Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

To Request a FREE hard copy of this booklet, please write to: contact@eternalgod.org

Introduction

Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, under the inspiration of God the Father, prophesied that the very last generation of mankind would be so evil and wicked that it would be willing to even destroy “all flesh” in a worldwide war (Matthew 24:22). At that time of impending cosmocide “the love of many”—even in God’s Church—“will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12). There is a reason for such indifference and God tells us in the same verse what the reason is, “…because lawlessness will abound.”

At that very time it will be as if people were to say, “The law is no more!” (Lamentations 2:9). Instead, they will have been misled by the “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). This mysterious concept was already at work in the days of the apostle Paul but it grew worse and worse over the centuries. Just prior to the return of Jesus Christ, a religious personality, referred to as the “lawless one,” will appear (2 Thessalonians 2:8). The overwhelming majority, not having “received the love of the truth,” will accept, support and even worship that man, thinking that he is God (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

How could this be, given the fact that most people, especially in the Western World, are professing Christians, and as such, supposedly embrace the teachings of the Bible? Don’t they agree with, and keep, the fundamental and, we might say, constitutional law of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, as well as God’s statutes and judgments that further define and explain the Ten Commandments? How could professing Christians be referred to in the Bible as people who follow “lawlessness”?

Most professing Christians do not believe that the Ten Commandments are still in force and effect, so they don’t see a need to keep them—neither in the letter, nor in “spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Before you disagree with this statement, consider the fact that the Bible nowhere authorizes replacement of the weekly Sabbath with Sunday worship. The fourth commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). The Sabbath (the time from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) is the last or seventh day of the week. God Himself set aside the Sabbath at the creation of man, thereby making it holy. He subsequently required that man keep it holy as He made it. It is still in force and effect today. Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week, not the last day. But how many professing Christians keep the Sabbath holy? Only very few. It was the Catholic Church that “changed” the Sabbath law, fulfilling a prophecy in Daniel 7:25 that describes a church that would, in fact, “intend to change times and law”—that is, the “law” regulating holy “times.” But God did not approve of this man-made change. And by following the lead of the Catholic Church, many were made to “stumble at the law” (Malachi 2:8).

Apart from the rather obvious discrepancy between biblically-commanded Sabbath observance and humanly-invented Sunday worship, how many Christians do you know who really believe and keep even the other nine of the Ten Commandments?

How many do you know who are determined, for example, never to lie, never to kill, never to take God’s name in vain, never to worship idols, never to steal, and never to desire his or her neighbor’s wife or husband, or something that belongs to a neighbor?

It is obvious that not many have this determination not to violate God’s law. This is why our carnal minds that are incapable of being subject to the law (Romans 8:7), have invented seemingly convincing “logical arguments” that “prove” from the Bible that God’s law is indeed “no more.”

What Sin Is!

The Bible teaches us from beginning to end that sin, unrepented of, will prevent us from entering the Kingdom of God. God expects and requires of us to overcome sin. And if God’s Holy Spirit dwells in us, we can become victorious over sin—that is, we can stop breaking God’s law. We read in Romans 8:4, in the Living Bible, “So now we can obey God’s law, if we follow after the Holy Spirit and no longer obey the old evil nature within us.”

When we obey God’s law, we don’t sin. Sin is defined as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). We could also say, sin is lawlessness. Those who live in and follow after lawlessness, live in and follow after sin. We are also told that all unrighteousness is sin (1 John 5:17). Conversely, if we keep God’s commandments, we live in righteousness, as God defines all of His commandments as “righteousness” (Psalm 119:172, Authorized Version).

But what exactly is the “law” that we break when we sin? Is it some “New Law” that Christ brought, while doing away with His Father’s commandments? Or is it the very same law that defined sin from the outset—the Ten Commandments?

We read in Matthew 19:16–19 about a young man who once came to Christ with an interesting question. He asked Him what “good thing” he had to do in order to “have eternal life.” Christ responded by saying, “…if you want to enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments.” The young man asked what many professing Christians might want to ask today, “Which ones?”

Notice, carefully, Christ’s answer. Did He say, “Why, of course, not the old ancient ones that Israel received at Mount Sinai! Not those Ten Commandments from the relic past. Rather, you need to keep the New Law that I am bringing to REPLACE those burdensome Ten Commandments!”?

Not at all! His response is recorded in verses 18 and 19: “…You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Christ quoted from the last six of the Ten Commandments, which define our love toward neighbor. He did not quote from any of the first four of the Ten Commandments, which define our love toward God. Did He tell the young man that he did not have to love God anymore? Of course not! It is obvious that, although Christ quoted just some of the Ten Commandments, He wanted it to be understood that we can only obtain eternal life if we keep them all. As the same section goes on to show, Christ was addressing this individual in direct response to what his underlying lack involved. As a Jewish citizen of that day, he knew the command to keep ALL of God’s commandments—and he claimed that he had done so from his youth (Matthew 19:20). However, Christ showed him that he really lacked the love toward neighbor and toward God, as he placed his riches before God and neighbor (Matthew 19:21). He stumbled at Christ’s challenge to rid himself of his great wealth and give it to the poor, and to follow Christ. His riches had become the most important aspect of his life, and he was not able to put service and surrender to God and neighbor FIRST in his life (Matthew 19:22).

The Law of the Ten Commandments

Some, though, would want to disagree and argue with these clear words of Christ. They allege that, since Christ only quoted some of the Ten Commandments, only those need to be kept, and since He did not specifically refer to the Sabbath commandment, that law no longer needs to be kept either. (Remember, though, that Christ quoted none of the first four commandments!).

Those who reason this way overlook a very important biblical principle. The apostle James, who is the half-brother of Jesus, explains this principle and, at the same time, silences those who claim that we today do not have to keep all of God’s Ten Commandments. Let’s read his decisive answer in James 2:8–12: “If you really fulfill [that is, keep] the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep [or, fulfill] the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.”

The Ten Commandments as a Package!

James tells us that we sin if we break just one provision of the “whole” law. He makes it clear that the “law” he is talking about is, in fact, the Ten Commandments. He illustrates this point by selecting two of the Ten Commandments—the law against murder and the law against adultery. He explains to us that, if we violate even one of the Ten Commandments, we are still a “transgressor of the [entire]LAW.” Note that James uses the word “law” as a summary term to include all of God’s Ten Commandments.

We do the same today in human affairs. A person might have violated a specific traffic regulation and the police officer might tell him, “You have violated the law.” The officer would be right, as that particular traffic rule is indeed part of the entirety of man’s law. When Christ told the young man that he had to keep the commandments, and then cited some of the Ten Commandments, especially focusing on the last six, He made it very clear that He was referring to all of the Ten Commandments, treating them as a “total package,” as did the apostle James.

Did Christ Abolish God’s Law?

Some, having given themselves over to the arguments of the carnal mind—which is hostile toward the law of God—have used this “package” concept, to “prove” that the entire law of God was abolished. Their absurd “argument” goes something like this: Since certain scriptures show that a “law” is no longer in effect, all of God’s Ten Commandments (it is alleged) have been done away with, and Jesus Christ brought a “New Law,” which happens to include nine of the Ten Commandments, while omitting the Sabbath commandment.

This seemingly “clever” argument to get away from God’s specific commandment to remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy is “supported” by the misuse of the following scriptures: Galatians 3, Romans 5, and Hebrews 10. Correctly understood, however, these three passages do not at all support abolishment of the Ten Commandments—rather, they prove the opposite—that the Ten Commandments are still in force and effect for us today! Let’s analyze these aforementioned scriptures.

Does Galatians 3 Abolish the Ten Commandments?

Reading from Galatians 3:17–19, 22, 24–25: “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator… (verse 22) But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in [of] Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe… (verse 24) Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Does this passage teach us that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, as some claim? Does Paul even have the Ten Commandments in mind when he talks about the “law” that “was added because of transgressions”?

In order to understand this passage properly, we must recognize that the Bible sometimes uses the word “law” for just a portion of the entire law system. We must consider the context of the particular passage in order to ascertain whether the word “law” refers to the entirety of God’s law system, or just a portion, and if just a portion, which portion.

We do the same today in human affairs. We might say, “the law requires you to do this or that,” and we may be speaking about a particular provision in the Civil Code, or the Criminal Code, or some administrative law.

We learned from Galatians 3:17 and 19 that “the law” was “added” “four hundred and thirty years” after God’s covenant with Abraham. This “law” was added “because of transgressions.” We also learned in verse 22 that the Scripture confined everybody “under sin.” We know already that sin is the transgression of the law. The law referred to in Galatians 3 was added because people had sinned—because they hadtransgressed God’s law.

Paul’s use of the word “law” in the third chapter of the book of Galatians then does not relate to the Ten Commandments at all, but to an altogether different set of rules.

The Bible does not contradict itself. One Scripture does not “break” or “make of no effect” another Scripture (John 10:35). A law was added because of transgressions. This law cannot be the Ten Commandments. Rather, because people had transgressed the law of the Ten Commandments, an additional law was given to the people. What this additional law was will become clear very soon.

Ten Commandments in Force and Effect Since Creation of Man

The Bible consistently teaches that people transgressed the Ten Commandments long before the added “law” mentioned in Galatians 3 came into existence.

We read in 1 Timothy 2:14 that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Eve sinned when she violated God’s law. This means that God’s law of the Ten Commandments was already in effect long before Abraham or Moses, because Paul tells us in Romans 4:15, “…where there is no law there is no transgression.” And remember, if we sin, we are “convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9).

Adam and Eve transgressed the law of the Ten Commandments when they took of the forbidden fruit. They sinned by disobeying God, by stealing from Him and by lying to Him about it. They also committed idolatry by following Satan, desiring to have something that was not theirs. Later, Cain sinned by murdering his brother Abel (Genesis 4:7–8). The men of Sodom were “sinful” against God (Genesis 13:13) in violating His commandments and principles pertaining to marriage (Genesis 18:20).

God prevented two pagan rulers, both referred to as Abimelech, from sinning against Him by having an adulterous relationship with Abraham’s and Isaac’s wives (Genesis 20:6; Genesis 26:10). Later, Joseph refused to commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife, knowing that this would be a sin (Genesis 39:7–9). Jacob sinned by deceiving, or lying to, his father Isaac (Genesis 27:35). Jacob knew that stealing was sinful (Genesis 30:33; 31:39). Joseph later explained that kidnapping a person was stealing and therefore sinful (Genesis 40:15). His brothers understood, too, that stealing was sinful (Genesis 50:17; Genesis 44:8).

Fornication was understood to be a sinful act long before God spoke the Ten Commandments to Israel (Genesis 34:7, 31; 38:24). Murder also was declared to be sinful (compare also Genesis 49:6–7), and the midwives refused to kill the Israelite baby boys because they feared God (Exodus 1:16–17).

Prior to arriving at Mount Sinai, God clearly identified the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath as a law that had to be obeyed (Exodus 16:4–5, 22–30). After all, it had been in effect since Adam and Eve were created (Genesis 2:2–3).

We see, then, that the Ten Commandments were in force and effect since the creation of man. In breaking them, man sinned and fell into transgression. And because of such transgression, another law was later added.

Does Romans 5 Abolish the Ten Commandments?

In Romans 5, as in Galatians 3, people misinterpret Paul’s statements about the law, not realizing what “law” he is referring to. We will see here that Paul again writes about a “law” that was “added”—he is not at all talking about the Ten Commandments.

Romans 5:13–14 reads, “For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

Paul tells us clearly that there was already sin in the world before “the law” came. Sin, we know, is the transgression of the LAW. Therefore, there was a law in effect that was broken before this additional “law” came.So, the law that came or was added must have been different from the law that was already broken; in fact, this particular law was added because another law had been transgressed.

We also read about the transgression of Adam. Adam sinned—sin being the transgression of the law. Others sinned too—although perhaps not to the same degree that Adam sinned—because we read that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Romans 6:23 tells us why death reigned: “For the wages of sin is death.” When we sin or transgress God’s law, we have to pay a penalty—death. This is confirmed by the apostle James in James 1:15: “…sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

We understand, then, that a law was added “because of transgression”—because God’s Ten Commandments had been transgressed. What “law” is it, then, that Paul talks about in Galatians 3 and Romans 5 that was added because of transgression or sin?

Does Hebrews 10 Abolish the Ten Commandments?

The answer can be found, paradoxically, in Hebrews 10—the very scripture that some would use to “prove” that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. But, the tenth chapter of the book of Hebrews does not refer to the Ten Commandments—rather, it identifies the law that was added because of transgression.

In discussing the “earthly sanctuary” that Moses built according to God’s instructions, Paul explains in Hebrews 9:9–10, “It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices were offered which cannot make him who performed the sacrifice perfect in regard to the conscience—concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.”

Here we find described the “law that was added.” It was only a temporary law—it was only imposed until the time of reformation, that is, until the time of Jesus Christ’s perfect life without sin (Hebrews 4:15), His sacrificial death and His resurrection to eternal life. Since Christ paid the penalty for our sins through His death, we are no longer under the tutor referred to in Galatians 3. We are no longer under the law that was added that dealt with fleshly ordinances and rituals. This temporary law can be summarized as the sacrificial law—it regulated sacrifices, food and drink offerings, certain washings, and other rituals dealing with the flesh. This was the law that was added after Israel made a golden calf—after Israel had sinned against God’s Ten Commandments and fallen into transgression.

This sacrificial system is clearly referred to as “the law” in the Bible. Let’s note this in Hebrews 10:1, 8–9, and let’s also note that it is that law that was abolished when Christ died for us: “(verse 1) For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect… (verse 8) Previously saying, ‘Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them’ (which are offered according to the law), (verse 9) then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second.”

Acts 13:38–39 explains that those who now believe in Christ are the ones who receive the forgiveness of sins and are justified (made perfect through living as Christ lived). Verse 39 also shows, by contrast, that no one “… could be justified by the law of Moses.” We will explain later that the “law of Moses” included the sacrificial system. Contrast this with the response by Jesus when the young man asked what he must do to gain eternal life—“keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17).

Christ took away the LAW of sacrifices, washings, and rituals—He abolished the entire sacrificial system. This was the law that had been added—not the Ten Commandments. The physical sacrificial system had been given to the people because they had sinned against God’s spiritual law—the Ten Commandments. The ritual law was a “tutor” to bring us to Christ. It was laborious work and the people were motivated through this kind of work to avoid sinning, at least to an extent.

But the sacrificial law could not forgive sin, as Paul stresses in Hebrews 10:4: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” Paul adds in verse 11: “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”

This sacrificial law is not binding for Christians today. It was a law that was added because of sin, until Christ came to forgive sin, upon repentance of sin and belief in His sacrifice. That’s why we read in Hebrews 10:18, “Now where there is remission [forgiveness] of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.”

This sacrificial law that was added and then later taken away did not affect the Ten Commandments. This means, for example, that the fourth commandment, regarding the keeping of the Sabbath, is still valid and in force today. Note that the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27) at the time of the creation of man (Genesis 2:2–3). It is referred to as a law to be kept prior to Mount Sinai (Exodus 16:25–30). It is still a binding commandment for all of mankind today, as are the other nine of the Ten Commandments. The sacrificial system, which was added one year after God spoke the Ten Commandments to the people, did not enact or bring into existence the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath commandment. And since it did not enact the Ten Commandments, it could not void them when the sacrificial system itself became obsolete.

We have seen, then, that the word “law” used in the Bible can refer to all of God’s laws, or it can refer to just a portion of God’s laws. We always need to study the context to see how the word “law” is to be understood in any given situation.

As this is such an important issue, we will take some time now and analyze several passages from both the Old and the New Testaments to show that the word “law” does not always refer to the entirety of God’s laws. In fact, many of the passages that we will look at apply the word “law” exclusively to the sacrificial system or provisions within the sacrificial system. Once we have this truth firmly in mind, it will not be possible to fall for, or be fooled by, “clever” arguments that try to convince us that Christ did away with all of the laws of the Old Testament and replaced them with an entire set of new laws.

Notice the following examples from the Old Testament, applying the words “the law” strictly to a portion of the sacrifical system that pertains to different kinds of offerings:

“Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering… This is the law of the grain offering… This is the law of the sin offering’” (Leviticus 6:9, 14, 25).

“‘Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering (it is most holy)… This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer to the LORD… This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the consecrations, and the sacrifice of the peace offering, which the LORD commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day when He commanded the children of Israel to offer their offerings to the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai’” (Leviticus 7:1, 11, 37–38).

In addition, let’s notice the following examples from the Old Testament that apply the words “the law” strictly to certain ritualistic washings and purification. For instance, there were in existence specific rituals that had to be fulfilled when a child was born:

“When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle dove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Then he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female” (Leviticus 12:6–7).

There was also a statute that had to be obeyed regarding the purification of a leper or infected garments and buildings. This statute is clearly referred to as “the law of leprosy”: “‘This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing… This is the law for one who had a leprous sore, who cannot afford the usual cleansing… This is the law for any leprous sore and scale, for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, for a swelling and a scab and bright spot, to teach when it is unclean and when it is clean. This is the law of leprosy’” (Leviticus 14: 2, 32, 54–57).

We are also introduced to another ritualistic procedure, referred to as the “law of jealousy,” to determine whether a wife had committed adultery or not:

“This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he becomes jealous of his wife; then he shall stand the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute all this law upon her” (Numbers 5:29–30).

Another example from the Old Testament notes a ritualistic law of purification regarding a person who was in or entered a tent in which a man had died:

“This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days… on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean” (Numbers 19:14, 19).

All of these examples serve to illustrate the point that the words “the law”—based on the context in which they are used—can apply to just a portion of the entire law of God, and when those particular laws are abolished, they do not nullify the rest of God’s laws.

The word “law” must always be viewed in context. This is true for both the Old and the New Testaments. We already saw that the word “law” in Galatians 3, Romans 5, and Hebrews 10 does not refer to the entirety of God’s laws, nor to the Ten Commandments at all. Rather, they refer to the laws or the legal system pertaining to washings, rituals and sacrifices. This became evident as we viewed those passages in context with the rest of the Scriptures.

This biblical principle must be applied throughout. For instance, some have carelessly assumed, when reading the 21st chapter of the book of Acts, that Paul was accused of not living by the Ten Commandments. A careful review of this passage will show, however, that it does not deal with the Ten Commandments at all.

We read in Acts 21:18–24, “On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.’”

What “law” is this passage talking about? The law of the Ten Commandments? Note that the specific context is circumcision, purification, and other rituals in connection with the making of a vow. Consider also what Paul actually did do when following the “customs” of the Jews: “Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them” (verse 26).

The reference to the “law” or the “customs” is solely in regard to that portion in the writings of Moses that dealt with sacrifices, washings and rituals—in other words, the “law that was added,” and not the Ten Commandments at all.

We might add here that it was of course not sinful for Paul to participate in these customs, although they were no longer required. Paul said that he became a Jew to the Jews in order to win some (1 Corinthians 9:20). And, although he had made it clear that circumcision was no longer required [see the detailed discussion later in this booklet], he still circumcised Timothy, for the Jews’ sake, in order not to place a stumbling block before them (Acts 16:1–3).

We have seen, from the previous examples that the word “law” must always be examined in context. It can refer to the entirety of God’s laws or it can refer just to a portion of God’s laws. We learned that the word “law” sometimes refers to the sacrificial system that was established or “added” one year after God spoke the Ten Commandments to ancient Israel.

If one does not differentiate between God’s spiritual laws (including the law of the Ten Commandments) and the laws of sacrifices and rituals, one is bound to make devastating mistakes in understanding the Bible. Let us therefore note a few more examples that clearly distinguish between God’s spiritual law that existed since the creation of man, and the ritual and sacrificial law system “that was added” at the time of Moses.

God makes this distinction very clear in Jeremiah 7:22–23: “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices [In fact, those commands God gave one year later]. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’”

God Himself is teaching us an important concept here. He commanded the Israelites to walk in all His ways—and this did not include the bringing of sacrifices! God’s spiritual law—the Ten Commandments—and the statutes and judgments that further define God’s spiritual law, knew nothing about sacrifices. The sacrificial system was added because the Israelites did not obey God’s spiritual law.

In Jeremiah 6:19–20, God emphasizes this same truth: “Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people—The fruit of their thoughts, Because they have not heeded My words Nor My law, but rejected it. For what purpose to Me Comes frankincense from Sheba, And sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, Nor your sacrifices sweet to Me.”

The people brought sacrifices, yet rejected God’s law. Obviously, God is speaking here about two different sets of “laws.” The Israelites kept the sacrificial law, but they did not keep God’s spiritual law of the Ten Commandments. Nowhere in all of God’s word is He ever displeased with those who do keep His great spiritual laws, including the Ten Commandments.

Another clear distinction between the system of sacrifices (that was added to bring people to Christ) and God’s spiritual law is made in Psalm 40:6–8: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart.”

Originally, it was not God’s will, nor was it part of God’s spiritual law, to bring sacrifices. Rather, the requirement of sacrifices was added after Israel had broken God’s spiritual law. Again, we see that the word “law” must be carefully examined, in context, in order to come to a correct understanding.

As we will discuss later in this booklet in much more detail, God made a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. We read in Exodus 24 that the covenant was sealed with blood. When that happened, the covenant was final and could not be altered. The law of the covenant was written in a book, the “Book of the Covenant” (verse 7; compare Hebrews 9:19–20). At that time, the sacrificial system was not a part of the law—those ritual provisions had not been given yet—and they were not written in the Book of the Covenant. The only sacrifice that is mentioned as a required sacrifice is the Passover (Exodus 23:18; Exodus 12). Yet, even this Passover sacrifice found its fulfillment in the death of Jesus Christ. Christians do not now offer lambs in sacrifice for Passover—rather, Paul shows: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

There is also a reference to an altar on which offerings could be made (Exodus 20:22–26), but these offerings were not part of a mandatory sacrificial system. Even before Sinai, people gave voluntary offerings (Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:3–5; Noah, Genesis 8:20–21; Abram, Genesis 15:9–11; Abraham, Genesis 22:13; Jacob, Genesis 31:54; 35:14; Israel, Genesis 46:1). The offerings mentioned in Exodus 20 were voluntary—they are identified as burnt and peace offerings (verse 24). Interestingly, sin and trespass offerings are not mentioned. They are only described as a part of the sacrificial system—to remind the people of their sins and trespasses—for the first time in Leviticus 4 and 5.

The covenant at Horeb originally did not include the sacrificial system. Neither did the Book of the Covenant contain such ritual regulations. But as time went on, ritual laws were added, including the laws regarding the Levitical priesthood and penalties or curses for violations of God’s spiritual law, and those did find their way into the Book of the Covenant, which is also called the Book of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 28:58, 61; 29:20–21, 27, 29; 31:9).

This Book of the Law was placed outside or beside the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24–26). The tablets with the Ten Commandments, however, were placed inside the ark (Deuteronomy 10:4–5; Hebrews 9:4).

Later, all the laws that had been written by Moses into the Book of the Law were engraved on massive stones (Deuteronomy 27:2–3, 8; Joshua 8:30–32, 34). The laws that were written on the stones included the Ten Commandments, along with the statutes and judgments, and also the rules and regulations regarding sacrifices and other rituals. We find a reference to those stones and the laws that had been engraved on them in 2 Corinthians 3:7–8, “But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious… how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?”

The reference to the ministry of death includes the death penalty for violating God’s spiritual law. The penalties were first written in the Book of the Law of Moses and then engraved on massive stones. Since Christ died for us, we don’t have to pay the death penalty, if we repent of our sins and obtain forgiveness. In addition, the ritual sacrificial laws, which were among the laws written on stones, could not forgive sins—they only reminded the sinners of their sins. The Levitical priesthood was, in that sense, a ministry of death, as people would still not be able to obtain eternal life, even though they brought sacrifices.

With that background, we should be able to better understand what Paul is telling us in Galatians 3:10–13, where he speaks about the “works of the law.” In reading this passage, remember to consider the context to see what specific law this passage has reference to. Beginning in verse 10, “For as many as are of the works of the law [including the sacrificial and ritual works that had to be performed] are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.’ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith.’ Yet the law is not of faith, but ‘the man who does them [i.e., the rituals and sacrifices] shall live by them [that is, God did not kill them as long as they lived within the sacrificial system.].’ Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).”

Anyone who did not continue in everything, which was written in the Book of the Law, including the regulations pertaining to washings, rituals and sacrifices, was cursed. Although the Book of the Law included, of course, the Ten Commandments and its spiritual statutes and judgments, it also included the physical works of the law, that is, the sacrificial system, as well as the death penalties for the violations of God’s law.

Paul’s statement, then, that the law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19), refers to that part of the law or laws in the Book of the Law which have to do with sacrifices and other rituals, as well as the curses or penalties for violating God’s spiritual law.

We need to keep firmly in mind that “the Book of the Law of Moses,” sometimes referred to as “the law of Moses,” included all kinds of laws. We must therefore be careful not to draw hasty conclusions when we read about the Book of the Law in the New Testament. Again, we always need to analyze in context, which particular and specific lawsthe author is talking about.

For instance, we read in Acts 15:5, “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them [Gentiles who became Christians], and to command them to keep the law of Moses.’”

The context of the discussion shows us that they were not arguing about the Ten Commandments—including the Sabbath—but whether circumcision and other rituals contained in the Law of Moses were mandatory for Gentile Christians. Now, notice, how this question was decided in the first ministerial conference in Jerusalem. Notice that it is James who is saying these words—the same apostle who later talked about the Ten Commandments as a package, saying that we are guilty of violating them all if we break even one of the Ten: “‘Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood’” (Acts 15:19–20; compare also Acts 15: 28–29).

James was not talking about the Ten Commandments. But, why does James specifically mention that the Gentiles must abstain from idols, sexual immorality, strangled meat and blood? These four aspects in the Law of Moses were mentioned here in connection with rituals and sacrifices (Leviticus 17:7, 10). Gentiles would often times drink blood with their sacrifices, or they would eat their sacrifices with the blood still in the meat (as happens when animals are strangled), or they would commit fornication with temple prostitutes. So that there would be no misunderstanding, the apostles and elders clarified to the Gentiles that those laws, although mentioned in the context of the sacrificial system, were still valid and binding on them.

Christ did not come to do away with God’s spiritual law of the Ten Commandments. He stated in Matthew 5:17 that He had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it—to magnify it, to exalt it and to make it more honorable (Isaiah 42:21), to fill it up with its intended meaning, to show how to keep it perfectly in the flesh. The Greek word for “fulfill” is “pleroo.” It literally means “to fill” or “to make full” (Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible). In Matthew 3:15 it is used in this context: “…it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

In Philippians 2:2, Paul states, “…fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love.” Further, Paul reminds the saints in Colosse that he became a minister to “fulfill the word of God” (Colossians 1:25), and he admonishes Archippus to “take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it” (Colossians 4:17). None of these passages convey the thought that something has ended—rather, the obvious understanding is that something should be continued to be filled with meaning, or to be brought to perfection.

Since Christ did abolish the sacrificial system, He did not talk about that law in Matthew 5:17. Rather, He stated in that passage that He had not come to do away with God’s spiritual law—the Ten Commandments and all the Old and New Testament statutes and judgments that define and magnify the Ten Commandments even more.

After all, we read that God’s spiritual law, as defined in the Ten Commandments, the statutes and the judgments, “stand[s] fast forever and ever” (Psalm 111:7–8), and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away “than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). A tittle is the smallest stroke in a Hebrew letter.

Some quote a statement in Romans 10:4 to support the idea that Christ did away with God’s spiritual law. We read there, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Here the word for “end” in the Greek is “teleos” and means, “goal, aim, result.” James 5:11 states that we saw the “end [teleos in Greek] intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.” In 1 Peter 1:9, we are told to “receiv[e] the end [teleos in Greek] of your faith—the salvation of your souls.”

Therefore, the law did not end with Christ, but rather it was the end result of the law to lead us to Christ. The law then helps us to become like Christ. And the living Christ in us helps us to become righteous and live in righteousness (Romans 8:3–4).

Others quote Romans 6:14, stating that we are no longer “under law but under grace,” saying this means we don’t have to obey the law anymore. However, the correct meaning of this passage is that when we violate the law, we are no longer under the curse of the law—the death penalty—as the blood of Christ, given to us by grace, has covered and forgiven our sins—has paid the death penalty that we earned. Paul explains in the very next verse (verse 15), that this does not mean that we can now continue to sin—that is, to break God’s law. Rather, we are now to be “slaves of righteousness” (verse 18), in keeping God’s law.

We find another interesting reference to a “law” in the seventh chapter of the book of Hebrews. As we will analyze this passage, we will clearly see that it does not address the Ten Commandments at all. Rather, it discusses tithing. Many who read this passage become confused, believing that God did away with His command to tithe, that is, to give to God ten percent of our income. But God had told His people in Malachi 3:8–10, “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this, Says the LORD of hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it.”

Jesus Christ confirmed that the tithing law was still in effect at the time of His first coming. While emphasizing that tithing is not an end in itself, He nevertheless endorsed its validity: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone” (Matthew 23:23).

Some say that Christ did away with the law of tithing when He died. They support their claim by referring to the seventh chapter of the book of Hebrews. They misunderstand, however, what this passage tells us. Let’s read Hebrews 7:5 and understand what it says: “And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law.”

The law referred to here is the law of the Levites—that portion of the laws of God that regulates the collection of tithes through the Levites. Note how that portion of God’s laws is referred to in Nehemiah 12:44: “And at the same time some were appointed over the rooms of the storehouse for the offerings, the firstfruits, and the tithes, to gather into them from the fields of the cities the portions specified by the Law for the priests and Levites.” The Levites had been given the right, from God, to collect tithes. God had issued a specific law to grant them such responsibility.

Back in Hebrews 7, let’s continue in verses 11–12: “Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change in the law.”

The law that was changed had to do with the Levitical priesthood. It is referred to as “the law of a fleshly commandment” (Hebrews 7:16), as the Levites were human beings—flesh and blood. That portion of the entirety of God’s laws giving authority to the Levites to collect tithes was “annulled,” as we read in verse 18, “because of its weakness and unprofitableness.” The Levites were weak by reason of human nature. The law that gave them the right to collect tithes “made nothing perfect” (verse 19). But the “change of that law for the Levites” did not do away with the commandment to give tithes—it had only to do with who has the right today to collect tithes from God’s people.

In fact, the tithing law was in existence long before the law was given to the Levites to collect those tithes. Notice Hebrews 7:9: “Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” We read about this incident in Genesis 14:20, where Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tithe of all.” Later, Jacob told God that he would accept God as His God and give Him a tithe if He were to bless him (Genesis 28:20–22).

God’s people, we see, paid a tithe of their income long before there were Levites to collect tithes. And today, it’s no longer the Levites who have the responsibility to collect God’s tithes. This right has now been given to “another priest” who arose “according to the order of Melchizedek”—Jesus Christ. He is the everlasting High Priest who collects the tithes today—and He does it through His spiritual body, the Church.

Notice Hebrews 7:28: “For the law [regulating the collection of tithes through the Levites] appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses, but the word of the oath, which came after the law [pertaining to the Levites], appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.”

Christ, who is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (verse 17), was none other than Melchizedek himself. Melchizedek is described as the “king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remain[ing] a priest continually” (verses 2–3). It is said about Melchizedek that he “receives them [tithes], of whom it is witnessed that he lives” (verse 8).

We are still duty-bound to pay tithes; otherwise, we rob God and are under a curse. But it is no longer the Levites who are to collect the tithes. That part of the law was changed. It is now Christ—through His Church—who has the responsibility of collecting God’s tithes. The word “law” in Hebrews 7 does not talk about the abolishment of collecting the tithes—it only refers to the identity of the one who is charged today with collecting them.

We have seen so far that the key scriptures that have been quoted to support the idea that the Ten Commandments, as well as the statutes and judgments, are no longer in effect today, do not at all prove such a concept—in fact, they prove the opposite.

Still, the carnal mind—which is hostile toward the law of God—does not give up easily. Inspired by Satan who hates God and His law, humans have come up with another idea as to why they think that they don’t have to obey God. And this is essentially how that argument goes:

God’s Ten Commandments are no longer in force today, as they, as well as all the other Old Testament laws, are allegedly identical with the Old Covenant, and since God abolished the Old Covenant, He also abolished the Ten Commandments and all the other Old Testament laws. Christ, so the argument goes, replaced the Old Covenant (allegedly identical with all of the Old Testament laws) with a New Covenant, and this New Covenant is allegedly identical with a New Law. This “New Law” allegedly includes, for instance, nine of the original Ten Commandments, but it leaves out the fourth commandment (to keep the Sabbath holy), as well as the statutes regarding the annual Holy Days, tithing, or clean and unclean meat, just to name a few.

Surprisingly, many have fallen for this argument and have concluded that they do not have to keep the Sabbath or the annual Holy Days anymore, and that they don’t have to tithe nor refrain from unclean meats.

What about this argument? Is it valid? Or can it be proven to be wrong from the Bible? Is—as the advocates of this argument claim—the Old Covenant identical with the Ten Commandments? As we will see in the remainder of this booklet, the answer to this question is a resounding, NO!

Quite frankly, the idea that the Old Covenant is identical with the Ten Commandments is rather silly and only shows an absolute ignorance of what a covenant is. The word “covenant,” as used in the Old Testament, is a translation from the Hebrew word “berith.” The meaning of this term is “covenant, agreement or contract.”

The Bible mentions numerous covenants or contracts. Technically, it is incorrect to say that the Bible only speaks about the “Old” and the “New” Covenants.

Webster defines a “covenant” as a “usually formal, binding agreement between two or more persons, to do or not to do something; a document containing the terms of the agreement.”

Today, we still use this kind of language in legal matters to show what a covenant is. It is very common to begin a written lease agreement as follows, “We hereby covenant and agree…”

Rienecker, in Lexikon zur Bibel, writes, “The Bible knows quite a few Godly covenants…”

Once we understand that a covenant is merely a contract or an agreement, the fact that the Bible speaks about more than just one or two covenants should not surprise us. Neither should we be surprised by the fact that a covenant is not identical with the law—rather, a covenant or contract is based on law.

Let’s take an example. You might want to buy a car from me, and we might reduce our oral agreement to writing. The document might say, that you buy a used car from me for the amount of $3,000.00. The document might also say that California law applies to this transaction. Assume that you don’t have the money to pay for the car. Under those changed circumstances, we might declare the contract to be null and void. In other words, I don’t have to deliver the car to you and you don’t have to pay me money (that you don’t have, anyway). But, when we annul the contract and tear apart the written document, have we thereby invalidated the California law on which the contract was based? Of course not.

We can learn from this example a very important lesson: When a contract or a covenant, which is based on law becomes invalid, it does not automatically invalidate the law on which the contract is based. The abolishment of a covenant does not affect the validity of the law on which the covenant is based.

As we will see, the Bible confirms the basic truth that a covenant is not identical with the law. In fact, God entered into covenants with people because they had kept the law!

Let us take a closer look at the many covenants, which God has made with man over the centuries. We will see that there were numerous covenants in effect before God ever made a covenant with the nation of Israel at the time of Moses.

God’s Covenant With Noah

One of the most famous covenants that God made with man is the covenant with Noah. While God destroyed the entire earth through a flood because of the wickedness of all flesh, He spared Noah, his wife, and his three sons and daughters-in-law, as well as certain land animals, by protecting them in an ark.

Notice how the covenant is described in Genesis 9:9–17: “‘And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you… Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.’ And God said: ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth… (verse 15) and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.’ And God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I have establishedbetween Me and all flesh that is on the earth.’”

God explained very clearly in the preceding verses what a covenant is. It is a contract or an agreement between two or more parties. In today’s language, we would say, God made a contract between Himself and Noah, which included benefits for third parties (i.e., Noah’s descendants and all the animals). The subject matter of this contract was the fact that all flesh would never again be destroyed through a worldwide flood. The length of time or duration of this contract was forever—never again would God bring a flood over this earth to destroy all flesh. To put it differently, as long as there would be flesh on this earth, God would not destroy it through a worldwide flood. In addition, there was also a sign of the covenant—the rainbow. Every time God would see a rainbow in the sky, it would remind Him that He promised to Noah—by and through a covenant with him—that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood.

Why was it that God even made a covenant with Noah? Did Noah’s lifestyle have any influence on God’s decision to make a covenant with him? Was it immaterial to God how Noah lived—what kind of a person he was?

Genesis 6:8–9 and 7:1 reveal: “…Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God… Then the LORD said to Noah, ‘Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.’”

While the “wickedness of man was great in the earth, and… every intent of the thought of his heart was only evil continually,” (Genesis 6:5) Noah was “righteous.” We already know that righteousness is defined as the observance of all of God’s commandments (Psalm 119:172). God saved Noah and made a covenant with him because Noah was righteous—because he kept God’s law. And Noah stayed righteous, or obedient, even after God announced to him that He would make a covenant with him (Genesis 6:18, 22; 7:5, 16).

Recall that a covenant is not identical with the law, but that it is based on law. God made a covenant with Noah because he kept God’s laws. However, the covenant itself that God made with Noah does not mention any laws. This fact alone proves that God’s covenant with Noah was not identical with God’s laws.

Notice an interesting passage in Isaiah 24:5–6: “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.”

The prophet Isaiah tells us that the inhabitants of the earth have transgressed the laws—that is, they have sinned—and that they have broken the everlasting covenant. Isaiah is not stuttering here or repeating himself. To break the laws and to break the everlasting covenant are two different things. But what everlasting covenant did Isaiah have in mind? The only covenant mentioned in Scripture that is between God and all the inhabitants of the earth is God’s covenant with Noah. God made this covenant with man after He had brought on the flood as punishment for man’s sins.

Since man would continue sinning, God announces in Isaiah 24 that He would bring a curse of FIRE over the earth. We see, then, that God keeps His covenant with Noah—He will not destroy all flesh again through a worldwide flood. But sin has its price, and God will bring FIRE over this earth, at the time of Christ’s return, to devour those who do not live as Noah had lived (2 Thessalonians 1:6–8).

God made a covenant with Noah because Noah had obeyed God. God’s covenant with Noah did not establish or bring into existence any laws, but it was made, of course, on the basis of existing law.

Clean and Unclean Animals

Let’s also note, in passing, that the laws of clean and unclean meat were already in existence at the time of Noah—they did not come into existence at the time of Moses. Noah was specifically told by God to take with him into the ark “seven each of every clean animal, a male and a female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and a female” (Genesis 7:2. Compare also verse 8). Noah offered a burnt offering to God “of every clean animal and of every clean bird” (Genesis 8:20).

The covenant that God made later with Israel had no effect on the laws of clean and unclean animals—they were already in force long before that covenant was made. And nowhere does God teach us that we are now permitted to eat unclean animals. Notice the curse that God pronounces over those who, at the time of Christ’s return, eat swine’s flesh (Isaiah 66:17; 65:3–4).

God’s Covenants With Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

In due course, God chose to make another covenant with man—this time with Abram.

God’s First Covenant With Abram

We are introduced to that covenant in Genesis 15:18, where we read, “On the same day the LORD MADE a covenant with Abram, saying: ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates.’”

Notice that God actually MADE that covenant—or contract—with Abram on that very same day when He said those words. The subject matter of that covenant was the conveyance of land to Abram’s descendants.

God’s Second Covenant With Abram

As time went on, God would make an ADDITIONAL covenant with Abram. We read about this next contract in the 17th chapter of the book of Genesis: “(verse 1) When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I WILL MAKE My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly… (verse 4) As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. (verse 5) No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. (verse 6) I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. (verse 7) And I WILL ESTABLISH My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”

This is a new covenant with Abram. It is not the same covenant that God had made with Abram earlier. Though the subject matter of this new covenant includes the conveyance of the land of Canaan to Abram’s descendants (verse 8), it goes beyond that—it involves the promise that many nations and kings would descend from Abraham, and it includes the promise that the Eternal would be God for Abraham and his descendants.

We are also told in Romans 4:13 that God’s covenant was not limited to the land of Canaan; rather, God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants would ultimately include the whole earth.

God’s Third Covenant With Abram, Now Called Abraham

Returning to Genesis 17, we find that God made with Abraham a third covenant—the covenant of circumcision. Beginning in verse 10, “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.” We see here that circumcision was a separate covenant. The deacon, Stephen, would later explain to the Jewish council that God gave Abraham “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). It is true that circumcision is also referred to as a sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:11) that God was about to make with Abraham (as described in Genesis 17:1–7). This reminds us of the rainbow, which was a sign of the covenant between God and Noah. Nevertheless, circumcision was also a separate covenant between God and Abraham.

God’s Fourth Covenant With Abraham

Realize that, in addition to physical promises of national greatness and kingship, God’s covenant relationship with Abraham also included spiritual promises. Notice Acts 3:25–26, “You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquity” (Luke 1:72–75).

It is noteworthy that these spiritual promises that God gave to Abraham in a covenant are not mentioned in the 17th chapter of Genesis. They are mentioned, however, in Genesis 22:16–18 and in Genesis 26:4. From this, it is apparent that God made even an additional covenant with Abraham, pertaining to spiritual matters, subsequent to His earlier covenants that dealt with physical matters.

It was promised to Abraham that his Seed—Jesus Christ—would give Abraham and his descendants spiritual blessings. In the book of Galatians, Paul made it clear that all the promises to Abraham—physical and spiritual—were also made to Jesus Christ, as the Seed or Descendant of Abraham, and to us, if we are Christ’s and therefore “Abraham’s seed”:

“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘and to your Seed,’ who is Christ… And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:16, 29).

God’s Covenants With Isaac and Jacob

In Genesis 17:21 God promised Abraham that He would make a covenant with Abraham’s son, Isaac: “But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year.” And so He did, and subsequently, God made another covenant with Jacob whose name was later changed to Israel.

It is important to recognize that God made these covenants with Isaac and with Israel on an individual basis, just as He had entered into different covenants or agreements with Abraham. This again shows what a covenant is—simply a contract or an agreement, based on law, but not identical with the law.

Notice the following scripture that tells us about the covenants that God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: “I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember; I will remember the land” (Leviticus 26:42).

Although the subject matter of these three covenants was identical, God still made individual covenants with Abraham, his son, and his grandson, as the parties were different.

Why God Made Covenants With Abraham

Why was it that God made a covenant with Abram or Abraham in the first place? We saw that God made a covenant with Noah because Noah was righteous. Can the same be said about Abram?

We read the following testimony about Abram, before God made a covenant with him: “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). Afterwards, God made a covenant with him (Genesis 15:18).

Abram’s faith was one of obedience (Romans 1:5; 16:26). We read that “by faith Abraham obeyed” (Hebrews 11:8). Abraham’s righteousness was by faith, which motivated him to keep God’s commandments and not to sin. We are told in Nehemiah 9:7–8: “You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram, And brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, And gave him the name Abraham; You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him to Give the land of the Canaanites… to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous.”

We see that God first found Abraham’s heart faithful, then, He made a covenant with him. After God had already made His covenants with him, Abraham stayed loyal and faithful, as Noah had done. Abraham did not refuse to obey God in the most difficult of circumstances, and because of his ongoing obedience, God told him, in Genesis 22:18: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” We also read in Genesis 26:3–5, that God made His promises, by covenants, to Abraham, “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (verse 5).

We see, then, that God made covenants with Abraham because he had lived an obedient life. God knew that Abraham would teach his descendants God’s law and that, as a consequence, Isaac and—to an extent, Jacob—would also live righteously. He said in Genesis 18:19: “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” But it was because of Abraham’s faith and righteousness that God entered into a covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants. God gave Abraham an unconditional promise that He would make covenants with Isaac and Jacob, and later with the entire nation of Israel, to give that nation the Promised Land. The nation of Israel was not to inherit any spiritual blessings, but they were to possess the physical land of Canaan, and they would be allowed to dwell there—but only as long as they stayed obedient.

Abraham is actually called the friend of God in numerous places (James 2:23; 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8). This means that Abraham agreed with God as to how to live, because two cannot walk together unless they are agreed (Amos 3:3). Abraham lived in obedience to God’s laws, and that is why God called him His friend and entered into agreements with him.

We understand, then, that the covenants God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not identical with God’s laws, but they were made because Abraham had kept God’s laws.

God’s Covenants With the Nation of Israel, Under Moses

As time went on, the nation of Israel found itself enslaved by the Egyptians. God sent a deliverer, Moses, who was used to bring Israel out of slavery and to lead them to Mount Zion. At that time, God began to enter into a covenant relationship with the people. As we will see, God made several covenants or agreements with the nation of Israel—not just one. And there was a particular reason why God made such covenants with the people—covenants that included God’s promise to bring the nation into the Promised Land.

Moses tells the people the reason in Deuteronomy 9:5: “It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Later, God had Jeremiah explain this same reason to the nation of Judah. We read in Jeremiah 11:3–5, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Cursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant which I commanded your fathers in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey My voice, and do according to all that I command you; so shall you be My people, and I will be your God, that I may establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day.’”

God made a covenant with the nation of Israel at the time when He brought them out of slavery to fulfill His unconditional promise that He had made, through a covenant or agreement, to Abraham, later to Isaac, and then to Jacob. But, as we will see, God expected of the nation to obey Him—at least in a general way. Since God never offered them the gift of the Holy Spirit, He knew that they could not obey Him in the same way we can today. Still, God expected obedience to an extent. In fact, when they refused to do so, He expelled them from the land. Let’s note the specific circumstances and conditions under which this agreement between God and the nation of Israel was entered.

God’s First Covenant With the Nation of Israel

We read in Exodus 19 that God instructed Moses to make the people an offer of a covenant or an agreement. We also read that the people accepted the offer; thus an agreement was reached. Exodus 19:5–6 says, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Note the people’s response to God’s offer in Exodus 19:8: “Then all the people answered together and said, All that the LORD has spoken we will do. So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.”

God and the people had agreed, in principle, on the terms of the covenant. God then explained the foundation of this covenant—what the covenant would be based on—by speaking the Ten Commandments directly to the people and by giving Moses additional statutes and judgments to be communicated to the people (Exodus 20:1–Exodus 23:33). These were the “words of the LORD” that Moses wrote down in the Book of the Covenant.

And, as is the case with many contracts today, something else was necessary to make the covenant binding and “enforceable.” Today, we may need notarization of a written agreement. At the time of Moses, the covenant had to be sealed with blood of animals, as noted in Exodus 24:3–8: “So Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the judgments. And all the people answered [again, a second time] with one voice and said, All the words which the LORD has said we will do. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD… Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of the oxen to the LORD… Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said [for the third time], All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with youaccording to all these words.”

So we see that the blood of the covenant “sealed” the contract—now it was confirmed or legally binding. Galatians 3:15 explains that no subsequent unilateral changes can be made, even to a contract between humans, once it is sealed and delivered: “Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.”

The subject matter of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel at that time was simply this: If Israel were obedient to the words of God, which formed the basis of the covenant, then they would become a kingdom of priests. Note in verse 8 that God made the covenant with the nation “according to all these words.” The New International Version and the Revised Standard Version translate, “…the covenant that [or, which] the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Lamsa and the Authorized Version say, “…the covenant which the LORD has [or, hath] made with you concerning all these words.” Moffat reads, “This is the blood of the compact which the Eternal has made with you, on all these terms.” The Revised English Bible states, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you on the terms of this book.”

A Covenant Is Based On Law

All of these translations show clearly that the covenant, a contract or agreement, was made based on God’s words. God’s law was the basis of, or foundation for the covenant. The covenant did not bring God’s law into existence, nor was it identical with God’s law—rather, the contract or covenant was made on the basis of certain terms, in accordance with God’s law. The phrases “according to” or “in accordance with” can also be translated as “based on” or “based upon” or “pursuant to” or “founded upon” or even, “because of.” The German Luther Bible translates Exodus 24:8, “This is the blood of the covenant that God made with you because of all of these words.” The German Menge Bible translates it in a similar fashion: “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD made with you because of all of these commandments.” The German Elberfelder Bibel translates it this way: “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD made with you on all of these words.”

So, we understand that God made the covenant with the nation of Israel BASED ON God’s law, including the Ten Commandments. This covenant did not bring the Ten Commandments into existence. This covenant was not identical with the Ten Commandments, nor were the Ten Commandments the only law on which the covenant was based. It was also founded on additional judgments that had been announced to the people.

God’s Second Covenant With the Nation of Israel

Shortly after they had made this agreement with God, the people sinned. When Moses delayed his return from the mountain, they decided that they needed another visible “leader”—and so they built a golden calf to lead them back to Egypt (Exodus 32:1–6). Moses, upon his return, in anger, broke the two tablets of stone on which were written the Ten Commandments (Exodus 32:19). God had Moses cut out two new tablets of stone on which God would again write the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:1).

Notice what else God said He would do. “Then the LORD said: ‘I AM MAKING a covenant with you’” (Exodus 34:10, NIV). This is indeed the proper translation of the tense—God is referring to a new contract that He was about to enter into with the people. The Living Bible says it in a similar fashion: “This is the contract that I AM GOING TO MAKE with you.” The New American Bible states, “‘Here then,’ said the LORD, ‘is the covenant I WILL MAKE.’”

After Israel sinned against God and broke the first agreement, God was now entering into a second contract with them. There is something else we can learn about this second contract that God was about to make with the people. We read God’s words in Exodus 34:27–28: “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ So He was there with the LORD [another] forty days and forty nights [that is, a second time, after he had broken the tablets]; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He [that is, God] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Covenant Not Identical With The Ten Commandments

Some say that this last passage proves that the Ten Commandments and the covenant were identical, as it says that the Ten Commandments were the words of the covenant. But we just read in the previous verse that God’s covenant was made “according to the tenor” of those words—that is, it was BASED on these words. The Ten Commandments existed already before this covenant was made—so they cannot be identical with the covenant. They are called here the “words of the covenant,” because they were the heart and core—the basis—of the covenant.

Some say that Deuteronomy 4:13 proves that the Ten Commandments and God’s covenant with Israel were identical. But does it? Let’s read it: “So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.”

But as is the case with the scripture in Exodus 34:28, this passage in Deuteronomy 4:13 only shows that the Ten Commandments were the heart and core, or the basis, of God’s covenant with Israel. Note how the Revised English Bible translates this verse: “He announced to you the terms of his covenant, bidding you observe the Ten Commandments, which he wrote on two stone tablets.”

In addition, note the very next verse, “And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess” (Deuteronomy 4:14). These additional statutes and judgments were not written on the tablets of stone, but they were written by Moses, in a book, and they, too, were part of the terms of the covenant and had to be obeyed.

Covenants and Laws Are Not Identical!

We read earlier in Isaiah 24:5–6 that God made a distinction between His Law and His covenant with Noah. Through His prophet, He pointed out that the inhabitants of the earth were violating His laws and that they were breaking His covenant. The following additional Scriptures will prove beyond any doubt that the Bible teaches that a covenant and the law on which the covenant is based are different and distinct.

For instance, we are told in Joshua 7:11, “Israel has sinned [remember that sin is the transgression of the LAW], and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them.”

Also in 2 Kings 18:11–12, in the Revised English Bible, “The king of Assyria deported the Israelites to Assyria and settled them… in the cities of Media, because they did not obey the LORD their God but violated His covenant and every commandment that Moses the servant of the LORD had given them; they would not listen and they would not obey.”

We are also informed in Hosea 8:1, in the New American Bible, “… they have violated my covenant, and sinned against my law.”

Further confirmation of the truth that the law and the covenants are distinct from each other can be found in Romans 9:4: “…who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.”

So we can see that God’s law and God’s covenants are separate and distinct. If God does away with a covenant, that does not mean that He thereby does away with the law on which the covenant was based.

Consequences for Breach of a Covenant

In any given contract, there is a penalty for breach of contract. This is just as true today, as it was at the time of ancient Israel. The legal penalty might be monetary compensatory damages, it might be specific performance of the commitment that had been agreed to, and it might be punitive damages. The contract might even agree in advance to specific damages in case of a breach. We read that God held the nation of Israel accountable for breach of their covenant with Him. Moses prophesied in Leviticus 26:25 that this would happen: “And I will bring a sword against you that will execute the vengeance of the covenant.” Or, as the Moffat Bible reads, “I will let loose the sword of war on you, in punishment for your breach of compact.”

And so we see that God made two covenants with the nation of Israel, under Moses. He made a second one, after they had breached the first one. But, it may come as another surprise that God subsequently made additional covenants with the people of Israel, under Moses.

God’s Third Covenant With the Nation of Israel

Just prior to crossing over the River Jordan to enter the Promised Land, Moses addressed the younger generation. He said in Deuteronomy 29:1, “These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.”

This is an additional covenant or contract. Notice with whom it is being made, verses 14–15: “I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today.” This covenant, then, included future generations as well.

As was the case with the previous covenants that God made with the nation of Israel, this third covenant was also made because of the unconditional promises that God had given to Abraham. We read in verse 13 of Deuteronomy 29 that God is making this covenant with the new generation, so “that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

If one wants to argue that the Old Covenant is identical with the Ten Commandments, and that the Ten Commandments vanished when the Old Covenant was abolished, which specific covenant is one talking about? Is it the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai before Israel sinned or after Israel sinned? Or is it the covenant that God made with the nation in Moab? Further, this third covenant was made on the basis of additional laws that had been written in the Book of the Law as time had gone on—laws that had not been the basis for the covenant(s) that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai a generation earlier. As we mentioned before, these additional laws had been added because of sin, and included sacrificial rules, rituals, and other ceremonial washings, as well as curses and penalties.

God’s Fourth Covenant With the Nation of Israel—The Sabbaths Covenant

But perhaps even more surprising, God made yet another covenant with the entire nation of Israel at Sinai, in addition to the covenants that He had made earlier. We are introduced to that separate covenant or agreement in the 31st chapter of the book of Exodus. The subject matter of this covenant was the Sabbath, but this covenant did not bring the Sabbath into existence. This covenant was made long after the Ten Commandments had been announced, and, as we saw earlier, the Sabbath commandment was already in existence since the time of the creation of man. So, we see again that a covenant is not identical with the law, although it is based on law.

We read in Exodus 31:16, “Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.”

In addition, the Sabbath law was now designated as a sign between God and Israel. Verses 13 and 17 tell us, “Surely My Sabbaths (this word is in the plural and refers to both weekly and annual Sabbaths or Holy Days) 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… It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever…”

By observing and being mindful of this sign, Israel would understand that it is God who sanctifies them, and Israel as a nation would become a sign to the other nations of this world, as the keeping of God’s Sabbaths does single one out.

This separate Sabbath covenant between God and His people was never abolished—neither were the laws of God commanding us to keep His weekly and annual Sabbaths holy. And, since Christians are to be spiritual Jews (Romans 2:28–29; Galatians 6:16; Revelation 2:9; 3:9), they have a two-fold obligation to keep God’s Sabbaths—first, because God commands us to do so; and second, because they are under a specific covenant or agreement that God made with both physical and spiritual Israel, for all generations.

God’s Covenant With Aaron And His Descendants

At the time of Moses, God chose to make still another covenant with a part of the nation of Israel—Aaron, of the house of Levi, and his descendants. This additional covenant needs to be examined very closely, as its importance and significance has confused a lot of people.

Numbers 18:19 calls this covenant between God and Aaron and his descendants “a covenant of salt.” The subject matter of this covenant was the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system, and especially the right of Aaron and his descendants to eat of the sacrifices. God says, “All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and daughters with you as an ordinance forever.”

Compare also Leviticus 24:5, 8–9: “And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it…Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the LORD made by fire, by a perpetual statute.”

These offerings had to be made with salt to signify, among other things, the permanent validity or lasting effect of God’s covenant with the priesthood. Leviticus 2:13 tells us that “…every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt.”

In time, the covenant with Aaron was transferred to, or made with, Aaron’s grandson Phinehas and his descendants. When God’s laws were flagrantly violated before all Israel, with at least the tacit approval of the people, Phinehas arose and turned away the wrath of God who was ready to consume the nation.

We are told in Numbers 25:11–13, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, Behold I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.”

God later elaborated by saying that Phinehas’ conduct “was accounted to him for righteousness to all generations forever” (Psalm 106:31). We read earlier that Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham DID something. He proved his living faith by his obedience. The same is true for Phinehas—he DID something that was righteous in the eyes of God—and as a consequence, Phinehas became the recipient of the blessings of the Levitical priesthood that had been bestowed on Aaron and his descendants through a covenant with God.

We find another reference to this covenant in Nehemiah 13:29–30 where Nehemiah was forced to reform the priesthood and cleanse it from pagan influences. We read, “Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them of everything pagan. I also assigned duties to the priests and the Levites, each to his service.”

God utters a very strict and stern warning in the prophetic book of Malachi, addressing specifically the failure of the Levites—both the physical descendants and the spiritual ministers of God—to stand strong for God’s law in the sight of adversity and compromise (Malachi 2:4–9). Beginning in verse 4, “Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, That My covenant with Levi may continue, Says the LORD of hosts. My covenant was with him, one of life and peace, And I gave them to him that he might fear Me; so he feared Me And was reverent before My name. The law of truth was in his mouth, And injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, And turned many away from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, Says the LORD of hosts. Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base Before all the people, Because you have not kept My ways But have shown partiality in the law.”

This prophecy for our day tells us, in verse 4, that God’s covenant with Levi will continue. This means that it is still in force and in effect today. We find this confirmed in the 33rd chapter of the book of Jeremiah where there is an unconditional promise for the perpetual validity of God’s covenant with Levi (Jeremiah 33:18–22): “…nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually… Thus says the LORD: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken … with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply… the Levites who minister to Me.”

These passages clearly tell us that God’s covenant with Levi was to continue—that it is therefore still in force and effect today—and that it will remain so in the future. But how can this be, given the fact that sacrifices are no longer required since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the Jews have ceased bringing sacrifices since the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.?

These passages in Malachi, and especially in Jeremiah, teach us that as long as and whenever biblical sacrifices are being brought to God in Jerusalem, they will be brought through the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas. And God gave those descendants the right to eat from those sacrifices. We also know that shortly before the return of Jesus Christ, the Jews will again start to bring sacrifices in Jerusalem, apparently in a newly-rebuilt temple. Daniel 12:11 refers to a future time when sacrifices that had commenced will be taken away again and the abomination of desolation will be set up at the holy place (Matthew 24:15). The Jews have recorded the genealogies of the Levites, so they know exactly who the priests are who will bring sacrifices shortly before the coming of the Messiah. We also know that at the beginning of the Millennium sacrifices will be brought again in Jerusalem. The 44th chapter of the prophetic book of Ezekiel explains this in great detail. Verses 15 and 29–30 tell us that “the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok,” will bring and eat from the sacrifices.

We must note that those Millennial sacrifices will not be brought for the purpose of forgiveness of sin. Christ’s blood did this once and for all. But God introduced the sacrificial system to ancient Israel because Israel had sinned. The sacrifices served as a reminder of their sins. Apparently, for the same reason, there will be sacrifices brought in the Millennium so that carnal, unconverted people can begin to appreciate the awesome purpose and meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and how God looks at sin. But, as we already saw, the necessity of bringing these sacrifices ceased for Christians with the death and resurrection of Christ. The millennial rule of Jesus Christ will be administered by spirit beings—those who are part of the first resurrection. Satan and his demonic followers will no longer be able to influence mankind. World government will emanate from Jerusalem. In addition, there will be an ongoing physical priesthood serving at that time. The physical sacrifices extant at that future time, which will be brought in Jerusalem at the temple, will be part of the new administration that God’s Kingdom will usher in.

The covenant between God and Levi, then, does continue to exist, that is, the Levitical priests will continue to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem for carnal, unconverted people, both prior to and subsequent to the return of Christ. But as we read, Jesus Christ became the High Priest for converted people. Unless one accepts the sacrifice of Christ, one has no part of that priesthood. However, once we do accept Christ’s sacrifice, our High Priest will then live in us, intervene for us, and lead us to perfection. The Levitical priesthood was not given the function or responsibility to lead carnal people to spiritual perfection. Rather, they presided over the administration of the sacrificial system as a reminder of sin—not for the purpose of forgiving sin.

The sacrificial system and the rules regarding the Levitical priesthood were added after God had made His covenant with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai or Horeb, because of Israel’s sin. When these regulations were added, they became part of an additional covenant that God made with the nation. The sacrificial system is, of course, not identical with the covenant, as laws—any laws—are different and distinct from covenants. But God made a covenant that now incorporated, or was based on, the additional sacrificial system administered by the Levitical priesthood.

God’s Covenant With David

There is another covenant that God made in Old Testament times, that has tremendous importance for us today and all mankind. That is the covenant that God made with king David of Israel. We read David’s last words as recorded in 2 Samuel 23:3–5: “The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: ‘He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds, Like the tender grass springing out of the earth, By clear shining after rain.’ Although my house is not so with God, Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, Ordered in all things and secure.”

Psalm 89:3–4 and 34–37 summarizes for us the subject matter of that covenant between God and David. We read that God says, “I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David: Your seed I will establish forever, And build up your throne to all generations… My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky.”

It might have appeared to the Israelites at times that God had broken His covenant with David when He punished them for their transgressions. The truth is that God never abolished His contract with David. He promised David, in a covenant with him, that there would always be a descendant of his sitting on the throne of David, until the very time of Christ’s return, and beyond. We read in 1 Kings 11:11–13 how God remembered His covenant with David, even though David’s son, Solomon, had terribly sinned against God: “Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, ‘Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant… However I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.’”

God saw to it that one of David’s descendants would always sit on the throne of David. King Abijah of Judah reminded Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, of this very fact, when he said “Should you not know that the LORD God of Israel gave the dominion over Israel to David forever, to him and his sons, by a covenant of salt?” (2 Chronicles 13:5).

Later, we are told that God did not wipe out the house of David, even though they had begun to rebel against Him. 2 Chronicles 21:7 reads, “Yet the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David, and since He had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.”

Earlier we discussed the 33rd chapter of the book of Jeremiah where God had made a covenant with the house of Levi, guaranteeing that offerings to the LORD would always be brought by the Levitical priesthood. This chapter also makes reference to God’s covenant with the house of David. Jeremiah 33:17 says, “For thus says the LORD: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel…’” Jeremiah continues in verses 20 and 21, “Thus says the LORD: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne…’” Then in verses 25 and 26, “Thus says the LORD: ‘If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’”

What God is telling us here is simply this: As long as the throne of David exists on earth, one of David’s descendants would sit on that throne. David’s throne is in fact on this earth today. Christ will return to an existing throne, and He, as a descendant of David, will then sit on it and rule from it. The angel Gabriel told Mary, the mother of Jesus, as recorded in Luke 1:31–33, “‘And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus… and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever.’”

Christ will rule from Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David. When He returns, He will be given that very throne. In the meantime, according to God’s promise, the physical line of David would continue sitting on it, until Christ’s return. Even before Christ’s first coming, as long as the kingdom of Judah existed, a descendant of the house of David sat on the throne of David, ruling over the house of Judah. When king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed the kingdom of Judah (the house of Israel had been destroyed before by the Assyrians), the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David from Jerusalem to Ireland, in that he accompanied one of the daughters of king Zedekia of Judah to Ireland, where she married a descendant of David who lived there. The couple then ruled from the throne of David over Ireland. Later, the throne was transferred to Scotland, and in the process of time, it was again transferred to England where it still is today. Christ will be returning to an existing throne, just as God prophesied that He would. This throne will then be transferred to Jerusalem and Christ will rule from there.

Why did God decide to make a covenant with David? God explains in 1 Kings 11:34, “‘However I will not take the whole kingdom out of his [Solomon’s] hand, because I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of My servant David,whom I chose because he kept My commandments and My statutes.’”

God chose David because David was a righteous man who obeyed God to the best of his ability. God referred to David as “a man after My own heart, who will do all My will” (Acts 13:22). And although David was not sinless—since there is no human being who does not sin (1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8, 10 )—yet, overall he did please and obey God. Notice God’s additional testimony about His servant David, in 1 Kings 15:4–5, “Nevertheless for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, by setting up his son after him and by establishing Jerusalem; because David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” Psalm 51 shows that David deeply repented of this terrible sin, and he turned back to obedience to God.

So, we see again in regard to the covenant that God made with David, what we have seen over and over again—that a covenant is not identical with the law, but it is based on law. This law which was already in existence, David kept. It is because David kept God’s law that God made a covenant with him.

Additional Old Testament Covenants

The Bible, in fact, mentions many additional covenants that were made in Old Testament times. They were all based on God’s law—none of the covenants established laws, nor were they identical with God’s law. In many cases, these covenants were made because the people had transgressed God’s laws. They came to repentance and promised God that from then on they would be loyal to Him and keep His commandments. They promised God through a covenant with Him that they would from now on keep His laws. We read, for instance, about covenants made with God under Joshua (Joshua 24:19–25); under king Asa of Judah (2 Chronicles 15:8–15); under the priest Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 23:16; 2 Kings 11:17); under king Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 29:6–10); under king Josiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 34:29–32); and under Ezra the priest (Ezra 10:3). All of these covenants were contractual promises by the people to keep God’s laws that had been broken by them.

How clear it is, then, that a covenant is not identical with the law, but that it is based on law. Therefore, the abolishment of a covenant has absolutely no influence or effect on the law on which the covenant was based.

Does all of this understanding change when we begin to analyze the New Covenant? Is it no longer true that the New Covenant is an agreement or a contract made between two or more parties, that is based on law?

Christ—The New Covenant?

Is it correct to say that Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, and that as long as Jesus lives in our hearts, we will automatically do what is right, so that we don’t even need any written laws or rules whatsoever? Some who support this last claim turn to Old Testament scriptures in the book of Isaiah that prophesy the coming of Jesus Christ. Isaiah 42:6 reads, “I, the LORD [God the Father], have called You [Jesus Christ] in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people.” They also refer to Isaiah 49:8, which says, “Thus says the LORD: ‘In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages…’” But, since a covenant is a contract or an agreement between two or more parties, how can Christ, a being, be identical with a covenant? The obvious answer is, of course, He is not! Let’s understand, then, the meaning of what we just read in the book of Isaiah. To help clarify this, let’s read about the coming of Jesus Christ in Malachi 3:1, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts” (Authorized Version). In this passage, Jesus Christ is referred to as “the messenger of the covenant,” not as the covenant itself. He is the one who brings the New Covenant. How, then, do we understand Isaiah 42:6, and Isaiah 49:8? Let’s take a look at how some other translations render this passage. The Zürcher Bibel translates both scriptures this way, “I have given You as the messenger of the covenant for the people.” The Living Bible interprets the passages, “I have given you to my people as the personal confirmation of my covenant with them.” The real meaning is that God gave Christ, His only-begotten Son, to establish a New Covenant with the people. The Father gave His Son “FOR a covenant,” as the Lamsa translations brings it—in other words, to establish a New Covenant with man. Notice, too, that Paul identifies Christ in Hebrews 12:24 as “the Mediator of the new covenant.” Christ, then, is not identical with the New Covenant, nor is the law—any law—identical with the New Covenant. But as we will see, both Jesus Christ and God’s law have a major role in relationship with the New Covenant between God and man.

The New Covenant In “Old Testament” Scriptures

The New Covenant is not an isolated contract between God and man—without any connection with previous contracts that God had made. Rather, the Bible makes it very clear that God made or offered a New Covenant, which ties in specifically and directly with “Old Testament” covenants that He had previously made.

The New Covenant and Noah

In Isaiah 54:9–10, God compares the New Covenant with the covenant He made with Noah. We read, “‘For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; For as I have sworn That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, So have I sworn That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart And the hills be removed, But My kindness shall not depart from you, Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,’ Says the LORD, who has mercy on you.”

As we will see much more clearly in a short while, God is speaking here about the New Covenant, calling it His covenant of peace, but comparing it at the same time with the covenant that He had made with Noah.

The New Covenant and David

Let’s notice God’s prophetic words in Isaiah 55:3, “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.”

Here, God refers to the New Covenant as an everlasting covenant. He places this covenant in relationship with His covenant that He had made with David. We will see in a moment why there is such a relationship, involving and including rulership over Israel.

More Old Testament Scriptures About the “New Covenant”

Isaiah 59:21 gives us further understanding regarding the New Covenant: “‘As for Me,’ says the LORD, ‘this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,’ says the LORD, ‘from this time and forevermore.’”

New Covenant Includes Spiritual Blessings

The New Covenant includes the fact that God’s Holy Spirit and God’s Holy Word will not depart anymore from the people with whom the New Covenant will be made, and this will even include the descendants of those people.

Now notice something remarkable and shocking in the book of Jeremiah. Many teach today that while the “Old Covenant“ was made with ancient Israel, the “New Covenant” will be made, or has been made, with the Gentiles. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s read Jeremiah 31:31–34, and note with whom the New Covenant is to be made:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

This is a critical passage that explains to us the nature of the New Covenant, and why there even had to be such a New Covenant. First, we read that the New Covenant is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah—it does not say that it is to be made with Gentiles! Gentiles can become parties to this New Covenant, but only if they become spiritual Israelites or Jews, as we saw earlier when we discussed God’s Sabbaths covenant with the nation of Israel. Secondly, we read that ancient Israel and Judah broke God’s covenant, but that they will keep the New Covenant, because God’s Law will be in their hearts and minds. Rather than having God’s Law on tablets of stone, it will be within them—it will have become a part of them. But notice—it is the same law, not different sets of rules.

The problem with the covenants that God had made with ancient Israel at Mount Sinai or in Moab was not the law—rather, the problem was that God’s law was not in the hearts and minds of the people, so they broke the covenants by breaking God’s law on which the covenants were based.

Further, Jeremiah tells us that people who are parties to the New Covenant have obtained, and can obtain, forgiveness of sin—something the previous covenants did not offer—and they can have spiritual understanding of God through the Holy Spirit given to them—again, something that was not offered to such an extent in previous covenants.

Notice this additional prophecy regarding the New Covenant in Jeremiah 32:38–40: “They shall be My people, and I will be their God; then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.”

By the fear of God, one departs from evil (Proverbs 16:6). God’s Spirit will be living in those people, so that they will not practice the way of disobedience any longer.

New Covenant Includes Physical Blessings

Although the New Covenant is mostly concerned with spiritual blessings, it would be false to assume that it does not include physical blessings as well. Notice Ezekiel 34:25–28, 30: “I will make a covenant of peace with them, and cause wild beasts to cease from the land; and they will dwell safely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. I will make them and the places all around My hill a blessing; and I will cause showers to come down in their season; there shall be showers of blessing. Then the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield their increase. They shall be safe in their land; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke and delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them. And they shall no longer be a prey of the nations, nor shall beasts of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and no one shall make them afraid… Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, the house of Israel, are My people, says the LORD GOD.”

The New Covenant Is a Marriage Agreement

Let’s read the parallel passage in Hosea 2:16, 18–20, and notice some interesting additional information. Notice, too, in Hosea 1:10 that God speaks to the children of Israel. “And it shall be, in that day, Says the LORD, That you will call Me My Husband…In that day I will make a covenant for them With the beasts of the field, With the birds of the air, And with the creeping things of the ground. Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth, To make them lie down safely. I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, And you shall know the LORD.”

We are introduced here to the concept that this New Covenant, which includes physical blessings of peace and prosperity, is compared with betrothal and marriage. We will discuss the concept of betrothal more fully a little bit later—it can roughly be compared with a binding agreement of engagement that can only be annulled through a divorce. God compared His covenant with ancient Israel at Mount Sinai with a marriage agreement (compare Ezekiel 16:8; Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 31:32)—but this marriage ended in divorce, as Israel broke the agreement and sinned against God (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8). Now, we are told that God, when making a New Covenant, will enter again into a marriage agreement with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. First, it will start with a betrothal. This is very significant, as we will see in a moment.

The New Covenant in the “New Testament” Scriptures

On the very night when He would be betrayed, Jesus Christ introduced the New Covenant to His disciples. We read in Matthew 26:27–28, “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’”

The New Covenant makes it possible, then, to have sins forgiven—something, as we will recall, that was not possible under the previous covenants that God had made with ancient Israel. Notice, too, 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, make you complete…”

Through Christ’s shed blood of the New Covenant, the resurrection from the dead to eternal life has become possible. We are being sanctified or set aside for a holy purpose through the blood of Christ, which grants us forgiveness of our sins. Hebrews 10:29 explains, “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?”

We obtain forgiveness through Christ’s sacrifice. This makes it possible to receive God’s Holy Spirit—God’s power enabling us to overcome sin and to keep God’s law which has been written in our hearts (Hebrews 10:16–17, quoting Jeremiah 31:33–34). And since Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary (Hebrews 10:18).

Christ came to enter into a new covenant relationship with those who are called by God, by forgiving their sins that had been previously committed. Hebrews 9:15 explains, “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.”

As we read earlier, it was the people who broke the first covenants—the fault was with the people—not with the Old Testament covenants. Paul says so, explicitly, in Hebrews 8:7–8, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.’”

The people broke the covenants—the fault was with them. And why did they break the covenants? Because God’s law was not in their hearts (Hebrews 8:10). But, God promises that it will be different in regard to the New Covenant. That is why Hebrews 8:6 says that Christ is “the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (compare also Hebrews 7:22).

What Are Those Better Promises?

First of all, before the New Covenant came, there was no forgiveness of sins—animal sacrifices do not forgive sins (Hebrews 10:4, 11). Also, there was no promise for receiving the Holy Spirit, which alone gives us the strength and power to overcome and conquer sin, and to obey and keep God’s law. The Israelites had the law written on tablets of stone (2 Corinthians 3:2–3). These tablets of stone never became part of their being—they never entered their hearts. As the tablets were of stone, so were their hearts. That is the reason why God, in a New Covenant, replaces our stony hearts with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19).

The ministry under the previous covenants led to condemnation, since people sinned and could not obtain forgiveness (2 Corinthians 3:9). On the other hand, the ministry under the New Covenant leads to righteousness, since the promises of the New Covenant include forgiveness of sins and the gift of the power of the Holy Spirit to live righteously.

But the promises of the New Covenant include more than that. Notice 2 Corinthians 3:18, “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Through the Spirit of God, we are to be born into the Family of God. We are to become a glorified God being. THAT was never a promise given to ancient Israel at the time of Mount Sinai. In addition, we will enter into the covenant relationship between God and David, by ruling with Christ for one thousand years here on earth (as was promised to Abraham and his descendants) (Revelation 20:4; 5:10), and after that, for all eternity (Revelation 22:5).

Since the time that God made a New Covenant with Israel, the first covenants that He made with them are becoming obsolete and are growing old, ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13). But notice—it does not say that the law of God was growing old, ready to vanish away—in fact, God had just explained in Hebrews 8:12 that He will remember their LAWLESS deeds no more. God forgives the transgressions and sins previously committed, and He puts His laws in the minds and hearts of the people so that they do not continue with their practice of transgressing God’s laws and committing lawless deeds. The laws of God are still in effect—they have not become obsolete.

In What Way Is the New Covenant Established on Better Promises?

Returning to Hebrews 8:6, recall that the New Covenant is “established” on better promises. The New Revised Standard Version says here, “enacted through better promises.” The New Jerusalem Bible states, “founded on better promises.” The Greek word, translated as “established” or “enacted” or “founded,” is “nomotheteo.” The word “nomos” means, “law.”

In Hebrews 7:11, the same word “nomotheteo” is translated as “received the law.” In James 4:12, the noun “nomothetes” is used in the Greek and rendered there as “Lawgiver.” In Romans 9:4, the related Greek word “nomothesia” is translated as “giving of the law.”

When we take another look at Hebrews 8:6, we can now see what the obvious meaning of that passage is: Jesus Christ is Mediator of a better covenant, which, having better promises, is BASED or ENACTED or FOUNDED on God’s given law.

The New Covenant is based on God’s law, just as all the other covenants were based on God’s law, and the New Covenant is not identical with God’s law, just as none of the other covenants were identical with God’s law.

However, the New Covenant is not based on laws that God has decreed are no longer valid. The New Covenant is not based, for example, on the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and other rituals and washings. But it is important that we understand why those particular laws are no longer valid. Not, because the “Old Covenant” was abolished, and with it all Old Testament laws. The concept that the “Old Covenant” ended, and with it all the laws of the Old Testament, is WRONG, as a covenant is not identical with the law, but it is BASED on the law.

What To Do When Laws Change

We saw that certain Old Testament laws are no longer binding because God tells us in the New Testament that they are no longer binding. Therefore, the covenants which God made with ancient Israel at Mount Sinai and in Moab are vanishing, because they were based, along with other laws, on ritual statutes and sacrificial regulations which are no longer valid today—and, of course, because Israel kept breaking the covenants.

We can relate to this, when we look at a modern day example. Assume that you enter into a contract and base it on certain laws, and that those laws, or at least some of them, later become obsolete. What happens to your contract? The parties might have several options at their disposal. They could agree to do away with the contract in its entirety, and make a new contract based on the laws, which are still in effect. Or, they could try to change or modify the contract, by considering the new circumstances and by determining what they would have done, if they had known that some of the laws on which the contract was based, would be changed.

How did God do it? Actually, He used both methods.

When analyzing His covenant with the Levitical priesthood, we find that He kept that contract alive, but He modified it, as the provisions or laws regarding the collection of tithes were changed. That right was transferred from the Levites to Christ. The remainder of the contract between God and the Levites, including the Levitical right to bring, and to eat from, the sacrifices, stayed in effect. As you will recall, it will be the Levites who will administer the sacrifices, which will be reestablished in Jerusalem for the Jews prior to Christ’s return (Daniel 12:44), and at the beginning of the Millennium for unconverted people (Ezekiel 44:15, 29–30).

When analyzing the covenants that God made with the ancient nation of Israel at Mount Sinai and in Moab, God did away with those covenants [except for the Sabbaths covenant with Israel, which remains in force and effect], as too many laws on which those covenants had been based, had become obsolete. Also, God wanted to make a new covenant that would include additional promises that were never a part of the previous covenants with the nation of Israel. So, God abolished the previous covenants with the nation of Israel because certain laws on which the covenants were based were changed or abolished.

We understand, then, that changes in the law can lead to the abolishment of a covenant or contract, which is based on such law, but, that the abolishment of a contract never leads to the abolishment of the law on which the contract is based.

As this is so, we need to consider the following, extremely critical point: In order to determine which Old Testament laws are no longer valid today, God must identify those to us in the New Testament. It is false to say, Old Testament laws are no longer valid, unless they are specifically mentioned in the New Testament. Rather, one must say that Old Testament laws remain in effect, unless the New Testament specifically states, through the letter or through the Spirit, that they are no longer valid today.

Which Laws Were Abolished?

And what are those laws that have been abolished? We have already touched upon them—the laws dealing with animal sacrifices, ritual washings, and the right of the Levitical priesthood to collect God’s tithes.

Some have asked for a specific list of the individual sacrificial or ritual laws mentioned in the Old Testament, which are no longer valid today. To discuss all of those laws here would go beyond the scope of this booklet. Future writings will go into these questions in more detail. In the meantime, any questions regarding the validity of particular laws could be directed to the ministry responsible for the publication of this booklet.

At this point, it may be sufficient to set forth important principles which need to be applied to determine whether a specific law is still valid, or whether it has been abrogated in the New Testament through the Spirit—at least insofar as its practical application for the Church and its members are concerned. We will also give a few examples to show how to apply these principles.

From a general standpoint, the laws in the Old Testament are divided into several categories. They may deal with temporary national or ritual circumstances, or they may address lasting principles to be incorporated in our personal lives.

For instance, Deuteronomy 20 contains laws and regulations about national warfare. These laws are clearly not binding for Christians today, as a Christian is not to participate in war (Matthew 5:44; 26:52; Romans 12:20; 2 Corinthians 10:3–4; James 4:1–2; 1 John 3:15).

In addition, God gave Israel certain national laws, for instance in Deuteronomy 16 and 17, dealing with the punishment and, in certain cases, the execution of criminals. Converted Christians are servants of the New Covenant, which gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). They are not to judge or condemn another person. Christ said that he who is without sin may cast the first stone (John 8:7). At the same time, we are told that nobody can claim to be without sin (1 John 1:8). Therefore, Christians are not to participate, for instance as jurors, in the judicial systems of this world. In addition, the Church today is not to carry out the death penalty, either. Rather, the ministry is to preach today reconciliation and eternal life (2 Corinthians 5:18–21).

Another “national” law, which is no longer in effect today, is listed in Deuteronomy 25:5–10. It is commonly referred to as the law of the “levirate marriage.” It stated that if a married man died without children, his widow was to be married to his brother, so that the name of the dead brother “may not be blotted out of Israel” (verse 6). One reason why this law is not in force for the Church today is that it may require a converted brother-in-law to marry an unconverted sister-in-law, or vice versa. This would be contrary to specific New Testament instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and 2 Corinthians 6:14. Also, if the brother-in-law were already married, the application of the law would violate the New Testament teaching that a man is to be the husband of only one wife (compare 1 Timothy 3:2, 12).

To just give one more example of an obsolete “national” statute, turn to Deuteronomy 23: 1–8. This law excludes certain people with particular racial or national backgrounds, such as Ammonites or Moabites, or eunuchs, from access to the congregation. This distinction does not apply to the New Testament Church. True Christians may be from any nation and suffer any physical disability (Ephesians 2:19). This will be discussed more fully below.

Another category of laws, which are no longer binding for Christians today are the ritual laws of sacrifices and washings. Again, certain principles apply, showing us when a law is of a temporary ritual nature, or when it is still binding for us. For instance, the violation of a statute or a particular circumstance could make a person “unclean” for a certain period of time. Following ritual washings, that person could become clean again. Clearly, these kinds of laws are strictly ritualistic in nature, as no violation of a binding law was automatically cured simply by lapse of time and ritual washings.

For instance, while the laws prohibiting the consumption of unclean food are still valid (see discussion earlier in this booklet), the laws declaring someone unclean who touched the body of an unclean animal are not. This can be seen, as such a person was only unclean “until evening,” and he became clean again after washing himself, showing the ritualistic character of these laws (Leviticus 11:24, 27, 31). On the other hand, the eating of an unclean animal did not bring about only ritual uncleanness that ended in the evening after washing. There is no scripture, which tells us that a person who ate an unclean animal became clean again in the evening, after ritual washings. Many scriptures, however, tell us that a person who touched the carcass of an unclean or even a clean animal (Leviticus 11:39) became ritually clean again in the evening, after washings. This shows, then, the different nature of these two sets of laws.

Another temporary ritual law of a similar nature can be found in Deuteronomy 23:9–11, stating that an individual who contracts some ceremonial defilement during the night becomes ritually clean again by the next sunset. [This is not to say, however, that there were no physical health benefits attached to such laws, such as the prevention of possible transmission of diseases—the underlying principle of physical cleanliness is still very much applicable today.]

Many of these examples, which we have discussed so far, have shown us how we must view an Old Testament law with the eyes of New Testament spiritual principles. We must always look at the purpose and intent of a given statute—lest we become like the Pharisees who tried to uphold the “letter” of the law, while neglecting the “spirit.” For instance, Jesus said that David was guiltless when he was hungry and ate from the showbread, although the law said that only a priest could eat from it (Matthew 12:3–4). Christ was pointing at the spiritual intent of that particular statute—and it was never its intent to regulate a situation when someone was hungry and had nothing else to eat.

Another example would be a law contained in Deuteronomy 22:12, commanding that tassels be made on the four corners of one’s clothing. The reason is given in Numbers 15:38–40: “…that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD to do them… and so be holy to the LORD.” A similar law is found in Deuteronomy 11:18–20, commanding the writing of the Ten Commandments on the doorposts of our houses. Today, God’s Holy Spirit reminds us of God’s law. Ancient Israel needed those physical reminders, however, as the Holy Spirit was not promised or given to them. Under the New Covenant, those physical reminders should not be necessary, as the law of God is being written on our hearts and minds.

Let us briefly review a few examples of Old Testament laws, which are clearly still binding today, as neither the letter, nor spiritual principles of the New Testament, nor any ritual character of such laws would indicate otherwise.

For instance, Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing. A man is not to wear women’s clothes and vice versa. This law deals with transvestism.

Deuteronomy 22:9 forbids sowing a vineyard with different kinds of seed. The principle is to plant seeds together that will each continue to reproduce after its own kind, in order to avoid substandard products or hybrids. There is nothing wrong, then, with planting peas or beans among corn, or planting two pasture grasses together. On the other hand, cucumbers should not be planted with watermelons because they will cross and produce a perversion. Likewise, various members of the muskmelon and cantaloupe family should not be planted near pumpkins or certain types of squash, as they will mix.

Finally, Deuteronomy 22:11 prohibits, correctly translated, the wearing of a garment “of different sorts, wool and linen mixed together.” [The words, “such as” have been added and do not appear in the original Hebrew.] Leviticus 19:19 contains the same prohibition. Wool is an animal product, while linen is a plant product. Such products should not be combined, as an improper blend, as they produce clothes of lesser quality.

In addition, as we have already discussed, laws that have NOT been abolished include the Ten Commandments, the commandments to keep God’s annual Holy Days and to tithe faithfully.

The Law of Physical Circumcision

There is one additional law that is no longer mandatory—the law regarding physical circumcision. And since this is so, the covenant of circumcision that God made with Abraham is no longer valid.

We read in Galatians 5:1–3, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.”

Here, the phrase “the whole law” refers to every law that God has ever given to man—including the sacrifices and the rituals. Paul is saying here, If you think that you can become justified just because you are physically circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing, because you still don’t understand the need to obtain the Father’s and Christ’s forgiveness of your sins (Galatians 5:4).

We read earlier that the New Covenant is going to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Does this mean that Gentiles don’t have access to that New Covenant relationship with God? Of course they do, but in order to make the Gentiles a party to the New Covenant, the specific law of physical circumcision that was given in the Old Testament had to become obsolete.

Notice Ephesians 2:11–15: “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.”

What is that “law of commandments contained in ordinances” that was abolished? Which law was it that prevented the Gentiles from having access to the covenants of promise? None other than the law of physical circumcision and the rituals and ordinances related thereto. In doing away with that requirement, Gentiles could then become “spiritual” Israelites and Jews, and thus parties to the New Covenant.

We saw that God made covenants with ancient Israel, and that God will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah “after these days”—that is, after Christ’s return. At that time, God will call the Israelites to repentance and He will resurrect those who have not been called to spiritual salvation before, to offer them the opportunity to become a party to the New Covenant.

But what about us today—converted Christians—spiritual Israelites and Jews?

We understand that the New Covenant is compared to a marriage agreement. Recall, too, that Jesus Christ already shed His blood, the blood of the New Covenant, for the remission of our sins. In the Old Testament, ancient Israel listened to the conditions that God gave them and they agreed to those conditions. Then, God sealed the covenant with blood.

Christ clearly told us the conditions of the New Covenant, and we accepted them at the time of our baptism. As ancient Israel said, we also said, “Everything that the LORD has said, we will do.” We also, of course, accepted Christ’s shed blood that forgives our sins, and we acknowledged that we had entered into a covenant with God at the time of our baptism.

Does this mean, then, that the New Covenant has already been made with us at the time of our baptism? Well, yes and no.

The New Covenant is a marriage agreement. The consummation of our marriage with Jesus Christ—the bridegroom and the Lamb—is still in the future. This is where the biblical concept of betrothal becomes important. In biblical times, the parties went through a period of “betrothal” before they actually consummated the marriage. Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when she was found to be with child (Matthew 1:18). Since they had not consummated the marriage, Joseph thought that Mary was guilty of fornication. But Mary and Joseph were already called, at the time of their betrothal, husband and wife (Matthew 1:19–20, 24; compare also Deuteronomy 28:30). Betrothal was a binding agreement or contract of marriage, and it could only be severed through a divorce. With this contract, the husband had promised his wife to consummate the marriage with her, after a certain period of time.

In the same way, we, when we became baptized, entered into a covenant with God, and into a contract of betrothal with Jesus Christ. The consummation of our marriage will occur, once Jesus Christ returns to establish His Kingdom. At that time, we will be immortal Spirit beings—born-again members of the God Family.

In addition, this marriage contract with Christ is also an agreement to inherit what had been promised, through covenants, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to their descendants. It is not only a will, or a testament that can be changed by the testator at any time before his death, but it is a legally binding, enforceable agreement. In any event, the testator, Jesus Christ, who inherited the promises from Abraham and his offspring, did already die, so His will, as promised to us by a contract, cannot be changed anymore. A will or a testament, in biblical times, was more like a mutual contract of inheritance. In fact, the Greek word for “covenant” and for “testament” is exactly the same, i.e., “diatheke.” Both parties had to agree to the terms of the covenant of inheritance. This contract could be based on certain conditions, and the agreement could only be carried out, and the inheritance obtained, if both parties fulfilled the conditions.

Also, such a contract of inheritance could very well say that the inheritance was not going to be obtained until a certain specified time after the testator’s death. In the meantime, the inheritance could be reserved for the heir and administered for him. And, of course, the contract of inheritance could say that the heir would actually come into possession of the inheritance only if he proved himself to be worthy of it. One of those conditions could have been that the heir had to be married at the time of taking possession of the inheritance.

When we consider these concepts and apply them to our situation, we reach the following conclusion: We, as spiritual Israelites, must be married in order to obtain the inheritance. The New Covenant tells us to whom we have to be married—Jesus Christ. But a marriage can only occur and last if both parties are willing to marry each other, and to remain faithful to each other. Christ has already made a marriage agreement with us—a betrothal—and He will spiritually consummate His marriage with us at His return, if we remain faithful (Revelation 19:7–9; Matthew 22:2; 25:1).

This is not to say that we cannot or will not sin today, even though we have already entered into the New Covenant relationship with God. The Bible tells us specifically that we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, if we say that we do not sin today (1 John 1:8). But, we do not practice the way of sin anymore. Rather, when we sin and “confess our sins,” God is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Christ will not reject us if we show Him in this life that we are willing to obey Him, even though we may sometimes slip and fall. He knows that only once we are born-again immortal members in the Family of God, we cannot sin anymore (1 John 5:18).

On the other hand, if we become disobedient and rebellious and begin again to practice the wrong way of life, Christ has the right to divorce us. Remember, Joseph, a just man, was willing to leave his wife to whom he was betrothed when he thought that she had become unfaithful to him (Matthew 1:19).

We can understand, then, what the New Covenant means for us today. It is a contract, which is based on God’s law. God called and chose us to become a party to His contract. By our obedience to God’s laws, we show Him that we want to become parties to His covenant (Acts 5:32). When we are baptized, we enter into a covenant relationship with the Father and Jesus Christ. This agreement contains conditions that we must fulfill. It promises us a certain inheritance in the future, including sonship in God’s Family, kingship over this earth and the universe, and priestly functions. This future inheritance is being preserved for us right now in heaven.

This contract is also a marriage agreement. We are already betrothed to Jesus Christ and we are to consummate the marriage with Him, when He returns to establish His Kingdom. In addition, this contract includes a will or a testament from the testator, Jesus Christ, to share with us the promises that He inherited as the Seed of Abraham. Christ’s will shows us how we must live worthy of Him, and it requires of us to do so, so that He will consummate His marriage with us, and so that we can take possession of our promised inheritance.

Therefore, as long as we stay faithful, as long as we do not trample the Son of God and His holy law under foot, and as long as we do not insult His Spirit of grace, Christ is going to consummate His marriage with us in just a few years from now, and we will inherit the promises that God made to us in the New Covenant. If we become obedient servants of our God, and remain so until Christ’s return, we will never have to hear Him say to us, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23).

While lawlessness abounds all around us, let us be different! Let us obey God and His Word and thereby become shining lights of righteousness that will be noticed in this dark and evil world (Matthew 5:14–16; Philippians 2:14–16).

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

To Request a FREE hard copy of this booklet, please write to: contact@eternalgod.org

Introduction

Everyone in mainstream Christianity, it seems, “knows” that God is a Trinity—one God in three persons, namely “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit.” The majority of professing Christians wouldn’t even consider questioning this teaching. Many will tell you that, unless you believe this doctrine, you are not a true Christian.

But What About You?

Have you ever wondered whether this teaching is derived from God’s Word, the Bible? We have clear proof from Scripture that the Father and the Son are separate persons or divine beings, and that they are God. The Bible refers to the Father and to Jesus Christ as God in numerous passages—but it never refers to the Holy Spirit as God, or as a separate divine person.

Why? If the Trinity is such an important doctrine, why is it not even mentioned in the Bible?

Did you know that this “key teaching” of “orthodox Christianity” was totally unknown in the early New Testament times and did not become generally accepted until several hundred years after Christ established His Church on the day of Pentecost in 31 A.D.? And did you also know that the Trinity actually hides and obscures the fact of who and what God really is—and why God created you, and what your awesome potential is?

Let us briefly review what those who believe in, and teach the concept of the Trinity, tell us about it. This alone might be an eye-opener for you.

What Theologians Tell Us About the Trinity

The Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth wrote about the concept of the Trinity. Funk and Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia refers to Karl Barth as, “widely regarded as one of the most notable Christian thinkers of the 20th century.” He wrote in, “Doctrine of the Word of God,” p. 437: “The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God Himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations which go beyond the witness of the Bible are the twofold content of the church doctrine of the Trinity.” (Emphasis added).

In other words, Prof. Karl Barth admits that the Bible nowhere states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God.

Karl Barth was not the only one who pointed out that the Scriptures do not expressly teach the concept of the Trinity. Listen to this quote from Dr. William Newton Clarke, who wrote a book entitled, “An Outline of Christian Theology.” He states, for instance, on page 167, when discussing the first few verses of the first chapter of the book of John: “There is no Trinity in [John’s prologue]; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God.”

He continues on page 168, after having established that the New Testament does teach the divinity of Jesus Christ: “The New Testament begins the work, but does not finish it; for it contains no similar teaching with regard to the Holy Spirit. The unique nature and mission of Christ are traced to a ground in the being of God; but similar ground for the divineness of the Spirit is nowhere shown. Thought in the New Testament is never directed to that end.” (Emphasis added).

In other words, William N. Clarke is pointing out here that the Bible nowhere states that the Holy Spirit is a divine being.

Here is a statement from the German theologian Karl Rahner, who is described in Funk and Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia as “the leading Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century.” This is what he had to say in a book called, “The Trinity,” on page 22: “…in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the ‘imminent’ Trinity (even John’s prologue is no such doctrine).” (Emphasis added).

Remarkably, the New Catholic Encyclopedia supports Professor Rahner’s and Prof. Barth’s statements. In an article entitled, “Trinity,” it first points out, in Vol. XIII, on page 574, that “[t]he Trinity is … the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet these three are not three Gods, but one God…co-eternal and co-equal: all alike or uncreated and omnipotent.”

Then, after having made such a sweeping statement, it goes on to admit: “The [Old Testament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly… “The majority of [New Testament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God…” (Emphasis added).

But then we must ask why the Trinity seems to be universally taught and accepted in Christianity today, when the Bible does not expressly teach it. How did it become part of Christian dogma?

How the Trinity Became “Christian” Dogma

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains in Vol. 14, on page 295, in the article, “Trinity”:

“…when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma, ‘one God in three persons,’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.”

How did this happen?

The truth, as so often is the case, is stranger than fiction. In her book, “A History of God,” former Catholic nun Karen Armstrong gives us some interesting insight as to what transpired. She writes on pages 117 and 118, when describing how the Trinity found its way from Greek Orthodoxy into the Western World: “… the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience… It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason… For many Western Christians… the Trinity is simply baffling [in other words, a “mystery”]…

“Logically, of course, it made no sense at all… Gregory of Nazianzus had explained that the very incomprehensibility of the dogma of the Trinity brings us up against the absolute mystery of God; it reminds us that we must not hope to understand him… It was no good, for example, attempting to puzzle out how the three hypostases [Greek for “persons”] of the Godhead were at one and the same time identical and distinct. This lay beyond words, concepts and human powers of analysis.”

Karen Armstrong goes on to explain that in the Western World, the Catholic Church’s Father Augustine introduced a slightly different concept of the Trinity. Rather than speaking about “one God in three persons,” he coined the phrase, “one God in three manifestations.”

We are also told that it was the renowned Thomas of Aquinas who made the teachings of the Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle, popular in the Western World. And in so doing, Western Christians learned that Aristotle, too, had taught a trinity—but he had called the three persons or manifestations ‑ “thinker, thought, and unmoved mover.”

During the Reformation, the dogma of the Trinity was rejected by some of the reformers, but not, for example, by Luther and Calvin. For them, according to Karen Armstrong, “these traditional doctrines of God were too deeply embedded in the Christian experience for either Luther or Calvin to question.” (page 277).

And because of this thoughtless obedience to humanly devised ideas, Calvin began to persecute those who would point out problems with the concept of the Trinity. We read on page 280: “In 1553, Calvin had the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus executed for his denial of the Trinity. Servetus had fled Catholic Spain and had taken refuge in Calvin’s Geneva, claiming that he was returning to the faith of the apostles and the earliest fathers of the church, who had never heard of this extraordinary doctrine… The doctrine of the Trinity was a human fabrication which had alienated the minds of men from the knowledge of the true Christ… His beliefs were shared by two Italian reformers—Giorgio Blandrata… and Faustus Socinus…” (Emphasis added).

Criticism toward the concept of the Trinity continued. In 1699, Gottfried Arnold wrote a book, arguing that the Trinity, although regarded as orthodox, could not be traced back to the original church. (page 306). Puritan poet John Milton was also “doubtful about such traditional doctrines as the Trinity.” (page 308).

Karen Armstrong continued: “Christianity…retained many pagan elements in its description of God… Christianity… had turned its back on its Jewish roots and reverted to the irrationality and superstitions of paganism (p. 369)… Origen and Clement of Alexandria had been Liberal Christians… when they had introduced Platonism into the Semitic religion of Yahweh.” (pp. 383-384). (Emphasis added).

So we learn that the concept of the Trinity, “one God in three persons,” is derived, then, not from the Bible, but from pagan Greeks, having found its way into Christianity early on.

The concept remains a confusing issue, such that many Christians today who say they believe in the Trinity don’t even understand it. On page 201 of Karen Armstrong’s book she writes, “To all intents and purposes, many Western Christians are not really Trinitarians. They complain that the doctrine of Three Persons in One God is incomprehensible, not realizing that for the Greeks that was the whole point.”

But God’s Truth is clear. It must not be incomprehensible to His followers. Paul warned that we must be careful, though, not to be corrupted “from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:3). If one cannot understand one of the major doctrines being presented, then chances are, something is wrong with what is being presented. We must be careful, then, to let the Bible be the proof of what we believe.

Paul’s Greetings to the Churches

One of the most compelling proofs in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is NOT a divine person or a God being, and, therefore, the concept of the Trinity is wrong, is the fact that none of the writers bring greetings from the Holy Spirit. For example, the apostle Paul brings greetings from God the Father and Jesus Christ. Never once does he include greetings from the Holy Spirit.

Notice how Paul greets the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:1-3. “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

In virtually all of Paul’s writings, you will find the same introduction (cp. 2 Cor. 1:1-2; Gal. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:1-2; Phil. 1:1-2; Col. 1:1-2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:1-2; Titus 1:1-4; and Philemon 1-3). Nowhere is the Holy Spirit included in the greetings that Paul brings from God—the Father and Jesus Christ. This shows, clearly, that Paul was not inspired by God to reveal the personage of the Holy Spirit. What an oversight and insult this would be to the Holy Spirit IF the Holy Spirit were one of three persons—and a God being.

The Holy Spirit is Not God

Another Biblical proof against the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit is nowhere identified as God. No one is recorded in Scripture as having prayed to the Holy Spirit. Further, the Holy Spirit is never described as a separate being, either. Rather, the Holy Spirit emanates from God the Father and Jesus Christ. One could say, the Holy Spirit is part of God, as, for instance, the arm, the eye or the hand is a part of a human being, or of God, for that matter. But the arm is not a being by itself, nor is the arm a person—one could not say that the arm of the man is another man, or the arm of the Lord is another God being. Likewise, the Holy Spirit of God is not a separate God being or person within the Godhead.

Consider how God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, written with His own finger on tablets of stone (cp. Ex. 31:18). God used His finger to give understanding to Moses, but this does not mean that God’s finger is a distinct person or a God being. God’s finger was part of God, but not separate from God. The same is true for the Holy Spirit. It’s part of God, emanating from God, but it is not God, nor is it a divine God being.

Who Begot Christ?

Jesus Himself prayed exclusively to the Father. Never once did He pray to the Holy Spirit. IF the Holy Spirit were a person, and a separate God being, then the human Jesus Christ would have prayed to the wrong person. How can we say this?

Consider that Jesus Christ was called the Son of God, not the Son of the Holy Spirit, even though He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Notice in Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.”

God’s inspired Word tells us clearly that the Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant. Notice the words of an angel to Joseph, as recorded in Matt. 1:20: “‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived [or begotten, gennao in the Greek] in her is of the Holy Spirit.’”

Turn now to Luke 1:32 and 35, where we find more of the inspired words of the angel to Mary: “‘He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David… The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’” These Scriptures in Matthew and Luke tell us that, IF the Holy Spirit were a person and God, then Christ would have been the SON of the Holy Spirit, and NOT of the Father.

However, John 1:14 says that it was the Father who begot Christ: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Do we find, then, a contradiction here between the record of Luke, telling us that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus, and the record of John, stating that it was God the Father? Not at all! Rather, we see that GOD the FATHER begot Christ through the power of His Spirit. This proves that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person—otherwise, we would have a contradiction here, with Christ having two fathers—the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit”—and with the “person” and third member of the “Trinity,” the Holy Spirit, being Christ’s “main” Father.

Remember, too, that the angel told Mary in the book of Luke that Christ would be called the Son of the Highest. If the Holy Spirit were a person, then the Holy Spirit by which Mary was impregnated would be the HIGHEST in the Godhead. This, of course, is absurd! No one who believes in the Trinity has EVER stated that the Holy Spirit is the highest! Quite to the contrary, they claim that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all EQUAL. That none is HIGHER than the other.

The fact that the Holy Spirit cannot be a divine person or God, becomes very clear when considering who in the Godhead is called the “highest.” The Bible shows us that it is the Father (and not the Holy Spirit) who is the highest in the Godhead. Notice Eph. 4:6: “…one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

This tells us that the FATHER is the highest, “above all.” The Father is higher than Christ (cp. John 10:29, “My Father…is greater than all.”) So, when Jesus Christ was called the Son of the Highest, He was called the Son of God the Father—not of the Holy Spirit. It was God the Father who, through His Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary. She was with child OF or THROUGH the Holy Spirit. God the Father, the highest within the Godhead, brought Mary’s pregnancy about through the power of His Holy Spirit. (Note that in Luke 1:35, the Holy Spirit is defined as the “power of the Highest.”)

The Father Created Everything Through Christ

It is also remarkable that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in a passage like, 1 Cor. 8:6, where the Godhead is described. One would surely expect that the Holy Spirit would somehow be referred to here, if it were a person. But note what we read: “…yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”

IF the Holy Spirit were a person, why is it not mentioned here? We read that there is only one God—the Father—and one Lord—Jesus Christ. And we read that all things are THROUGH Christ. So it was CHRIST who created everything. Or, one could say that God the Father created everything THROUGH Christ. That’s what Ephesians 3:9 tells us, “God…created all things through Jesus Christ.” Col. 1: 16 confirms this: “All things were created through Him.” (There are additional Scriptures revealing this truth, such as John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; and Hebr. 1:1-2). And how did Christ do it? Through the power of His Holy Spirit. But it was still Christ. If the Holy Spirit were a person, then God would not have created everything through the person of Christ, but through the person of the Holy Spirit. This shows that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person.

Spirit Compared with Water

Let’s now notice a passage in Acts 2 that shows, too, that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person. Acts 2:17 reads: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out OF My Spirit on all flesh.” The Holy Spirit cannot be a person, since one cannot “pour out” a person and one cannot divide a person, by sending something OF that person into someone else.

Turn also to John 4:10, 14, where the Spirit is compared with water. Jesus tells the woman at the well: “‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, “Give Me a drink,” you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water… whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.’”

Later, the Bible makes it very clear that Christ was talking here about the Holy Spirit, comparing it with living water to be poured out. We read in John 7:37-39, in the Authorized Version: “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirsts, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive…”

Christ compares the Holy Spirit with living WATER. We read earlier that God pours out of His Holy Spirit—again the same analogy of water being poured out on or into people is being used. How can a person be compared with water to be poured out? Some say, this is just an analogy. For instance, God is compared with a consuming fire in Heb. 12:29, but He is not a fire.

However, God looks very much like a consuming fire when He reveals Himself to the eyes of man. Notice in Ex. 24:17. God is NOWHERE pictured, however, as water that is being poured out. Such a description just does not fit for a person, showingthat the Holy Spirit is not a person.

The Spirit of the Father and of the Son Dwells in Us

Acts 2: 33 states: “Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.”

Notice, it says here that Christ received the Holy Spirit from the Father, and that Christ then poured out the Spirit from the Father. This is confirmed, too, in John 15:26, where we read Christ’s words: “‘But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me.’” Again, we are told here that Christ sends us the Holy Spirit from the Father (cp. also John 16:7).

Notice also Christ’s words in John 14:16-17: “‘And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth…for He dwells with you and will be in you.’” Here we see that it is the Father who will give us the Holy Spirit. He does so through Christ, as we read earlier.

[We will address later in the booklet why the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to with “He,” as is the case in the two passages just quoted. We will show that this does not prove at all that the Holy Spirit is a person.]

Titus 3:5-6 confirms that the Father gives us the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ: “[God] saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom [better: “which,” cp. Authorized Version] He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

We also see, however, in John 14:26, that the Father Himself sends us His Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ. Christ said: “‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.’”

Notice that it is not only the Holy Spirit of the Father that dwells in us. We also see that it is the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us. Gal. 4:6 tells us: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father.’” We see here that God the Father sent the Spirit of His Son, Jesus Christ, in our hearts, and because it is the Spirit of His Son, we can call God our Father. Notice it, too, in Phil. 1:19: “For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” Again, it is the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us—not a third person!

That the Spirit of the Father and of Christ dwells in us becomes very clear when reading Rom. 8:9: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” Here we read that the Spirit of God dwells in us, and when we do not have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, we are not even Christians.

So putting all those passages together, we can see that the Spirit of God the Father and of Christ dwells in us, and that both God the Father and Jesus Christ send us, or pour into us, the Holy Spirit. But how can that be? Isn’t there only ONE Spirit?

One Spirit

There is clearly only one Spirit, just as there is only one baptism, one faith, one hope and one body (cp. Eph. 4:4-5). But consider this: Although there is only one baptism, there are many individuals being baptized. And even though there is only one body, there are many members in that body (cp. 1 Cor. 12:14). And we know that the ONE God consists of the Father and the Son, that is, God is not just one person.

The same is true for the Holy Spirit. There is ONE Spirit, but both God the Father and Jesus Christ are Spirit beings, and the Holy Spirit emanates from both of them. That is why we read about the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ. When we read that there is one Spirit, then the reference is to the oneness or harmony between God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is exactly the same when Christ said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30). Christ did not mean, the Father and He were “one” being—but that they were “one” in purpose and goal and mindset and character. When Christ spoke these words, He was clearly a separate person from God the Father. Christ said in John 17:11, that we all should be one, as the Father and Christ are one in spirit—not in the sense that we all would become one being, but rather, that we all be of the same spirit. God the Father and Christ are one in spirit, and so are we to become one in spirit.

Notice Christ’s words in John 14:23: “‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.’” Both the Father and Jesus Christ live in us. John 14:16-18 confirms too that not only the Father, but also Jesus Christ live in us, through the Holy Spirit, when Christ told His disciples, “‘I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper…, the Spirit of truth…[that] will be in you. I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.’” God the Father and Jesus Christ have both come to us, and they both have made their home with us. They do this through the Holy Spirit that flows from both of them into us. This proves, as we will see in a moment, that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person.

First, though, let’s turn back for a moment to John 7:37-39. This Scripture is directly related to the passage in John 14:23 and proves, too, that the Holy Spirit is not a person. It reads: “On the last day, that great day of the Feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom [better: “which,” cp. AV] those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Note that the word “given” is in italics—this means, it is not in the original Greek; it was added by the translator. Other translators present this passage quite differently:

The New Revised Standard Version: “…for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

The New American Bible: “There was, of course, no Spirit yet…”

The New Jerusalem Bible: “…for there was no Spirit as yet…”

The Moffat translation: “…as yet there was no Spirit…”

When we check this in the Interlinear translation from the Greek, which renders the original Greek word for word, we find the following phrase, “…for not yet was Spirit Holy, because Jesus not yet was glorified.”

The German translations are all fairly consistent in their renderings. The revised Luther Bible, the Elberfelder Bible, and the Menge Bible, all state, “The Spirit was not yet there…”

The Zuercher Bible even states, “…the Holy Spirit did not exist yet…” They point out in the Appendix: “Some have translated, ‘the Holy Spirit was not yet given,’ because they were offended by the literal original text.”

But how could this be? How is it possible to say that the Holy Spirit did not exist yet, or was not there yet, since Christ was not yet glorified?

The answer becomes clear when we consider that only a glorified God being can give His Holy Spirit to others. When Christ spoke those words, the Holy Spirit of the Father was clearly there and dwelling in Him — but Christ was referring here to Himself. He said, “Let him who thirsts come to ME.” And Christ was a man when He said that, and as a man, having given up His glory, He could not give the Holy Spirit, emanating from Him as a glorified God being, to others. Remember, it was the Holy Spirit of the FATHER (as distinguished from the Holy Spirit of Christ) that dwelled in Christ, and through which Christ did the marvelous works (cp. Acts 10:38-39).

For Christ to bestow His Holy Spirit on others, He needed to be glorified first. Christ made this clear, when He said in John 16:7: “…‘if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.’” This proves, then, several things: It proves that when Jesus Christ was here on earth, He was a man, FULLY flesh. He was NOT human and divine at the same time. He was not fully man and fully God. This passage proves that the Holy Spirit is not a person. Rather, the Holy Spirit emanates from glorified God beings. As long as Christ was not glorified, He had no Holy Spirit of His own to bestow on others. That’s why the Holy Spirit of the glorified Christ was not there yet—ONLY the Holy Spirit of the Father was there.

But then, after Christ’s resurrection and glorification, both the Father and the Son dwell in us through their Spirit—the Holy Spirit—which emanates or proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The passages in John 14:23 and John 7:37-39 (discussed above) show us then why the Holy Spirit cannot be a separate or distinct person or being within the Godhead: Since the Spirit of the Father and of the Son lives in us, two persons would live in us, and the Godhead would not consist of only three persons, but of four—God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit of the Father, and God the Holy Spirit of the Son. But no one teaches, to our knowledge, that God consists of four persons. And so we see, no matter how we look at it, the whole concept of the Holy Spirit being a separate person has no biblical basis!

One Mediator

Jesus is our Mediator, our only Mediator, between us and God the Father. Turn to 1 Tim. 2:5-6, and note: “For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and humanity, himself a human being, Jesus Christ.” (New Jerusalem Bible).

God the Father never became man, but Christ did. So, Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, as Christ can sympathize with our weaknesses, having been tempted in all points, when He was human, as we are today. Hebrews 4:15 tells us, “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

Let’s turn now to Rom. 8:26, where we are told what the Holy Spirit does for us: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Authorized Version).

 Here we read that the Spirit makes intercession for us, in other words, that it is a “mediator” between God and man. So, IF the Holy Spirit were a person, we would have two mediators, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Let’s see, though, what is meant by the statement that the Spirit makes intercession for us. Continuing in verse 27 of Romans 8 we are told: “Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” And who exactly is it who searches the heart and who makes intercession?

The answer is in Rom. 8:34: “It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.”

Notice it, too, in 2 Cor. 3: 17: “Now the Lord IS the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

So we see that it is Christ, through His Spirit, who makes intercession for us. (cp. Heb. 9:15; 7: 25; 1 John 2:1). Both the Father and the Son are Spirit beings. We are told by Christ in John 4:24 that GOD IS Spirit. We are also told in 1 Cor. 15:45 that Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, became “a life-giving Spirit.” Jesus Christ was God. He was a Spirit being before He became a man, and He became God, a life-giving Spirit being, at the time of His resurrection (cp. Titus 2:13).

Let’s briefly address here how Christ, through His Spirit, makes intercession for us. Although God the Father and Jesus Christ ARE Spirit, they have form and shape, a body, hands, arms, eyes, and so on, but they are composed of spirit, not matter. We see God the Father and Christ described as sitting on a throne. But Christ is not always in heaven. He appeared to man before His birth as a human being, and after His resurrection. He will return visibly, riding a white horse. So, in that sense, He is at a certain place at a certain time, but He IS omnipresent, that is, at all places at every time, through His Spirit. Spirit can be compared with the air that surrounds the globe. Air is everywhere. So is Christ, through His Spirit, and it is through His Spirit that Christ can intercede for us before the Father at any time, regardless of where He may be.

We have seen, then, that Christ intercedes for us through His Spirit. That shows that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person, because otherwise, Christ would not be the only Mediator between God and man—the Holy Spirit would be another or second mediator.

Proofs for the Trinity?

There are some Scriptures that might seem to “prove” the concept of the Trinity, but a closer study of those Scriptures reveals that such is not the case. Let’s take a closer look at these Scriptures.

Does 1 John 5:7-8 Prove the Trinity?

1 John 5:7-8 is probably the most frequently quoted text to “prove” that God is a Trinity. The New King James Bible translates it this way: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”

The way this passage is translated in the New King James Bible is considered a proof text by some that the Holy Spirit is a person. But this is not true at all. With that rationale given to verse 7 (“there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one”), it would follow from verse 8 (“there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and these three agree as one”), that “water” and “blood” would also have to be persons. But nobody claims that.

In addition, most scholars agree that the words in verse 7, “in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one,” were later added by the Catholic Church to “prove” the Trinity, and that these words were not in the original writings. Many Bible translations and commentaries state that this particular phrase, referred to as the “Comma Joanneum,” is “not contained in the best authorities and constitutes a late addition in the Latin Text.” [Pattloch Bible, Appendix, page 85].

The Zürcher Bible comments in a footnote that “this passage was added in the fourth century in the Latin Text, and only in the 15th century in some Greek Texts.” The NIV adds in a footnote that this particular phrase is only contained “in the late manuscripts of the Latin Bible and that it is not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th century.” Other commentaries point out that these words are clearly a falsification and that they have therefore been correctly omitted, even as a footnote, in many modern translations. So this passage is clearly not proof at all that the Holy Spirit is a separate divine person.

Does Matt. 28:19 Prove the Trinity?

If there is any Scripture, besides the one in 1 John 5:7-8, which has been quoted more frequently than any other, in order to “prove” the existence of the Trinity, it would be Matthew 28:19. Let’s read this passage, in context, beginning with verse 18:

“(18) And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.’”

These words by Jesus do not prove a Trinity. As the role of Christ in the baptismal ceremony is mighty important (cp. Rom. 6:1-4; Gal. 3:27), so also is the role of the Father. It was God the Father who gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for us, so that we could have eternal life. Once we repent and believe we are then to be baptized as an outward sign of inner repentance, to “bury our old self.” Once we come out of the watery grave, we are to walk in newness of life. And, this can only be done with the help of God’s Holy Spirit.

We are to make disciples by baptizing them, and by teaching them to observe all things that Christ commanded. And, we baptize a person “in” or “into” [the Greek word eis can mean “in” or “into”] the “name” or “possession” [the Greek word onoma can mean “name” or “possession”] of the Father and of the Son who both are present through the Holy Spirit. The entire clause, “baptize in the name of,” in Greek, “eis (to) onoma tinos,” also conveys the meaning of coming under the “control” or “authority” of the Father and of the Son (cp. Strong’s, #3836; and William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, p. 575). And as we will see in the next section, it is the Holy Spirit, emanating from the Father and from the Son, by which we have fellowship with the Father and Jesus Christ.

When we are baptized in, or into, the name or possession of Jesus, we recognize that we are baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). When we come out of the watery grave, and one of God’s ministers places his hands on our heads and asks God the Father for the Holy Spirit, emanating from both the Father and the Son, we recognize that it is the Holy Spirit of God flowing into us that enables us to walk in newness of life. We also recognize that we are entering, at that very time, the Family of God as begotten, but not yet born, children of God the Father and brothers and sisters of our elder brother Jesus Christ. In that sense, we become the possession or the “property” of the God Family. And all of this is made possible, then, through God’s Holy Spirit, dwelling in us. So rather than teaching the personage of the Holy Spirit, Matt. 28:19 teaches how God makes it possible, through His Spirit in us, to become a part of the Family of God.

Does 2 Cor. 13:14 Prove the Trinity?

2 Cor. 13:14 reads: “The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” Understand, now, that we obtain communion or fellowship through the Holy Spirit, but let’s note with whom we have communion or fellowship. 1 Cor. 1:9 tells us: “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Notice, too, Phil. 2:1, pointing out that “consolation in Christ” is the same as “comfort of love” and “fellowship of the Spirit.”).And 1 John 1: 3 adds, “[T]hat which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

Our fellowship with the Father and Jesus Christ is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, flowing from God and joining us with God and our fellow brethren. The passage in 2 Cor. 13:14 does not teach us that the Holy Spirit is a divine being.

Does Acts 5 Prove the Trinity?

Some would use Acts 5:1-9 as proof that the Holy Spirit is God and the third member of the Trinity. By way of background, Ananias and his wife Sapphira decided to sell a possession and to give part of the proceeds to the disciples, falsely claiming, however, that it was all that they had received. Peter responded, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…You have not lied to men but to God” (vv. 3-4). Later, he told Sapphira, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?”

Some say that Peter equated in this passage the Holy Spirit with God. But Peter didn’t do that. Rather, he was telling Ananias and Sapphira that God’s Spirit—“the Spirit of the Lord”—was dwelling in him and the other disciples, and that God was present through His Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira had not just lied to human beings, but to the Holy Spirit of God, dwelling in those human beings, and since God the Father and Jesus Christ dwell in us through the Holy Spirit, they had actually lied directly to God the Father and God the Son. Peter did not say that the Holy Spirit is God, but that through the Holy Spirit, God is present.

Remember—God is omnipresent through His Spirit. In Psalm 139:7, David makes it clear, too, that God is everywhere through His Spirit. He asks, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?” The Holy Spirit is not a distinct or separate God being, but it emanates from God, so that God, having form and shape, is omnipresent.

We hope by now that you can see how Scriptures can be twisted to provide so-called proof of something that is not true at all, and that the Bible itself provides the answers if one is willing to search and find those revealed answers—the real proofs.

Does Personification Prove the Trinity?

What about personifying or lending human attributes to something that is not a person? Is that proof of the Trinity? Some want to prove the Trinity, and especially the idea that the Holy Spirit is a conscious divine Person, by turning to Scriptures which seem to imply that the Holy Spirit does something, or that it thinks and speaks. Let’s take a closer look at some of these examples of personification.

The Holy Spirit vs. the Spirit in Man

One such example is found in 1 Cor. 2:10. The context here is that something that is not physical dwells in every human being. The Bible calls this non-physical component in every person the “spirit in man” or the “spirit of man.” This human spirit distinguishes man from animals in intelligence, mind set and abilities. Paul goes on to point out that every converted person also has within him or her the Holy Spirit, which distinguishes the converted mind from the natural, unconverted mind in spiritual understanding, comprehension, and ability to live by spiritual principles. Verse 10 reads: “But God has revealed them [the spiritual things] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.”

This sounds as if the Spirit of God is a conscious, active, distinct being. But let us ask the question—is the “spirit in man” a conscious, active, distinct being? We know that it is not, because when man dies, the “spirit of the man” goes back to God, but neither that “spirit” of the dead man, nor the dead man, have any consciousness [For proof, ask for our free booklet, Evolution—A Fairy Tale for Adults?].

Let’s consider Psalm 77:6: “I call to remembrance my song in the night; I meditate within my heart, And my spirit makes diligent search.” While both the Holy Spirit within us, as well as the “spirit in man” within us, makes diligent search, the “spirit in man” is not a distinct being. Neither does the passage in 1 Cor. 2:10 show, then, that the Holy Spirit is a distinct being.

Let’s continue in 1 Cor. 2:11, the last sentence: “…no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” This sounds again like a distinct, conscious being. But let’s read the first part of that sentence: “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him.”

So again, both the Spirit of God and the “spirit of man” “know” something. This terminology does not justify the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a God being—otherwise, the “spirit in man” would have to be a being too, which it is not.

Note, too, this passage in Romans 8:16: “The [Holy] Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” [Authorized Version].

If the Holy Spirit is a person because it bears witness, then is the “spirit in man” a person, too, because it also bears witness? No, “the spirit in man” is not a person in addition to the man where it resides; i.e., there is not a person living in every person. Every human being has a “spirit in man,” regardless of whether the person is converted or not. But once converted, the person has in addition living in him or her God’s Holy Spirit. The result is described in 1 Cor. 6:17: “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.” In other words, they have become, or are becoming, one in mind and purpose. And that is why we read that both the Holy Spirit and our spirit bear witness to the fact that we are God’s children. This does not make either the Holy Spirit or our spirit to be persons. Rather, it’s a figurative way of saying that because of the Holy Spirit living in us, working on and guiding our human spirit, God calls us His children.

Human Wisdom and the Mind of Christ

Let’s continue reading in 1 Cor. 2, verse 13, to see how the Bible describes certain concepts to make them clearer for those who are called by God while others stumble at the Word. We read: “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” Both the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of man are described here as “teaching” something. But, just as man’s wisdom is not a distinct person, so, the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person, either. Consider verse 16: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him [i.e., the Lord]? But we have themind of Christ.”

The Holy Spirit in us that teaches us and searches out spiritual things for us is the mind of Christ, since Christ lives in us through His Spirit. We now have a different mind set. We don’t have any longer the carnal, natural mind of man. And to make this point very clear, Paul personifies the Holy Spirit in us—as he personified both the human spirit and human wisdom. He wanted to show what a great influence these have for us spiritually, but, he did not mean to convey that all of these are, in fact, persons.

Paul’s Use of the Word “Spirit”

Notice how Paul, in his writings, uses the word “spirit.”

Turn to 1 Cor. 5:4, where we read: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan…”

Let’s ask again—Was the spirit of Paul, that was with the members in Corinth, while Paul dwelled somewhere else, a person that had left Paul? Of course not—otherwise Paul could not have written the letter, if the spirit had left him. We read in other places that once the spirit in man leaves the man, the man is dead (cp. James 2:26). So, what Paul is telling us here, is that his mind was with the Corinthians. Likewise, the Spirit of God is not a person either, but the mind of God that God wants to share with us.

We must be careful, when we read certain passages that seem to imply that the Holy Spirit acts or does things, not to conclude that those passages teach the personhood of the Spirit. In most cases, the truth becomes clear in the passage, if we read it in context, and if we don’t only quote from the passage selectively.

Let’s review another example, this time in 1 Cor. 14:14: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Is the spirit of Paul that prays a person? If not, why do some conclude, in referring to Romans 8:26, that the Holy Spirit must be a person as it is stated there that the Spirit “prays” (Note from our earlier discussion that, in any event, it is actually Jesus Christ who prays)? Further, let’s read 1 Cor. 14:15: “What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.”

So, if Paul’s spirit is a person, is then Paul’s understanding also a person? After all, Paul prays with the spirit, and with the understanding. But, the answer is, the mind and the understanding of the man are being personified here, and the same is true when the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit of God.

Notice 1 Cor. 16:18: “For they refreshed my spirit and yours.” This does not mean, of course, that the spirit of Paul and the spirit of all of the Corinthians were persons. Rather, their minds and whole entire beings were refreshed or comforted.

The Letter That Kills

Notice another example, dealing directly with God’s Spirit, in 2 Cor. 3:4-6. Let’s also see from the context, that this has to be a personification: “And we have such trust through Christ toward God… [O]ur sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Some say, here is proof that the Holy Spirit is a person because it says that the Holy Spirit gives life. But if that is so, is then the letter a person, too, because it also says, that the letter kills? It should be rather obvious that both terms are being used in a personified way.

The Flesh Bestows on Us Death

A similar example can be found in Gal. 6:8: “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” Those who say that this proves that the Holy Spirit is a person, since it bestows on us everlasting life, must answer whether this then proves that the flesh is a person, too, as the flesh bestows on us death. Again, both terms are used in a personified way, to make a certain concept clear—if we follow our own fleshly desires, we will die, but if we follow God who teaches us through His Spirit in us, we will live.

But notice what this all means. Since all these abstract concepts, that are clearly NOT persons, such as the letter that kills and the flesh that kills, are personified, and they are being compared with the Holy Spirit at the same time, then this indicates strongly that the Holy Spirit is not a person either, but that it is likewise personified to get a certain thought across in the most powerful way.

We have seen, of course, from other passages, that the Holy Spirit is not a person. But those who use passages in which the Holy Spirit is personified to show that the Holy Spirit is a person don’t realize that their arguments go against them and that the very passages that they quote indicate the opposite.

The Holy Spirit Speaks to Us

Consider this passage in Hebrews 3: 7-11: “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: ‘Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, and said, “They always go astray in their heart, and they have not known My ways.” So I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest.’”

The way this is worded, it is the Holy Spirit that speaks and says that the fathers have rebelled against Him, that He was angry, and that they would not enter His rest. But who actually said those words? Who was the one who became angry about the transgressions and rebellion of the fathers?

Note in Numbers 14:20-23: “Then the Lord said: ‘I have pardoned, according to your word, but truly, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord—because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice, they certainly shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who rejected Me see it.’”

It was the Lord (Yahweh) who said it. As we know from other passages, the Lord of the Old Testament who spoke directly with Moses and others was Jesus Christ, not the Father. Christ pointed out that no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18). But Moses, for example, did see “the form of the Lord.” (Numbers 12:8). Moses, then, saw the second God being in the God Family—the One who would become known as Jesus Christ. And so, Christ was with the people of ancient Israel, through His Spirit.

Note this in 1 Cor. 10:4,9: “…For they [the Israelites under Moses] drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ… Nor let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents…”

Also, note 1 Peter 1:10-11: “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them, was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

Therefore, the Holy Spirit that “speaks” in the passage in the book of Hebrews, or that testifies of Christ’s sufferings and glory, is the Spirit of Christ. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but the person of Christ was present amongst the Israelites through His Spirit, and Christ spoke to them through His Spirit. That the Holy Spirit, emanating from both the Father and the Son, cannot be a person, becomes clear when considering that Christ’s Holy Spirit (as distinguished from the Father’s Holy Spirit) was not present when Christ lived here on earth as a human being, as we already saw. It was Christ’s Holy Spirit that dwelled in the prophets of old, but Christ’s Holy Spirit did not exist, when Christ gave up His glory to become a man. Therefore, theHoly Spirit of Christ the Son cannot be a person.

The Holy Spirit Witnesses to Us

Note this in Heb. 10: 15-16: “But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,’ then He adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’”

We are told here first, that the Holy Spirit says something, but then, that the Lord says it, and then again, that the Holy Spirit says it. So the Scriptures use here the terms “the Lord” and “Holy Spirit” interchangeably. Obviously, it is the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that witnesses—in other words, Christ speaks through His Spirit.But that does not make the Holy Spirit a person.

Some have pointed out that the Holy Spirit speaks to the different churches in the book of Revelation, and concluded that this must mean, then, that the Holy Spirit is a person. Consider first, though, the fact that the book of Revelation speaks consistently about the Father and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit is never mentioned once as a person or a being. Both the Father and the Lamb will live in the New Jerusalem—but no mention of the Holy Spirit.

When we read that the “Spirit” speaks to the churches, we must realize that the revelation comes from God the Father who gave it to Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:1). So, the Spirit that speaks to the churches is again the Spirit of Christ—it is Christ, through His Holy Spirit, who reveals and passes on the message that He had received from the Father.

The same can be seen from the book of Acts. In Acts 16:6 and 7, we read that the “Holy Spirit” forbade the disciples to preach in Asia, and to even go to a certain place. In Acts 20: 22-23, we read that the Holy Spirit testified to Paul in every city that chains and tribulation awaited him. But how did the Holy Spirit do that?

Acts 21:4, 11 give us a clue. We read: “And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem… When he [a certain prophet] had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, ‘Thus says the Holy Spirit, “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’””

We see that people spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let’s turn now to Acts 23:11, to find out who actually gave these prophecies through the mouths of those prophets: “But the following night the Lord stood by me and said, ‘Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness in Rome.’”

It was Jesus Christ who, through His Spirit, inspired people to talk. These passages that we have read do not tell us that the Holy Spirit is a person.

The Holy Spirit Teaches Us

Some claim that the Holy Spirit must be a person because the Bible says that the Spirit teaches us. But this argumentation is not convincing. Let’s note 1 John 2:27, which some have quoted to support their claim that the Holy Spirit must be a person. It reads, “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”

We understand that the anointing spoken of here is a reference to the Holy Spirit. But note, again, who actually teaches us. Turn to 1 Thess. 4:9: “But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another.”

When used without clarification, the reference to the person of “God” in the New Testament is usually a reference to the Father. (However, the word “God” can refer to Jesus Christ as well. Cp. Titus 2:13). Note in 1 Cor. 3:23 and in John 6:45: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”

It is God the Father who teaches us. And since God the Father and Jesus Christ are one, and God beings, and since Christ only teaches us what He has heard from the Father (cp. John 8:28), it is also correct, then, that Christ is teaching us (1 John 5:20). Both do it through the Holy Spirit emanating from them. So they teach us through the Holy Spirit—but that does not make the Holy Spirit a divine God being.

The Holy Spirit a—”He”?

Some claim that the Holy Spirit must be a person and a God being, because it is referred to in the Bible in numerous places as “He.” However, as we will see, this argument is really one of the most uneducated ones. First of all, we should notice that several Bible translations have deliberately chosen to render certain passages in such a way as to imply that the Holy Spirit is a person, while other translations are, in general, much more accurate and true to the original text. For instance, if you read Rom. 8:16 in the New King James Bible, or in many other modern translations, you find the following rendering: “The Spirit Himself bears witness…” This could give the impression that the Holy Spirit is a person. The Authorized Version translates, however, “The Spirit itself beareth witness…” This translation is accurate as in accordance with the Greek and English grammar.

In many languages, every noun has a gender that is masculine, feminine, or neuter. It’s strictly a matter of grammar. For instance, in the German language, the word for “horse,” “Pferd,” is neuter, whereas the word for “dog” “Hund,” is masculine, and the word for “cat,” “Katze,” is feminine. In addition, the word for “tree,” “Baum,” is masculine, as is the word for “car,” “Wagen,” whereas the word for “fir-tree,” “Tanne,” is feminine, and the word for “pig,” “Schwein, “is neuter. More confusing, perhaps, the German words for “breath,” “wind,” and “spirit,” i.e., “Atem,” “Wind,” and “Geist,” are all masculine. We can clearly see, then, that the gender of the noun does not tell us anything about the nature of the noun—whether it’s a person, an animal, a plant, an object, or a thing.

The same applies to the Greek. The Greek word for “spirit,” “pneuma,” is neuter. Therefore, all pronouns referring to “pneuma” should be accurately translated as “it” in the English language. Those who have arbitrarily decided to translate the pronouns as “he,” or even “He,” rather than as “it,” when referring to the Holy Spirit, have only done so in order to convey their false beliefs in the personhood of the Holy Spirit. In addition, if the translators would be consistent, they would have to translate many pronouns of Hebrew words referring to the Spirit as “she,” as in the majority of cases, nouns with a feminine gender describing the Spirit are used in the Old Testament.

There is one particular noun that refers to the Holy Spirit and that is masculine in the Greek. This noun is “parakletos” and has been translated into English as “Helper” or “Comforter.” (cp. for example, John 14: 16-17). Since the noun is masculine in the Greek, the pronouns referring to it are also masculine in the Greek. But this is strictly a matter of grammar, not of meaning. To translate those pronouns as masculine into English, however, gives a totally wrong impression.

Questions of grammar and gender of nouns in a particular language do not determine whether the nouns are persons, plants, things, or objects. Wrong or misleading translations must not be used for doctrinal conclusions.

Personifications of Dead Objects

We saw already that the Bible sometimes personifies the Holy Spirit. This should not come as a surprise. We should all realize that the Bible often personifies dead objects, or concepts, or speechless animals—attributing to them speech, feelings, action or other conscious conduct. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that the Holy Spirit of God is sometimes described this way. But, as we have seen, this does not prove that it is a distinct person, or a God being within a Trinity.

Let us take note of some of those Biblical examples of personification.

Godly Wisdom—a Person?

In Proverbs 1, “godly wisdom” is described. Wisdom, of course, is not a person, but let’s see what we read about it, beginning in verse 20: “Wisdom calls aloud outside. She raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses… She speaks her words.” And then, beginning in verse 22, we actually read what “wisdom” is saying to us in direct quotes. So, we see that God’s wisdom is personified here, but it’s clearly not a person.

We see the same repeated in Proverbs 8. Beginning in verse 1, we read, “Does not wisdom cry out, and understanding lift up her voice? … (3) She cries out by the gates…” And, again, verse 4, we find what exactly wisdom is saying. It is given in quotes with wisdom speaking for herself, exclaiming, “‘(30) The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way… (27) When He prepared the heavens, I was there… (30) I was beside Him as a master craftsman… (32) Now therefore, listen to me, my children, for blessed are those who keep my ways.’”

And, again, Proverbs 9:1-6 personifies wisdom and lets it speak to us, as if it were a separate being. But, it is not. Wisdom is one of the characteristics of God. And it is God who must give us His wisdom, if we want to live by God’s standards. Let’s notice this in Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” Can we see how parallel the relationship between God and wisdom is with the relationship between God and His Holy Spirit? After all, we receive Godly wisdom through God’s Spirit. Both wisdom and the Holy Spirit are personalized, but, neither one of them is, in fact, a person.

The Love of God—a Person?

Since we are talking about some of God’s attributes or characteristics that the Bible sometimes personifies to make clear to us the importance of the same, let’s note another example in 1 Cor. 13: 4-7. In this passage, the love of God is described in such a way as if it were a person, but it is, of course, not a person:

“Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

Only a person or a being can refuse to envy, behave in a certain way, think, rejoice or believe. Here, love is described as doing that, as if love was a person. It’s not a person, of course, but the one and foremost characteristic of God, that is given to us, through God’s Spirit living in us. And, so, as love is not a person, but personalized, so is God’s Holy Spirit not a person, either.

The Faith of God—a Person?

Notice now an additional example. We find another one of God’s characteristics described as a person in 2 Timothy 1:5: “I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.”

The faith of God is described here as dwelling in a person. Other translators even say that the faith is living in them. Only a person, not an abstract concept or an attribute of someone else, can dwell or live. So, here, God’s faith is personified, but the faith of God is clearly not a separate person or being within the Godhead.Neither is the Holy Spirit a separate person, although we read many times that the Holy Spirit dwells or lives in us.

Sin—a Person?

However, not only the attributes of God are sometimes portrayed in a personified way. Likewise, wrong concepts, which we must overcome, are also personified. Notice this in Romans 6:12, 14: “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, that you should obey it in its lusts… For sin shall not have dominion over you…”

Sin is portrayed as a ruler, an enemy that must not conquer us. Rather, we are to conquer it, as if it were a person. We are reminded of a similar admonition that God gave to Cain in Genesis 4:7: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

The Blood—a Person?

We also find an interesting mixture of conscious beings and unconscious concepts, attributes, or ideas in Hebrews 12: 22-24. And while some of those things mentioned herein are clearly not persons, they are all described as if they were: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”

For instance, the blood of sprinkling does not speak per se; neither does the blood of Abel. But the Bible pictures it that way, as if the blood were a conscious being. And God had introduced that thought early on, in Genesis 4:10: “And He said: What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.” Again, the blood is personified here, as having an actual voice, to show the enormity and seriousness of what Cain had done.

The Heavens, Earth, Rivers, Hills—All Persons?

There is quite a number of places where the Bible gives attributes, personality and consciousness to things which don’t possess them—but they are personified, as if they would act or conduct themselves as human beings would.

Note Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” Creation is portrayed here as a woman in labor. It’s personified, personalized. But it’s only a picture.

Notice it also in Isa. 49:13: “Sing, O heavens! Be joyful, O earth! And break out into singing, O mountains! For the Lord has comforted His people, and will have mercy on His afflicted.” Again, we see how feelings and emotions and personal conduct are ascribed to God’s creation.

Note, too, Isa. 55:12: “…The mountains and the hills Shall break forth into singing before you, And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” This is clearly a picture, of course. Trees don’t clap their hands, and hills don’t sing. Everybody understands that this is a picture. But when we read that God’s Holy Spirit speaks, then suddenly people assume that this must mean that the Holy Spirit is a person.

The book of Psalms is filled with personified descriptions. Let’s just look at a few:

Psalm 96:11-13: “Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad… Let the field be joyful, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the woods will rejoice before the Lord. For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth.”

Psalm 148:2-4, 7-11: “Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens… Praise the Lord from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths; Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word; Mountains and all hills; Fruitful trees and all cedars; Beasts and all cattle; Creeping things and flying fowl; Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth…”

In this passage, angels, men, animals and plants, as well as lifeless or unconscious objects such as water, planets and stars, are all asked to praise the Lord, as if they all were persons. Yet, nobody would assume that water, for example, is a person with feelings, emotions, or ability to reason. It is understood that this passage in Psalms pictures the greatness of the Creator God.

The God Family is Destined to Grow

The false concept of the Trinity does not only convey a totally wrong picture of God—it also hides the purpose of man’s existence. Most don’t understand and believe that it is man’s destiny to become God.

God is a Family—presently consisting of the Father and the Son. Through the power of His Holy Spirit, we can become a part of God’s Family. Rather than being a closed Trinity for all eternity, God is enlarging His Family by reproducing Himself in us. True Christians are already called God’s begotten children if His Spirit dwells in them. We are not yet glorified or born again, and it has not yet appeared or become manifest what we will be—namely, born again children of God. We do know that when Jesus Christ appears, we will become born again children of God—we will then be like Him and see Him as He is—the firstborn among many brethren (cp. 1 John 3:1-2; Romans 8:29).

The concept of the Trinity that teaches that God is—and that He has always been—Father, Son and Holy Spirit, hides and obscures the fact that God is a Family. In the beginning, there were two God beings—one being referred to as the Word or the Spokesman, as well as another being, referred to as God (John 1:1). But the Word was God, too, as “God” is a family name. The Word became flesh—He became known as Jesus Christ (John 1:14), while the other God being, the “highest” in the Godhead, became known as the “Father.” Christ became born again as the Son of God in the resurrection (Romans 1:1-4). Before New Testament times, God was not known yet as the “Father,” and the Word was not known yet as the “Son.” But Christ is now the Son of God—and, He is also the firstborn amongst many brethren. You, too, can become a begotten and, at the time of the resurrection, born again “son of God.” The false concept of a closed Trinity totally hides this awesome truth. If you want to know more about your ultimate potential, please write for our free booklet,“The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.”

We have seen in this booklet that God is not a closed Trinity. Rather, God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are a loving Family. The Father gave His only-begotten Son for us so that you and I can join His Family and have eternal life. God wants us to worship Him in “spirit and in truth (John 4:24).” Let’s make sure that we do.

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

To Request a FREE hard copy of this booklet, please write to: contact@eternalgod.org

Introduction

Many marriages and families are in desperate need of repair, especially in this Western society where we have endless cycles of marriage—divorce—remarriage. Living together without being married has come to be the accepted norm while healthy, lasting marriages, and solid, happy families are notable exceptions.

Why do we find marriages in such a state of disarray in this Western society, today? First, understand that human relationships in life are a product of the principles we apply—if we apply wrong principles, we get bad results and if we apply right principles, we get good results.

Have we, then, overlooked vital keys that would unlock the understanding of how to produce happy marriages and families? Indeed, we have!

Surprisingly, these keys are not new. They have been available, in written form, for thousands of years. They simply have not been uncovered or understood, let alone practiced. And many who find these keys, “lose” them again by not having full regard in applying them to their lives.

These important keys can be found in a book that has been owned by more people than any other book. That book is the Holy Bible—the Word of God in print. Yes, the knowledge of how to have happy and lasting marriages, and successful and close families comes directly from our Creator! For too many people the passages relevant to human relationships have been a mystery. But it is time for this mystery to be unlocked. Do you know where in the Bible you can find these keys?

Part 1

With regard to biblical principles for a happy marriage, present-day Christian churches teach a variety of ideas, some even to opposite extremes. Some ministers advocate totalitarianism of the husband and blind submission of the wife. Others teach the opposite—blatant liberalism of the wife—casting aside leadership of the husband, and even anarchy within the marriage. We see a lack of respect, a lack of love, and brutal abuse of responsibilities. And in our “throw-away” society, we discard the very thing that would make us happy—our family relationships.

Too many marriages face serious difficulties based on an improper understanding and exercise of the different roles and functions of husbands and wives, ending their relationship in divorce or legal separation. But we are called upon to return to the clear teachings of the Bible to produce happy, healthy, successful Christian marriages. Are we willing to listen to God and actually do what He says?

Divorce—a Solution?

Realize first of all, that God wants our marriages to succeed. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). A couple that faces difficulties and looks at divorce as an easy “solution” to their problems may make a serious, and even fatal mistake. Divorce is seldom a positive solution. Biblically, divorce with the freedom to subsequently marry someone else is permitted only under very limited circumstances. God created the marriage unit and He intended that it should flourish and endure (Matthew 19:4–6). Two truly converted married Christians (as long as both remain alive and converted throughout their marriage to each other) must never divorce and subsequently marry somebody else! Their marriage, which has been bound by God, is for life (1 Corinthians 7:10–11; Romans 7:1–3; Luke 16:18).

What about a married couple where one mate is a true Christian, making every effort to apply God’s principles, and the other mate is not? Even in such a case, divorce and subsequent remarriage is not biblically permitted, unless the “unbelieving” mate departs from the marriage, by not fulfilling his or her marriage duties, and the “unbeliever” is no longer willing to live with the converted Christian mate (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:12–16). Such total departure from the marriage by the “unbeliever” can be seen in serious continuous violations of his or her marriage duties and responsibilities, such as the sinful practice of “sexual immorality” (Matthew 5:31–32; 19:9). But even then, counseling with one of God’s ministers is highly recommended, with the goal to restore, rather than to sever, the marriage.

The purpose of this booklet is to help the readers improve their marriages and family relationships by directing them to the clear instructions given in the Word of God on this subject. Application of these spiritual principles in a marriage and in a family will assist in the avoidance of separation, divorce and broken homes, thus helping these to become things of the past.

We All Need Improvement

In exploring God’s instructions on marriage in the Bible, let’s look at the roles of husbands and wives separately. Let’s be faithful in applying those principles which apply to us, and let’s not assume that one particular point only applies to our mate or to another couple. Let’s not judge one another but rather examine ourselves. And, if we do have problems with our mates, let’s remember, first of all, to heed the admonition of James 3:2, “For we all stumble in many things.”

Recognize that we ALL need to improve. No matter how long we have been around, there is always something we can and should learn to make things better.

The Roles of Husbands and Wives

Notice in Ephesians 5:2, 8, 10, 15, 21, “(verse 2) And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us… (verse 8) For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light… (verse 10) finding out what is acceptable to the Lord… (verse 15) See then that you walk circumspectly [or: carefully], not as fools but as wise, redeeming [or using profitably] the time, because the days are evil… (verse 21) submitting to one another in the fear of God.”

Let us carefully analyze this! Whatever the roles and responsibilities of husbands or wives are, they must be examined and carried out based on what we just read. Unless we walk in the “fear of God” and “in love” toward the other person, any role carried out, even if done perfectly according to the letter, will not produce a happy marriage. Further, we must concentrate on how to carry out our roles. We must do so as “wise” persons—not as fools—and we must try to find out what the “will of God” is in any given situation—not, what we may want to do. Finally, we must make the best use of the “time” that God has given us—again, using our time to the glory of God and in submission to His will, not to ours. In doing that, we will “walk in love”—in love toward God and in love toward our mate.

And if we walk in this kind of love, we will be able to “submit one to another.” That is, we will be looking at the interests and needs of the other person—not just at what we may be interested in. Submitting one to another does not mean that we have anarchy—no leadership whatsoever—but it does mean that the one who is to lead is the one who is expected to serve the most. Does that surprise you?

Notice Philippians 2:3–5, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit [desire for vain glory], but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better [higher, standing above us] than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ.”

Now we can begin to examine the biblically-ordained role of a husband in a Christian marriage. As we will see from the pages of the Bible, the husband is to be the leader in the marriage. But notice in what regard the husband is to lead. Ephesians 5:25 reads, “Husbands,love your wives just as Christ also loved the church…”

Husband Is to Love His Wife

When husbands love their wives, wives will respond in kind. God and Christ loved us FIRST (cp. Romans 5:8). We are to respond in kind by loving Them back (cp. James 1:12; 2:5). We just read that Christ esteemed others, in lowliness of mind, as being “higher” than Himself. He was willing to lower Himself to the point of death, so that others could live. That’s the kind of love a husband must have for his wife. Greater love, Christ says, has no one than he who gives his life for his friends (John 15:13). That’s the kind of love that the husband is to give to his wife—his best friend—in words and in deeds. The wife needs to know, and she needs to know that she knows, that her husband would even die for her to protect her. With that kind of love expressed to her, the wife’s response can then be one of willing submission to her husband.

The wife will see a loving husband who is concerned for her—not a tyrant who takes pleasure in exerting authority over her. Wives have become very sensitive in that regard because authority has been abused by men. When women get the impression that the husbands are “lording it over them” they become discouraged, frustrated, and defensive. A husband must be aware of this. He should never belittle his wife and he should never speak harshly to her, trying to show that he is in command.

Husbands are to love their wives just as Christ loved His church. And how did Christ love His church? Let’s continue in Ephesians 5:25, “…and gave Himself for her…” Christ was willing to die for her. He was willing to give up His state as a glorified, immortal God being to become a human. He was willing to go through the terrible ordeal of suffering as a human, of being tempted in all points as we are, of being forsaken by all his friends, of being betrayed, tortured, and finally crucified. He was willing to do that for the church. In fact, although God the Father and Jesus Christ had complete confidence that Christ would not sin, it was nevertheless possible for Him to sin. So we see that Christ was even willing to give up His eternal Godhead for the church, His future wife. If Christ had sinned, the Father would not have resurrected Him back to eternal life, as only the death of Christ’s sinless life was decreed by God as being sufficient to forgive human sin. If Christ had only sinned once, He would not have been restored to His former glory as a member in the God Family, and there would have been no hope for mankind to ever become born-again members in God’s Family, either.

Can we really see how much Christ loved the church, and to what extent He was willing to prove to us His love for us? Fully understood, it should not be too difficult for us to submit to Jesus Christ, our Lord, seeing all that He went through for us. If a husband loves his wife and gives his life for her in the same way, then the wife should have little or no difficulty submitting to her husband’s leadership.

What Does It Mean for a Husband to Give His Life for His Wife?

For a husband to give his life for his wife, as Christ gave His life for the church, is so much more than to be willing to die for her when, or if, the moment arises. Giving one’s life the way Christ did is a life-long practice. Jesus Christ gave up His immortal and eternal life as a God being to live as a human. He lived as a human for over 30 years. Any sin committed by Him would have ended it all. He, in the truest sense of the word, gave His life for us.

Likewise, a husband must do the same for his wife. It is a life-long endeavor. If a husband wants to be “master” of his wife, then he must be the “servant” of his wife (cp. Matthew 20:25–28). Christ said that He came to serve. He also taught His disciples that if they wanted to be great, they needed to serve.

Using this principle then, a husband gives his life for his wife by serving her—by looking after the things that his wife wants, not just the things that he wants. A husband is to view his wife with honor and respect, and he is to show it in the way he treats her. A Christian husband is to have one goal in mind—to help his wife reach her full spiritual potential. If he constantly criticizes her or scrutinizes everything she does, she will become fearful of using her God-given abilities and talents, and, indeed, her very spiritual growth will be hindered.

Notice Ephesians 5:26–29, “…that He might sanctify [set her apart] and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.” When a husband loves his wife, he also loves himself. We read in Ephesians 5:33, “Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself.”

This includes, as we just read, nourishing her and cherishing her—both physically and spiritually. Barring extraordinary circumstances, the husband is supposed to be the breadwinner—providing the financial support for the family—showing his wife thereby how much he loves her and that he is willing to nourish her physically.

And he is to cherish his wife—like a treasure—like the most precious treasure this world has to offer. On a physical level this means he is to look after her needs. He is to compliment her for the good things that she does. He should never take his wife, and what she does, for granted. And on a spiritual level, he is to teach his wife. This requires that he develop a close relationship with God, learning to lead his wife and family in God’s way by setting a right example himself.

The Proverbs 31 Husband

Much can be said about the Proverbs 31 wife, but notice what is said about the husband in Proverbs 31:28–29, “Her children rise up and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many daughters have done well, But you excel them all.’ ”

When we study the famous passage in Proverbs 31 on the “virtuous woman,” we might be surprised to learn all that the virtuous wife does. But, notice also that her husband allows her to do these things! He is not a controlling person, preventing her from accomplishing good things. Rather, we read that he “safely trusts her.” (verse 11). She rises early to “provide food for her household,” (verse 15), and she “considers a field and buys it.” (verse 16). She plants a vineyard “from her profits.” (verse 16). Notice, it is she who does that—not her husband. She is capable of making wise decisions. “She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies sashes to the merchants.” (verse 24). Finally, she “watches over the ways of her household.” (verse 27). She is productive and is capable of directing the activities of her home.

We read that she acts “willingly” (verse 13). She cannot act “willingly” if her husband does not show his love for her by giving her room to express herself in her personal interests, again, manifesting the kind of love that submits one to the other.

Husband Is Not to Be Bitter!

Let’s notice some additional biblical admonitions and guidelines for the husband. Colossians 3:19 reads, “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.”

We are told that we need to give up all bitterness. All of us have to do that. Bitterness is like cancer. It will eat us up internally, until our light within us has become darkness. If we love another person, we cannot really be bitter toward that person. If there is still bitterness in our hearts toward another person, and especially, if a husband has bitterness toward his wife, then one has not come to the perfect love that is required of us. Notice Ephesians 4: 31–32, “Let all bitterness… be put away from you… And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as Christ forgave you.”

Are husbands kind and tenderhearted toward their wives? Are they willing to forgive them? Or do husbands feel offended, and do they feed on that offense? Will they allow bitterness to creep into their hearts? If husbands do that, then they are walking on dangerous ground and unless quickly overcome and removed, that bitterness will quench their love for their wives. And then, it is the husbands who are in violation of God’s commandments not to be bitter towards their wives, and to love them as themselves.

Notice the kind of love that God requires of the husbands toward their wives. “Love does no harm to a neighbor.” (Romans 13:10). If husbands really love their wives, they will not hurt them physically nor emotionally—they will not harshly “lord it over them.”

How a Husband Should Love His Wife

Let’s look now at 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “love” chapter of the Bible, and see what we can learn from it in regard to the relationship between husbands and wives. Let’s analyze how the husband is to love his wife.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13, beginning in verse 4, “Love suffers long…” If husbands love their wives, they will have patience with them. They might even suffer for a while, or even for a long time, enduring the wives’ shortcomings without blowing up and responding in kind. God is very patient with us. Husbands need to share Godly patience with their wives.

“[Love] is kind…” Godly love is kind even in the face of trials caused perhaps by misunderstandings—when something does not go the way we want it to go. Can husbands be kind to their wives when they forget to do what they were asked to do? When they did something wrong? God is kind toward us. He does not condemn us when our hearts are right. A husband needs to be kind to his wife, appreciating what his wife desired to do for him, even though it might not have worked out as planned.

“[L]ove does not envy…” How much strife would cease, if that aspect of Godly love would be practiced more often? The envy-less spirit of a husband permits the wife to continue in her efforts. The spirit of envy, however, is anxious to put down and even stop her accomplishments. Godly love, though, does not know envy. The husband’s love permits his wife to continue with what she is doing. Husbands need to have that kind of Godly love for their wives. Husbands need to allow them to do what they are good at. Husbands must not envy them for, or feel threatened by, the qualities and abilities that God has given their wives.

“[L]ove does not parade itself…” True love is not boastful. We are not to be boastful and proud of what WE can do. Godly love is humble and looks at the qualities and accomplishments of others. When we do good things, are we looking to make sure that others saw it too so that we can get praise and glory from them? If so, God says we will then have received our reward—from men—not from God (cp. Matthew 6:1–4). Husbands need to have that kind of boastless love for their wives. Husbands are to do good things for their wives because they want to—because they love them—not BECAUSE they want to be praised by their wives. We should praise each other for accomplishments, but that is not the reason WHY we do good things for the other person.

“[Love] is not puffed up…” or “arrogant.” True Godly love is selfless. It wants the best for others. Arrogance, on the other hand, is introverted. It’s the “me-me” attitude that says, “I’m first, and I don’t care about others.”

“(verse 5) [Love] does not behave rudely…” This includes behaving with good manners. Husbands are to behave in a friendly, socially acceptable way towards their wives, and not just when others are around to notice.

“[Love] does not seek its own…” Love is not motivated by selfishness. Love entails the way of give, not of get. Love wants to serve, not to be served. Love will motivate others to give and contribute, yet, love does not know envy or jealousy, but rejoices when someone else accomplishes something that is good. If love is not focused on the good and welfare of others, it is empty, selfish and useless.

“[Love] is not provoked…” Godly love is not easily angered. When a wife does something wrong, her husband who is living the way of love, will not blow up like a volcano. If a husband truly loves his wife, as Christ loves us, he will be patient with her, trying to understand what happened, and why, and he will try to help her to overcome whatever weakness caused the problem.

“[Love] thinks no evil…” If husbands truly love their wives, they will not treat them with suspicion, scrutinizing their every decision. The heart of the husband “safely trusts” the virtuous woman, as we read in Proverbs 31:11. The New International Version translates this passage in 1 Corinthians 13:5 (Love “thinks no evil”) as, “Love keeps no record of wrongs.” The Living Bible says, “Love holds no grudges.” Other translations have here, “Love keeps no score of wrongs,” or, “Love does not store up grievances.”

How true that is. We read that love covers all sins, but that hatred stirs up strife (Proverbs 10:12). It is the ungodly person that digs up evil (Proverbs 16:27). On the other hand, it is the one who covers a transgression who seeks love (Proverbs 17:9). It is to his glory to overlook a transgression (Proverbs 19:11). It is an honorable thing for a man to stop striving (Proverbs 20:3). How much better would our marriages be if that principle of NOT keeping records of wrong would be applied. But sadly, just the opposite is true in so many cases.

“(verses 6 & 7) [Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” If husbands have such an attitude of love toward their wives, and they show it, how could their wives not respond in kind?

Husbands Need to Understand Their Wives

We have seen that husbands are expected by God to express true Godly love for their wives—the kind of love the world does not generally know. In order to really and truly love someone, one must know his or her needs. One must understand how the other person thinks—what his or her desires are, his or her dreams, his or her wishes, his or her likes and dislikes.

And so we read in 1 Peter 3:7, “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Husbands need to understand their wives. If a husband doesn’t understand his wife, he needs to ask her, what she would like to do—what her dreams are, her preferences, and her dislikes. A husband needs to spend a lot of time communicating with his wife, as with his closest friend. He needs to respect her—to show her honor, to praise her for what she does. A husband must never put her down before others. Nothing hurts a woman more than being shown disrespect by her husband, especially in front of others. All husbands have done that at times. All husbands must repent of such disrespect.

The husband’s guidance must be given with love and honor and respect for his wife. And, what is the purpose for such guidance? Is it so that HE can be regarded by others as the “RULER” of the household? So that HE can glory in front of others in the fact that he is “obeying God’s commandments” and his wife is obeying him? Far from it! That’s the kind of vain glory that we must not have!

The reason why the husband is to give loving guidance to his wife is that God ordained that the husband and wife are one flesh—they are one entity, spiritually. Their Christian goal is to enter the kingdom of God together—to become inheritors of eternal life together, of which they are already heirs. So, the husband is to act out of true Godly love for his wife, and his wife, knowing that this is the reason why he acts the way he does, will be much more willing to overlook the shortcomings of her husband. If her husband shows that his love for her is so great that he is willing to lay down his life for her, on a continuing, life-long basis, and that he is concerned for her—spiritually and physically—then what Christian woman would not willingly respond to the leadership of her husband?

On the other hand, when the marriage is on the rocks, then even our individual and personal relationship with God is impaired. That’s why Peter says to husbands to “dwell with your wives with understanding, give them honor and respect, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7). Peter places the responsibility on the shoulders of the husband to see to it that the prayers of husbands and wives are not hindered.

If there is one area in the role of a husband that is responsible for the downfall of the marriage, it is the lack of the husband’s expression of true Godly love for his wife.

And if there is one area in the role of a wife that is responsible for the downfall of the marriage, it is the lack of the wife’s willingness to submit to her husband.

The Bible makes it very clear, however, that the husband is supposed to be the leader of the family—not a dictator, not a tyrant, not a proud and arrogant brute—but rather, he was made by God to lead the family. And if he leads in a Godly way, the wife will have little or no difficulty in following.

A Wife Needs to Submit to Her Husband

Notice 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

Notice what is being said here. As God the Father is the head of Christ, so the man or husband is the head of the woman or wife. God the Father and Jesus Christ are totally one—totally united in mindset, in goal, in purpose. And they love each other perfectly. God the Father said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (cp. Matthew 3:17). God LOVED the Son (John 3:35). And Christ LOVED the Father (John 14:31). He submitted to the Father, even to the point of death, knowing that His Father loved Him deeply, and that He would never ask Him to do anything that would be bad for Him. If a man wants to be the head of his wife and family, as he should be, he needs to act as God the Father acted toward Christ, and, in turn, his wife is to act toward her husband as Christ acted toward the Father.

In order to have the same kind of relationship that the Father and the Son had and have, we need to read and learn about that relationship and how we can apply it to our marriage relationship between husband and wife.

How Submission Is Possible

We can glean much from the book of John concerning the relationship that God the Father had and has with His Son, Jesus Christ. Notice the principles of submission revealed in the following verses:

• John 3:35, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.” Godly love shares! Husbands need to share their possessions with their wives. This willingness to share creates mutual trust. There cannot be an attitude of ‘This is mine and that is yours!’ Notice Christ’s words in John 16:15, “All things that the Father has are Mine.”
• John 5:20, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does.” Godly love communicates! The husband needs to let the wife know what he is doing. This openness creates mutual trust and a common bond.
• John 5:22–23, “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” A loving husband wants his wife to be honored by others. He is willing to share his honor with her. He does not belittle her and put her down in front of others, thereby dishonoring her. And he does not stand idly by when others dishonor his wife.
• John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s name.” The wife acquires the name of her husband. This shows the oneness of the two. They are no longer separate, but the two have become “one.” That’s how God intended it to be—ONE Family—ONE marriage. The TWO have become ONE flesh. And what did Christ say about His relationship with God the Father? We read in John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.” They were—and are—totally united in will, purpose and goal. And as Jesus could act for His Father, so the wife can act for her husband. This oneness between the two creates mutual trust and confidence in and for each other, and shows the world, “here is a happy couple that is truly united.”
• John 8:29, “The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” A loving husband will not leave his wife alone either, if the wife does what pleases her husband. And the wife will do what she knows is pleasing to her husband, if her husband shows her Godly love.
• John 8:49, “I honor My Father.” Likewise, the wife is to honor her husband. The wife does not honor her husband, though, if she belittles him or puts him down in front of others. The wife does not honor her husband, either, if she usurps his authority or leadership role, especially in front of others, or if she takes it upon herself to make decisions that her husband should make. Christ LOVED the Father, and the Father LOVED the Son. Still, Christ knew that the Father was His Head, and He honored Him. He respected Him. He did what was pleasing to Him. And the Father honored Him for that in return, as we see in the next verse.
• John 8:54, “It is My Father who honors Me.” As Christ honored His Father, so His Father honored Him. In the same way, both husbands and wives must honor each other. This shows mutual love and respect for one another. We do read in Ephesians 5:33, “…let the wife see that she respects her husband.” We see, then, that honor and respect must be mutual. It goes both ways. If the husband, though, behaves in a way that totally abrogates his responsibilities—if he is a drunk, if he abuses his kids, or if he constantly yells at his wife, then it is very difficult for his wife to respect him. So, husbands must behave in such a way that inspires respect by their wives.
• John 10:15, “As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father.” How well do husbands and wives actually know each other? Only if they really know each other, can they grow in love of and respect for each other. And they must do so, if they want their marriage—a relationship of true Godly love—to succeed. Christ accepted the Father as His Head because He knew Him. He knew that His Father would never abuse His authority over Him. Do wives know the same about their husbands?

Submissive Women ARE to Teach—Here Is HOW!

Notice Titus 2:4, “…[Older women are to] admonish the young women to love their husbands…”

Again, God demands mutual love from both husband and wife toward each other. As we read earlier, husbands are to love their wives. Now we are told that the wives are to love their husbands. If the husband truly loves his wife, then his wife WILL love her husband in return. The problem arises when the husband does not love his wife, and when he instead abuses his authority over his wife.

Continuing with verse 4, “…to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”

Notice the context. Paul is talking here about older women teaching YOUNG women with young children. In such a case, it is not advisable to work outside the home. Rather, it is better to stay at home—to focus on being a mother and homemaker. Young children need their mother at home. We also read that older women are to teach younger women to be obedient to their husbands so that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Why would the word of God be blasphemed if wives were not obedient to their husbands? Because it is God who says that they should be obedient and submissive to their husbands! And, if their husbands love their wives with Godly love, they will not require anything of their wives that is not good for them and the family. Therefore, the wives CAN be joyfully obedient to their husbands.

Can we see how all these commandments go together? One complements the other. These are not isolated rules. A husband and a wife are a team, and a successful marriage requires a team effort.

Submissive Women Are Not to Preach in the Church

Notice 1 Timothy 2:11–15 where Paul says, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”

Notice, too, the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”

We find described here the aspects of the role of the woman that deal with submission, including submission to her husband.

Wives are not to speak, teach or preach in church, but they are to ask their husbands at home. This requires, of course, that the husband can be asked—that he is approachable and not too busy to talk to his wife, and that he is knowledgeable enough to give his wife the answers that she needs. If he does not have the answers, he should ask those who know.

It is true that there were prophetesses in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4), and it is also true that some women prophesied in New Testament times (Acts 21:9). There will come a time, when young women will prophesy again (Joel 2:28). These passages cannot be used, however, to justify women preaching in church, as Paul made it clear that this should not be permitted.

Some quote Acts 18:24–26 as authority to permit women to preach in church. In that passage, Aquilla and Priscilla took Apollos aside, whom they had heard preaching in the synagogue, and “they explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (verse 26). It is not clear from that passage, to what extent Priscilla did the teaching, or whether she was just agreeing with her husband. In any event, it is noteworthy that they took Apollos aside. Priscilla, especially, did not teach Apollos in front of others.

 In today’s world of mass communication, churches often use radio, television, the printing press or even the Internet to publish spiritual material. Women should not deliver sermons on radio or television, either, nor should they write biblical, prophetic, ecclesiastical or spiritual articles. They could write articles in addressing topics such as child rearing, homemaking, cooking, or other matters relating more to our physical lives, thereby avoiding a possible conflict in writing about spiritual matters.

Let’s take a look at some interesting commentaries on this subject.

Rienecker’s Lexikon zur Bibel points out, under “Women,” “The relationship between man and woman, ordained by God, can also be seen in the role of service and function within the church. Women do prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 21:9), but only men are specifically referred to as prophets (v. 10). Paul does not allow the women to teach, that is, to fill the office of teacher in the church (1 Timothy 2:12). It is different when Apollos is introduced more fully, in a personal conversation with Aquilla and Priscilla, to the teachings of God. (Acts 18:26).”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown state in regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, “For women to speak in public would be an act of independence, as if they were not subject to their husbands (cf. Chapter 11:3; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1)… Women may say, ‘But if we do not understand something, may we not “ask” a question publicly so as to “learn”’? Nay, replies Paul, if you want information, ‘ask’ not in public, but ‘at home’: ask not other men, but your own particular (so the Greek) husbands.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment on 1 Timothy 2:11–12, “Learn—not teach… She should not even put questions in the public assembly… She might teach, but not in public (Acts 18:26).”

The Scriptures make it very clear that a woman is not to assert authority over her husband. God chided Old Testament Israel for having permitted women to rule over men (Isaiah 3:12). Husbands are to exert proper authority over their wives. They must do so with Godly love and they must never abuse that authority. But, as it is shameful for a wife to exert authority over her husband, and especially in public, so it is shameful for the husband to let his wife exert authority over him.

In 1 Corinthians 11:7–8 we read, “…woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.” The woman was created by God to be a helper of her husband —not to take over her husband’s role and exert authority over him. God did not create the wife to tell her husband what to do, and to become angry when her husband selflessly decides, after careful deliberation, meditation, and prayer, not to do a particular thing.

Submission to God Comes First!

Notice Colossians 3:18, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” Note the fact that it would not be fitting or pleasing to the Lord, if the husband gave unreasonable orders; if he acted selfishly; or if he ceased to love his wife. Although the command to be submissive is directed to the wife, it presupposes that the husband himself submits to God first and that he does not require of his wife things that are ungodly. For instance, if a husband asks his wife to lie, the wife is not to do that. God’s commands always come first. We have to obey God rather than man (cp. Acts 5:29). Wives must not sin in “submitting” to their husbands. They must not violate their biblically-based conscience (cp. Romans 14:23). The application of that principle can sometimes be difficult and may require individual advice from one of God’s ministers. It is very important to handle any such conflict with love and respect for the mate, rather than with an arrogant, self-righteous attitude.

Notice Ephesians 5:22, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…” Note again that we do not submit to God if we break His commandments. Likewise, wives are not to submit to their husbands if doing so would mean breaking one of God’s commandments in the letter or in the spirit.

Verse 23, “…For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body…” Consider that, as Christ is Savior of the body—the church—so the husband is to be “savior” of his wife, in a manner of speaking. He is to do everything he can to see to it that his wife will be successful in her spiritual life.

Verse 24, “Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” That is, as long as that does not violate any of God’s commandments.

Let’s also note that this command is directed to husbands and wives in the Church—it does not require that any man has authority over any woman. Otherwise, consider the paradoxical conclusions, as this would mean that a grown son (a man) would have authority over his mother (a woman). We must understand that the Bible does not treat women as “second-class citizens” in society. Rather, both men and women are “equal in Christ.” We read in Galatians 3:28–29, “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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Submission to Unbelieving Husbands?

It is true that 1 Peter 3:1–6 requires of the wives to be submissive to husbands who are not obedient to the word of God. Notice, though, the wording and the advice: “(verse 1) Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, (verse 2) when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear…”

This is not talking about fear or torment because of the husband, but rather that women should live in the fear of God. Notice Proverbs 31:30, “But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.” We have already read in Ephesians 5:21 that we are to submit to one another “in the fear of God.” Peter is not saying here that wives need to live in fear and torment of their disobedient husbands, but rather that they need to submit to their husbands in the fear of God. Again, they would not obey their husbands if the husbands require of the wives to do something that would be contrary to the word of God.

Let’s continue with 1 Peter 3:3, “(verse 3) Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—(verse 4) rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God…”

Notice here a parallel passage in 1 Timothy 2:9–10, “[I desire…] in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation [or, discretion], not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Continue with 1 Peter 3:5, “For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God [that’s the “fear” or respect talked about here—fear of and respect toward God] also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, (verse 6) as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.”

Notice how the New Revised Standard Version renders the last two verses, “It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you.”

In light of these passages, we should all realize that none of us—whether husbands or wives—have fulfilled our responsibilities perfectly. We ALL have failed in many different ways. But there is always hope. God forgives, and He gives us the power to go on and to do better.

If you have reached an eroded and troublesome relationship in your marriage because of mistakes that might have been made, please ask God for His help and for a change of heart. If you can, do it together with your mate by laying your situation before God in prayer. Please ask Him to help you with a willingness to accept His guidance in order to forgive past mistakes and to heal the relationship.

In that spirit, let’s read Philippians 3:12–14, “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

Our physical Christian marriage foreshadows a most glorious eternal marriage relationship between Jesus Christ, the bridegroom, and us, His church and bride (Compare Ephesians 5:30–32 where Paul applies the institution of marriage to our spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ, who is identified as the bridegroom in Matthew 25:1). What a tremendous future lies ahead of us. Let’s see to it, then, that we make every effort to create and maintain happy and successful marriages now, looking forward to the soon-coming fulfillment of our destiny—to marry our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, when He returns (cp. Revelation 19:7–9; Hosea 2:19–20).

Part 2

As the Bible gives clear instructions as to the individual roles and functions of husbands and wives, it also explains the duties and responsibilities of fathers and mothers toward their children, and of the children toward their parents.

As we have far too many marriage problems, we also have FAR too many family problems. Too often, parents know little about proper parenting, and rebellious children are the result. Children who are victims of divorce are expected to be resilient when someone they love suddenly disappears from their life. More often than not, they grow up with multiple mothers, fathers, and grandparents due to remarriage, and yet are left to fend for themselves too much of the time, because no one has time for them.

We read, in fact, a startling and sobering prophecy in the Bible for the very last days—just prior to the return of Christ—that addresses the tragic reality of broken families. Sadly, this situation HAS also affected the attitudes of true Christians, and God says that unless these conditions change, something terrible will happen to this planet.

Let’s read in Malachi 4:5–6, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And he will turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers, Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse [utter destruction].”

In verse 1, this “day of the LORD” is described as a day “Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up.”

We are reminded of Christ’s words in Matthew 24:22 that says that no one would be “saved,” or better, saved alive, if God would not intervene. In other words, if God would not shorten those days, no one would physically survive. That includes you and me. We ALL would die! But God IS going to shorten those days “for the elect’s sake” (same verse). There IS going to be a group of people that WILL be spared from the terrible days to come, and BECAUSE of them, the earth will NOT be totally destroyed.

Malachi 4:2 tells us more about that group of people that will be different, “But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings.” If we fear God, we WILL experience healing. Healing is still necessary. It requires God’s healing to bring about a turning of the hearts of the parents and children toward each other. It is GOD who leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25). Repentance toward God and toward each other will bring about a restored or healed relationship with God and with each other.

This presupposes, then, that even among those who fear God, the relationship between parents and children NEEDS healing—it is NOT as it should be. And it will get worse, before it will get better! It is therefore high time that we focus on the clear biblical instructions to parents and children to see what we can and must do to participate in the Godly process of healing our marriage and family relationships.

Let us begin with the role of the parents toward their children. As we will see, the biblical concept of the father does include the mother as well—that is, both parents are to participate in the process of child rearing and education.

Ephesians 6:4 tells us, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.”

Train Up Your Child In The Lord!

Fathers and mothers are to raise their children in a Godly environment. They are to continually teach their children God’s principles. How? Children learn by what they see. We teach by our actions, as well as by our words. We are not teaching or properly training if our actions do not match our words. We don’t teach Godly principles either, if our words and actions don’t correspond with God’s commandments.

So, if we teach our children by our words or by our actions that it is sometimes justified to lie, to steal, to kill, to commit adultery, or to use God’s name in vain, then we are not teaching our children God’s word—we are not bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Notice in Deuteronomy 6:25 what parents should be teaching their children, “Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.”

This presupposes, of course, that parents keep the commandments diligently themselves (cp. Deuteronomy 6:17). If they do, then this will prompt the child to ASK the parents WHY they are doing what they are doing (verse 20). And once a child asks, the parents are to respond (verse 21). They are NOT to let this golden opportunity go by. In addition, parents are to teach their children even if they don’t ask.

In order to be able to teach God’s word effectively, it must first be settled in the hearts of the teachers themselves. Notice Deuteronomy 6:6–7, “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.”

If the words of God are NOT in our hearts, HOW CAN WE teach them diligently to our children? If we ourselves are not sure whether God’s instructions always apply in every situation without fail, how CAN we teach our children or teens that they do?If we doubt whether it is ALWAYS right NOT to lie, NOT to steal, NOT to kill, NOT to break the Sabbath, NOT to cheat on our wife or husband, how CAN we bring up our children or teens in the admonition of the Lord?

Don’t Provoke!

Remember, we read in Ephesians 6:4 what NOT to do. We are NOT to provoke our children to wrath. We can do that in many different ways. At the same time, we often do provoke them in such a way that they become discouraged (Colossians 3:21).

This could happen if parents expect too much from their children all at once. Our children are still learning, they are not yet mature, and we need to have patience with them. If we give them the impression that we are never satisfied with what they do, they may become angry or discouraged. They may even come
to the point where they become willing to give up this way of life. They may say, “I can never please my parents, no matter what I do, so why even try?” Parents could also provoke their children to wrath, leading to their discouragement, by never complimenting them for the good things they do, or by not comforting them when they do badly, and by not encouraging them to do better next time.

Notice how, according to the apostle Paul, a father and a mother SHOULD train their children in the admonition of the Lord. We read in 1 Thessalonians 2:10–12, “You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe; as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged [or implored] every one of you, as a father does his own children, that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.”

HOW To Train Up Your Child In The Lord!

A father and a mother who want their children to walk worthy of God need to exhort, comfort and charge or implore their children. But, first of all, fathers and mothers must themselves walk devoutly and blamelessly and justly. For instance, in walking “justly,” their judgments must be just. They can’t be based on preference, where one child is placed before the other. Then, children must see that their parents are walking “devoutly” before God—that their lives are devoted to Him. And, parents need to keep God’s Law themselves “blamelessly,” because they want their children to do likewise.

Following that, parents need to “exhort” and “implore” their children to follow their right example, remembering to “comfort” their children along the way. When children feel down because they did not do well in school or in college, their parents need to give them a helping hand and encourage them to go on and to do better next time. Rather than discouraging them, parents need to encourage them. At the same time, parents must never ever compromise with God’s Law.

The reason, then, why we parents raise our children in the way we do, must be with the expectation and goal that our children become obedient to God’s Word.

1 Timothy 3:4 tells us that a bishop or a minister must be ruling “his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence.”

Titus 1:6 tells us that a bishop or a minister must have “faithful children not accused of dissipation [lit. incorrigibility] or insubordination.”

HOW can a child become a faithful, reverent and submissive child, rather than an incorrigible and insubordinate one?

Just as there are keys for happy, successful marriages, there are also keys in the Bible for successful parenting and happy families.

Keys For Successful Parenting!

Notice Hebrews 12:5–7, “And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons, ‘My son, do not despise the chastening [discipline] of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.’ If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?”

We find listed here numerous principles that are to be applied by a father and a mother toward their children. Let’s take a closer look.

Parents Must LOVE Their Children

First of all, father and mother must LOVE their children because GOD acts with LOVE toward us. Whatever we as parents do with our children, it must be because of LOVE—because we LOVE them, because we want the best for them. We don’t act toward our children with anger because they annoy us and because we want to have our peace. If our children know that we act toward them because of LOVE, as we know that God acts toward us because of LOVE, then, our children may be less prone to despise our actions toward them or to become discouraged because of them.

We sometimes need to correct our children, or as the Bible says, chasten and rebuke and scourge our children. But what do those words mean?

Parents Need to “Chasten”

Let’s start with the terms “chastening” and “chasten.” The noun is translated from the Greek “paideia,” and the verb is translated from the Greek “paideuo.” The literal meaning according to Young’s is, “instruction” or “training,” or “to instruct” or “to train up.” Strong’s gives this definition under Nos. 3809 and 3811, “tutorage, i.e. education or training; by implication disciplinary correction…; to train up a child, i.e. educate or (by implication) discipline (by punishment): chasten, instruct, learn, teach.”

There is nothing biblically wrong with punishing a child if the child behaves wrongly and deserves punishment. The punishment must never be excessive, however, but it must be administered in a consequent fashion, as corresponding to, and fitting the infraction. We read that Christ “rebukes and chastens” (Greek, “paideuo,” i.e. educates, trains, disciplines) everyone whom He loves (Revelation 3:19). He does it because He loves us. So we, as parents, must do it because we love our children. But even then, we must never forget to be merciful and forgiving. Christ chose at times not to inflict a certain punishment on people who had sinned. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery because He saw that the woman did not need any further punishment; she had learned her lesson (cp. John 8:1–11).

Parents Need to “Rebuke”

What does it mean to “rebuke”? Christ rebukes us, and so we need to rebuke our children. But how do we do it?

The Greek word for “rebuke” is “elegcho.” Young’s defines it with “to convince” or “to convict.” Strong’s gives this rendering under No. 1651, “to confute, to admonish, to convict, to convince, tell a fault, rebuke, reprove.”

We see from these definitions that we have to make it clear to our children what they did wrong. It’s not good to punish them for wrongdoing, without explaining to them what they did and WHY it was wrong.

But note the problem if our actions don’t back up our words. For instance, if we tell our child that he or she should not have lied and the child responds by saying, “But you did the same yesterday,” then we have not been very effective teachers.

When our boy gets in a fight and we rebuke him for that, and he responds by saying, “But you watched TV last night and yelled to shoot the bad guy,” then we have not been very effective teachers.

When our teenage son tells us that he is thinking of joining the army, and we tell him not to do that, and he responds by saying, “But you said only yesterday that this country needs to attack other countries,” then we should not be surprised about our son’s reaction—because we have not been very effective teachers of God’s law.

When our teenage daughter confesses to us that she wants to go live with her boyfriend and we react with anger and frustration, and she reminds us of our affair with our secretary or the neighbor, then we have not been very good teachers.

When our pregnant daughter explains to us that she wants an abortion, and we tell her not to have an abortion, and she responds by saying, “But you said that an abortion may be justified in certain circumstances,” then—again—we have not been very effective teachers of God’s law.

All the effects that we see in our young people today have deep-seated roots in the past that have led to their present ideas and conduct. Children follow the example of their parents. Abraham lied repeatedly by saying that Sarah was his sister (Genesis 12:11–13; 20:1–2, 13), and his son Isaac later did exactly the same regarding his wife Rebekah (Genesis 26:6–7).

Parents Need to “Scourge”

We have also read in Hebrews 12, that God scourges every son or child that He receives. The Greek word for “scourge” is “mastigoo” and means, according to Young’s, “to whip, to scourge, and to flog.” But before we draw hasty conclusions, consider how God is scourging us. He scourges us in many different ways. Notice how Strong’s defines the word under No. 3146, “to flog—literally or figuratively.”

There is never a justification for physical abuse. On the other hand, to totally ban spanking and define it as physical abuse only shows how liberal and anti-biblical our Western society has become. This is of course the fruit of the anti-authoritarian education that has brought about a curse on our Western world. As parents, we must be aware, though, that in certain countries, spanking is illegal, and could result in the authorities coming in and taking away our children. And even in countries where spanking is not illegal, many governmental officials look at such practice with great disfavor. There have been cases where Social Workers in the United States tried to take away children from Christians, because the Christian parents believed and practiced—in moderation and with great love and care—biblically-endorsed spanking.

Note what the Bible clearly teaches in regard to corporal punishment in Proverbs 13:24, “He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who LOVES him disciplines him promptly [or early].”

Since using the rod is compared with prompt or early discipline, it is clear that this passage includes the concept of spanking, where and when appropriate. Of course, we don’t spank a teenager or an adult, so the spanking needs to be done early in the life of the child. But note, again, we discipline our children, because we LOVE them. If we discipline our children for any other reason, or because of any other motive, we do NOT follow God’s instructions. Spanking should never cause physical injury to a child. The intent is to break a rebellious spirit, not to bruise skin.

Note how the Ryrie Study Bible comments on this verse, “The discipline referred to here is training either by word ([Proverbs] 15:5; 24:32) or deed (23:13).”

Proverbs 23:13–14 reads, “Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.” The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “A wise teacher warns of neglecting child discipline… Discipline may deliver a child from an untimely death.”

We have heard a lot about child neglect. But one kind of child neglect is seldom ever mentioned—the neglect to discipline the child, in LOVE, when the child deserves, and must have, discipline for his or her own good.

Proverbs 19:18 says, “Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction.” Lamsa translates it this way, “Chasten your son while there is hope, and let not your soul share his dishonor.” The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “[D]o not neglect child discipline and thereby bring on your son’s death.”

But why would that be? What is the connection between lack of child discipline and the death of the child? Let’s note Proverbs 22:15, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.”

Remove the Child’s Foolishness!

Foolishness, if not overcome, can have terrible consequences. The discipline of a child must be administered by the parents with the desire and motivation to HELP the CHILD to get rid of foolishness. If we get angry with our kids and lock them up in their rooms because we “can’t” deal with them right now, then we have missed the entire point of child rearing. Rather, as concerned parents, we must try to do whatever we can do to see to it that the foolishness in the child disappears.

Human nature is hostile against God because Satan has been putting his thoughts and his desires into our hearts from our youth. Satan’s thoughts and desires are foolishness to God. So, converted parents must help to reverse the process—they must help the child to get rid of that foolishness. If the child lives with and feeds on his foolishness, it will get worse.

As mentioned, both father and mother have responsibilities when it comes to child rearing. Notice Deuteronomy 21:18–20, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ ”

The final punishment at that time was disastrous, as verse 21 explains, but it was ordained by God. Today, parents are not to inflict such penalties. God, however, might very well decide, through manifold ways and circumstances, to directly bring about harsh punishment for the child if foolishness remains in the child’s heart—and many times, such penalties and punishment are an automatic consequence of the child’s bad conduct.

As we will discuss more fully later in this booklet, no matter how perfect the child-rearing by both father and mother may be, when children become adults they still have their role to play. They are free moral agents and are responsible for the choices they make. One could not think of a better parent than God, but first Lucifer, and later Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. And, in passing, one couldn’t think of a better husband than God, but ancient Israel—pictured in the Bible as being married to God (Jeremiah 3:14; 31:32)—also chose to disobey God.

Although children have to make their own decisions, it must still be the parents’ ultimate objective to teach their children the ability to make right choices based upon God’s Word.

Shared Parental Responsibilities

Deuteronomy 21:18–20 taught us that husband and wife have a shared responsibility in rearing their children. BOTH discipline. BOTH give commands. And BOTH take actions to deal with their children’s continued transgressions.

Notice also in Proverbs 1:8, “My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother.” It is the mother, as well as the father, who passes on the law to the child. And her law must of course be the law of God, and it must not be contrary to it.

Now, notice Proverbs 29:15, “The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.” An unrestrained child brings shame to his mother, as she should have restrained the child.

A Child Is A Child!

We read in Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “[It says,] in the way he should go. Lit. according to his way, i.e., the child’s habits and interests. The instruction must take into account his individuality and inclinations, and be in keeping with his degree of physical and mental development.”

Our children grow up too quickly. We give them hardly any time to play and to enjoy their childhood. We don’t let them pursue their interests as children, but want them to be young men or young women far too early. This is especially true in the entertainment industry, but this wrong concept has permeated our entire society and thinking. It is customary in the U.S. and in many other Western nations to place a child at the age of five, or even younger, in a preschool for the convenience of the parents. Many educators warn against such practice, saying that this is far too early to be separated from parents.

When we look at our societies, especially in the Western world, we find a totally different way of life than what God intended. We read about the kind of family life that God intended, where the father would be present and available to teach his son or his daughter. But in our modern world, the father is basically gone all day, working somewhere away from home.

In addition, children are being handed over to preschools at an early age, thereby being separated further from the benevolent teachings of their Christian parents. And when, on top of it, young mothers go to work and place their kids in day care centers, then even the last remaining positive influence of the Christian parents on their children has been abolished as well.

Remember that young women are admonished to love their children and to be homemakers, so that the word of God may not be blasphemed (Titus 2:4–5). God tells young women to love their children by staying home with them. Their priceless influence on the children to teach them God’s way of life must not be left to others.

The point is, we need to do whatever we can, in this world that is presently ruled by Satan, to work against Satan’s influences. If there are exceptional circumstances forcing the young mother to work outside the home, she should see to it that she can schedule her work hours in such a way as to be able to be with her young children as much as possible, spending as much quality time as possible with them.

Opportunity and Responsibility of the Young Mother

A young mother has a tremendous opportunity, as well as a huge responsibility to train up her children in the way that they should go. And notice how the Bible underscores that responsibility and challenge in 1 Timothy 2:15 [in the literal rendering], “But she shall be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and sanctification with discreetness.”

One way of understanding this passage is, that women, through the continuation of bearing children, will be saved (alive)—that is, they won’t die prematurely. In addition, as the Ryrie Study Bible points out, the phrase “saved in child bearing,” may also mean, “that a woman’s greatest achievement is found in her devotion to her divinely ordained role: to help her husband, to bear children, and to follow a faithful, chaste way of life.”

 Paul might also have had the mother’s satisfaction with her children in mind, if they continue in a Godly lifestyle. Notice, how this passage is rendered in the Lamsa translation, “Nevertheless, if her posterity continue in faith and have holiness and chastity, she will live through them.”

In other words, it is truly a joy for a mother to see her children grow up within the guidelines of the Bible and to remain loyal to the word of God. Rather than bringing shame to the mother, the mother will have a sense of fulfillment for having taught her children the way of God, and thereby experience joy and happiness to see her children remain on the right track.

We can see, then, that the role of the woman in child-rearing is extremely important. The mother is to teach her children good habits and, most importantly, a good understanding of God and His law.

The Role of Biblical Women In Childrearing

Let’s note the influence of historical women on their children, as recorded in the Bible. In many cases, their belief in God was not shared by their husbands. Still, they were able to bring up their children in “the fear of God.” When reading those passages, we should not forget that the Scriptures tell us that children ARE holy or sanctified, that is, set apart for a holy purpose, even if only one parent is converted (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:14). This means that children of just one converted Christian parent have access to God. God CAN be approached and reached by them—He hears them and they CAN expect answers from God.

Note the following example of Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:1–4, “Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem; and he did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD, as his father David had done. For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made molded images for the Baals. He burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree.”

Here we have a description of a very evil and wicked king. But now, notice what happened when he died and his son Hezekiah became his successor in 2 Chronicles 28: 27, and 2 Chronicles 29: 1–2, “So Ahaz rested with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, in Jerusalem; but they did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel. Then Hezekiah his son reigned in his place. Hezekiah became king when he was twenty-five years old, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abijah the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done.”

Surprisingly, perhaps, Hezekiah did well even though he was the son of a very wicked king. This has to be attributed to the positive influence of his mother, Abijah, who is mentioned by name.

The story continues in 2 Kings 20:21; 21:1–2, “So Hezekiah rested with his fathers. Then Manasseh his son reigned in his place. Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.”

Hezekiah had been a righteous king. His son Manasseh, however, turned out to be one the most evil kings in the history of Judah. He became king when he was twelve years old. His mother Hephzibah is mentioned by name. It is obvious that her evil influence was highly responsible for the evil conduct of her son Manasseh.

Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, another evil king. But notice what happened when Amon’s son Josiah became king, as recorded in 2 Kings 22:1–2, “Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath. And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.”

Josiah was eight years old when he became king. His mother is mentioned by name—Jedidah. Although the son of an evil father, he turned out to be one of the most righteous and outstanding kings that have ever lived (cp. 2 Kings 23:25). It is obvious that his mother Jedidah had trained him up “in the fear of the Lord.”

Can we see the enormous positive influence that a righteous mother CAN have on her children? Why, then, do so many Christian women feel today that there are more challenging and rewarding tasks to be found outside the home, than “just” being a mother and a homemaker? Women who don’t want to have children because they don’t want to give up their jobs or their careers do not follow God’s instructions for them. Women who don’t want to stay at home with their young children because they don’t want to give up their jobs and their careers do not follow God’s instructions for them, either. Understand, of course, we are not talking about women who can’t have children or who haven’t found a suitable husband to marry. But barring that, in God’s eyes, being a mother and being at home with her young children, is the highest challenge, vocation, occupation, and career that could possibly exist for a woman.

In order to have a happy and successful Christian family, the children have a part to play also. And all of us are children, whether young or old. We all have parents. In some cases, our parents may be dead, but in many cases, our parents, or at least one parent, are still alive. Just what responsibilities and functions do children have?

Are our hearts—the hearts of the parents and the children—turned toward each other, as we read in Malachi 4:6? Do we allow God to heal our family relationships if those relationships need healing? If we don’t live close to our parents, do we still have regular contact with them? Do we write them or call them? Do we make time to visit them? Do we show respect for them? Are we thankful for them, and for what they have done—and still may do—for us? Do we honor them as God commands us to?

“Obey Your Parents in the Lord”

Notice the clear instructions that the Bible gives to us, the children, in relationship to our parents. Paul says in Ephesians 6:1–3, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’ ”

As children, we are to obey our parents in the Lord. This means, we are not to obey them if it would not be in the Lord—that is, if it would be in contradiction to God’s commandments—either from a literal or a spiritual standpoint. Once a child is old enough to understand God’s way of life, he or she must follow God.

Christ did just that. He told His parents, when He was twelve years old, that He had to be about His Father’s business (Luke 2:49). Yet, as a young child, He remained obedient to His mother and His stepfather (Luke 2:51), when He could do so without violating God’s will for Him. Even as an adult, He honored His mother’s wish to change water into wine (John 2:1–11). He did not obey His mother, however, when it was contrary to the will of God. When He was busy teaching and His mother asked Him to come out of the house to see her, He refused (Mark 3:31–35; Matthew 12:46–50). Nevertheless, He always honored His parents. He saw to it, while hanging on the cross, that His mother would be taken care of by John, the disciple with whom He had a very close relationship (John 19:25–27). We must follow that example. There is never an excuse for not honoring our parents (Levitcus 19:3; Deuteronomy 5:16; Exodus 20:12). After all, without them, we would not even exist.

Notice also in Colossians 3:20, “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.” We must obey our parents in all things, unless the instructions of our parents contradict the letter or the spirit of God’s Word. It is never well-pleasing to God if we disobey Him. We discussed that wives cannot disobey God by obeying their husbands. In the same way, children must not obey their parents either, if this would violate God’s Law. They are not to lie or to steal or to kill or any such thing in “obedience” to their parents’ “orders.”

Harmony Between Parents and Children IS Possible!

Notice Philippians 2:22, in the Revised English Bible, “But Timothy’s record is known to you: you know that he has been at my side in the service of the gospel like a son working under his father.”

Now, this is a very interesting passage. It pictures a harmonious relationship between father and son. Both work together. Both are willing to work together. The son is not too proud to be under his father’s authority, and if the father is gentle, loving, and helpful, and at the same time, just and Godly, then there is no reason why the son should not want to be under his father’s authority, willing to honor him and to obey him.

Christian children must not develop the kind of attitude that is prevalent in the Western world today, where children want to rule over their parents. Realize what the consequence would be, as recorded in Isaiah 3:5, if parents did not deal immediately with such an attitude of their children towards them, “The people will be oppressed, Every one by another and every one by his neighbor; The child will be insolent toward the elder [aged], And the base [despised, lightly esteemed] toward the honorable.”

We quoted Isaiah 3:12 earlier to show that God does not want a woman to rule over her husband. God also tells us in that passage, “As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them…”

True Christians are God’s people. Does this passage in Isaiah 3:12 describe true Christians today? Are children our oppressors and do we allow our wives to rule over us? If so, we had better get this changed in a hurry! God’s ways are very clearly revealed to us. Women are not to rule over their husbands, and children are not to oppress their parents. Only if all of us understand and carry out our respective roles properly will there be truly happy and successful marriage and family relationships that are blessed by God.

Children Need to Respect Their Parents!

Notice Hebrews 12:9, “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect.”

Paul makes this statement as if it were a self-evident and universally accepted fact of life. And apparently at the time of Paul’s writing it was so. Unfortunately, in our societies today, the respect for parents is not self-evident, and actually is rare. How many children respect their parents today? How many children respect the teaching of their parents and accept their correction? Do children respect the rules of the house? Or do they have total disregard for them? Even as full-grown adults, when we visit our elderly parents, do we respect their desires? Or do we insist on conforming them to our way, for our convenience?

Let’s take a look at a few admonitions in the book of Proverbs that tell us how to have a right relationship with our parents. These valuable instructions apply to all of us as children, young or old.

Notice Proverbs 19:26, “He who mistreats his father and chases away his mother Is a son who causes shame and brings reproach.” It is a terrible indictment against our so-called “Christian” Western society that there are far too many cases of abuse of parents, where sons and daughters actually hit their parents, or refuse to help them, or even chase them away when they are old and dependent. This conduct, if done by true Christians, brings reproach on the word of God.

Proverbs 20:20 reads, “Whoever curses his father or his mother, His lamp will be put out in deep darkness.” Cursing our parents is the opposite of honoring them. We must never curse our parents, not even in our thoughts. If not repented of, we will be suddenly visited by calamity, as the Scripture says.

 Proverbs 23:22 points out, “Listen to your father who begot you, And do not despise your mother when she is old.” God used our parents to give us life. Without them, we would not exist. We need to listen to them. They have been around a lot longer than we have, and let’s not despise them or belittle them when they are older. If our parents have “strange” ways of doing things—so be it. Let’s not develop an attitude of despising them. That would be so dangerous for us, spiritually speaking.

Note Proverbs 30:11, “There is a generation that curses its father, And does not bless its mother.” Do we bless our parents? Do we see to it that they are happy? Do we take the time to thank them for what they did, and still do, for us? It’s one thing not to curse them, but do we actually bless them? And do we let them know that we are blessing them? Do we help them when they need it? Are we deeply appreciative of what they are doing and have done for us?

Proverbs 30:17 tells us, “The eye that mocks his father, And scorns obedience to his mother, The ravens of the valley will pick it out, And the young eagles will eat it.”

Have you heard young people say, “What—you actually obey your mother? You actually do what she tells you to do? Oh come on, in what world are you living? You have respect for your ‘old man’? We are living in the 21st century, you know. That kind of stuff is ancient.” But is it? God thunders at us, if the hearts of the parents don’t turn to their children, and if the hearts of the children don’t turn to their parents, then God will not even preserve mankind alive! Thankfully, some will respond to God’s challenge, as we are told that God will save mankind from utter destruction (cp. Matthew 24:22).

We have seen from the Bible the vital keys to happy marriages and families. God wants mankind to apply His perfect laws for our own good. In fact, if we do, God will be in our marriages and in our families, guiding and protecting us as we seek to follow His lead. In Isaiah 66:2, God promises to help us, if we have an attitude pleasing to Him, “But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.”

In the book of Malachi, God takes special note of those who fear or respect Him and who esteem His name. Consider what God says to those people, “‘…And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him.’” (Malachi 3:17).

God is revealed in the Bible as our Father (cp. Matthew 6:9; 23:9). He wants His family to be happy, and the way for us to do that is to apply His keys revealed to us for this tremendous purpose.

We have been given an awesome privilege of knowing HOW we can better our marriage and family relationships. But with knowledge comes responsibility! We need to ACT upon what we know! Rather than being forgetful hearers or readers, let’s become DOERS of the Word of God (James 1:22–25). And if we do that, the product will be happy and successful relationships, and our marriages and families will stabilize and will last.

It’s up to us now to respond to God’s challenge—are we going to apply God’s Word in our lives, or not? Our very physical and spiritual survival—as well as the survival of our families—will depend on it!

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

To Request a FREE hard copy of this booklet, please write to: contact@eternalgod.org

Introduction

What happens to us when we die? Does our soul continue to live on, while our body decays in the grave? Do the souls of bad people continuously burn in hell fire for all eternity? Do the souls of good people ascend to heaven at the time of death—or do they go to a place called limbo or purgatory, if they were not quite as good? If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then why do we need to be resurrected from the dead—or do we? Do humans possess immortality within themselves? If you are seeking to understand the truth on this subject, then the answers can be found in God’s Word, the Bible.

Early in the Bible we find that Adam and Eve were not created with the ability to live forever. They did not possess immortality. They were offered eternal life, but they did not accept the offer. After they sinned, God drove man out of the Garden of Eden so that they could not “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22, New King James Bible, hereafter: “NKJB”).

The story of the sin of Adam and Eve is certainly well-known, but do you realize that it also includes the very first recorded lie in Scripture? Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44), enticed Eve to eat from the forbidden fruit by assuring her that she would not die if she ate it. Remember that God had previously told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17, NKJB). The devil, however, challenged the accuracy of God’s statement, and told Eve, “You will not surely die.” (Genesis 3:4, NKJB). Eve believed Satan, and she and her husband ate from the fruit. As a consequence, both of them died (Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5).

The fact that man was not permitted to eat from the tree of life, and that he died as a result, shows that he was not, nor did he have within him, an immortal soul that continued to live on after death. But those called by God can obtain what Adam and Eve were not permitted to obtain then—immortality. They do not have it yet, but God is offering it to them. 1 Corinthians 15:52–53 tells us that the dead will be “raised incorruptible,” and that at the time of their resurrection, “this mortal” will put on “immortality” or “deathlessness” (“athanasia” in the Greek). Only then will death have ceased to exist for them (1 Corinthians 15:54).

The Bible clearly teaches us that the “wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). Since we have all sinned (cp. Romans 3:9–10), we have all “earned” death as a “reward.” God must eradicate the death penalty hanging over our heads, and grant us eternal life. And so we read, in Romans 6:23, second part, “…but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (because of His sacrifice that grants us, upon acceptance, forgiveness of our sins).”
1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 42, clearly tells us how we can have eternal life:

“For since by man (Adam and Eve) came death, by man (Jesus Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die (because all have sinned), even so in Christ shall all be made alive… So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption…”

People die and must be brought back to life. But Satan told Eve, in effect, that she could not die because she had an immortal soul and was incapable of dying. Rather than viewing immortality or deathlessness as something that had to be obtained from God, Eve erroneously believed that she, or her soul within her, was already immortal. She believed Satan’s first recorded lie—and almost everyone has believed that lie, or a variation of it, ever since. Even most professing Christians today believe that they have an immortal soul, a concept that is virtually universally accepted by almost all non-Christian religions as well.

In ancient times, people viewed the shadow of a person as his immortal soul, a belief still held today by some so-called “primitive” tribes. The natives of Greenland used to believe that every man has two souls—his shadow was one of the two souls that would leave the person during the night and return in the morning. Certain Native Americans believed that the soul, after it had left a sleeping person, would actually experience what the person dreamed. It was therefore prohibited to awaken a sleeping person abruptly, as it was feared that in such a state, his soul might not be able to return quickly enough to the body. Likewise, one was not allowed to carry a sleeping person to another location, or to place a mask on his face, so as not to prevent the soul from finding or rightly identifying the body.

Natives in China believed that the soul of a sick person might leave him, and it was commonly thought that the soul might leave the body when the sick person sneezed. In that case, a magical formula would be said in order to prevent the soul from departing. Natives in the Philippines once believed that the souls of dead people lived in trees, so they would bow down before trees when they heard the wind in the leaves.

Funk & Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia, Vol. 24, states under “Soul”: “Belief in some kind of soul that can exist apart from the body is found in all known cultures. In many contemporary nonliterate societies, human beings are said to have several souls— sometimes as many as seven—localized in different parts of the body and having diverse functions. Disease is frequently explained as ‘soul-loss,’ which can occur, for example, when witches steal the soul, or evil spirits capture it.”

This encyclopedia goes on to say that early Hinduism identified the soul or “atman” with the divine, “adding an eternal dimension to the soul. Bound up with matter, the human soul is caught in the cycle of reincarnation until it achieves purification” and enters “Nirvana.”

According to the teachings of Islam and of the Koran, “God breathed the soul into the first human beings, and at death the souls of the faithful are brought near to God.” On the other hand, Buddhism “has no conception of a soul or self that can survive death.”

Although most adherents of the Jewish faith today believe in an immortal soul, this was not originally the case. Ancient Judah considered the soul to be “mortal.” The word “soul” was associated with the concept of “breathing” and “oxygen” [similar to the Latin word “anima,” from which the German word “Atem” is derived, which means “breath.”]. In fact, in Job 41:21, a close association between “soul” and “breath” is clearly conveyed. When talking about the creature Leviathan, God says, beginning with Verse 20, “Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.” The Hebrew word here for “breath” is “nephesh,” and as we will see later on, this word—used throughout the Old Testament—has been translated as “soul” on many occasions.

It was only after Persian and Greek philosophies influenced Judaism that we find a gradual adaptation of the concept of an immortal soul. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI (1941) points out on pp. 564 and 566, “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere taught in Holy Scripture… The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia agrees, “We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness, and it is no where found in the [Hebrew scriptures].” (ed. 1960, Vol. II, p. 812)

According to Catholic belief, the immortal soul enters a person at the time of conception, having been directly and individually created by God with free will and consciousness. The individual soul is present in its totality in each and every organ of the person. Proofs for the accuracy of the teaching of the immortality of the soul are mainly given in light of, 1) alleged appearances of dead people; 2) the universal belief in such a concept; and 3) the biblical statement [discussed herein] that “man cannot destroy the soul.” (Matthew 10:28). Originally, Catholics believed that the soul of a dead person enters heaven or hell immediately at the time of death—the idea of a purgatory only became dogma in A.D. 590. Most Protestant denominations, following to a large extent the lead of the Catholic Church in this regard, believe in the immortality of the soul as well.

Orthodox Christianity adopted the concept of an immortal soul from pagan beliefs. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology points out in its 1992 edition, on p. 1037, “Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.”

Again, quoting from Funk & Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia, Vol. 24, article on “Soul”: “The Christian doctrine of the soul has been strongly influenced by the [Greek] philosophies of Plato and Aristotle… 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas… accepted Aristotle’s analysis of the soul and body as two conceptually distinguishable elements of a single substance.”

One of the early proponents of the concept of the immortality of the soul was a Catholic church father by the name of Origen (c. 185–254 A.D.). Around 200 A.D. he claimed that “souls are immortal,” stating at the same time that he was a “Platonist who believed in the immortality of the soul.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 314, 402).

Further, as we point out in our free booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas,” followers of the Greek god Mythra believed in an immortal soul as well. Many of those pagan beliefs associated with Mythra were later adopted by, and absorbed into, Orthodox Christianity.

We have briefly noted the many different concepts that man has held regarding the immortality of the soul, and there is, indeed, an astounding array of false ideas and misconceptions about this subject. But despite the strong universal influence, there have been some down through history who did not believe in any of these concepts. For example, Arnobius, a Catholic writer, spoke against those who held the “extravagant opinion of themselves that souls are immortal.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI, p. 440).

Also, at the time of the Reformation, William Tyndale put it quite succinctly when he wrote, “In putting departed souls in heaven, hell or purgatory, you destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection… The true faith putteth the resurrection; the heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that souls did ever live…If the soul be in heaven, tell me what cause is there for the resurrection?”

Another Reformer who questioned the immortality of the soul was Martin Luther. He declared that the Bible did not teach the immortality of the soul, and he suggested that the soul died with the body, and that God would hereafter raise both the one and the other. He wrote in 1522, “It is probable, in my opinion, that… indeed the dead sleep in utter insensibility till the day of judgment… On what authority can it be said that the souls of the dead may not sleep… in the same way that the living pass in profound slumber the interval between their downlying at night and their uprising in the morning?” (Michelet, Life of Luther, p. 133).

While most Protestants today have long forgotten these words of Martin Luther, some Christian groups today still do not teach the immortality of the soul. The Seventh-Day Adventists, for example, do not believe that the soul of a dead person continues to live a conscious life. The Sabbath-keeping Church of God organizations, likewise, universally reject the concept of an immortal soul.

With such a wide variety of ideas and opinions, how can we know what to believe? How can we conclusively determine the truth of the matter? We’ll go to the source of truth, the Bible, the words of God Himself.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “nephesh” has been translated as “soul” in many cases, but notalways. “Nephesh” is used, either alone or in combination with other words, 723 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Authorized Version of the King James Bible, however, only translates it 428 times as “soul.” Otherwise, more than 25 different renditions and variations are used. This means that almost 300 times, the Hebrew word “nephesh” is not translated as “soul” in the Authorized Version.

In the New Testament, the Greek word that has been translated as “soul” in many cases, and conveys the same meaning as the Hebrew “nephesh,” is “psyche.” The Greek word “psyche,” or a variation of the word, is used 103 times in the New Testament. However, the Authorized Version only renders it 58 times as “soul,” while it translates it 40 times as “life,” 3 times as “mind,” and once each as “heart” or “heartily.”

We will now begin a detailed study in how the Bible uses the words “nephesh” and “psyche” in order to see the meaning conveyed about the soul. In this way, we will also gain a better understanding of the subject of immortality that needs to be bestowed by God to man as a gift.

We will see in this study that the word “soul,” or the Hebrew word “nephesh,” as well as the Greek word “psyche,” applies to men and animals alike, and can refer to either a living or a dead person or animal. The soul is a “living being” as long as the being is alive. We will read where man became a living soul when he was created, but that when he dies, he becomes a dead soul, and that a dead soul does not continue to live. Insofar as the word “soul” describes “life,” it is always temporary life. We will learn that the word “soul” can be a reference to the living, breathing person or animal, but it can also be a reference to the psyche of the living creature; it can describe the heart—the feelings and motivations. We will also learn that when the soul dies, it goes into the grave or the pit, and that death is a state of silence without consciousness, knowledge, activity or planning. We will find that a dead soul decays, or experiences “corruption,” and that, in order to live again, God must bring the soul or the person back to life through a resurrection from the dead. Finally, we will learn the truth on the grossly misunderstood subject of “hell” and the fate of the wicked, and whether or not “communication with dead people” is possible.

We will begin our study with a look at Old Testament Scriptures, where we will learn conclusively that man’s soul is not immortal, and neither is it a conscious element or entity within man. Simply stated, the soul is the temporary, physical person, with all of his desires, wants and feelings.

The Hebrew Word for Soul Applies to Animals

The very first time that the word “nephesh” is used in the Old Testament is in Genesis 1:20 where God says, “‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures.’” (NKJB). The word for “living” is a translation of “nephesh.” It applies here to living water animals. The Authorized Version translates this passage as follows, “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life (“nephesh” or a “soul.”).’”

Continuing with verse 21, in the NKJB, “So God created great sea creatures.” The word for “creatures” is “nephesh.” The entire phrase could be translated, in context, as “sea souls.” Again, in verse 24, we read, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth.’”(NKJB). The word for “creature” is “nephesh,” so here the word for “soul” applies to land animals, including creeping things.

Notice, too, this interesting passage in Genesis 1:30, “‘Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.’” (NKJB). The word for “life” is “nephesh” in Hebrew. So we read here that there is a “soul” in creeping things, as well as in the beasts of the earth and the birds. But this does not say that creeping things have immortal souls. Rather, as long as they are creeping around, they are alive.

So the Bible, at its very beginning, applies the word “nephesh” or “soul” to animals in four places, including those animals that creep on the earth. Notice that when God created the animals, they were living souls. He did not create animals as dead bodies that He then made alive. That is why God said at the very beginning, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature which has “life” or a “soul.”

After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah that would have benefits for animals as well. God said in Genesis 9:9–10 and 16, “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth… And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” In both cases where the word “creature” is used, the Hebrew word is “nephesh.” God again says that living animals are living souls.

Notice also in Leviticus 11:10–11, where God tells us what kind of seafood we are not to eat, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing [or “soul”—“nephesh” in the Hebrew] which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you… ye shall not eat of their flesh.”

Again, God emphasizes in Leviticus 11:46 that animals, whether sea animals or land animals, are “souls,” when He says, “This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature [“nephesh”] that moveth in the waters, and of every creature [“nephesh”] that creepeth upon the earth.”

In Isaiah 19:10, the word “nephesh” or “soul” is again used for sea creatures, “And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish.” The word translated “fish” is “nephesh” in the Hebrew. In Leviticus 24:18, the word “nephesh” is applied three times to domestic animals or “beasts”: “And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.”

Man Became a Living Soul

When God created man, He created him as a lifeless or a dead person. God then breathed into man’s nostrils and man became alive. Notice how this is described in Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [“nephesh”].”

When man was created, he was not yet alive, unlike the animals when they were created. Only when God breathed air into his nostrils did man become alive—he became a living soul. Before that, he was a lifeless soul.

The Life, or Soul, Is in the Blood

Notice how the Bible describes the human or animal soul in relationship to human or animal life. Genesis 9:4–5 reads, “But flesh with the life [“nephesh” or “soul”] thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives [“nephesh” or “souls”] will I require… at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life [“nephesh” or “soul”] of man.”

Notice, too, in Leviticus 17:11, 14, “For the life [“nephesh” or “soul”] of the flesh is in the blood… for the life [“nephesh” or “soul”] of all flesh is the blood thereof.”

Finally, note Deuteronomy 12:23,“Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life [“nephesh” or “soul”]; and thou mayest not eat the life [“nephesh”] with the flesh.”

First, we see from these passages that one can eat the soul—the blood—but that one should not. Then, we are told that a man or an animal is alive as long as their blood circulates within them. If one loses too much blood, one dies. So the blood keeps the person or the animal—the SOUL—alive. The soul, or the life, is equated with the blood. It is physical, and it cannot mean that the soul will keep living when the body dies.

Man IS a Soul

The concept that persons ARE souls is expressed in many passages, when they are translated correctly. Genesis 12:5 reads, “And Abraham took… the souls [“nephesh”] that they had gotten in Haran.” Here the word “souls” describes people.

The same is expressed in Genesis 14:21, “And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons [lit. “souls” or “nephesh” in the Hebrew], and take the goods to thyself.”

Note how Genesis 46:15–27 equates “souls” with “persons”: “(15) These be the sons of Leah… with his daughter Dinah: all the souls [“nephesh” throughout] of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three… (18) These are the sons of Zilpah… even sixteen souls… (22) These are the sons of Rachel… all the souls were fourteen… (25) These are the sons of Bilhah… all the souls were seven. (26) All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six; And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.”

Exodus 1:5 confirms this, “And all the souls [“nephesh”] that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls [“nephesh”]: for Joseph was in Egypt already.”

In Exodus 12:4 we read God’s instructions regarding the Passover, “And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls [“nephesh”].”

Notice also in Exodus 12:16 and realize how the word “soul” describes the physical person—it does not at all describe anything that is immortal. “…no manner of work shall be done in them [on the first and seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread], save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.” The word “man” is a translation of the Hebrew word, “nephesh.” So, the correct rendering would be, “…save that which every soul must eat.” The soul must eat something in order to stay alive. It’s not immortal, but rather physical.

Note these additional examples, clearly proving that the word “soul” describes the physical, temporary person—not something immortal within the person:

(1) “Or if a soul [“nephesh”] touch any unclean thing… he also shall be unclean.” (Leviticus 5:2). “…the soul [“nephesh”] that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” (Leviticus 7:18). “But the soul [“nephesh”] that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings… even that soul [“nephesh”] shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:20). “Moreover the soul [“nephesh”] that shall touch any unclean thing… even that soul [“nephesh”] shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:21). “For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast… even the soul [“nephesh”] that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:25). “Whatsoever soul [“nephesh”] it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul [“nephesh”] shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:27). “And every soul [“nephesh”] that eateth that which died of itself… he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.” (Levitcus 17:15). “The soul [“nephesh”] which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water.” (Leviticus 22:6). These scriptures show that a soul can physically touch something unclean and be considered unclean as well. The soul can also eat food and bathe.

(2) “Or if a soul [“nephesh”] swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce…” (Leviticus 5:4). “For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls [“nephesh”] that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Leviticus 18:29). “…his life abhorreth bread, and his soul [“nephesh”] dainty meat.” (Job 33:20). We learn from this that a soul can swear and that a soul can abhor food. Again, all of these characteristics describe a physical being—not something immortal within the physical being.

The Soul CAN Die!

Notice in Ezekiel 18:4, “Behold, all souls [“nephesh”] are mine; as the soul [“nephesh”] of the father, so also the soul [“nephesh”] of the son is mine: the soul [“nephesh”] that sinneth, it shall die…” And God repeats this fundamental statement in verse 20 to make sure we understand Him. Once dead, the living soul has become a dead soul.

The biblical teaching is that the soul can be put to death. Levitcus 24:17 reads, “And he that killeth any man [“nephesh” or “soul”] shall surely be put to death.” In other words, the soul that kills another soul must be killed itself.

Notice, too, the following two statements from the books of Exodus and Leviticus:

“Ye shall keep the sabbath [the weekly Sabbath—the time from Friday evening to Saturday evening] therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul [“nephesh”] shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:14). “And whatsoever soul [“nephesh”] it be that doeth any work in that same day [the Day of Atonement—an annual Sabbath], the same soul [“nephesh”] will I destroy from among his people.” (Leviticus 23:30). Here we see again that a soul is subject to death.

David knew, too, that his “soul,” his life, could be killed. In Psalm 22:20, he prays, “Deliver my soul [“nephesh”] from the sword.” David also expressed this thought, “…none can keep alive his own soul [“nephesh”].” (Psalm 22:29). A strange statement indeed, if man already had an immortal soul!

Job, too, made a revealing statement showing that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul. This is interesting, as he did believe, on the other hand, in a resurrection from the dead (cp. Job 14:14–15). In Job 7:15, we read, “So that my soul [“nephesh”] chooseth strangling, and death rather than my life.”

Another revealing statement is made in Deuteronomy 19:11–12. Reading from the Authorized Version, one would not realize that the original text shows the mortality of the soul, “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities [of refuge]: then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.” The Hebrew word here for “mortally” is “nephesh.” The rendering “mortally” accurately reflects the meaning conveyed in this passage—namely, that the soul is mortal and can die—it is not immortal, living on forever. The New Revised Standard Version translates it this way, “… and takes the life of that person…” The Revised English Bible says, “…and strikes him a fatal blow…”

The Hebrew Word for Soul Also Applies to DEAD Persons

We find that the word “nephesh” is used for dead persons, as well as living persons. This should not surprise us by now, as the soul referred to can be alive or dead. We read in Leviticus 19:28, “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead [“nephesh” or “soul”], nor print [tattoo] any marks upon you.”

In relationship to the special Nazarite vow, a Nazarite could not touch a dead person for the duration of his vow. We read in Numbers 6:6, “All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body [“nephesh” or “dead soul”].”

Notice, too, in Numbers 19:11 and 13, “He that toucheth the dead body [“nephesh” or “soul”] of any man [here the emphasis is on man, rather than animals] shall be unclean seven days… Whosoever toucheth the dead body [“nephesh” or “dead soul”] of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul [“nephesh”] shall be cut off from Israel…”

Note that one can touch the soul of a dead person! Think about it! How could this be, if the soul were the immortal part of the man within the man? According to Orthodox Christianity, the soul departs from the dead person at the time of his death. There is no way that one could touch a departing soul. But the Bible teaches that the soul can be touched, and it can be dead or alive. So then, the soul is the person. Again, it is not something immortal within the person.

The Hebrew Word for Soul Can Describe the Entire Person

As we have already seen, the word “nephesh” or “soul” describes many times the entire person—his whole being. Notice the following additional examples:

Genesis 12:13, “[Abram told Sarai:] Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul [“nephesh”] shall live because of thee.” Here, Abram equates “his soul” with himself. In saying that his soul should stay alive, he wished that he would stay alive. This shows, too, that he, as well as his soul, could die.

Notice, too, in Genesis 27:4, “[Isaac told Esau:] And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul [“nephesh”] may bless thee before I die.” Later, though, we are told that Isaac blessed Jacob, thinking it was Esau (v. 23). So again, Isaac’s statement that his soul would bless Esau meant that he, Isaac, would bless him. Isaac’s soul and Isaac were one and the same—in fact, Isaac was a soul.

In another example, Lot asked the angels who had come to destroy Sodom and Gomorra to be able to flee to a nearby city, rather than into the mountains. In Genesis 19:20, he says, “Oh, let me escape thither… and my soul [“nephesh”] shall live.” He wanted to stay alive and to be as content as possible under the circumstances. It was he who wanted to “live”—and he equated himself with “his soul.”

The Hebrew Word for Soul Can Describe Human Feelings

We also find that the word “nephesh” or “soul” can emphasize the emotions or feelings of a person. In other words, the emotional or psychological aspects of a person are sometimes identified with his “soul.” The word “soul” still describes the person,—not something in the person—but it may emphasize from time to time what could otherwise be described with the “heart.”

Notice it in Genesis 34:3, 8, “And his [Shechem’s] soul [“nephesh”] clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel… And Hamor [father of Shechem] communed with them, saying, The soul [“nephesh”] of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter…”

A person has feelings. These feelings are sometimes described as originating in, and coming from, the heart or the soul. But this does not make the soul or the heart something separate from the person, something immortal that lives on when the person dies.

Notice in Genesis 44:30, “Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life…he will die.” A literal translation is, “seeing that his soul is bound up in the lad’s soul.” In both cases, the word is “nephesh” in the Hebrew. One could say in today’s language, “The two were one heart and one soul.” They had deep love and affection for each other.

Another example shows that when we become extremely frightened or fearful, it is sometimes presented in the Bible in such a way that “our soul” becomes afraid. Genesis 42:21 states, “And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul [“nephesh”], when he besought us, and we would not hear.” Also, note Leviticus 26:16—a prophecy for today, addressing the modern tribes of Israel: “I [God] also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart [soul or “nephesh” in the Hebrew].”

The Authorized Version translates the Hebrew word “nephesh” 15 times as “heart.” In several cases, the emotional side of anguish, fear, grief and anxiety is emphasized in those passages. Note a few examples:

“And the man of thine… shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart [“nephesh”].” (1 Samuel 2:33).

“Give… wine unto those that be of heavy hearts [“nephesh”].” (Proverbs 31:6).

“…and they shall weep for thee with bitterness of heart [“nephesh”] and bitter wailing.” (Ezekiel 27:31).

Consider, too, the following expression about the “soul,” showing that it can refer to the emotional part of man. The Israelites were complaining about lack of food in the wilderness stating, “But now our soul [“nephesh”] is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.” (Numbers 11:6).

Later, Moses would reassure the Israelites that they would have flesh to eat in the Promised Land. Note, though, how he expresses it in Deuteronomy 12:20, “When the LORD thy God shall enlarge your border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul [“nephesh”] longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatever thy soul [“nephesh”] lusteth after.” Again, Moses could have said, “…whatsoever you lust after.” The soul, then, is describing the person, with a certain emphasis, at times, on the emotions and desires of the person.

Note, too, Deuteronomy 23:24, “When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure.” The word “pleasure” is translated from the Hebrew “nephesh,” showing the desires of the person.

In two places, the Authorized Version even renders the word “nephesh” with “appetite,” showing again the aspect of the fleshly desires of man. We read in Proverbs 23:2, “And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite [“nephesh”].” Also, note Ecclesiastes 6:7, “All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite [“nephesh”] is not filled.” The Elberfelder Bibel has the following annotation to Ecclesiastes 6:7, “Literally, ‘his soul is not filled.’”

Perhaps now, we can better understand why God commands us to seek Him with all of our heart [Hebrew, “lebab”] and soul [“nephesh”] (Deuteronomy 4:29), and to love Him “with all thine heart [“lebab”], and with all thy soul [“nephesh”] and with all thy might [Hebrew, “meod”].” (Deuteronomy 6:5). This is just another way of saying that our entire being—everything we are, including our desires and emotions—must seek God and love Him beyond anyone or anything else.

The Hebrew Word for Soul Can Describe Emotions of Animals

We should also note that the word “soul” or “nephesh” does not only describe the “emotional” side of man. This word is also used to describe the emotional side of animals.

Let’s read Jeremiah 2:24, describing a wild ass in its sexually active times. “A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away?” The word “pleasure” is a translation of the Hebrew word “nephesh”; the passage could therefore be literally translated, “…according to the lust of her soul.”

Notice, too, this passage in Proverbs 12:10, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” The word for “life” is the Hebrew “nephesh.” Here the thought is conveyed that the righteous person looks after the “soul” or the physical needs of his animals.

The Hebrew Word for Soul Can Describe God’s Feelings

God uses the Hebrew word “nephesh” to describe even His own emotions and feelings. However, it should be clear that there is not an immortal soul living in the immortal God, and it should be also clear that, insofar as God is concerned, His life is not dependent on blood circulating in His body. Rather, the meaning is conveyed here that “nephesh” or “soul” describes the very being of God, with His emotions and desires.

For example, in Leviticus 26:11, God says what would happen if Israel would obey Him, “And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul [“nephesh”] shall not abhor you.” Conversely, if Israel should disobey, the consequences would be quite severe as given in Leviticus 26:15, 30, “And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul [“nephesh”] abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments… I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul [“nephesh”] shall abhor you.”

As Israel’s soul would abhor God’s judgment, so would God’s soul abhor Israel. The word “soul” here describes the innermost feelings of the persons, both of God and of man, not something immortal within the person.

Both Humans and Animals ARE Souls

There are passages in the Bible that refer to both animals and men as “souls” in the same context. Early in the Bible, right after we were introduced to the concept that the word “nephesh” can describe men in Genesis 2:7, we are told that the same word “nephesh” also describes animals. As we know by now, animals, too, are souls. We read in Genesis 2:19, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air… and whatsoever Adam called every living creature [“nephesh”], that was the name thereof.”

Notice in Numbers 31:28, “And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul [“nephesh”] of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves [cattle], and of the asses, and of the sheep.”

Also, Job 12:9–10, “Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul [“nephesh”] of every living thing [including both men and animals], and the breath of all mankind.”

We learn that man and animals are alike when it comes to their physical composition. They are all souls, made out of the dust of the ground, and will all become dust again when they die. Ecclesiastes 3:19–20 points out, “For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.” (NKJB).

Unless God grants man immortality, or deathlessness, man will die just the same as the animals do. Both man and animals are souls. Man has no advantage over the animals in this regard. They all go to one place. [We should point out here, though, that there does exist a fundamental difference between man and animals, but that difference is not the soul. To find out more about this extremely important subject, request our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution—A Fairy Tale for Adults?”]

Does the Soul Depart at the Time of Death?

There is at least one passage that says that the soul departs from a person when the person dies. We read in Genesis 35:18–19, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-o’-ni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried…”

This passage does not teach us that the soul of a person is immortal and continues to stay alive after the person has died. Remember, we learned that the blood is the life, or the soul, of the person. Once the blood stops circulating, the person dies. So this passage in Genesis tells us that the soul, or the LIFE, of the person departed—another way of saying that the person died. The German Luther Bibel translates this as, “When her life departed from her and she had to die…”

There are two additional passages that may imply, if not analyzed carefully, that the soul “departs” when a person dies. Jeremiah 15:9 reads, “She that hath borne seven languisheth: she hath given up the ghost; her sun is gone down while it was yet day.” Then in Job 11:20 we read, “But the eyes of wicked shall fail, and they shall not escape, and their hope shall be as the giving up of the ghost.”

In both passages, the Hebrew word for “ghost” is “nephesh.” Does this mean that the soul, after it “departed,” continued to live? No, this is just another way of expressing the thought that the person died, that the person’s life ended. Note how the New Jerusalem Bible translates Job 11:20, “Their only hope is to breathe their last.” The Revised English Bible states, “Their only hope is death.”

Thus, we see that the word “nephesh” or “soul” can refer either to the fleshly person or to the life [blood] of the person. “Nephesh,” then, describes our temporary, physical life, which we have in common with the animals, and which is supplied by the transfer of oxygen through the blood.

We will return to a few more Old Testament passages, involving the soul or related concepts, later in this booklet. At this point, let us turn to the pages of the New Testament. Do we learn something different there about the soul? Does the New Testament teach us that our soul is immortal, and that it goes to God or to the devil at the time of our death? The Greek word translated as “soul” in the New Testament Scriptures is “psyche.” And, as we will see, it is used in the same way as the Hebrew Scriptures use the word “nephesh.” We will find confirmation in the New Testament of what we learned in the Old Testament.

Animals are Souls that Can Die

As in the Old Testament, we find proof in the New Testament that animals are called “souls” and that those souls can die. Revelation 8:9 states, “And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.” The word for “creatures” is “psyche” in the Greek. So we could say, “The souls in the sea that had life, died.” Although men are included, the primary emphasis here is on sea animals.

Revelation 16:3 applies the word again to sea animals. Notice, “And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man, and every living soul died in the sea.”

The Greek Word for Soul Describes People

The New Testament also reveals that people are souls. Souls are not something within the people—rather, souls are people. In 1 Corinthians 15:45, when talking about the resurrection from the dead, Paul quotes from the book of Genesis, telling us what man is and how man came into existence. We read, “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a livingsoul [“psyche”].” But this living soul, as well as all other living souls since Adam, died, and have to be made alive again (cp. v. 22). They have to be “raised up.” (vv. 35, 42).

And, as the man Adam was a soul, so other humans are also called “souls” in the New Testament. Stephen makes clear that the Hebrew word for soul, “nephesh,” is totally identical in meaning with the Greek word for soul, “psyche,” when he says in Acts 7:14, “Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls [“psyche”].”

Notice this additional reference to the Old Testament in 1 Peter 3:20, “…when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls [“psyche”] were saved by water.” These eight “souls” or people, i.e. Noah, his wife, his three sons and his three daughters-in-law, were “saved” from the flood. They survived it, they stayed alive. This is not talking about eternal salvation, but rather preservation of their physical bodies.

Luke writes in the book of Acts about Paul’s warning of a great storm and Paul’s subsequent reassurance to the shipmates that they would not die in the storm, “…Paul admonished them, And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives [Greek “psyche” or “souls”]… And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life [“psyche”] among you, but of the ship… And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls [“psyche”].” (Acts 27:9–10, 22, 37).

In the 18th chapter of Revelation, the commercial side of the modern city of Babylon is described. In Verse 13, some of the items are listed with which modern merchants will trade, “…And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls [“psyche”] of men.” We see that they will trade with people—not only with slaves, but also with “free” men. They are not trading with some immortal element within the men.

Greek Word for Soul Describes Human Feelings

As with the Hebrew word “nephesh,” the Greek word “psyche” may describe the entire human being, or aspects of the person. It may emphasize the feelings, emotions and desires of the heart, while other aspects of the person might be described in different terms.

We read in Acts 2:43, “And fear [awe or respect] came upon every soul [“psyche”]: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.”

Romans 2:9–10 shows, too, that although the person is the soul, a special relationship is expressed or described between the soul and the person’s feelings, “Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul [“psyche”] of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God.”

The “soul of man” in the passage above is equated with “man,” and with “persons.” It’s all one and the same—but here it is especially the “soul” that will experience “anguish.”

Note, too, Revelation 18:14, “And the fruits that thy soul [“psyche”] lusted after are departed from thee.”

Again, the soul is equated with lusts for physical food, and with special feelings. It is the person, of course, who has those desires and feelings, but special emphasis is given to the psychological aspect of a person here, describing it as the “soul.” (Interestingly, the English word “psychological” is, in fact, derived from the Greek word “psyche.”)

When these psychological aspects are to be emphasized, the word “soul” is sometimes used in combination with other human aspects—but this does not make the “soul” an immortal element or entity within the man.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

We read in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit [Greek “pneuma”] and soul [Greek “psyche”] and body [Greek “soma”] be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In dividing the person into three aspects or “components,” Paul did not address the issue as to whether some of the aspects were mortal or immortal. Rather, the “spirit” of the person describes his mind, the “body” describes his physical flesh, and the “soul” describes his “temporary physical life.” The Christians were asked to preserve blameless their minds, bodies and lives. To say that this verse teaches the immortality of the soul would mean that the “flesh” or the “body” would also have to be “immortal,” which it clearly is not, as we will prove from Scripture.

Matthew 6:25

Notice another “distinction” between the “soul” and the “body.” Jesus warned us in Matthew 6 not to worry about our physical life. If we focus on God and His righteousness first, all necessary physical needs will be supplied (cp. also Matthew 6:33), “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought [of a worrying nature] for your life [Greek, “psyche”], what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body [Greek, “soma”], what ye shall put on. Is not the life [“psyche”] more than meat, and the body [“soma”] than raiment?” (Matthew 6:25).

Our lives or souls need to eat and drink in order to stay alive. Our bodies need to be clothed in order to be warmed and not get sick. God knows that we need food and clothing. But Christ tells us that we don’t exist just to look after our physical needs. We don’t live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). Man’s life does not consist in, or depend on, the abundance of the things that he may possess (Luke 12:15). Our focus must be on GOD to meet our needs, rather than on the needs themselves.

If Matthew 6:25 teaches that the soul is immortal, does it also teach that the body is immortal? After all, Christ said in Matthew 6 not to worry about our life or our body. Nobody claims, though, that our bodies are immortal. We read in Romans 6:12: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body [Greek “soma”].”

The Greek Word for “Soul” Refers to the Temporary Life of a Person

As we saw regarding the Hebrew word “nephesh,” the Greek word “psyche” also describes the physical life of people. Again, this life is always temporary—it never applies to immortal or eternal life.

We read in Acts 15:26, “Men… have hazarded their lives [“psyche”] for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is clearly a reference to physical life—it could not refer to any immortal soul, as the idea of an eternal soul within the person would of course not allow that the person could endanger his or her “immortal soul” by standing up for Jesus Christ—quite the opposite would be the case.

The same statement is made in Revelation 12:11, “And they [true Christians] overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives [“psyche”] unto the death.” Again, this refers to temporary lives—“souls” that could die. This cannot be a reference to a lack of love for their “immortal” souls. True Christians must be willing to die for Christ, if necessary. They must value their physical life less than Christ, so that they can obtain [not, give up or disregard] eternal life (cp. Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not [a better rendering is, “love less in comparison”] his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and sisters, yea, and his own life [“psyche”] also, he cannot be my disciple.”)

Notice Matthew 16:24–26, “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life [“psyche” or “soul”] shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life [“psyche” or “soul”] for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul [“psyche”]? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul [“psyche”]?”

Note that the translation is quite inconsistent here. The first two times “psyche” is translated with “life,” while it is subsequently rendered twice with “soul,” so as to imply some kind of “eternal” or “immortal” life. When looking at the entire passage in a consistent rendering, we see that it refers strictly to physical life. If one would want to accept the false concept of an immortal soul, it would be incomprehensible that one could lose his immortal soul “for the sake of Christ.” Christ tells us here that if we love our physical life more than Him, we will die—without the possibility of living forever. And then He explains that even from a logical human standpoint, this kind of “love” for one’s own physical life and the world does not make sense—because our physical life could end in the next moment.

Christ makes this very point abundantly clear in Luke 12:18–20, showing that human souls can die, and that the soul and the person are one and the same. In this parable, a rich man had been blessed with a plentiful harvest. Rather than using it for the benefit of others, he contemplated how he could use it for himself, “And he said, This will I do: I will put down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul [“psyche” throughout], Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?”

Again, the reference to soul is as to a physical being, not an immortal being. The rich man said that his soul was to eat, drink and be merry because he had provided well for himself. Yet this man was going to die that same night. He was not willing to lay down his life for others, or, in his case, to share his wealth with others. He was not concerned about giving up his possessions for Christ. And so Christ gives the lesson in v. 21, “So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” (Cp. Matthew 6:19–21, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth… But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven… For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”)

Let’s notice Paul’s example, showing his willingness to give up his “soul” for the sake of Christ in order to obtain eternal life. He understood that the soul he was willing to “lose” was NOT an “immortal” soul. Reading Paul’s words in Acts 20:22–24, “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit [he already foresaw this in a vision] unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost [Spirit] witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life [“psyche” or “my soul”] dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”

Paul wanted to finish “his course” with joy, even if that meant to give up his physical life or “soul.” He knew what awaited him once he had finished his course, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:6–8).

Paul knew that God would give him eternal life at the time of the “appearing”—the return of Christ and the resurrection of the just. He had shown God that he loved Him more than even his own physical life.

We have seen biblical proof that the word “soul” refers to both man and animals, and that we all die the same. But what does happen to the soul at death? What is that “place,” referred to in Ecclesiastes 3:19–20 (discussed before), to where the souls of men and animals go? Does the Bible give so much as a hint that they would go to heaven or to an ever-burning hell, or to a place called purgatory or limbo at the time of death? Actually, the Bible reveals quite a different destination.

Notice Psalm 89:48, “What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul [“nephesh”] from the hand of the grave?” The soul goes to the grave at the time of death. The Hebrew word for “grave” is “sheol.” It conveys the meaning of a grave or a pit. In fact, death is equated with the grave. Notice Psalm 30:3, “O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul [“nephesh”] from the grave [“sheol”]: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.” The Hebrew word for “pit” is “bowr” and has the meaning of “a pit hole.”

We read in Job 33:22, “Yea, his soul [“nephesh”] draweth near unto the grave [Hebrew “shachath”—a pit, corruption, destruction, ditch, grave—cp. Strong’s #7845], and his life to the destroyers.” When the soul goes to the grave or to the pit, it will be corrupted, or will decay. Again, this shows that the soul is the person.

Christ’s Soul did not See Decay and Corruption in “Hell”

Let’s notice how the New Testament describes the death of Christ. Christ’s soul—that is, the human being Jesus Christ—would go to the grave as well. However, Christ would not stay in the grave to see corruption, but He would be resurrected from the dead after three days and three nights. Acts 2:27 refers to Christ when quoting from Psalm 16:10: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul [“psyche”] in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption [decay].” The dead person or “soul”—Christ—was in the grave, in fact, in a tomb in which no one had been laid before. The Greek word here for “hell” is “hades” and means the grave. Christ would not stay in the grave for such a long time that his body would decay.

Note how the New International Version (NIV) translates Acts 2:27, “You will not abandon me [Greek “my soul” or “psyche”] to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” The Greek word “hades” means the same thing as the Hebrew word “sheol”—it describes “the grave.”

Note, too, how the Revised English Bible (REB) renders this verse, showing that they understand, too, that the word “hades” describes the grave or death in general, “…for you will not abandon me [again in the Greek “my soul” or “psyche”] to death, nor let your faithful servant suffer corruption.”

The translation of “hades” as “hell” is misleading today, given the wrong association with the false modern concept of “hell.” However, when the King James Bible was written, the word “hell” simply meant a “hole in the ground”. People would talk about putting their potatoes “into hell” during winter. In German, the word for “hell” is “Hölle” and is closely associated with the word “Höhle,” meaning a “cave.”

We might also note something else: In replacing the term “my soul” with “me” in their translations of Acts 2:27, both the NIV and the REB show their understanding that these terms describe one and the same—the person and the person’s soul are identical. It is the person who goes to the grave!

WE—Our Souls—Go to the Grave!

When we die, we go to the grave. Ecclesiastes 9:10 says to you that you won’t do anything “in the grave, whither thou goest.” Now notice Psalm 94:17, “Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul [“nephesh”] had almost dwelt in silence.” In other words, unless God would have helped, the soul would have died and gone to the grave.

Again, we see that the person and the soul of the person are one and the same. Both go to the grave, where there is silence and total lack of consciousness or activity. In other words, both die. That is why the Bible describes death consistently as a dreamless sleep [cp. John 11:11–14; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 27:52; 2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17]. God must awaken us out of that sleep of death in order for us to live again—and God will do so at the resurrection of the dead.

King Hezekiah fully understood what would happen to him and his “soul” when he died. Listen to his heart-rending prayer to God, pleading with Him to let him stay alive for a while. It’s recorded in Isaiah 38, beginning in Verse 10, “I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave [“sheol”]: I am deprived of the residue of my years. (11) I said, I shall not see the LORD, even the LORD, in the land of the living… (12) from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me… (17) Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul [“nephesh”] delivered it from the pit [Hebrew “schachath”] of corruption.”

The soul that dies will decay, or will see corruption, in the grave or the pit. The soul does not continue to live, nor does it go to heaven or to an ever-burning hell, ruled by Satan and his demons.

The Grave is a Place of Silence and Unconsciousness

The grave is described as a place of silence, without any activity, thought, or consciousness. The dead do not even remember God their Creator. Psalm 6:5 points out, “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave [“sheol”] who shall give thee thanks?”

Notice this additional statement in Psalm 115:17, “The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.” These would be strange statements if it were true that souls of dead righteous people would keep on living a conscious life and go to heaven. Wouldn’t they give God thanks upon their arrival in heaven? And since when is heaven a place of silence? But the Bible tells us that in death, they don’t even remember God—or anything else, for that matter. [It is true, however, that each man has a spirit, and that spirit does go back to God in heaven when man dies. However, the spirit in man does not remain conscious when man dies—and this spirit is not the soul, either. If you want to learn more about the amazing truth about the human spirit, request our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution—a Fairy Tale for Adults?”]

Isaiah 38:18 reiterates that there is no activity in the grave—that to go in the grave is the same as to go into a “pit”—and that the grave and death are one and the same, “For the grave [“sheol”] can not praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.”

Ecclesiastes 9:10 tells us, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave [“sheol”] wither thou goest.”

We are also told in Ecclesiastes 9:5 that, “…the dead know not any thing.”

Psalm 146:4 adds, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”

In spite of what we have learned so far, some will still insist that the New Testament does teach that souls remain conscious after a person dies. Let’s review, then, a few additional New Testament passages dealing with the death of Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus Christ came to die for our sins. If He had not died for us, we would not have a Savior. It was His blood that He willingly shed for us that paid for our sins. Knowing this, notice Matthew 20:27–28, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

The word for “life” is “psyche” in the Greek—Christ gave His “soul” for us. He died for us by shedding His blood, and, as we already know, the blood is the soul (Deuteronomy 12:23). Christ did not give up an immortal soul for us. He gave His physical life for us. Take note of the fact that Isaiah prophesied that Christ would do just that. We read in Isaiah 53:12, “…he hath poured out his soul [Hebrew “nephesh”] unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors…”

Jesus Christ Gave His Life for Us

We read in several passages that Jesus said that He had come to die for us—to give His life for us. But what He really said has been obscured in most translations. For example:

John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” The word for “life” is “psyche” and literally means, “soul.”

John 10:15, “I lay down my life [“psyche” or “soul”] for the sheep.”

John 10:17–18, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life [“psyche” or “soul”], that I might take it again. No man taketh it [Christ’s life or soul] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power [authority] to lay it down, and I have power [authority, right, entitlement] to take [receive] it again.” Christ was not talking here about an immortal soul that He would give up and later receive again.

Only Christ has Acquired Immortality Until Now

At this point, the only human being who has acquired immortality through a resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3–4) is Jesus Christ, the “firstborn of many brethren.” Christ had been God eternally, but He became a Man in order to be able to die for man. Through the resurrection, He became God again, living today in a state of deathlessness, incapable of dying. (For more information, please request our free booklet, “Is God a Trinity?”).

We read in 1 Timothy 6:14–16, Lamsa rendering, “Obey this charge without spot and without stain until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is to be revealed in his due time, blessed and almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in the light that no man can approach, and whom no man has seen, nor can see [in His glorified state].”

Christ died and was dead in the grave. When here on earth as a human being, He did not have immortality. He had given up that immortality which He had had before. After His death, He received life from God the Father when He was resurrected (cp. Ephesians 1:19–20). See also John 3:13–15.

1 Peter 3:18–20

Some claim, however, that Christ was not really dead and in the grave, but that He—or His “immortal soul”—preached during the time of His “death” to the evil spirits in “hell.” They support this claim by referring to 1 Peter 3:18–20. Let’s notice, though, what this passage actually tells us:

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

Properly understood, this passage tells us that Christ, through His Spirit, preached to demons at the time of Noah. Demons are “imprisoned” spirits or spirit beings. It is their unrepentant and evil minds that hold them “captive.” They had become disobedient and rebellious, and they are waiting now, in spiritual “chains of darkness,” for their final judgment (cp. Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; James 2:19).

Note these remarks from The New Bible Commentary: Revised, copyright 1970, “…it can be argued from such passages as 2 Pet. 2:4–10; Jude 6… that the spirits in prison are the fallen angels, and that this interpretation is more consistent with the usage of the word pneumata, spirits, in Scripture when it occurs without qualification. This would seem on the whole the best interpretation of a difficult passage…”

The passage in 1 Peter 3: 19–20 teaches us that the preincarnate Christ preached to these wicked spirits or demons (cp. Ephesians 6:12), who had disobeyed long ago. Christ preached to them, though, at the time of Noah, when God’s patience or longsuffering “waited.” Please realize that in the original Greek text, there is no punctuation. Note how the Interlinear Literal Translation renders this passage (Admittedly, it sounds strange in English, but it is a literal, word-for-word-translation from the Greek):

“… but made alive by the Spirit in which also to the in prison spirits having gone he preached disobeyed sometime when once was waiting the of God longsuffering in days of Noe being prepared ark…”

The Greek word “kerusso,” translated as “preached,” might be better rendered as “proclaimed.” The New American Standard Bible translates “kerusso” as “proclamation.” Christ apparently revealed, at the time of Noah, to the demons at least a part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind and the eventual fate of the evil and disobedient spirits. Consider that Peter had pointed out earlier (in 1 Peter 1:12) that even obedient angels “desire to look into” the things contained in the gospel. If even obedient angels did not fully understand the gospel, how much more would this be true for the demonic world? Please realize that demons are cut off from God’s Holy Spirit by which He reveals spiritual truth!

 This passage in 1 Peter 3:19–20 does not teach us that the “Spirit of Christ”—or His “immortal soul”—preached to spirits in hell while Christ was dead and in the grave. As we have seen, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ, or His Spirit, could not have done so, since a person is without consciousness, when in the grave. Neither does the passage teach us that the spirits or souls of wicked people are right now suffering in hell. We will discuss the fact that evil persons are not suffering in “hell” in more detail later in this booklet.

When people die, they are dead. Death is the opposite of life! In order to live again, dead people must be resurrectedfrom the dead to either physical life or to eternal life.

In Revelation 20:4, both types of resurrections to physical life and to eternal life are discussed, with special emphasis on a resurrection to eternal life, “…and I saw the souls [“psyche”] of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus… and they lived [as spirit beings] and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished [but they will be resurrected afterwards to physical life]. This is the first resurrection.” [This phrase refers to those souls that were brought back to life to reign with Christ for a thousand years.].

Notice that the souls that had been killed lived again. So the souls were dead, but they were brought back to life in a resurrection from the dead. How clear it is that persons are souls and that souls die. Souls do not continue to live on after death.

God’s Word clearly reveals more than one resurrection. There is a spiritual resurrection to eternal life of those who are in Christ at the time of Christ’s coming (1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). Those who are in that “first” resurrection will rule with Christ for a thousand years here on earth (Revelation 20:4; Revelation 5:10).

Since there is a “first” resurrection, there must at least be a “second” resurrection. And so we read that the rest of the dead won’t live until those thousand years have expired (Revelation 20:5). At that time, the vast majority of mankind will be resurrected into—what has been termed indeed—a “second resurrection.” This second resurrection is one to physical life (cp. Ezekiel 37 regarding the physical resurrection of the house of Israel). This “second resurrection” is also commonly referred to as “The Great White Throne Judgment” period. (Revelation 20:11–12). Those in this second resurrection will be given their first opportunity to accept Christ and to live by His word—a chance they never had in their former life. They will live for perhaps one hundred years, until their judgment is pronounced (Isaiah 65:20; Hebrews 9:27).

Following the “second resurrection,” there will be still another, or “third resurrection” to physical life of all those who did know better, but sinned in total and deliberate defiance of God. They refused to repent and, instead, developed a malicious and hateful attitude towards God, making any repentance impossible. They are judged to have committed the “unpardonable sin” (more fully discussed below). It is they who are being thrown into a lake of fire, to be totally consumed by its flames (Revelation 20: 14–15).

Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16

The fact that God will resurrect everyone, but each in a certain order or time sequence (1 Corinthians 15:23, first sentence), including those who have committed the “unpardonable sin” (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28–29), is also clearly taught in the famous, albeit terribly misunderstood, parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31). Some claim that this parable teaches that we have immortal souls that continue to live on after we die. However, in analyzing this parable carefully, we find that it teaches just the opposite.

Christ gave the parable to the Pharisees who were covetous (Luke 16:14). Luke 16:19–21 introduces us to a rich man who was covetous as well, and who did not care about others, including the hungry and sick beggar Lazarus, who was laid at the gate of the rich man. Lazarus desired to at least eat the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table—but it appears that not even the crumbs were given to him by the rich man. Additionally, the rich man ignored the sickness of Lazarus—only the dogs would come to lick his sores.

Christ is picturing here a totally selfish person. This rich man reminds us somewhat of the selfish rich man of Luke 12:18–20 (discussed above), whom Christ introduced to us earlier. The rich man of Luke 16 committed the unpardonable sin and will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire to be burned with the wicked.

What is the Unpardonable Sin?

From other Scriptures we know that there are at least two ways in which the unpardonable sin can be committed.

Jesus warns us in Mark 3:28–29, not to “blaspheme” the Holy Spirit, regardless of whether we are converted or not. If we do, we reject the only power that can convert and change us. And if we continue with that course of action of resisting God and refusing to repent, then we might reach a point when it will become impossible for us to repent. We will then have made the final, irrevocable decision never to repent and to change. Such an attitude will lead to actual hate and resentment for God and His way. You see, if we don’t want to repent, God will not grant us repentance. And without repentance, there can be no forgiveness. That is why a sin which we refuse to repent of, will not be forgiven.

In addition, converted people who have received the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, can commit the unpardonable sin, if and when they later fall away and irrevocably reject God’s way of life (cp. Hebrews 6:4–6; Hebrews 10:26–29).

As long as we have the desire to go God’s way and to change—as long as we hate the wrong things that we do—as long as we want God’s Holy Spirit to enable us to overcome our sinful carnal nature, we have not committed the unpardonable sin. If, on the other hand, we have received understanding and then begin to reject that understanding and God’s way of life, then we are walking on dangerous ground.

What is our attitude towards sin? Are we indifferent about it? Does it matter to us whether we sin or not? Do we try to justify sin, or to blame others for sin in our lives? This approach will never grant us favor with God—will never allow us to continue repenting of the wrong in our lives.

On the other hand, if we love God’s way, if we want to go God’s way, if we want God to help us to get rid of what’s wrong with the way we are, then God will help us—and we don’t need to worry whether or not we have committed the unpardonable sin.

Christ, in his parable as recorded in Luke 16, portrays a rich man who is totally indifferent to sin and to the pain and suffering of others. Although Christ does not give us many details about the wicked life of the rich man (as He does not give us many details about the righteous life of Lazarus, either), it is clear from the context that the rich man has indeed committed the unpardonable sin—he has reached the final point of no return, as he has become unwilling to repent and to change.

Different Fates of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Luke 16:22 says that the beggar died and that he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. It does not say that the beggar was “carried by the angels” into “Abraham’s bosom” immediately at the time of his death. From other scriptures, we know that a considerable length of time passed between his death and the activity of the angels. In fact, Christ will send out His angels to gather the righteous at the time of His return and the resurrection of the just. Matthew 24:31 tells us, “And he [Christ] shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

Why, then, does Christ say that the angels carried Lazarus “into Abraham’s bosom?” This term describes a close intimate relationship between two or more persons. Compare John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

The Jews at the time of Jesus were familiar with this term, as it was used several times in the Old Testament to describe such a close personal relationship [cp. 2 Samuel 12:1–3; Isaiah 40:11; Numbers 11:12].

Luke 16:22 also tells us that the rich man died and was buried—presumably with great pomp and ceremony. Luke 16:23 explains that the rich man lifted up his eyes in “hell,” “being in torments,” and seeing Abraham “afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Verse 24 goes on to tell us that the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus “that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool” the tongue of the rich man, as he is “tormented in this flame.”

What Does Luke 16 Really Teach Us?

First of all, let’s notice that we are not told how much time passed between the death of the rich man and his lifting up of his eyes in “hell.” The word “hell” is a translation of the Greek word “hades.” “Hades” is never associated in Scripture with “fire”—as we have already seen, it just describes the grave or death. What Christ is saying here is that the rich man lifted up his eyes, while in the grave—in other words, he is being resurrected from the dead. And when he opens his eyes from his “sleep” of death, he sees Abraham and Lazarus “afar off,” and he notices that flames are awaiting him. He is actually seeing the flames of the “lake of fire,” referred to in Revelation 20:14. He is close enough to experience some physical pain from the flames—but his real anguish and torment is one of a psychological nature. That is, he knows that he had committed the unpardonable sin and that he will now have to face the eternal consequences—a death from which there will be no resurrection.

What is being described here is the third resurrection. We read in Revelation 20:13–14 that “death and hell [“hades” in the Greek] delivered up the dead” (which would include the rich man), and that “death and hell [“hades” in the Greek] were cast into the lake of fire.” The rich man was resurrected to physical life to be cast into the lake of fire. And those who are to be cast into the lake of fire will suffer psychological torment when they face that moment. They will face “everlasting punishment”—that is, a punishment with everlasting consequences for all eternity—their existence will end forever. (The fact that they will not suffer forever in a fiery hell is discussed in greater detail below.) Their psychological torment is described in Matthew 13:42, “They will be “cast…into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Luke 13:28 adds, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye [we might include here, “the rich man”] shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets [we might include here, the “beggar,” see below], in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.”

The parable of Luke 16 continues that Abraham does not honor the request of the rich man to send Lazarus to him. Instead, Abraham points out that “there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” (vv. 25–26).

This great gulf that is “fixed” is the difference between mortality and immortality. Those who are with Abraham at that time are immortal spirit beings in the Kingdom of God. (If you want to learn more about your potential to become an immortal spirit being in the Kingdom of God, write for our free booklet, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.”). Those who are like the rich man are mortal, destined to die the eternal death. Their fate is sealed. Nothing can change or reverse that final decision. The immortal spirit being cannot become mortal again, and the mortal physical being cannot become immortal.

In Luke 16:27–28, the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent to his brothers to warn them about what would await them if they ended up like he. Abraham denies that request (v. 29) because by that time it is too late. The third resurrection occurs after everyone, including the rich man’s brothers, have had their chance.

Realize here that the rich man has had no consciousness while dead in the grave. He did not know how much time had gone by. He died, and insofar as his consciousness is concerned, he woke up within the next second. So he insists again that Abraham send Lazarus to warn his relatives (v. 30). And Abraham responds, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (v. 31).

We see, then, that this parable is about people who die and about the resurrection from the dead. It does not talk about people’s souls that are conscious and alive, while the persons are dead. Quite to the contrary, it addresses resurrections from the dead.

But, you might ask, don’t the wicked go to hell? Did not Christ say very clearly, in Matthew 10:28, that we can be cast into hell? And doesn’t this mean, then, that the rich man is going to suffer for all eternity in the flames of the lake of fire?

Matthew 10:28

Let’s notice what Matthew 10:28 does say: “And fear not them which kill [“apokteino”] the body [“soma”], but are not able to kill [“apokteino”] the soul [“psyche”]: but rather fear him which is able to destroy [“apollumi”] both soul [“psyche”] and body [“soma”] in hell [“gehenna”].”

Some have used this passage as support for their idea that “immortal souls” of the wicked will be tortured for all eternity in hell. But let’s notice what the passage actually does teach us. First, Christ tells us not to fear those who can “kill” [in Greek, “apokteino”] the body, but not the “soul.”

Meaning of the Greek Word “Apokteino”

The Greek word for “kill” (“apokteino”) is translated in the Authorized Version 55 times with “kill,” 14 times with “slay,” and six times with “put to death.” In every case, it refers to the “killing” of a mortal human being, mostly by humans. It never refers to the extermination of a human being for all eternity without the possibility of a resurrection. This becomes very clear in the parallel passage in Luke 12:4–5, where we read, “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill [“apokteino”] the body [“soma”], and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed [“apokteino”] hath power to cast into hell [“gehenna”]; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”

Luke 12:5 is one of the very few places where the word for “kill” or “apokteino” is used in connection with God. As we mentioned, normally it refers to killing by and through man. But we clearly see that something more happens after the “killing” of the physical body. Luke 12:5 says that God has power to “cast into hell.” Matthew 10:28 says that God has power to “destroy [in the Greek, “appollumi”] both soul and body in hell.”

Meaning of the Greek Word “Appollumi”

The Greek word for “destroy,” “appollumi,” is rendered in the Authorized Version with, “destroy” [23 times] or “be destroyed” [three times]; with “lose” [28 times] or “be lost” [three times]; with “be marred” [one time]; with “perish” [33 times]; and with “die” [one time]. Although this word has a wide variety of meanings, including certainly the “killing” of a physical human, it also includes the final judgment of men, and even demons. The following examples show that the word “apollumi” can refer to the final extermination of humans from which there is no further resurrection back to life.

In Romans 14:15, Paul warns us not to “destroy” [“appollumi” in the Greek] our brother spiritually. Since judgment has begun at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17), if we who have been enlightened with the truth fall away, we can only look forward to the final condemnation of God that will “devour” us (Hebrews 10:26–27). The word for “devour” is “esthio” in the Greek and means, lit., to “eat” or to “eat up.” It is used many times to describe people eating food. Once the food is eaten, it’s gone. It does not continue to exist forever and ever in the stomach of the person who has eaten it. That is why the “destruction” Paul is talking about in Romans 14:15, is one with final spiritual consequences.

In addition, James 4:12 tells us that God is the one who “is able to save and to destroy [Greek, “apollumi”].”  God can save our physical lives and even give us eternal life, or He can destroy our lives in a final judgment and give us eternal death.

Notice, too, this interesting passage in Matthew 5:29, “And if thy right eye offend thee [tempts you to sin], pluck it out, and cast it from thee [don’t use it to look at tempting things]: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish [Greek ”apollumi”], and not that thy whole body [“soma”] should be cast into hell [“gehenna”].”

We must “destroy” our eye once and for all—that is, we must stop using it for sinful purposes. This is, of course, not talking about literally “plucking out” our eyes—it is a figurative way of saying that we must stop using our eyes or other members of our bodies for sinful purposes. Romans 6:19 (NKJB) tells us: “For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.” We could, of course, not present our members as “slaves of righteousness,” if we pluck them out and cut them off our bodies.

Notice, too, that the Lamsa translation explains that the terms “plucking out your eye” and “cutting off your right hand” are Aramaic idioms, meaning “stop envying” and “stop stealing.”

Christ alludes, in Matthew 5:29, to our final commitment that we make at the time of our baptism. Otherwise, if we don’t overcome sin, God will cast “our whole body” into “hell.” But isn’t that strange—have you not been told that only your “soul” would be cast into hell, when you die, while your body is dead and in the grave? The truth is, God is addressing here the final fate of both “body and soul”—that is—of the entire being or person.

When God gives us eternal life, we will not perish or be destroyed. Note this in John 10:28, “And I give unto them eternal life [we don’t have it yet—we do not have an immortal soul within us]; and they shall never perish [Greek, “apollumi”].”

Returning to Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4–5, we can understand what God is telling us. We need not fear man who can only kill us, taking away our physical lives. That is all man can do—man cannot prevent God from resurrecting us from death to give us life again. Instead, we must fear God, who not only can take away our physical lives, but who can also throw us—both “body and soul”—into “hell,” taking away our opportunity for eternal life.

Notice, too, that in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4–5, as well as in Matthew 5:29 (discussed above), the Greek word for “hell” is “gehenna,” not “hades.”

Meaning of the Greek Word “Gehenna”

The word “gehenna” and the very concept of it are derived from the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem in which the corpses of dead people, mainly criminals, would be burned up. It is another expression for the “lake of fire” in Revelation 20:15, in which all who have acted wickedly, and who have refused to repent, will be thrown into, to be burned up or “devoured.” (Remember that Hebrews 10:27, discussed above, tells us that the wicked wait for God’s fiery indignation that will “devour” them.). That is the “hell” or the “gehenna” fire that Christ is talking about here—“the second death” from which there will be no resurrection.

Those who sin deliberately, willfully and maliciously, God will resurrect to physical life to throw them—their physical body and their soul or their “life”—into “gehenna” or the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13–15; 21:8). They won’t burn there forever—rather, they will be burned up. They are the “chaff,” that will be “burned up” with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12)—that is, no human can quench it. Notice that this fire will ultimately even burn up or bring to dissolution “heaven and earth,” so that a “new heaven and a new earth” can be created by God (2 Peter 3:10–13).

The wicked, such as the rich man in Christ’s parable in Luke 16, will not burn forever and ever, for all eternity, in an everlasting hell fire, but they will be “burned up” (cp. again Matthew 3:12). The Greek word for “burned up” is “katakaio”—conveying the meaning that nothing of what is burned up will remain. We read in Revelation 18:8 that modern Babylon “shall be utterly burned with fire.” The word for “utterly burned” is, again, “katakaio” in the Greek. And we are told that “that great city Babylon [will] be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” (Revelation 18:21). In the same way, the wicked, such as the rich man in Luke 16, that are thrown into “gehenna” or the lake of fire, will be “burnt up”—they “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up… that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” (Malachi 4:1). They will become ashes under the feet of the righteous (Malachi 4:3); it will be as if they had never existed (Obadiah 16).

It is true that Revelation 6:9–11 talks about “souls” of dead martyrs that “speak” to God and ask for speedy intervention. But Revelation 6:9–11 is clearly a vision. The “souls” are figuratively pictured as if they were speaking, in the same way the blood of Abel is pictured, as if it spoke and still speaks to God (Genesis 4:10; Hebrews 12:24).

When a soul dies, it is “sleeping.” It does not continue to live a conscious life. That Revelation 6:9–11 cannot be taken literally is also clearly seen by the fact that the souls are laying “under the altar” of God, and that they are told to “rest” and lay there “yet for a little season.” This altar of God is in heaven (Revelation 8:1–5). We already know from Scripture, however, that the souls go to the grave, here on earth, when they die—not to the altar of God in heaven. Peter stated that David is still dead and buried (Acts 2:29), and that he did not ascend to heaven when he died (Acts 2:34). But David will be alive again—when he is raised from the dead at the time of the resurrection of the just (cp. Jeremiah 30:9). Also, Jesus told Nicodemus that no one has ascended to heaven (John 3:13).

The souls are pictured as lying under the heavenly altar, just as the physical altar in Israel protected life. While one touched the horns of the physical altar, he could not be killed. The dead in Christ, who have been martyred for Him, sleep, or are dead, with the assurance that they will be resurrected to eternal life. As Christ said earlier, they will inherit eternal life, and no man can pluck them out of His hand (John 10:28).

Some say that dead people must still be alive after death, and therefore must have an immortal soul, because the gospel was preached to the dead. To support their claim, they quote 1 Peter 4:6, which reads, “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

Note that the Scripture says that the gospel WAS preached to them that ARE dead. They are dead NOW, but they were alive when the gospel WAS preached to them.

Many feel, though, that the appearances of the “spirits” or “ghosts” of those that have died prove the immortality of the soul and a conscious life after death. In fact, as we learned in the beginning of this booklet, this “fact” is one of the proofs given by the Catholic Church that man has an immortal soul. Many have been confused about this subject and feel that communication with the dead does happen. They state that Scripture supports the possibility of communication with departed spirits or souls. But does it?

The attempts to communicate with the dead seem to be as old as mankind. Ancient Israel was specifically warned not to try to engage in such practices. We read in Leviticus 19:31, “Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them…” So it is possible, although prohibited by God, to seek after “familiar spirits.” But are those “familiar spirits” the departed spirits or souls of dead people, as some claim?

Let’s continue to read more about “familiar spirits.” Leviticus 20:6 and 27 tell us, “And the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person…A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death.” (NKJB).

The Bible tells us that Baal worship included the practice of witchcraft and sorcery, as well as the consultation of mediums and spiritists or wizards (cp. 2 Chronicles 33:3, 6). Psalm 106:28 indicates that ancient Israel might have engaged in those pagan practices while wandering through the wilderness.

Acts 16:16–19 gives us a clue who or what those familiar spirits are: “Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, ‘These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.’ And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, ‘I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And he came out that very hour.” (NKJB). This spirit of divination was a familiar spirit—a demon. It was not a departed soul.

We also learn that the demon told the truth—Paul and his companions were in fact servants of God, preaching the way of salvation. Likewise, demons proclaimed that Christ was the Son of God. Demons don’t always lie, but they always want to thwart God’s plans and purposes.

Saul Consults a Medium

We read in 1 Samuel 28, in the New King James Bible, that Saul consulted a woman who was a medium. The Authorized Version describes her as a woman “with a familiar spirit.” In other words, Saul consulted a witch possessed with a demon. This witch was asked by Saul to bring up Samuel. We read in Verse 12, “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice.” (NKJB). The following passage tells us that Saul saw nothing. He asked the woman, “What did you see?” Notice her answer, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.” (Verse 13—NKJB). When she described the form of that spirit as one of an old man, we are told that “Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel.” (Verse 14). The word “was” is not in the original. So one could add “pretended to be,” “appeared to be,” “claimed to be,” etc.

Some claim the witch actually brought back Samuel—or his spirit—from the grave. The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “On this occasion God miraculously permitted the actual spirit of Samuel to speak and announce Saul’s imminent death.” But is this true?

Notice that Saul did not see the “spirit” or “ghost” or “soul” of Samuel at all. Samuel had died and had been dead for a while (cp. 1 Samuel 25:1; 1 Samuel 27:7–8; 1 Samuel 31:6; 2 Samuel 1:1–2). God did not answer Saul in dreams or by the prophets (1 Samuel 28:6)—and Samuel was a prophet (Acts 13:20; 1 Samuel 3:20). When the “old man” appeared and answered Saul, that could not have been Samuel or his spirit or departed soul—otherwise, Samuel would have answered Saul in the capacity of a prophet of God. We also read in 1 Chronicles 10:13–14, that this seance was not of God—rather, Saul was killed by God because of conducting it. Saul died “for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; and inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him.”

We read that “Samuel” answered Saul and told him that Saul would die the next day. The real Samuel, dead and in the grave, could not have known that. Earlier in this booklet, we learned that the dead “know not any thing.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). But Satan and demons do sometimes know God’s plan and purpose (cp. 1 Kings 22:19–23; Revelation 12:12; James 2:19). So it is clear that the demon, the familiar spirit, pretended to be Samuel, and spoke as Samuel to the witch. Note in 1 Samuel 28:7, in the NKJB, that the woman was a “medium.” The Authorized Version renders it, “a woman with a familiar spirit.” In the Hebrew it says literally that she was “the possessor of a spirit,” in other words, of a demon.

We see, then, that, apparently, the very demon that had possessed the witch, appeared to her—not to Saul!—in the form of Samuel, convincing the witch, and through the witch, Saul, that he was in fact Samuel. The true Samuel, however, as a prophet and servant of God, would have never spoken to Saul through a witch, especially after God had refused to talk to Saul. And God would not have supernaturally brought Samuel—or his soul or his spirit—back to life, to allow him to speak to Saul through a witch—after God had refused to speak to Saul directly.

The concept that the souls or spirits of dead people can be contacted is demonic. Isaiah 8:19 tells us, “And when they say to you, ‘Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,’ should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” (NKJB). To consult mediums (those possessed with demons or familiar spirits) and God is incompatible. Also, Isaiah is not saying here that the spirits of the dead can be consulted. He is asking, “Should anyone try to seek the dead?’

Notice, too, Isaiah 29:4, “…thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground.” This is a reference to the voice of a demon, a familiar spirit that has possessed the medium. It may appear as if the medium speaks, but it is, in fact, the demon within the medium that does the speaking. That is why Paul, in Acts 16:16–19, spoke to the familiar spirit or demon of the possessed slave girl—and not to the slave girl herself.

Notice Deuteronomy 18:10–11, “There shall not be found among you any one that… useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” A “necromancer” is somebody who “consults with the dead, or with a spirit to answer questions.” Note, how the New American Bible brings this phrase, “…one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead.” This phrase does not say that communication with the dead is possible—it tells us, though, not to try it, as this will bring us in contact with demons.

The very concept of communication with the dead is demonic—it does not prove that we have immortal souls that continue to live after we die. Satan started the lie that we have an immortal soul in the garden of Eden. And to “prove” the accuracy of that lie, he convinces people through the powers of darkness that communication with the spirits or immortal souls of dead people is possible. As we saw at the beginning of this booklet, many, even within orthodox Christianity, have accepted not only the lie, but also this erroneous “proof” for the lie.

Ultimately and inescapably, God’s Word proves that eternal life is a gift of God, and that physical mankind does not possess an immortal soul. The deceptive and false doctrine of inherent “immortality” has held countless millions in a state of confusion, false hopes, and tormented fear.

The Bible reveals that Satan is “the god of this age.” (2 Corinthians 4:4, NKJB). He is also referred to as the “ruler of this world.” (John 12:31, NKJB). Paul was inspired to say of Satan and those who serve him, “For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” (2 Corinthians 11:14–15, NKJB).

In the eleventh chapter of the book of Romans, the apostle Paul gives us a glimpse of God’s great masterplan. It includes the “reconciling of the world” and “life from the dead.” (v. 15, NKJB). Verse 26 gives us the promise that “all Israel will be saved.” (NKJB). But God’s plan of salvation is not limited to Israel—it includes all mankind—all who have ever drawn breath or ever will. It is appointed by God for man to die (Hebrews 9:27), but through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all who repent of their sins and accept Christ’s sacrifice can live again—they can become immortal members in the Family of God. Our hope rests in God, and in Him alone, to give us eternal life in the future. Let’s make sure that we are willing to believe the truth, and that we, too, will be found worthy to be given God’s gift of immortality in due time (1 Thessalonians 2:10–12; Luke 20:35–36).