn pledges that had to be kept. People were not forced to take them, but if they did, they had to be honored (Deut. 23:21-23; Ps. 15:4; Eccl. 5:4, 5). But Jephthah had vowed something sinful in itself if his intent was to make a human sacrifice in the literal sense.
“… The text does not explicitly say that he killed his daughter, only that ‘he carried out his vow.’ When the verse goes on to say that ‘she knew no man,’ some take this to mean that she was ‘sacrificed’ by being dedicated to a life of perpetual virginity. Several arguments can be made for this interpretation. First, human sacrifice was contrary to the Law of Moses… Second, the great respect that Jephthah had for God surely would have prevented him from making such a perverse offering. Third, the fact that Jephthah permitted his daughter to bewail her virginity… for two months fits an explanation of perpetual virginity better than human sacrifice. Fourth, the indication that his daughter ‘knew no man’ also seems to be a detail that would support the idea of celibacy. Fifth, the Bible provides evidence that such devoted service for women did exist at the central sanctuary (Ex. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22; Luke 2:36, 37). In ancient Israelite society, the father had the power to prohibit a daughter to marry. Sixth, the conjunction in Jephthah’s pivotal statement in v. 31, that whatever or whoever came out of the door ‘shall be the LORD’s, AND I will offer it up as a burnt offering’ could be translated OR. Thus, if a person came out first, he would dedicate that person to the LORD, OR if an animal came out first, he would offer the animal as a burnt offering.”
However, several problems exist with that interpretation. To begin with, it is possible that Jephthah had strictly an animal in mind, when he made his vow, as Jephthah’s words (in Judges 11:31) can be translated from the Hebrew, as follows: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me…, I will offer IT up for a burnt offering” (compare Authorized Version). It was common at that time for houses to have enclosed courtyards where animals were kept.
In any event, whatever Jephthah’s original intent, the earliest Christian and Jewish commentators all seem to have accepted the story at face value; that is, that Jephthah killed his daughter. It appears that the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi was the first to suggest that rather than having sacrificed his daughter, Jephthah merely kept her a perpetual virgin. The New Bible Commentary: Revised explains:
“It has sometimes been inferred… that Jephthah commuted his daughter’s fate from burnt-offering to perpetual virginity, but this is hardly warranted by the narrative. The plain and restrained statement that he ‘did with her according to his vow’ (v. 39) is best taken as implying her actual sacrifice. Although human sacrifice was strictly forbidden to Israelites, we need not be surprised at a man of Jephthah’s half-Canaanite antecedents following Canaanite usage in this matter. The author of Judges does not approve of his action; he may well have regarded it as a symptom of the state of affairs at a time when ‘every man did what was right in his own eyes’ (cf. 17:6; 21:25). The closest biblical parallel is Mesha’s sacrifice of his eldest son (2 Ki 3:27).”
The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, agrees with this conclusion. So do Matthew Henry’s Commentary; The Broadman’s Bible Commentary; Unger’s Bible Handbook; Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible; and, apparently, Halley’s Bible Handbook.
It has also been the long-held understanding of the Church of God that Jephthah did in fact sacrifice his only daughter. It is stated in “The Bible Story”: “Though some commentators have thought Jephthah kept his daughter a perpetual virgin, the Jews and most commentators have understood this tragic story as explained in the Authorized Version of the Bible. Jephthah learned a mighty lesson. He discovered, through this tragedy, the real lesson of faith — that one does not have to vow to God in order to have Him perform what He has promised. What God expects is that we learn to trust Him in everything. When Jephthah finally learned that lesson, he became an outstanding example of faith. Paul even referred to him in Hebrews 11:32 as one of the outstanding examples of faith in the Old Testament.”
An older letter from the Letter Answering Department of the Worldwide Church of God added: “Jephthah made a very rash and foolish vow. He further compounded his error by keeping his vow (Judg. 11:39). That, no doubt, was greatly displeasing to God. Nevertheless, Jephthah is mentioned among the faithful listed in Hebrew 11 (see verse 32). This leads us to conclude that — like other servants of God — he ultimately realized the error of his own ways, repented, and received God’s forgiveness.”
In conclusion, it appears that Jephthah, following faulty human reasoning, sacrificed his own daughter. Upon his repentance, God forgave him, and Jephthah will be resurrected to immortal life, when Jesus Christ returns. This fact should give us great comfort and hope. Whatever sins we might have committed in our lives, God will forgive, when we genuinely and sincerely repent of them.
