| "EXPOSING THOSE WHO CONTRADICT" [Titus 1:9 Concordant Literal New Testament] An open letter to T.B.N. critiquing James Kennedy, A.B., M.Div., M.Th., D.D., and Dr. John Hagee Also presented to: Dr. Paul Crouch (And others) By: L. Ray Smith Copyright 2000 © by L. Ray Smith - All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Dear Dr. Kennedy: My name is Ray Smith and I love the Scriptures. But I marvel how God's Word is being misrepresented today in such an organized worldwide effort. I believe that Paul calls it "the systematizing of the deception" (Eph. 4:14). After much meditation, I have some observations on two sermons by you and John Hagee. There was a time when I too believed many of the unscriptural teachings of modern theology. I see now how the God of Christendom is presented to the world as a God of meager and scant success in the running of His creation resulting in a minuscule reward for His well-intentioned efforts. And what is totally beyond reason or sanity is the teaching that adds colossal insult to this devastating injury. Except for a few who receive God's blessings, billions and billions will receive God's unquenchable frustrated cursings for all eternity. Gentiles accepting this God of Christendom must also accept the teaching that salvation will ultimately come to only a few of their people, not all. This is hardly a fair exchange for the gods these people are supposed to forsake. First, let me state my position succinctly:
In your sermon you mentioned visiting a person who had no interest in God. He remarked that if he lived his life the way he considered "good," that was all he needed. He then questioned how God would deal with Africans who know nothing of God. What would be their fate? You suggested that he posed this question in such a way as to feel self-assured that he had boxed you in. As though, surely, you wouldn't be able to answer him. You then assured your congregation that he had not trapped you in this question, but that you have the true Biblical answer to this question which has also been asked by countless truth seekers through the centuries. You used an analogy and a few scriptures on conscience to show that God is not responsible for the eternal fate of billions of unsaved humanity. It is your "analogy" that is the reason for this letter. Your analogy personifies much of modern theological thinking. Analogies are fine for teaching if they really are analogous to the subject. They should simplify, not contradict the Scriptures on the topic at hand! You opened a "theological can of worms" with your analogy.
HELL You said something to the effect that "sin is what sends people to hell." "Hell" is an unfortunate translation of numerous Greek and Hebrew words.
Why would an intelligent translator translate three totally different Greek words into the same English word? Are the Valley of Hinnom in Jerusalem, where our thoughts perish, and Tartarus, a place of restraint for Angels, all synonymous? I don't think so. "Hell" never was and never will be a proper translation of the Greek word hades. However, back in the Middle Ages it did have a totally different connotation than today. There is old English literature that refers to people "putting their potatoes in hell" for the winter. And I guarantee you that when they retrieved their potatoes they were still raw and not baked or burned by some fabled fires of hell. Although not a proper translation of hades, this old English word did (I said "did"-not anymore) have similarities to the word hades. My old Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary has this definition: "hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]" To "cover" or "conceal." That definition has at least some similarity to the Greek elements of hades: UN-PERCEIVED [the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE]. Before the King James Bible, the old Anglo-Saxon word simply meant a dark, hidden, concealed, or covered hole in the ground. Actually, hell would be a better translation for grave than hades. But now check a modern dictionary and look what we get: Webster's New World Dictionary: "hell (hel), n 1. the place where Christians believe that devils live and wicked people go to be punished after they die." What happened to the definition ... of the word ... "hell?" It doesn't even purport to define the word. It just tells us what Christians believe it is. I, frankly, don't care what Christians think it means. What a travesty of modern scholarship. So when unsaved people die, are they really punished eternally in this "Christian" hell? You know, it's the theologians who should be protecting the people against such modern heresy, but instead it is they who are causing and promoting the heresy. Let's see if God's Word really teaches eternal torture in a "Christian hell where devils live," immediately after death for unsaved sinners. Thank God one doesn't have to be a theologian to understand His Word. "Thou hidest these things from the wise and intelligent and Thou dost reveal them unto babes [Gk: minors]" (Matt. 11:25). The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior by John Broadus more properly translates Phil. 1:10 thus: " ... may distinguish the things that differ." Whenever and wherever God inspires different words in the Hebrew or Greek, translations should show those differences. We must be able to distinguish the differences in words as they are used Scripturally. In most cases this is not difficult if we consult all the ways the same words are used in Scripture. Let's look at body, spirit, and soul, and see if any dwell "with devils" at death.
BODY When a man dies his body (if not disintegrated) goes into a grave or tomb (Jn. 11:38) where within a few days it begins to smell and decompose (Jn. 11:39), and it returns [Heb. shub] to the dust of the ground from which it was taken (Gen. 3:17-19, Job 10:9, Psa. 9:17, etc., etc). The "person" is said to be where the "body" is and the "person" is resurrected from the place where the body is (Mat. 28:6). Only in a figurative or symbolic sense does a "body" ever go to sheol (Jonah 2:2). Jonah was not "literally" in hell [sheol], but in the fish, and besides he didn't even die. I'm sure Jonah's loss of perception inside the fish resembled his knowledge of the word "sheol."
SPIRIT When a man dies his spirit returns to God Who gave it (Lk. 23:46, Psa. 104:24-30). The "spirit" is never said to go to hades or sheol, and the "soul" is never said to go to Heaven at death. Men and beasts have the same spirit [ruach] and they go to the same place (Ecc. 3:18-21). There is no getting around this: when God takes away a living soul's spirit, it always dies. The spirit "gives life." No one can live without "spirit," no matter how young and healthy he may be. There are no exceptions. If there are, where is the Scripture? A dead person cannot experience anything-not pleasure in Heaven or pain in a fabled hell. This is a serious thing. Rom. 14:23 says: "Now everything which is not out of faith is sin." If one doesn't have Scriptures that show people go to eternal hell fire after death, then it is a sin to teach it.
SOUL When a man dies his soul goes to the unseen or imperceptible [Gk: hades, Heb: sheol]. We also know that when man is in this condition (dead) it is likened to "sleep" (Psa. 13:3, Dan. 12:1-2, Jn. 11:11-14). God Himself likens death to sleep, "The Lord said unto Moses [concerning his imminent death], Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ... " (Deut. 31:16) This is substantiated by the fact that: "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" (Ecc. 9:5,6). Again: " ... for there is no work, nor device [contrivance, intelligence, reason], nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol." (Ecc. 9:10). Do we think all of these Scriptures lie? According to what we just read in Ecc. 9:5,6,10, do dead people know anything? And these verses are correctly translated. The words "soul" and "spirit" have become corrupted through theology so that they are now used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous. They are not synonymous. There may be certain similarities between soul and spirit, but similarities do not make them one and the same. The "soul" is the seat of sensation, consciousness, and feelings, not the body or the spirit. It is the spirit that imparts life to the body and the body then becomes a living soul (Gen. 2:7). A thorough study of the word "soul" in the Scriptures proves that it is used of consciousness, feelings, and emotions. Hence, "sensation" is a good word to define its usage.
These verses show the wide range of emotions and sensations that "souls" experience, but dead souls experience nothing in the unseen or imperceptible (hades). We need to pay close attention to the meaning of words. Hades comes from the Greek a(i)des. The a is a prefix which is equivalent to our un- and the stem -id means perceive. Thus we have UN-PERCEIVE, or imperceptible: the unseen. Etymologically, your doctrine of torment in hell falls flat on its face. From the words that God chose to call this condition of the soul after death, one thing is crystal clear: There is absolutely no perception there. And the soul has everything to do with perception and sensation as clearly seen from the verses above. So why do you teach that there is perception in death? The very meaning of the word itself (hades) is unseen or imperceptible, so how can a dead soul have perception in a condition of imperception? God Himself chose this word which teaches us that hades is UN-perceptible or IM-perceptible (NO perception). Your teaching is blatantly false and deceptive! Because of the shameful way these words are translated and interchanged in the Authorized Version, it is nearly impossible to understand their true meanings without an exhaustive concordance. FROM KING JAMES TRANSLATION:
This kind of translating is not responsible scholarship-it's confusing and contradictory. The Apostle Paul admonished Timothy to "have a pattern of sound words" (II Tim. 1:13) The Scriptures quoted above clearly show the translator's disregard for this instruction. I am amazed that people put up with such irresponsible teaching. You teach that man has immortality in his soul. The Scripture says man is "mortal," and "Our Lord, Jesus Christ ... Who ONLY has immortality." Which do you think is true - your teaching or the Scriptures? What part of the word "ONLY" don't you understand, Dr. Kennedy? Man is mortal (Job 4:17). Not one Scripture says that man is "immortal" or has an "immortal" soul. Not one. "Our Lord, Jesus Christ: the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality" (I Tim. 6:14-16). It is by means of the "resurrection" that God causes dead people to live again. The Apostle Paul said: "Concerning the expectation and resurrection of the dead am I being judged" (Acts 23:6). The truth regarding the "resurrection of the dead" is not even taught in Christendom today. They teach that there are no dead people (only dead bodies). They teach that people are either alive on earth, alive in Heaven, or alive in Hell. What need have we for a "resurrection of the dead" if there are no dead people to resurrect? This, my friend, is heresy! Paul also stated: "Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been roused. Now if Christ has not been roused, for naught, consequently, is our heralding, and for naught is your faith" (I Cor. 15:14-15). The very salvation of mankind rests on the resurrection. This is most important to understand: "For, if the dead are not being roused [resurrected], neither has Christ been roused. Now, if Christ has not been roused, vain is your faith-you are STILL IN YOUR SINS." (Acts 15:16-18). That is just how important the resurrection is, and according to you and most Christian theologians, it isn't necessary at all, because you teach that man has an immortal soul that goes directly to Heaven or Hell without resurrection and thus make a mockery of the very Word of God. And where, Dr. Kennedy, is all the "hell fire and brimstone" in all these verses on body, spirit, and soul? Where? If you don't understand the Scriptures concerning God's punishment and chastisement on mankind, fine, but don't force them into these versus regarding "the dead." And don't turn "ages" into "eternities" either. I'll comment on punishment, gehennah, the lake of fire, etc. later. YOUR ANALOGY To show that God cannot be held responsible for the orthodox hell-bound fate of the peoples of Africa, you used an analogy of a man snake-bit in the Everglades. You said that a snake-bit man in the Everglades could not hold a nearby medical center responsible for his death even if they did have at their disposal the antiserum that would have saved him. How is your analogy of a snake-bit man in the Everglades analogous to all the people of Africa (or China and the rest of the heathen world) who do not know God? If your analogy stands, then he doesn't even know who or what his savior is. And even if he does, he is hardly in any condition to get there by himself. Is it the responsibility of a dying man to accomplish the impossible, namely, to reach an unreachable Savior? Is it the Africans' responsibility to find a Savior they don't know or never even heard of? What logic is this? Or is this a case of "God helps those who help themselves?" No. Many Scriptures show that God helps those who can't possibly help themselves. Instead of inventing an analogy, why didn't you just use an analogy that is already in the Scriptures? You put this snake-bit man in the same predicament as the "lost sheep." Let me tell you why. Because the analogy of the "lost sheep" utterly destroys the fallacious point you are trying to make. Of course a snake-bit man couldn't hold a hospital (who had no knowledge of his tragedy) responsible for his own death. This analogy is a "straw man." There are no similarities between this analogy and God's responsibility toward His creatures for their eternal salvation. Is the snake-bit man "responsible" on his own to swim three miles and then crawl five miles on his belly to his savior (the hospital)? How, pray tell, can this man come to his savior by himself, by his own ability? He's dying. Look at your analogy: No one at the hospital had any knowledge of a man dying of a snake-bite or they would have come to his rescue. Do you doubt this for one second? Surely they would have used trucks, air boats, helicopters, or whatever it took to save him. Is God less responsible? Now, had they received word that this snake-bit man needed immediate medical assistance but refused to go to his aid, they would be considered criminally negligent. Is God just as negligent as they would have been? God is fully aware that His sheep are now lost:
"How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains [or the Everglades], and seeketh that which is gone astray? ... even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18: 12 & 14) When God almighty says something is His will or is not His will then that's the way it will be done (Mat. 6:10). In God's time and in God's way, ultimately, there will be NO lost sheep anywhere. It is the "will of your Father" that this is the way it will be done! Almighty God will not fail in His desire to accomplish all His Will. Notice Isa. 46:10-11:
But the shepherds (Pastors and Clergymen) of the world teach that God will never fulfill His own will and desires. They teach that most of the sheep will be lost. And worst than lost; they will supposedly be tortured in the fires of Hell for all eternity. You CONTRADICT God and His Word when you teach these things. Read Jer. 50:6 again, it is the "shepherds" that have led the sheep astray: "My people hath been lost sheep: their SHEPHERDS have CAUSED them to go astray ... " Maybe it's God's time to let the world know who these fraudulent shepherds are and how they are leading millions astray from God's truths. But God will bring them back safely (in case you doubted, God is a better shepherd than we). God will save ALL Israel (Rom. 11:26), and it is His delight to give Israel the Kingdom (Lk. 12:32), and God will perform ALL of His desires (Isa. 46:10-11). How can you doubt God's ability to perform His Own WILL? You attempt to diminish God's very Will into little more than a weak wish. If one cannot even believe the Scriptures, how can one teach them? Your theology is up-side-down, Dr. Kennedy. The shepherd (the Savior) goes after the lost sheep (the Africans or whoever). Since when is it up to the "lost sheep" to find the Shepherd? And what about "the ninety and nine?" Remember: "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Isa. 53:6). Were the "ninety and nine" shrewd enough, and strong enough, and clever enough by their own instincts to avoid all the jagged rocks, and holes, and cliffs, and ditches, and wolves, and foxes, till one by one they all saved themselves until they found the shepherd? If sheep could do all of those things by themselves, they wouldn't need a shepherd. Dr. Kennedy, learn something about analogies. Why does God Himself use the analogy of "sheep" to represent lost mankind? Because we have the same number of feet? God uses the analogy of "sheep" because sheep are totally unable to save themselves. They need a shepherd. Pastor Hagee says: "When one realizes just how helpless and dumb sheep really are, it's offensive that God calls us sheep." If that's how he feels, I don't know what he thinks of God's ultimate analogy of what man is (Isa. 64:8). This "straw man" analogy of yours is foolish, and any analogy that attempts to relieve God of His responsibility for the salvation of His creatures would be equally foolish. There is no analogy that can be used to demonstrate something that is false. You don't seem to understand that God is not trying to save all of His sheep in this lifetime. There are Scriptural reasons why God allows people to die without ever having known Him. They are not eternally lost, they are only "dead." And let's be completely honest here. When a person is "dead," how does God view that condition? As sleep (John 11:11). Are you suggesting that every night when your children go to bed that their eternal fate is sealed? I didn't say death is like sleep, but God Almighty has, many times. Do you believe God when He says death is "sleep?" Do you really believe that tired and overworked saints in Heaven go to sleep? Do you really believe that after a hard day at the furnace, people in Hell go to sleep? Why is it such a hard thing for you to just believe the Scriptures when God says death is like sleep? God awakens dead people out of sleep in resurrection. This is sensible and understandable: Your teaching is strange and ridiculous. You make it clear from your sermon that when a person dies you think his fate is eternally sealed. This, however, is also unscriptural. Death is an enemy, but not too formidable an enemy for God. Death cannot separate anyone from the love of God, be he sinner or saint (Rom. 8:36). More proof on this later. Besides, even death itself will be abolished (I Cor. 15:26). God abolishes death by vivifying everyone who is dead. The only way to abolish the darkness in a room is to turn on the light. The only way to abolish death is to make everyone alive. Look at the giant difference between God and a hospital. The hospital was ignorant of a man needing immediate help. But, not only did God know full well that this man was snake-bit and dying, it was God Himself who created the poisonous snake, and created the Everglades, and created the man. I think if you reconsider your premise, we will probably be agreed that had the hospital been called to help this man they would have responded quickly. But now look at the implications of your analogy. Sinful medics at a hospital, in the final analysis, are much, much more loving, concerned, caring, and responsible toward a perfect stranger than your God is toward one of His own sons! The use of an analogy presupposes that the one using the analogy already knows the truth of the subject being analogized, else how could he devise the right analogy to substantiate his premise? Why not just skip the analogy and tell us plainly that you believe billions and billions of Africans, Chinese, and most of the population of the entire world are doomed to eternal hell without ever being given an opportunity to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Why not just admit that you don't think God is the least bit "responsible" for this, the most tragic disaster in the history of the universe? If that's the way you feel, why not come out and admit it instead of hiding behind a man-made analogy. Let's look deeper into why your analogy doesn't work. I'll use the exact same "premise," but let's change the characters and their location. Let's change the snake-bit man into a five-year old girl, the snake into an alligator, and the medical center into the little girl's father. Next, let's move this alligator-attack on this little girl from the Everglades to the little girl's back yard. Let's place her father twelve feet away from her on the back porch. Now. Do you really think this analogy is going to work, Dr. Kennedy? You don't like my changes? Okay, let's use your analogy again. As I recall, the snake-bit man was apparently some miles from the Medical Center, correct? Would it still work if he were only one mile from the Center? What about a hundred yards? Let's try this. Let's say this man is thirty feet in front of the hospital moat with the Medics witnessing his snakebite through a window. Does your analogy still, work, Dr. Kennedy? It's the "distance" that makes the difference, isn't it? Did I put the "Savior" too close for comfort? If the father were just across the street, maybe he could be justified in not saving his daughter. What do you think? Or must we put him out of screaming distance, say two or three blocks away? That suits your analogy better doesn't it? If one doesn't know what's going on, he can't be held "responsible." Isn't that what your analogy really portends? If the "shepherd" is out of sight, out of town, or on vacation-nowhere to be found-then he is no longer responsible for saving the lost sheep. Is that correct, Dr. Kennedy? Or if the shepherd is sleeping on the job, I guess he wouldn't be responsible for saving the lost sheep, either. Do you think all those billions of unbelievers are being lost because God is out of town on an extended vacation? Or is He "sleeping on the job?" My question to you is: How far, Dr. Kennedy - how FAR must you "distance" God from Africa until "His hand is too short to redeem or save" (Isa. 50:2 & 59:1), and He can no longer see or hear or feel or be "responsible" for all these poor helpless people who you think are on a daily death march into the eternal doom of a Christian Hell? According to your absurd analogy, it takes only a few miles to disable God's ability to save. This characterization of God Almighty comes a whole lot closer to blasphemy than I think you want to be standing, Dr. Kennedy! All who are dead asleep in their graves will be resurrected from death to life (Ezek. 37:113-14). Christ will draw all men (including Africans) to Himself (Jn. 12:32). It is God's WILL that they come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved (Tim. 2:4). Every tongue in heaven and earth will, " ... ACCLAIM that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the Glory of God, the Father" (Phil. 2:11). God will not lose one single sheep (Matt. 18:14). God will save all Jews and all Gentiles (Rom. 11:32). So that God may " ... be ALL in ALL" (I Cor. 15:28). Distance is immaterial to God. Can "distance" separate God from His love for His African people? Rom. 8:35-39 plainly says "no!" " ... Not far from each one of us is He inherent, for in Him we are living and moving and are ... " (Acts 17:27). "Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you [the Gentiles], who once, are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:13). There is no partiality with God. You need to read these Scriptures and ponder them deeply. Your reasoning that lost sheep must find their own shepherd and unbelievers must find their own Savior or else be doomed reminds me of Lazarus' sister Mary who came to our Lord and said: "Lord, if Thou wert here, my brother would not have died!" (Jn. 11:32). Amazing what we humans think are insurmountable problems for God. But you see, Christ was not there and Lazarus did die. But then Christ did come and He did resurrect Lazarus from the dead. Did Christ resurrect Lazarus out of Hell fire? If He did, then Lazarus went to Hell by mistake. Did Christ resurrect Lazarus out of Heaven? If He did, then Christ lied eight chapters earlier when He said, "NO one has ascended into heaven ... " (Jn 3:13). Christ resurrected Lazarus out of the TOMB (Jn. 11:38-39). Because that's where Lazarus WAS-in the TOMB-dead ASLEEP. This historical example of Christ's resurrection powers was a foretaste of what Christ will do in the future resurrections. This is how it is done. Dead people (not just dead bodies) will be resurrected from the dead, not from life at some other geographical location (not heaven and not hell), but FROM THEIR GRAVES, wherever they may be. If it is essential that a man be saved before he dies, then God, indeed, would be derelict in His responsibility toward His creatures. But where does it say that a man's eternal fate is sealed at his death? Where? Nowhere! Please read the explanation of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in my rebuttal to Pastor Hagee. Absolutely nothing can separate man from the "Love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord!" (Rom. 8:31-38). And certainly not "death" (Ver. 38). TV ANALOGY Here is an analogy that is applicable and easy to understand: God's spirit gives life to the body. Only in life does a man have consciousness or sensation. When God takes back His spirit, the body and soul are dead. Picture a TV console as representing the human BODY with all its intricate circuitry and components. Now picture ELECTRICITY as the invisible, powerful force representing God's life-giving SPIRIT. Picture the blank PICTURE TUBE as representing the SOUL. Without the electricity (God's spirit), the TV and picture tube (body and soul) are dead. All the time I hear preachers talking about our souls and our spirits as if they were one and the same. Soul and spirit are not one and the same. Next plug in the electricity (God's spirit). The TV comes to life, and we see the picture tube (soul) animated. We see color, sound, dancing, singing, talking, intelligent conversations, all live via satellite. The dead TV becomes a living, visible, animated, intelligent entity-"Soul." But notice very carefully, the Soul (the animated picture in the TV tube) is not one of the original components. It is not a component in and by itself, but is rather the result of two other vital components, Body and Spirit (the TV console and electricity). At bedtime I sometimes tell my daughter to give the TV a rest. When one turns off the "on/off" switch the TV goes to "sleep." The power light is still on, but the TV is blank and silent. But now, pull the plug and take away the electricity (spirit) and what happens to the TV console (body)? It dies. It's just a box of circuits. Not even the power light is on anymore. If left unplugged it will, in time, decay and return to the dust of the ground. And what happens to the colorful animated picture on the screen (soul) when we take away the electricity (spirit)? Want the real answer? Ask a child. Let several children watch TV together, then pull the plug and ask them where the picture went? A child will shrug his shoulders or say "I don't know" or say "It disappeared." Guess what? He is Scripturally correct on all three counts. Without spirit there is no life and no consciousness. Without power a TV has no life and no animated picture. It's dead. If you were to ask an ancient Hebrew person what happens to the soul (the thinking, feeling, animated, sentient personality of a man) at death, he would shrug his shoulders or say "who knows" or just say "it disappears." That's what "Sheol" meant to the Hebrews. It was a question mark. And the Greeks had their word for the same idea (Hades-the UNSEEN, the IMPERCEPTIBLE), and hades and sheol are synonymous in Scripture (Acts 2:27). There is one more profound Scriptural truth that is also perfectly analogous to the operation of a TV, and that is this. Picture God's Throne as the Broadcast Headquarters. The TV picture Tube, by itself, is not the source or originator of the picture it portrays on the screen. It is a channel for the signal transmitted from the TV Station and Tower. It can only manifest and portray on its screen that which is sent from the source [God]. And often the source [God] uses intermediaries like satellites [Angels] to relay the signals. In Scripture, death is called a "return" [Heb. shub]. Before we were born we had no body, no soul, and no perception of any kind. At birth God gave us a body, implanted to us His spirit, which gives the body perception (through the brain and the five senses). At death, we [shub] RETURN. The reversal of what happened at birth. The spirit returns to God (Ecc. 12:7), the body returns to the dust (all the elements of man's body are found in the ground or earth) (Job 10:9, Ecc. 3:18-21), and the soul returns to no perception again (the imperceptible or unseen-hades) (Acts 2:27 and Psalm 49:15). This is what the Scriptures very plainly teach: where all that man "is" came from, that's where all that man "is" returns to. GOD'S LOVE FOR THE WICKED DEAD Let me show you some very easy to understand Scriptures in relation to the "wicked dead" and God's love for them: Israel committed the most wicked sins against their God. "But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whether they went." (Ezek. 36:21). "And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them, and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." (Ezek. 36:23). Where do you suppose this takes place, Dr. Kennedy, Heaven or Hell? " ... I will take you from among the heathen ... bring you into your own land ... ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you ... a new heart will I give you ... a new spirit will I put within you ... and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye shall keep my judgments...and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." (Ezek. 36:24-28) " ... all Israel shall be saved ... " (Rom. 11:26). Notice that GOD CAUSES all of these things to happen. " ... the valley which was full of bones ... Son of man, can these bones live?... Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live ... and ye shall know that I am the Lord ... Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel ... Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves ... and ye shall know that I am the Lord ... And shall put my spirit in you and ye shall live ... then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it and performed it, saith the Lord" (Ezek.37:1-14). Does this take place in Heaven or Hell? "The whole house of Israel" who blasphemed God's name, who worshipped idols, who were filled with filthiness, and did not "know" the Lord are now pictured as dry bones in their graves. God raises them from their graves, puts His spirit in them, they live again, gives them a new heart, causes them to walk in His statutes, and blesses them in their own land and finally they know that God is the Lord that blesses them. Since God "opens their graves," and "brings you into your own land," just maybe, this takes place on this earth. What do you think? Here are wicked, sinful people who died in their sins not knowing the Lord. God will resurrect them (back to life from the dead) and bless them. What do you think? Are these Scriptures too hard to understand? Did you never read them? I'm not trying to be your judge. I'm trying to help you to see just how simple and consistent God's Word is. These Scriptures glorify God. They demonstrate God's character. " ... though He punishes, yet will He have mercy." Yes, even " ... the HEATHEN [Africans and Gentiles] shall know that I am the Lord." Next you turned to the Scriptures to attempt to relieve God of His responsibility toward His children. You show in Romans that man has "creation" to prove God's existence, and "conscience" to show him right from wrong. But you do err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power and love of God. True, the creation does prove a Creator, but without a revelation from that Creator, what would we know about the Christ? True, God has given man a conscience, but how can a man's conscience save him? Where in the Scriptures does it teach that if a person believes there is a God and has a clear conscience, it will save him? Where? Have you never read in the Scriptures that regardless of a man's belief in God and his conscience, nonetheless:
And here is their only salvation:
How could anyone have the audacity to suggest that Africans and Chinese by the billions are responsible for their own salvation through their "conscience" without any knowledge of God or Christ's blood and His sacrifice for them? If a person can be saved by his "conscience," then he doesn't need Jesus Christ. Do you really want to teach such a farce? Look at the twelve hand-picked Apostles. They walked and talked with Jesus day and night, seeing miracle after miracle for three and one-half years. Yet in Gethsemane they all forsook Him. Peter cursed His Savior three times in one night. And you would have us believe that man, in himself, has the ability to do right and walk the walk and qualify for salvation? You might respond: "But I never said that." Sure you did. You only say it's all of God and pretend to give God all the credit for salvation, but in the end, your teaching always holds man responsible for his own salvation. Why else did you invent your own analogy? According to modern Christian teaching, if the twelve Apostles had all been killed that night in the Garden by the Roman soldiers, they would have all gone to "Hell!" Theologians would say: "They had their chance." Well, if salvation is a thing of "chance" then I guess they had a better "chance" than most people. But they blew their "chance" didn't they? Why can't we learn from these simple Scriptures? These twelve Apostles lived closer and longer in an intimate relationship with our Lord than any other human beings in the history of the World, and yet, after three and one-half years they all rejected and forsook Him, all in one night. This Scripture doesn't require protracted study to understand - just plain read it.
Or are you telling us that if a man "by nature" does what the law demands, and has a "clear conscious" and "believes" there is a God, that then " ... it is in man ... to direct his steps?" No, Dr. Kennedy, it is "not in man" because God never put it there.
It just wasn't in the Apostles to "direct their own steps." Was it a good thing that the Apostles all forsook Christ in the Garden? I'll ask you another question: Was it a good thing that Joseph's brothers sold him for a slave to the Ishmealites? Not from the relative perspective. Joseph was frightened and disappointed in his brothers, his father was heartsick, and his brothers did evil from their hearts. That's the relative viewpoint. But what's the absolute? Who was behind this whole drama? Who caused it to happen by the "operating of all through the counsel of His Will?" Of course it was God. And He plainly says so: "Nor therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send you before me to preserve life." (Gen. 45:5). If only we could believe this simple Scripture. The evil that Joseph's brothers conceived and carried out (for which they will be held accountable in judgment) is the relative truth. That it was God who actually "did send me" is the absolute truth. But since God only occasionally tells us that it was He Who was behind a certain action, people think that it is only occasionally that God does such things. Maybe we should read it again until we really get it:
Our Lord was about to be crucified and resurrected. Then He would return to Heaven. The Apostles would no longer commune in the flesh daily with their Lord as they did for three and one-half years. What better way to show them their absolute inability and irresponsibility than to have them all reject Him in His hour of greatest need. You know they never forgot. Nor did they ever forsake Him again. Yes, they'll give an account of this in judgment, but they also will be saved, and they also will be in the Kingdom, and they also will sit on twelve thrones-it is written and it will be done. God knows what He is doing. And all will turn out perfect, because it's God Who is operating all, not men-they only think so, and for now God lets them wallow in their ignorance. Back to your sermon. The man asked a good question. You just didn't answer it. Listen to your tape. The man asked a legitimate question and you didn't answer it. You pretended to answer it. You set up a foolish straw man analogy. You quoted scriptures on conscience. But the best you could do was to suggest that there are "degrees of punishment in hell." What does that mean in the context of billions of people who have never heard the name of Christ (the only name), or never read the Scriptures, and never heard a missionary? Are all of these billions of peoples going to hell, albeit some of them to cooler sectors, because they had "good consciences?" By the way, the Scriptures know nothing of "degrees of punishment in hell." This is another man-made invention of the church. In Luke 12:47-48 where "many lashes" and "few lashes" are presented in a parable, it is the Jews, not the nations or the Africans, who are the subject. Christ is talking about "slaves of the lord" at His coming. This punishment is meted out at the Lord's coming not eternally in a place called Hell. Now, how could or would that same Lord take eternity in hell fire to administer just a few lashes? Eternity? ETERNITY? For a "few" lashes? And you have the audacity to tell us: "Hell is fair!" Dr. Kennedy, that statement is too absurd for comment. Christ taught the masses in parables so that they would not understand (Matt. 13:10-15). Well, I guess, not too much has changed there. This parable is about "the faithful and prudent administrator" (the Jews) whom He entrusts with His goods "to be giving them the measure of grain in season." This parable has nothing to do with the unbelieving nations that know not God. The more I think about your non-answer to the man's question, the more I believe you were very careful to avoid directness. I understand your predicament: your own unscriptural doctrines boxed you into a corner, where neither a misappropriated scripture nor a straw man analogy will get you off the hook. The fact is that the theology of Christendom has no place for the salvation of the billions of peoples who have never heard the Name of God. But, thanks be to God! And I really mean thanks be to GOD, that His Word provides for the salvation of all nations. There are literally dozens of Scriptures that tell us how and when God will save all nations, all peoples, and all creatures. Let's look at a Scripture regarding who God is calling and who God is not calling at this time:
Notice the categories of men that are not even called at this time. How can they be saved when they aren't even called? But He will call them all at a later time.
Israel didn't comprehend their own Messiah-they killed Him! Why? Because "God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day." (Rom. 11:8). "But in their offense is salvation to the nations" (Ver. 11). "For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?" (Ver. 15). " ... for God is able to graft them in again." (Ver. 24). " ... that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering. And thus ALL Israel shall be saved ... Whenever I should be eliminating their sins." (Vers. 15, 24, 25-27). God blinds Israel until He finishes calling those of the nations. Then He recalls Israel and saves the nations: "For God locks up all [both Israel and Gentiles] together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all [Israel and Gentiles]. (Ver. 32). Then follows this marvelous verse:
I am trying to get you to think and really check the Scriptures thoroughly. Any other motive would be childish. So bear with me. If you really believe that God is only going to save a few of His billions of children, then please read on. I'll show you "good news" like you've never dreamed of. As for you, you can't have it both ways, Dr. Kennedy. You can't teach that "For in grace, through faith [the faith of Jesus Christ, not our faith-it is not our faith until God gives it to us], are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's GIFT, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting. For His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus ... " (Eph. 2:8-10) and then out of the other side of your mouth teach that man, "himself," is the main ingredient in his own salvation by being wise enough through his own so-called free will to make the right choice for God out of a clear conscience, in accord with his own responsibility, without which God cannot or will not save him. These two are diametrically opposed one to the other. The first is Scriptural; the latter is a man-made perversion of the love and sovereignty of God.
FREE WILL You mentioned "free will" in your sermon. People would rather have their arms and legs cut off and be thrown into a pit of snakes than to give up their "free will." Well guess what? They don't have to give it up. They never had such a thing in the first place! Even God Almighty is governed by the law of His own nature. "The One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will." (Eph. 1:11). But the buck stops at God's throne. He has not given us the same powers He possesses, that's for sure. But man, puny man, thinks he has "human free will" that is never caused or made to think or do anything. Man thinks himself sovereign in this assumed free will. The Scriptures know nothing of "human free will." This is just another case of human ignorance. Men do not possess free will, because free will does not exist. The reason that "free will" (the ability to make uncaused choices) does not exist is because it is a physiological impossibility! The first edict of the universe is "cause & effect." Nothing in heaven or earth can happen without a cause. For every effect there is a cause. There are no exceptions. No effect or happening of any kind in the universe, on earth, in our bodies, or in our minds can come into existence without a cause. And if something is caused, it cannot be free. That would be a total contradiction of words and logic. Humans do have wills. But wills are not free from causality. " ... for it is GOD Who is operating in you TO WILL as well as to work for the sake of His delight" (Phil. 2:13). This involves countless unperceived forces. Don't confuse "will" with "choice." Someone might say: "If our choices, are caused, then how can one call it a 'choice'-isn't that a contradiction?" Not at all. Free will demands that when someone makes a "free will" choice, no thing or no one made or forced him to do so. It was completely up to him-one way or the other. People simple confuse the meaning and definition of words. The word "choice" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the choice could have been avoided. A choice is merely what we prefer. Nowhere does the word "choice" carry with it the notion of "avoidability." When one makes a choice, one selects what one prefers most at that instant. Nevertheless, something still caused that choice, whether one sees or feels its presence or not. One can argue that one made a free choice because one desired to do so. It still doesn't matter-the desire caused the choice, and the desire, itself, was caused. There are no exceptions. One may suggest that one did or said something without a cause simply because one willed to do so. Fine. But then even you are admitting that the choice had a cause, namely your will. One's wills and desires are not free from the laws of God or the laws of physics. These demand a cause for every effect. Man is not a deity. Man's will is not independent from his Creator (Phil. 2:13). Read Mat. 7:18-23. Our Lord speaks of a large group of people (many), " ... in that day," who will justify their Christian walk by: "prophesying in Christ's name," "casting out demons," and "doing many wonderful works." (Ver. 22). Sounds pretty good to me. But there seems to be a problem when Christ says: " ... depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Ver. 23). "Iniquity" is not the proper translation here. The Greek word is anomon-UN-LAWness or LAWLESSNESS. Man thinks by nature he is above the law in that "free will" is, itself, lawless. Thinking himself equipped with "free will" man feels a certain equality with his Creator. "Human free will," therefore, becomes the epitome of man's lawlessness. Man thinks himself a potter. However, to man's chagrin, God says He is the Potter and man is the "pot" (Isa. 64:8). And God hates pride (Prov. 6:17, 16;18, 29:23), which is the bed-buddy of human "free will." Anyone who is so deluded as to think he possesses powers so great as to be able to thwart the very Will of God, is certainly disqualified from being a teacher of the Word of God! "Sin is lawlessness" (I Jn. 3:4). Free will is lawlessness. RESPONSIBILITY Not only are all the billions of heathens who never heard the gospel not responsible for their own salvation, but neither are we responsible for our salvation either. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God hold man responsible for anything. This is just another man-made doctrine that clashes with the Scriptures. We can use the word "responsible" in a relative sense, such as: "It is a man's responsibility to provide for his family." We all know what the word means. But even if this man doesn't provide for his family, God will hold him accountable not responsible. The problem with your sermon, Dr. Kennedy, is that you want to present God as a "fair" God. You know most men have lived and died never knowing God or even hearing His Name, so you try to relieve God of His responsibility for His creatures. You know that there is "no other name under Heaven by which man must be saved." You do know that, don't you? I'm betting that you do. But God doesn't need to be relieved of His responsibility. Knowing that billions of heathens have lived and died, never hearing that Name or knowing the true God, (and since you have all these man-made doctrines that clash with the Word of God), you try to "get God off the hook." And so you place the burden of responsibility for being saved on man's shoulders. God is not "on the hook." He doesn't need your help, my help, a missionary's help, or anybody else's help to save His children. God does use teachers, pastors, etc. to acquaint people with His Word. But this is a privilege for us, not a necessity for God. Remember the Scripture, that God can "raise up stones" if needed. The Scriptures tell us that all men everywhere are accountable to God, not responsible:
Even the King James Version, with its thousands of discrepancies, does not even once in its fifteen hundred pages, use the word "responsible" or "responsibility." Yet churches evolve whole doctrines around this word "responsibility." Things like: "you're responsible for going to hell" or "it's your responsibility to accept Christ" or "the age of responsibility" or "everyone is responsible for his or her deeds." Strange to make so big a deal of a word that does not even appear in Scripture. When a minor (a child) commits a crime, even the unjust courts of our land do not hold him responsible. Is his crime simply overlooked? No. He must give an account for his actions. He is accountable. He might be the victim of a broken home, with a drunkard father, a prostitute mother, drug-hooked sisters, and gang-member brothers. Thus, he is not considered responsible. Nonetheless, he is still accountable.
Read the dozens of scriptures where we are likened not only to "children," but to "little children." God is dealing with mankind as minors. He holds them accountable, but nowhere does God hold man responsible. Show me one Scripture. The church can only see the relative in God's word. They fail to see that God is behind everything in the "absolute."
The only One in the universe Who is responsible [able to respond] is God And so, God takes full responsibility for everything even though He holds man accountable for his deeds. Man is accountable for his deeds, not because he could have done otherwise, but because he thinks he is responsible through his presumed free will. Because he actually did the things he did. However, the Scriptures tell us that, "not in all" is this knowledge. Puny man really thinks he is in control of his own destiny. He really thinks he is a "god unto himself." And the Christian Church hasn't done very much to educate him out of this dilemma. There's a poem that personifies man's "self-appointed inner deity". It's called INVICTUS, by William Ernest Benley. It appears in a book called: The Best Loved POEMS of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. I heard Oprah Winfrey comment once that this is her favorite poem. It goes like this:
Well, Dorothea Day wrote a rebuttal version of this same poem:
Wow! This girl should have been a theologian. One can go to church for many, many years, and not hear this much Scriptural truth.
But wait. I think I hear cries of protest from the Theological Peanut Gallery: "No! No! Christ can't 'conquer' your soul. It's not allowed. Not even God can tamper with man's 'free moral agency-will.' Everyone must come to Christ of this own 'free will.'"
"No! No! God doesn't sway the circumstances of life. Man 'brings about' his own circumstances. Man makes his own heaven or hell. It's all up to man!"
"No! No! It isn't 'rule by God' it really is 'chance.' And men get only one chance." (Well not really. According to Christendom the billions of Africans and Chinese who never heard the name of Christ don't even get one "chance"). And since when is salvation a thing of "chance?" Salvation through Christ's sacrifice is "sure!" Rom. 8:32-- "Surely" [Gk: ge, a particle indicating that no doubt is possible] ... "Surely, He Who spares not His own Son, but gives Him up for us all how shall He not together with Him also, be graciously granting us all?" It is worse than sin to relegate God's supreme sacrifice to a thing of "chance"!
"No! No! The punishments will never be 'cleared'-not in the next billion eons or the billions that follow, not ever, never! Punishment is eternal-why world renowned theologians tell us it will be a great part of our happiness, and God's happiness, to watch billions of boys and girls, men and women being burned and tortured, screaming with insanity for eon upon eon. Won't that be fun." Do you think they'll all get season tickets to this "Great Heavenly Coliseum of Eternal Torture?" This is sick!
"No! No!" shouts the peanut gallery. "Everyone's 'fate' is in his own hands. Why 'you send yourself to Hell' shouts Pastor Hagee."
"No! No! You are your own Captain. You have to find Christ, and if you live in Africa or China that may not be possible, but it doesn't matter because God gave them a 'conscience.' It won't save them, but they'll get 'fewer lashes' for all eternity. Christ is 'our little helper' in time of need, but never forget-you are your OWN captain." To some Christ would be at least their 2nd Lieutenant. I always thought that bumper sticker I see so often is one of the most blasphemous things anyone could ever think, let alone parade in public on their car bumpers: "God is my co-pilot" Yeah, right. That is if you "allow Him" I guess, the great high honor of being seated at your right hand. I wrote my own childish poem to personify the theologian's view of God:
You see, to the theological peanut galleries of the world, if God is responsible for everything in His creation, then He couldn't be justified in burning billions in eternal Hell fire! But if they can make man responsible, then it's his own doing. But for man to be responsible, God would have had to have given him much greater powers than even our Lord ever possessed. "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, The Son can not be doing anything of Himself ... " (John 5:19). Are we greater than our own Lord? Answer: " ... apart from Me you can do nothing." (Jn. 15:5). Well, there it is. God has given man no such powers. "It is not in man to direct his own steps" (Jer. 10:23). I know that this verse is shocking to contemplate. It is a real ego deflator. People do not want their self-esteem brought that low. They love to talk humble pie, but they won't eat it. If God tells us we can't even "direct our own steps," pray what can we do by ourselves? The true and Scriptural answer is just as shocking: " ... for apart from Me [Christ] you can do NOTHING" (John 15:5). I know this truth is too high for most. Most don't really meditate on such verses. They certainly would never preach a sermon on them. They wouldn't be able to take credit for their own salvation anymore (if they actually believed these Scriptures). They would be forced to get rid of all their self worth. They couldn't feel all puffed up like the King of Assyria if they acknowledged God's total Sovereignty in their lives. They don't have to believe it now. God isn't breaking anyone's arm to accept these thruths. But don't try to skillfully contradict these truths of the Scriptures, for that only makes you look silly. I'll let you in on a secret, Dr. Kennedy. It's not God that theologians are trying to protect from responsibility so much as it is their own ego. They will cling to freewill at the expense of "burning billions" in their eternal hell fire. If God is absolutely responsible for the salvation of all His creatures (and He absolutely is), then He is obligated to save them. He would have to save them. Their salvation would be assured. (Wouldn't that be a terrible thing for theologians and clergymen to contemplate?) In other words, since God is going to bring peace, happiness, and salvation to all of His creatures in Heaven and Earth, God is a real God. A God worthy of the name. A God to truly be GLORIFIED! Sadly, however, this is not the God of Christendom. This is not the God being presented to the nations. Instead they are presented with a god who is thwarted by the Adversary, thwarted by feeble demons, thwarted by self-appointed preachers and teachers, and ultimately, thwarted by most of his own children. And how does this god of Christendom respond to his failure in fulfilling the role of a true God? He TORTURES the vast majority of his creatures, without mercy, for ALL ETERNITY! And the "few" who were wise enough to get themselves saved from this eternal hellhole of sin, evil, and unspeakable torture, will supposedly worship this alien monster of a failed and foiled would-be god. This is not hyperbolic emotionalism; this is the ultimate goal of Christian theology; this is the "good news gospel" of Christendom. This, my friend, is sheer heresy, and this is how the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations today! Behind every relative truth there is an absolute truth. Because He is the Alpha and Omega, God knows the beginning from the end.. God is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). That's how God knows everything that is and will be. He makes (causes) everything to turn out the way He predetermined it must be. The Scriptures are full of statements and examples of how everything is operating according to God's predetermined intentions. Theologians just don't approve of it. They don't like it. They will allow for God to cause the sun to go up and go down every day, just as long as God hasn't determined when they get up and lie down every day. But, like it or not, God has determined not only when they get up and when they lie down, but also everything they will do in between. If the translators understood this grand truth they would never have dared to translate Rom. 8:26 as we find it in the Authorized Version. A proper translation of Rom. 8:26 is thus:
God has determined that even our prayers must be " ... to accord with WHAT MUST BE ... " "Accord" and "what must be" are in the original Greek manuscripts. God really did inspire Paul to write this Scripture. Our prayers must " ... accord with WHAT MUST BE ... " Rather than fight these grand declarations of God, we should glory in them and shout them from the rooftops:
GOOD AND EVIL God created good and evil (Isa. 45:7). That covers it all. God planted the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - not Satan. When God planted that tree He said everything (including this tree) was "good." People think that God never intended for man to eat of that tree. Of course He did. How else could man know "good?" He had to eat of that tree. "Good & Evil" are two separate things, but the "knowledge of good and evil" are not separate. One cannot have knowledge of good without knowledge of evil. It is impossible. And that's why they were both in the same tree. The same fruit. The first time I saw the truth of this verse, that both "good and evil" are in the same tree, I was shocked. I had never seen it before. Pastor Hagee said that it was God's intention that Adam and Eve walk with Him in the Garden and obey Him. So Adam apparently went against God's intention. Untrue and impossible. If true, then God made a mistake-He sinned! If true, then God doesn't "know all" - He lied! Then God had to go from plan "A" to plan "B." How absurd. Adam did not withstand God's intention. God did NOT make a mistake. God does not lie. God knows all. God did not go to plan B, but rather intended for Adam to sin. At this point in Adam's life, God made him a vessel of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). Religion and theologians have so clouded men's minds that many can't even think straight anymore. Most do not meditate at any length or depth on what they read in God's Word. If Adam and Eve had NOT eaten of the tree of the knowledge of "GOOD and evil," would they have had a realization that they had done a good thing by being obedient? No. They wouldn't. Why? Because they didn't have a knowledge of "good and evil." That knowledge is in the fruit of a tree that they wouldn't have eaten from. If Adam and Eve never obtained a "knowledge of GOOD and evil," how could they ever know ("knowledge") good? Since this tree contained not only the knowledge of evil, but of good also, why did God forbid them from eating it in the first place? Or, why didn't He plant another tree in the garden that contained ONLY the knowledge of "good?" Why not two trees: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good, and (2) the tree of the knowledge of evil. They could have eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good only, and rejected the tree of the knowledge of evil, and all of the suffering of the human race would have never came about, and we would all be living in a garden of happiness and bliss to this very day. Or would we? Why didn't God do it this way? Because God is intelligent and wise, not stupid and foolish like the people who come up with questions as these. God is good (Mark 10:18). God possesses a knowledge of "good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). God wants Sons (Eph. 1:5). Sons possess the attributes of their Father. There it is. One cannot know good without a knowledge of evil. That's why they are both in the same tree, in the same fruit. We cannot know one without a knowledge of the other. Eph. 2:10 says: "For His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works ... " What is an "achievement?" Webster's Dictionary says: "to do ... succeed ... accomplish ... to get ... to reach by trying hard ... gain ... victory ... by skill, work, courage, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary, p. 7. Do we think "achievement," "goodness," or "virtue," are things that fall out of the sky like rain, or grow wild on trees? Try to name ONE virtue that is not the direct result of overcoming some form of EVIL. If theologians insist that God never intended for man to sin or experience evil, then they are also saying, of necessity, that God never intended for man to have any virtue or to know good! Let's not delude ourselves. Under the same circumstances as Adam, I would have sinned, you would have sinned, everyone would have sinned. Yes, Adam and Eve "sinned" when they disobeyed and ate the fruit. But it was God who was behind it. He had already made provision for their salvation from sin. "The Lamb slain from the foundation [Gk: disruption] of the world" (Rev. 13:8). God wants sons. (Eph. 1:5). And God "designated us beforehand" for this purpose. God knows "good and evil" already (Gen. 3:22). Man has no knowledge apart from contrast. We can't know what light is unless we also know darkness. We can't appreciate health without having experienced sickness. And we cannot fully appreciate life without also experiencing death. And so God created all these in order to produce sons.
THE ORIGIN OF SATAN God did not sin when He created His own enemy-Satan. Satan was never "Lucifer." Note these verses: " ... from the beginning is the Adversary [Satan] sinning" (I Jn. 3:8). "I have created the waster to destroy" (Isa. 54:16). " ... His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (Job 26:13). "You are of your father, the Adversary (Satan) ... He was a mankiller [murderer] from the beginning ... " (Jn. 8:44). Isa. 14:12-15 and Ezek. 28:1-19 are often used in desperation to prove that Satan was once a good Angel who went bad. The Authorized Version does a poor job in translating these verses. Even so, both are accounts of men and both men DIE. Neither of these two princes ever was Satan. If Satan was a Archangel or Cherub who "went bad," and God didn't plan for that to happen, then God made a mistake and sinned. But God never sins. God never makes a mistake. Whether they are aware of it or not, theologians accuse God of sin every time they make something take God by surprise. The only way Satan, evil, and sin can be justified is if God brought these things into existence for a grand purpose and that they will be discarded when that purpose is accomplished. And that is exactly what the Scriptures say will happen. Look at this verse: "For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary" (I Jn. 3:8). Notice it doesn't say He will be "punishing" Satan's acts, but literally "annulling" them. And this is the same word used in Jn. 10:35 stating that the Scriptures cannot be "annulled." This is a powerful Scripture. But does even one in a hundred thousand believe it? God is not running a damage control center from Heaven. God was, is, and always will be in total control of His creation. And seriously, would we ever want it any other way? Notice Heb. 9:26--" ... yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." King James says: "put away." The Greek is athetesis [UN-PLACING]-- "repudiation!" The name "God" means "PLACER," and God is going to UN-PLACE SIN. Pretty powerful stuff, huh?
FREE WILL VS. GOD'S INTENTION Until we come to believe that God Almighty is sovereign and " ... is operating all according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11), we will never fully understand the Scriptures or appreciate the marvelous works of God. To say that man has a "free will" and absolutely nothing "causes" it to accept or reject God, and then say, "But God already knows who will and who won't and how many," is not only unscriptural, but defies all logic. To say, "But God knows all" will not solve your dilemma. Because if nothing causes man to choose as he does, then that knowledge does not even exist until the choice is actually made. Yet you yourself insist that one could have chosen good when he chose evil. If God does not cause people's choices, then even God would have to wait until the choice is actually made before knowing the choice. You might postulate that God sees and knows all things so God can deduce from "this event" or "that event" or "a condition over here" or "a circumstance over there" or "some other thing" that a man will make the choice that God knows he will make. Okay, I'll accept that. Only one problem for your position, however. If this is your reasoning, you just threw your own "free will" theory out the window. This is, in the main, how our choices actually work. Something over here or other there, this event or that event, a word spoken here or there, the condition of our stomach or the condition of our bank account, etc., are the very things that daily cause us to make the choices that we make. And God controls and operates all of these unseen, unknown circumstances that then "influence" (just a softer way of saying "cause") our every thought. But your position contradicts hundreds of plain declarations of Scripture. God does know all and God causes all. All is of God, and God is operating all according to the Counsel of His will. Besides, why is it then that none choose "good?" Why did our Lord say that even He could do nothing except by the Father? And didn't our Lord plainly state that we, of ourselves, can also do nothing? You know that verse is in the Bible. You know it is true. But it upsets theologians like you when people like me actually believe it. Your problem is not just one of logic, but of disbelief of the Scriptures. And "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." It is a sin to teach these unscriptural doctrines of men. And from what I see in the Scriptures, it is a vastly more destructive sin than those sins of the flesh that preachers on TBN love to epitomize as the greatest evils on planet Earth. Read Matthew 23 if you want to know which sins God considers most grievous. It's easy for clergymen to condemn parishioners for lusting after "wine, women, and song," but oh how careful the clergy are to disguise their own lusts for power, fame, fortune, recognition, status, and praise, just to name a few. God's "grace" is more than a pious sounding word. It is a great power. It is not by laws, the threat of punishment, or the wranglings of self-appointed preachers that men's lives are changed, but by the powerful, miracle-working, heart-changing grace of God. When will men start giving God the credit He is due in our lives? "Yet, in the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace, which is in me, did not come to be for naught, but more exceedingly than all of them toil I - yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me" (I Cor. 15:10). The great and marvelous works of Paul were certainly not of himself or by himself, but, rather, through him, by the grace of God. Dr. Kennedy, it's neither hard nor complicated to believe that all is of God. But it sure does burst the great balloon of human pride. You mean we have to rely on God for everything? Yes! Isn't that marvelous? You're a smart man, Dr. Kennedy, so use your brain and think these things through to a logical and just conclusion. But always think Scripturally. Theologians view the Scriptures in the same way little children view a marionette show. Like little children, they suppose that the marionettes are "truth." They suppose that what they see is the absolute truth. These marionettes really do walk and talk "by themselves;" they really do sing and dance "by themselves." Certainly to the immature and the uninitiated, they have that power within themselves. But, they haven't a clue as to what is happening behind the curtain. They haven't a clue as to how these little marionettes do what they do! They haven't even considered that there may be a higher power "operating" these marionettes. In this, theologians are like little children. Theologians don't want to know what's going on behind the curtain. They are perfectly happy in their ignorance. They are entertained by their own false delusions, and ever so proud of their independence from God! And why is it that little children are deceived by marionettes' lifelike behavior? Because the strings are very thin and the operators are hid behind the curtain. They can see them perform with their own eyes. They can hear them singing with their own ears. Surely that is proof enough for a little child. And what more proof do you have that humans "perform" independent from the One Who is operating all (Eph. 11:1)? None. God doesn't need thinner strings to fool us-God operates by Spirit. God doesn't need to hide behind a curtain-God is invisible (II Cor. 4:4). Just as surely as children are fooled into believing that marionettes perform by their own powers, theologians and the wise of this world are fooled into thinking that man too can operate, in and by himself, independently of his own Creator. Theologians teach this falsehood because they live by sight not by faith. Like little children, they don't perceive any strings nor the Operator, which are both invisible. So with them, as with children, they assume there are no operating forces in their lives-they are "free." Hence they refuse to believe even the Scriptural declarations that God is Operating all according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 11:1), and that apart from Christ they can do nothing (Jn 15:5). We are witnessing a worldwide Christian movement where the blind are leading the blind. They are like a Hollywood horror film where renegade marionettes band together and try to cut off the controlling strings, never to be operated against their wills by their Creator again. They want to have powers beyond what their Maker built into them. Everyone wants to be a Potter, when in reality, he is just a pot. "And now, Lord, Thou art our Father. And we are the clay. Thou art our Former, and the doing of Thy hand are we all" (Isa. 64:8). It is an interesting point that of all mankind, Adam only, was formed directly from clay. But the original Hebrew of Isa. 64:8 says that "we all" are "the doing of Thy hand." God didn't form mankind and then wind him up like a clock to proceed through life all on his own power. No. We "are," (present tense) "the doing of Thy hand." I know it's humbling, but then again, the Truth of God has that effect on those who believe His Word. If you think I'm crazy, then accuse God's Word of being crazy, because that's where I'm reading this from. Someone might retort: "Mr. Smith, are you saying that I can't even move my little finger unless it is God's intention that I do so?" That is exactly what I am saying. Because that is exactly what God is saying: " ... not far from each one of us is He [God] inherent, for in Him we are living and moving [our little finger] and are [exist] ... " (Acts 17:28). I'm sorry that there are people who are not happy with this arrangement; I am. It gives me confidence and hope to know that God is controlling everything to a perfect conclusion. Man only thinks he has independent free will from God, and look where this world is headed. Imagine the state of affairs if man actually did have free will. Free will or independence from our Creator God is just an illusion. It is, nonetheless, a marvelous illusion. The genius of God is overwhelming. It is this very illusion that enables mankind to actually believe he is the master of his own fate. And God helps bolster this illusion by actually giving men a certain amount of success in their quest for power, fame, and fortune. But just like the King of Assyria, Pharaoh, and others, all, one day, will realize and appreciate the fact that it was God " ... operating all ... " These inspired words of the Apostle Paul are so clear that one has to be downright stubborn as to the truth, not to believe them:
God said He raised Pharaoh up for the express purpose of displaying His power in him (Ver. 17). It is an historical and Scriptural fact that God did this to Pharaoh. Ver. 18 then states that, consequently then, God is either "merciful," or "hardens" anyone He wants to. And whosoever they are have nothing to say about God's doing so. Well, of course, if one is hostile against God and His word, his retort to this statement of Paul's would then be: "WHY, THEN, IS HE STILL BLAMING?" (Ver. 19) How can God hold people accountable for their sins when it was "He" [God] who brought about their condition? At least Paul's detractors had the sense to realize that if what Paul was saying is true, then they are solely at God's mercy (not their own ability) to ever change their condition, because their next statement is: " ... for who has WITHSTOOD HIS INTENTION?" (Ver. 19). God intends for men to go against His will (that's how men become lost so that God can then save them), but no one, absolutely NO ONE, has ever gone against God's INTENTION! Hey, don't get angry with me - I'm just quoting the Scriptures. Notice that Paul does not even deign to answer such carnal questioning of God's wisdom. His response is: "O MAN! WHO ARE YOU, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded WILL NOT protest to the molder, 'Why do YOU MAKE me thus? (Ver. 20). God is GOD, and He does what He pleases. God "pleases" to have many Sons. God "pleases" to save ALL humanity and ALL in the heavens (Eph. 11:10-11, Col. 1:20, I Cor. 15:22, 28). Who are we to question God's process? Since God is both loving and wise and also possesses all power, why should anyone question God's ability to accomplish His own Will? Theologians are audacious. They not only question God's ability to accomplish His own will; they flat out teach the whole world that the Great Creator God will NEVER accomplish His Own Will. Paul told Timothy:
Theologians the world over say: "IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!" They try to make God out a liar. They are the liars, deceivers, hypocrites, and blasphemers! One thing is certain; God's greatest enemies are not qualified to be great teachers of His Word. Maybe it's time we pulled back the curtain of tradition, ignorance, and immaturity and acknowledge Who is really "pulling the strings" of the universe. But wait. I think I hear the Theological Peanut Gallery objecting already: "Are you saying that people are mere 'marionettes'?" Or "robots?" No. But what if there are certain similarities between robots and humans? Is that a "sin" on God's part? Certainly the human brain is many times more complex than all the computers in the world, but nonetheless, the human is still not independent of God. I understand these things, but I don't go around all day feeling like a mechanical robot. We are highly complex creatures, with powerful emotions, brain power, and physical dexterity. For all these I thank God. Every day we go places, do things, feel things, and make hundreds of choices. And God is not going to force you, against your will, to eat cherry pie for desert at lunch when what you are really craving is apple pie. But, nonetheless, it is God's operation of circumstances that will cause you to desire and choose the apple pie. Lest you think God is not concerned with tiny details, remember the story of the war that was lost because one nail came out of a horse's hoof. Don't think that this is Eastern Fatalism. This is not "blind chance" or "whatever will be, will be." This is perfect foreknowledge and design of the Great Creator God Who is "operating all according to the counsel of His will." It doesn't just happen. There is perfect design behind all that God does. This is not fatalism. God causes it all. RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone. A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was." And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20) Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance: "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28) "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48) "How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34) "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13) Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers: " ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27). Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3) This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true. So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:
One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature. Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute." Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute." Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk? Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction. Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God. Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God. Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't. THEOLOGY OF EINSTEIN Permit me to interject a little justifiable sarcasm, Dr. Kennedy. Dr. Einstein was recently named "The Person of the Century." Dr. Einstein studied the physical universe by means of laws (cause and effect), and attempted to explain these laws by mathematical equations. Never, to my knowledge, did Dr. Einstein ever discover something happening (an effect) in the universe that he was convinced HAD NO CAUSE (as in your human "free will")! If you could prove that human will, thoughts, desires, and actions are "free," that is, NOT caused or made to transpire, (thus contradicting physical science and the laws of the universe), you might well be in line for "Person of the Twenty First Century." Dr. Einstein was a better theologian than most who sport the title. According to Christian teaching, man has a "free will." Some people are good; others are bad. A few will be saved; most will be damned. Some start off good in life and turn bad. Others start off bad in life and turn to do good. It's a "chancy" thing. God does NOT (according to this theology) guide, control, or bring about a happy ending for all His creatures. It is, admittedly, a thing of chance. And we are plainly told by Christian teachers that everyone gets only ONE CHANCE! This Christian teaching sounds more chancy than the tables in Las Vegas. But here's my punch line. Here's where Dr. Einstein outshines the masters of theology. After a lifetime of studying the marvelous workings of the universe on a level most of us can't even imagine, Dr. Einstein said something more profound than a thousand volumes by theologians. Dr. Einstein said: "GOD IS NOT PLAYING DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE!" Almighty God is NOT going to "win some; lose some." God is NOT gambling with the eternal fate of humanity. God is NOT a God of chance. God will surely succeed.
Theologians condemn evolutionists for their inability to tie creation to a Creator. Yet theologians become practical "theistic evolutionists" by tracing human thoughts back to man's "free will" and not to God's causal force. Hypocrites! It's one or the other. There is no third alternative. Either the great almighty God is in control of everything, or He is out of control. THE KING OF ASSYRIA If by "free" we mean, "exempt from causality" then there is no such thing in the universe. If man has even a small sovereignty then God is not Sovereign. If man can thwart God's will by rejecting salvation, then God is not Sovereign (because God wills all to be saved). God has so constituted man that man thinks he is independent of God. But all the Scriptures prove that man does not have "free will." Man has a "will," but it is not free from causality. The will is caused to will what it wills by God. "For it is God Who is operating in you TO WILL as well as to work ... " (Phil. 2:13). The king of Assyria was as proud of his "free will" as theologians are of theirs:
And what does God have to say concerning this King of Assyria's self-appointed proud "free will" heart?
God says He used the Assyrian King just as surely as if the King were an axe in God's own hand. This was all of God. But the King, he didn't think so. That's not what was in his mind. Ver. 5 is so clear and so simple to understand: "Oh Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation." It wouldn't matter if there were a place in Scripture that lumped altogether every single concept of man's choices, powers, abilities, authority, talents, intentions, desires, wishes, plans, sayings and doings into one single verse; it still wouldn't prove that man has a "free will." Why? Because God claims to operate it all (Eph. 11:1). Surely you can see from Isaiah 10 that that is how God operates. If one refuses to see this, then he is stubborn as to the truth. The king of Assyria did say, in effect, that by himself, he planned and carried out his own choices according to what his heart desired. But GOD says that He Himself did it. God planned it and God carried it out. And furthermore, God punished the king for being so proud and haughty as to think he did it himself. He actually did what God caused him to do. This was not wrong on God's part. It will be good for the king of Assyria to understand this in resurrection. He will be embarrassed by his own vanity and will give glory to God (Phil. 2:11). Dr. Kennedy, give glory to God. Africa will be found of God even though they are not seeking God (Rom. 10:21). How could anyone doubt that God is telling us the truth in these Scriptures? Rather than assigning the Africans and nonbelievers to an eternal Hell fire, wouldn't it be better to tell them the truth of the Scriptures and give their people hope? There is one last question from the Theological Peanut Gallery: "Well, Mr. Smith, if God is behind all the circumstances that cause men to sin, why does He blame us?" Don't say "If God ... " say "Since God ... " I'll let Paul answer: "Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening. You will be protesting to me, then, 'Why, then, is He still blaming? for who has withstood His intention?' O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, 'Why do you make me thus?'" (Rom. 9:18-20). What do you have to say to this? God makes vessels of honor and He makes vessels of dishonor. Do you deny this? God is merciful to whom He wishes to be merciful and hardens those whom He does not wish to bless at this time. Do you deny this? If this is God's intention to do these things, who can ever "withstand His intention?" Paul uses extremely strong language when he says: "O man! Who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, 'Why do you make me thus?'" (Rom. 9:18-20). The reason that Christendom as a whole does not teach these plain declarations of Scripture is not because they never read these things, but because they don't APPROVE of God's operations! But just because most of mankind doesn't know God's operations, or doesn't believe God's operations, or doesn't approve of God's operations, it doesn't mean God isn't operating. And I assure you that God Almighty is not on trial before the ethical bar of men. It is God's will that "all be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "His will be done." But before God's will is done He has set man against His will. During this time of human stubbornness God is working out His plan according to His intention. And no one, absolutely no one has ever withstood or gone against God's "intention." King James has: " ... For who hath resisted his will?" The Greek word for "will" is thelo [decision, choice, or purpose]. But the Greek word in Rom. 9:19 is not thelo, but boulema [COUNSEL-effect]. "God is operating all according to the counsel [Gk:boule] of His will. No one has withstood this COUNSEL-effect, for sure. These two words are different and the Scriptures admonishes us to " ... be testing what things are of consequence [Gk: distinguish between things that 'differ']" (Phil. 1:10). Dr. Kennedy, I'm going to share with you the three most important things I have ever learned. These things revitalized the Scriptures for me and have revolutionized my attitude toward God, my fellow man, and life in general.
GOD CREATES AND USES EVIL FOR GOOD Far too many theologians misrepresent the Word of God, and therefore pervert it to suit their unscriptural biases. I have heard of theologians who graduated from seminary and still did not know that God says in Isaiah 45:7: "I ... create EVIL." And most who have read it, don't believe it. Evil has no moral bias. God does not sin when He uses evil for His good purposes. Men sin when they do evil to other men. Evil [Heb. ha' = TO SMASH] is only a "sin" when it is used wrongly. God uses evil for good. The glorious culmination of God's plan will justify His use of evil a trillion times to the power of infinity! Notice how often God uses evil in the Scriptures:
Scripture proves that God not only created evil, but that He, Himself, is responsible for it. Maybe these aren't Sunday School verses, but they are Scripture. These are strong verses. At times it is hard to emotionally deal with the evils of this world. But I thank God that it is HE and not Satan or man who controls evil. It is important to understand that God puts limitations on evil. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. Jeremiah 18:11 says: " ... I frame evil against you ... " This verse alone shows the boundaries and limitations that God Himself puts on evil.
GOD IS NOT EVIL It is paramount that we clearly understand one thing in God's creation and use of evil, lest my detractors accuse me of saying that, God is evil. James 1:13 say, "Let no one, undergoing trial be saying that 'From God am I undergoing trial,' for God is not tried by evils, yet He is trying NO ONE." But, God has so constituted man to be (naturally) spiritually weak. "For the disposition [Gk. phronema, results of one's inclinations, of the flesh], is death, yet the disposition of the spirit is life and peace, because the disposition of the flesh is enmity [the bitter feeling that enemies have; HATRED], to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it ABLE" (Rom. 8:7). Without God, His Spirit and His Love, this is the disposition of all flesh (mankind, humanity). The Scriptures say that: "All is of God ... " (II Cor. 5:18), yet we just read that God " ... is trying no one." That is, God Himself, is not trying or testing us to see how well we fare. He already knows the verdict. He already knows, that we don't "fare" well at all. God knows all (I John 3:21). The reason God doesn't, Himself, try anyone is because He doesn't need to try anyone for His benefit-He already knows all. Notice Webster's Dictionary: "trial, 1. the act of hearing a case in a law court to DECIDE WHETHER the claim or charge is true." Surely, no one is so audacious as to think God needs evidence in a trial to determine the truth. God sends the trials, but God does not do the trying-He already knows the outcome-but man doesn't. Man desperately needs trials to prove to himself (not God), that he is a failure and needs a Saviour. The trials are for our benefit, for our learning, not for God's benefit and God's learning - God knows all. We can accomplish no good of ourselves. What we are to learn is contained in the next passage: "Be not deceived [but of course, most people are deceived], my beloved brethren! ALL GOOD giving and EVERY perfect gratuity is from above, descending from the FATHER of lights ... " (Jas. 1:16). That is the lesson we, not God, are to learn and our trials are a great aid in understanding God's goodness. Again, consider Joseph and his brothers. Joseph told his brothers: "Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither ... " (Gen. 45:4). What? Don't be "grieved," or "angry with yourselves," for committing such atrocious sins, crimes, and evils? This was certainly a severe trial on Joseph and his brothers. God brought it about, not so He could see how they would handle this trial-God already knew that. That's why God, Himself, "tries no one". "For GOD did SEND ME before you to PRESERVE LIFE" (same verse). Not so that God would learn something He didn't already know. How silly. It was ALL of God, and the end more than justified the means. Why do men doubt God's ability to bring about good from evil, and to save all mankind in the only way they could ever really appreciate God's love and goodness? Even that greatest of evils, death, will be "Swallowed up by Victory" (I Cor. 15:54). "For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ shall ALL be vivified" (I Cor. 15:22). What was God's purpose in bringing this severe trial on Joseph and his brothers?
God's plan is all about "life." God creates life. God chastises us in life. God makes life miserable at times. We are often weak and diseased in life. Even still, we love our own lives. But ultimately, God takes away our lives. Our parents die, our friends and relatives die. We know for certain that we, ourselves, will die. Without faith, it is a frightening expectation. But, we will all be beside ourselves with joy when God finally gives back our lives with immortality-never to suffer, sorrow, or hurt again. We simply need to trust God. We'll all be so glad we took the journey at journey's end. So, no, God is not evil, but God has determined and declared that we all must experience a certain amount of evil in this life. I hear so many ministers on TBN telling their congregations that if they are having any problem or trials in life, they must be sinning and therefore are not receiving the blessings God wants for them. There is often a heavy guilt trip laid on them. They guarantee a three-way solution to overcome this, or seven steps to chase off the devil, or five rules for something else, or 10 keys to solving the other thing. The idea is that if everyone obeyed God properly, none of these trials and problems would ever enter their lives. Nonetheless, God is still going to scourge every son whom He receives. What they should do is read Heb. 12:5-6: "And you have been oblivious of the entreaty which is arguing with you as with sons: My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord, Nor yet faint when being exposed by Him. For whom the Lord is loving He is disciplining, Yet He is SCOURGING [intensely prick, whip or flog, cause great pain or suffering] every son to whom He is assenting." I am aware of the extreme degrees of evil God uses at times. But God knows what is best for humanity. And really, when we come right down to it, most men do not suffer more than a few hours, or days, or years, in the extreme. But even then, there are pain killers, and other comforts. Certainly it does not deserve to be compared with the end result that God has in store for all His Creatures. Our Apostle said that the glories that are to be revealed to us are so great he calls them "a burden!" Imagine having so much happiness it almost becomes a burden. Was Paul unacquainted with evil? I think not. Note: "In weariness more exceedingly, in jails more exceedingly, in blows inordinately, in deaths often. By Jews five times I got forty save one. Thrice am I flogged with rods, once am I stoned, thrice am I shipwrecked, a night and a day have I spent in a swamp, in journeys often, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers of my race, in dangers of the nations, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers in the sea, in dangers among false brethren; in toil and labor, in vigils often, in famines and thirst, in fasts often, in cold and nakedness ... " This is not to mention all the daily problems of the churches (II Cor. 11:23-28). And Paul was well aware that it was GOD Who brought all these evils upon him, even though God may have used intermediaries (II Cor. 12:7, Acts 9:16, II Tim. 2:9). All these evils, and yet, Paul's ministry was beyond reproach.
GOD AND PROVIDENCE Even if one denies these truths of Scripture, they still have to deal with providence. Recently fifteen people died in a Colorado school. That's tragic. But a week later fifty people died from tornadoes. That too was tragic. Recently, over 10,000 died in a Turkey earthquake. Next, thousands perished in an earthquake in Taiwan, with still more thousands buried alive. Not that long ago, 600,000 perished in a typhoon in Bangladesh. The disease that followed may have raised the toll to one million. One may suppose God's eyes were closed during the Colorado school shooting. But who would deny that God controls the forces of nature and the weather? Look at what we call "nature." Nature is filled with evil. In nature almost everything eats another thing for lunch. Lions eat deer. Foxes eat rabbits. Big fish eat little fish. All creatures engage in a lifetime vigil for their own preservation. The sun gives warmth and life, but also causes skin cancer. The air gives life-sustaining oxygen, but in swift motion becomes deadly tornadoes and hurricanes. Water gives life and enjoyment. But water in swift motion kills everything in its path. The seas furnish us with food. But her waves and icebergs have claimed countless victims. If you don't think the sea is evil, watch Titanic. Fire warms, yet when out of control, it destroys. After hurricane Andrew struck South Florida, I went a few miles south to help a friend in need. The area looked as if a hydrogen bomb had flattened it. These powers are all of God. I am acquainted with evil, Dr. Kennedy. My seven year old son, Blake, was bitten by a mosquito and contracted encephalitis. He became comatose. I will never forget the anguish I felt when signing the papers authorizing doctors to remove him from life-support But I will not protect God from any responsibility for evil. God Almighty is the Creator of evil (Isa. 45:7). God created mosquitoes that carry encephalitis that killed my son. I can't deny that. The encephalitis was only the "relative" cause of my son's death. I don't flinch at the fact that it was God who really took my son. But here's the good news. God knows how painful are these evils that He created. It was no sin on His part to create and use these evils. God uses evil for good. And furthermore, the evils are only temporary. The time is coming when " ... there shall be no more any doom ... " (Rev. 22:3). And God will resurrect my dead son. He will resurrect all the dead (Job 14:13-14). And notice please. God doesn't just resurrect dead "bodies," but dead "people." When God removes all evil, no one will be sad or suffer again. "And He will be brushing away every tear from their eyes. And death will be no more, nor mourning, nor clamor, nor misery; they will be no more, for the former things PASSED AWAY" (Rev. 21:4)! This is the good news that ought to be taught, rather than the contradictory and unscriptural nonsense taught by mass media Christianity. What astonishes me is that the same theologians who balk at the many Scriptures I just quoted, then turn around and teach that this same God will mercilessly torture most of humanity for eternity. And He supposedly supernaturally keeps them alive so that they can't escape the pain. Hypocrites! I can't imagine how such minds function. Think about this. Lesser, temporary evils, (brought for a GRAND purpose) are rejected, while gross eternal torturing (for no purpose) is accepted. Here is the depth of Satanic delusion. CONCLUSION How much more comforting it is to believe the Scriptures. God created evil and uses it for a good purpose. Evil's existence is only temporary (like the scaffolding on a new building). When the building is completed, the ugly scaffolding is removed-it serves no further function to the finished building. Only a knowledge of evil, not evil itself, has eternal value. How awful to think that God did not foresee the coming of evil, can't justify its existence, can't dispose of it, can't save most of humanity because of it. There is no justification for, nor redeeming value in, eternal torture. None. God is Wise. God wants Sons who will know both "good and evil." God's "end" more than justifies His "means." As Paul said: "For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory ... " (II Cor. 4:17). Concordant Literal New Testament. If you do not have a copy of The Concordant Literal New Testament, I would recommend that you get one. The Hebrew Old Testament is not under one cover as yet, but most of the books are available in paperback. The Concordant Publishing Concern in California has been working on this translation for nearly 100 years. The Greek N.T. was completed back in 1926. When you understand how they translated it, you will see that it is by far the most accurate and consistent translation of the Scriptures in print. You can get a copy through Bible Materials Unlimited 6201 29 Ave. North, St. Petersburg, Fl. 33710-3207. You might also request an eight-tape series entitled: Human Choices and the Deity of God by James Coram (the most comprehensive material on "free will" I've ever seen). My good friend, Jeff Priddy, recently released two eight-tape series that are also excellent: The Sin Series and The Sovereignty Series. You can write: IBI Publishing, 3321 Rome-Greenwich Rd., Greenwich, OH 44837. He'll be happy to send them to you. Of necessity, this letter needed to be critical in some areas. This has not been an attack on your character. I'm sending this letter to a number of people including Paul Crouch, because their doctrines are mostly the same, and I can not write at length to each one individually. A wise man once said to me: "The hardest thing you will ever do is to admit that you are wrong." Experience has proven true his observation many times. Sir Winston Churchill is reported to have said: "Sometimes in the course of history some men occasionally stumble onto the truth. Most, however, are able to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and be on their way again just as if nothing ever happened." This could possibly be one of the most important days of your life, Dr. Kennedy. Don't just "dust off" this letter. If I can be of service or if you have any questions, feel free to call or write any time. I want you to see what you are doing, Dr. Kennedy. Since you have already concluded that God is not going to save all of the Africans and Gentiles, you devise an analogy to get God off of the hook of responsibility for their salvation. I believe that maybe even you have trouble believing and justifying God in torturing most of humanity for all eternity. But, unwilling to believe God's Scriptural declarations concerning the salvation of all, you find it necessary to lower God to the level of carnal, sinful, hospital workers by analogy. Maybe in a cleverly disguised human analogy there is justification in not being accountable for failing to come to the rescue of a fellow human being. But no, you would lower God even beneath the character of sinful medics. We have already seen that hospital medics (or for that matter, policemen, firemen, or even private citizens), are ready and willing, at a moment's notice, to not only come to the aid of a dying man, but to jeopardize life and limb if necessary to rescue a fellow human being in need of saving. But here is where your analogy turns from simple error to an insult on God character. The medics would do everything within their power to save the dying man, while your god does nothing! If notified in time, the medics' immediate response would produce success, while your god's apathy produces failure! Eternal failure! God is not a human. God is GOD! Why analogously dethrone and reduce Him to a mere human with human faults, weaknesses, and failings? Surely, your theology does not glorify Almighty God and makes Christ's supreme sacrifice of no effect for most of history's humanity. Our Apostle Paul gave instructions to "Herald the word. Stand by it, opportunely, inopportunely, expose, rebuke, entreat, will all patience and teaching" (II Tim. 4:2). There's forty-four pages of "exposure". Now here's the "rebuke". It is wrong, unscriptural, and ungodly for you to teach on national and international television such evil and demeaning heresies about God, The Creator and Saviour of ALL mankind (I Tim. 4:10). I think that God is not pleased with your rendition of His complete and perfect plan for the salvation of all. Your teaching comes frighteningly close to blasphemy! And here's the "entreaty". It is evident from your sermon that there are Scriptures of paramount importance that you either fail to understand or acknowledge. Of course you understand that I am referring to the Greek and Hebrew SCRIPTURES - not the King James revision of some Latin Bible. Not that the Authorized Version is not a great work, but nonetheless, there are not a few gross errors in critical areas as I have outlined. Study these marvelous truths. Check the original Hebrew and Greek to verify the validity of what I have humbly tried to present in this letter. The truth concerning the "aions," for example, is one of the simplest truths in all the Bible to prove and understand. That Christ really is "the Saviour of the whole world," is, likewise, simple to prove and understand. And what marvelous truths these are! God really is a God worthy of the name! Christ Jesus really is THE SAVIOUR OF THE WHOLE WORLD! How could anyone ever have a doubt that He would succeed? How dare a mortal even entertain, let alone teach, the Satanic idea that God ALMIGHTY will fail or fall short of completely and perfectly fulfilling HIS OWN WILL? Who would deny that God Almighty has a heartfelt will? Who would deny that His will involves the salvation of all mankind (I Tim. 2:4)? Who would deny that God is operating all in accord with His own will (Eph. 1:11)? Who would dare call into question God's declaration that: "ALL My counsel shall be confirmed, And ALL my desire WILL I DO" (Isa. 46:10)? "Falling short" is a definition of "sin" (Rom. 3:23). Are there mortals audacious enough to insinuate that God Almighty is going to "fall short" of His Own Will and thus become a "SINNING God"? Teach "THE WORD," Dr. Kennedy-not the unscriptural theological nonsense of depraved men! Sincerely, L. Ray Smith
[Letter to John Hagee]
Dear Mr. Hagee: Mr. Hagee, my name is Ray Smith, and I live in Miami, Florida. While browsing the channels, I happened onto your Jerusalem broadcast on TBN. Shortly thereafter I heard your sermon on "Hell." I have never written to a TV minister before and wouldn't have now, except for a few things I couldn't let pass without some comment. In Jerusalem you said God inspired His Word in the Greek language because, "Greek is the most exact language on the face of the earth!" Therein lies the difficulty with your sermons. God's Word does not contradict. It makes sense in the words God chose. Christ warns against "adding to" or "taking away from" this Word (Rev. 22:18-19). When teaching God's Word we are to rightly divide (or cut) His Word (II Tim. 2:15-18). We are to " ... distinguish the things that differ" (Phil. 1:10). We are to have a pattern of sound words (II Tim. 1:13-14). In addition to these we are to shun the traditions of men (Col. 2:8) and the wisdom of this world (I Cor. 1:20 & 3:19). It is a rare teacher who actually does these things. What prompted this letter was your statement that: "Greek is the most exact language on the face of the earth," followed by the statement that Christ is going to reign "for ever and for ever and for ever ... " In the English, this statement is contradictory and redundant, and in the Greek it has no equivalent. If "for ever" means "always" or "eternity," what pray does "and for ever" mean? Is that something like whiter than white? It is not I who find fault with that statement, but God. Your statement is both untrue and unscriptural. If your statement that Christ will reign "for ever and for ever and for ever ... " were confined to Christ's reigning only, it would not be as harmful as when applied to other false doctrines that are taught to last "for ever and for ever and for ever." Specifically, I make reference to your teaching on "hell" (Gk. hades-the unseen or imperceptible) which you teach is a place of eternal torment.
EONS OR FOREVER The King James does say in Rev. 11:15 that Christ will reign "for ever and ever." However, when you add the 3rd "and for ever," it becomes unscriptural. Furthermore, as the Authorized Version of Rev. 11:15 is an unfortunate and misleading translation, the phrase "for ever and ever" is also unscriptural. Remember, Greek is a very exact language, but King James is a very inexact translation. Here's what God's "exact" Word says regarding this matter. It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning. First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive case. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. This is a big difference. Secondly, the Greek word "aion" does not mean "for ever" or "eternal" or "everlasting" or any other word which denotes "endless time." Strong's Lexicon says one thing yet shows another (see enclosure from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). Dr. Strong's Concordance contradicts his own definition. I proved that conclusively by showing how he defined "aion" under two different headings. Thirdly, in Rev. 11:15, "aion" is in the plural, "aions." Now if you insist that "aion" means "for ever" or "eternal," how is it possible to have a plurality of "eternities?" Let me suggest, Mr. Hagee, that that question mark is larger than it appears on this page. This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal." "Eon" is the closest English equivalent to the Greek word "aion." Age is close, but has no adjective form, as eon does (eonian). In the following pages, I will prove conclusively that "aion" is a long period of time, with a beginning and an end, similar to an "age." And, that it never denotes "for ever" or "eternity." The Greek Scriptures tell us that Christ will reign "for the eons of the eons" or "the ages of the ages." Not "for the eons of the eons of the eons" as your statement suggests. "For the eons of the eons" makes simple and exact sense, and is in harmony with other Scriptures. "For ever and ever" contradicts dozens of other Scriptures, as we will see. The truth is, "for ever and ever" is a contradiction by itself. Both language and logic forbid duplication of anything infinite. There is no such thing as "several eternities" or "multiple for evers" or "numerous everlastings." In Rev. 11:15 both "eons" are in the PLURAL. So if someone insists that an "aion" means "for ever" or "eternity," then "aions" would be "for evers" or "eternities." Hence it would have to be translated "for evers of evers" or "for eternities of eternities." What sense is there in such contradictory phrases? And notice please, the Greek is "aions of the aions" not "aions after the aions" or "aions upon the aions." Could it be that there is an "exactness" and purity here that the clergy are failing to teach? So how are we to understand the Scripture that says Christ will "reign for the eons of the eons?" It's quite simple. Christ "reigns for the eons of the eons" because He reigns for only two eons out of all the other eons. He will reign for the next two eons. That is, He will reign for the thousand years (the next eon) and He reigns during the New Heaven and the New Earth, the eon after that. Christ reigns over these two eons because Rev. 15:3 plainly tells us that He is "King of the eons." Except the King James Version, that is. The King James has it "King of saints." The "exact" Greek word in this verse is "eons," not "saints" or "nations." The Greek word for "saints" is agion not aions. I will prove that both of these eons, over which Christ will reign, have beginnings and have ends, which excludes any possibility that they last "for ever." See its simplicity: There was a time before God made any eons (I Cor. 2:7). Then God made the eons (Heb. 1:2). There were eons in the past (Col 1:26). We are living in this present wicked eon (Gal. 1:4). Satan is the god of this eon (II Cor. 4:4). Christ, not Satan, will reign a thousand years in the next eon (Lk 1:33). The thousand years will come to an end (Rev. 20:3). Christ will reign in the eon that follows the thousand years (Rev. 22:5 and Lk. 1:33). Hence, He reigns for the "eons" (the next two) "of the eons" (all others). Then the last eon comes to an end (I Cor. 10:11). Christ ceases to reign after the eons come to an end (I Cor. 15:24:28) because He turns over the Kingdom to God His Father and God becomes "all in all." The eons end, but that which is of the Kingdom continues (Lk 1:33 & Isa. 9:7). We all continue "living" after the eons because, just like God, we will then all have been given immortality. The genitive "eons of the eons" has exact parallels in Scripture. Students of Scripture are familiar with the "holy place," and the "holy of holies." In the best manuscript (corrected Sinaiticus), we read of "the holies of holies" in Heb. 9:25. In Israel the tabernacle was holy, the court was holy, and the camp of Israel was holy. The "holies of holies" is not a countless succession of holies. This form of speech doesn't multiple holy places upon holy places. The holies of holies are confined to just two holy places in the tabernacle as related to the court and the camp which were also considered holy. There is a remarkable correspondence with the eons (or eonian times) and the divisions of the tabernacle. We know of five eons. The first eon is "outside the camp" (before the disruption of the world, Gen. 1:2). The second is "the camp" (from Adam to Noah). The third is "the court" (this present evil eon-the one in which our Lord was crucified, represented by the altar in the court). The fourth is "the holy place" (holy because Christ will rule in the next eon, not Satan). The fifth is the "holy of the holies" (because God Himself will dwell with man in New Heaven and New Earth (Rev. 21:1-3). And, of course, these last two eons are the two eons in which Christ reigns. Hence, they are called the "eons of the eons" (contrasting them with all other eons) in the same way that the tabernacle contained the "holies of holies," (contrasting them with all other holy places). But Mr. Hagee, we insult Christ to contend that He reigns for ever. If that were true, then He would never accomplish His mission of " ... placing all His enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 15:25). That's why the Scriptures plainly tell us that He reigns until that is accomplished. There is not one word in either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures that can be properly translated "forever" or "eternity," or any other word meaning "endless" time. Some might suggest that a verse such as Rom. 16:26-- " ... the everlasting [Greek: 'aionian'] God" proves that aionian is eternal. It does not. Paul isn't trying to tell us here that God lives "for ever." The Scriptures have long ago told us that God's life has no end (Psalm 102:27). Paul is telling us that God is not off in a corner somewhere unconcerned with mankind, but that He is " ... the eonian God." That is, He is God of the eons in which we live (Rev. 15:8). This does not say God ceases to exist at the end of the eons any more than Christ ceases to exist after He is no longer "King of the eons (Rev. 5:3)." When there are no more eons, Christ ceases to be the King of the eons (I Cor. 15:24). He certainly doesn't cease to exist. When the eons end (and they all will), then God will be the same God He has always been. It's just that there will be no more eons or ages. Consider: the Scriptures tell us that God is "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Would we deduce from this that God is not the God of Noah, King David, the Apostles, or even you or me? It is silly to suggest that a simple statement of fact limits either God or Christ to that fact.
Does this prove that Christ lives in no one else?
So when this person eventually died, did God then die?
Would anyone suggest that at the end of the thousand years the subjects of this prophecy all died? "Immortality" likewise does not mean by definition, "eternity." The Greek word is athanasa and means UN-DEATH (or deathlessness). Of course, contrary to popular Christian teaching, "He is King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality ... " (I Tim. 6:16). We must be given immortality (I Cor. 15:53-54). Believers are promised "eonian life" so they are given "immortality," which sees them through and beyond eonian life. Unbelievers are NOT given "eonian life" or "immortality" at the same time we are given it. Hence they can die in the second death. However, after the eons end, they too, (all unsaved from Adam on) are "vivified" [Greek: zoopoieo] (LIVE-DO)--given life beyond the reach of death. This confers immortality (Jn 5:21-22, Rom. 4:17, I Tim. 6:13). Read I Cor. 15:22-28. "For even as in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all (this is the same "all" used both times) be vivified." There is a "class" or "order" to the vivification of all. First Christ, Second those who are Christ's in His presence, Third the consummation. Christ reigns only until He nullifies all sovereignty and all authority and power, and has placed all enemies under His feet. The last enemy being abolished is death. Then Christ Himself gives up the kingdom to His Father and becomes subject to His Father and God becomes " ... All in All." "That God may be all in all." Now there's a verse I haven't heard a sermon on lately. Did I say, lately? Mr. Hagee I am 59 years old and I have never heard a sermon on this verse. This is probably the most glorious, all-encompassing verse in the Bible, and I have never heard a sermon on it. Could it be because this verse doesn't fit into the doctrines of Christendom? Many Christians don't want God to be "all in all." They don't approve of it. They want God to be "all in them" or "all in a few," but certainly not "all in all." It's just like most other basic truths of Scripture: they don't fit into Christian theology. Take, for example, "resurrection" and "immortality." If one were to cut these two doctrines from the Bible, it wouldn't affect Christian theology one iota. For they teach that, when a believer dies, he doesn't need to be resurrected from the dead or receive immortality (though Paul told us we do). According to Christian clergy, when a believer dies he already has an immortal soul, so he bypasses resurrection and immortality, and takes a short cut directly to heaven. However, "death" is an enemy, and without resurrection the dead could never live again. And without immortality the resurrected would only live a short time and die again (as the resurrected Lazarus of John 11). The doctrine of immortality is essential. We "live" during the eons not because God promised us "eternal life," but because He gives us "immortality." That's how we live during the eons and after the eons. Those made immortal are never again subject to death. Isaiah 9:7 tells us: "To the increase of the chieftainship, And to the welfare shall be no end." "No end" is properly translated. It would not be correct to translate this verse "for ever," "everlasting," or "eternally." When "endlessness" is meant in Scripture, it is expressed with the negative "no" seeing that there is no one word in the Scriptures that means "endless time." Another verse that could be confusing in the Authorized Version is Isa. 57:15 translated thus: " ... and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity ... " This is a bad translation. "Inhabiteth" should be "lodges" or "tabernacles." "Eternity" should be "future." The Hebrew language had no word to correspond with the word "eternity." Obviously, the Satanic teaching that God Almighty (full of mercy, love and grace) will torture anyone endlessly (let alone the vast majority of humanity), is nowhere taught or even hinted at anywhere in Scripture. I am not just saying that, in my opinion, "aion" should not be translated "eternal." I am saying "aion" cannot be translated "eternal"! One cannot translate the Hebrew word for "white" [laban], or the Greek word for "white" [leukos] into the English word "black." It defies all laws of language and logic. A word that means an "age" or "eon" (one as short as just one thousand years-the next eon) cannot possibly also mean "eternity." Suppose you were to read a book translated from Greek to English about a boy who had a pet elephant that he kept in his pocket. You would immediately know that something must have been lost in the translation. An elephant won't fit in a boy's pocket, it's not possible. Now suppose you check the original Greek version of this book and you find that the Greek word translated "elephant" is really the Greek word for "mouse." Problem solved! And just as an elephant won't fit into a boy's pocket, neither will "eternity" fit into an eon (or age). An elephant may be only a thousand times bigger than a mouse, but eternity is infinitely bigger than an eon! Furthermore, by definition "mouse" doesn't mean "elephant;" and neither does "eon" mean "eternity." It's just not that complicated or difficult. A child can understand it. The Scriptures speak of five different "eons" that God makes (Heb. 1:2) of different lengths, for different purposes (Eph. 3:11) in His dealings with mankind. I prepared a chart below to show key verses on the aions. The Greek word "aion" is here translated properly and consistently by two different translations. Notice carefully the categories these verses fall into: BEFORE, MAKES, PAST, PRESENT, END, NEXT, FUTURE, CONTRASTING, AND ENDS. It is not possible to use any one of these words in conjunction with any word meaning "endless time" or "eternity."
Now try substituting the words "eternity," "forever," or "everlasting" in place of eon or age and see what happens: "before the eternities," "the present wicked eternity," "the conclusion of the everlasting," "the oncoming forevers," "the eternity of the eternities," "the consummation of the forevers." Interestingly, my computer spell-checker just told me that "eternities" and "forevers" are not in its memory and suggested "eternity" or "forever." No, I spelled them correctly, it's just that my computer knows there are no such things as "eternities" or "forevers" even if theologians and translators insist that there are. Translators have rendered this word "aion" any way they wanted. In doing this, they have forced their preconceived doctrines into the Bible. You think I'm kidding? I am not. Only a few translations render "aion" consistently. These translations are not popular, however, because they are not endorsed by mainstream clergy. Most people have never even seen these translations. What they do see are the numerous popular translations that promote error upon error. I prepared a chart of popular translations showing the extreme measures taken to pervert this simple Greek word, "aion."
" ... the eternities of the eternities ... " Now there's a strange rendering. I nonetheless give the translator credit for his stupid consistency. If aion means "eternity" then aions would mean "eternities." If someone can explain to me the meaning of "the eternities of the eternities" maybe this same man could also tell us about "hot ice," and "square circles." So how did the translators handle a verse like Matt. 24:3, " ... conclusion of the eon ... ?" Remember they insist in other places that "aion" is "forever," and now they have to translate a verse claiming that this particular eon is going to end. How can forever "end?" Being in a fix, the translators changed the meaning of "aion" again, and translated this verse " ... end of the world ... " Now, think for a moment. Since they insist elsewhere that "aion" means "eternal" (which of course it doesn't), how could it possibly mean "world" here? It couldn't. The Greek word for world is "kosmos" not "aion." Check enough English Translations, and you will find all of the following diverse words absurdly translated from the Greek word "aion:"
You are looking at an amazing thing, which is false translating in action. This is certainly not "a pattern of sound words" ( II Tim. 1:13-14)! Who would ever condone such a butchering of God's Word. Who? Most of the world's theologians and clergy, that's who. Not only do they condone it, but they endorse it! In the Anglo-Saxon Gospels a thousand years ago, the equivalent for the Greek word aion was the old English word ece, which was similar in meaning to aion, which is a period of time.. The word "eternal" was completely unknown (in any of the old English Bibles), before the Renaissance. Turning to the Old Testament Hebrew will not solve your dilemma either. The Old Testament Hebrew has the word "olam" (this is the Hebrew equivalent of "aion"), which is often translated in the Authorized Version as "everlasting." This word clearly does not mean everlasting. I will give you just one conclusive proof Scripture:
The word translated "world" is olam which they translate "everlasting" in dozens of other places. Clearly the "ungodly" do not prosper for "eternity" or "everlasting." "It may be laid down as a rule that no language had, for some time after the first century A.D., any term to denote eternity." (Whence Eternity?, By: Alexander Thomson, p. 5). That's a telling statement. Not only doesn't the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures use a word meaning "eternity" or "endless time" in the original texts, it was impossible for them to do so. The Hebrew and Greek Languages had no word that meant "endless time" or "eternity." And further, no one has ever found such a word in ANY LANGUAGE before the second century to denote "endless time" or "eternity." The facts regarding the temporary duration of the eons are contained in the Scriptures themselves. This demolishes the eternal torment in Hell heresy. I quote once again from Whence Eternity? "In the year 540, Justinian made arrangements for the calling together of the famous local council of four years later. ... In particular, he wished it made very plain that the life of the saints was to be everlasting, and that the doom of the lost was to be likewise. Yet he did not argue that the word eonian meant everlasting. Nor did he claim that the word eonian had hitherto been misunderstood ... Origen, who exulted in the truth of the reconciliation of the universe, definitely used the word eonian with reference to fire and doom as meaning a limited time. But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, 'The holy church of Christ teaches an ENDLESS eonian (ateleutetos aionios) life for the just, and ENDLESS (ateleutetos) punishment for the wicked.' Justinian knew quite well that by itself eonian DID NOT signify endless, and he therefore added a word the meaning of which is quite unequivocal, a word not found in the Scriptures. This letter of Justinian, which is still in existence, ought to convince anyone who is in doubt, regarding the true scriptural meaning of the word eonian. ... It was not until the year 696, at Constantinople, that a Council publicly condemned this doctrine of Origen [reconciliation of all] for the first time, the glorious teaching [reconciliation] being called 'DRUNKEN RAVINGS as to the future life of the dead." [Emphasis mine], page 19. Adding a word so enormous as "endless" to a word that in no way means endless, is a gross infraction of Christ's warning about "adding to" God's word (Rev. 22:18). When one perverts one portion of Scripture, it automatically perverts other portions. Since the translators changed eonian to eternity, of necessity they now have to discard the teaching of reconciliation. For if all are reconciled, punishment cannot be eternal. So they called the Scriptural teaching of reconciliation which Origen understood and believed, "drunken ravings!" (If you run out of Scripture, resort to name-calling). And yet, these "drunken ravings" of "reconciliation" are still in my Bible: " ... and through Him [Christ] to RECONCILE ALL to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross) ... " (Col. 1:20). YOUR SERMON ON HELL In your sermon THE SEVEN WONDERS OF HELL, you made the following statements:
Since you claim to believe that "The Greek language is the most exact language on the face of the earth," it is astonishing to me to think that you made all of these inexact statements on national television. Mr. Hagee, every single statement above, quoted from your sermon on Hell, is untrue and unscriptural, with one exception. The only true and scriptural statement made out of these thirty quotes is the one, ironically, attributed to "Demon # 3." You shout out these statements with such authority, as though you really know what you are talking about. These phrases are totally foreign to the Word of God. Where, pray tell, does one find these phrases in the Word of God: "Hell is Heaven's junkyard", "soul winning," "eternity in hell," "Jesus was a fanatic," "The city of the dead," "The Rich man died and went to hell." "Lazarus died and he went to Heaven," "Hell is a place of consciousness," The bottomless pit of eternity." This is unscriptural nonsense, Mr. Hagee. None of these phrases are used in the Scriptures. Let's examine a few of your unscriptural statements: You started you sermon by saying: "This is God's message, not mine." Oh, really? God said none of this.
If the soul dies, then it is dead, and a dead soul doesn't spend anything with anybody. Dead souls are in hades [the UNSEEN or imperceptible]. Besides, these same dead souls can be redeemed from sheol or hades (Psa. 49:15). And when one is "redeemed," one will spend eternity with God.
The fact, Mr. Hagee, is that the word "hell" is used in the Authorized Version of the Gospels fourteen (14) times, while the word "heaven" is used in the Gospels one hundred and fifty (150) some times. Maybe you meant to say it the other way around. You owe your listeners a correction. Tell me, do you men ever listen to each other on T.B.N.? Dr. Kennedy says the Scriptures speak of eternity in Heaven some 300 times and eternity in Hell only 60 times. Both of your figures are in gross error, and they grossly contradict each other. What are the facts? "Hell" is not a proper translation for one single word in the whole of Scripture. Spending an eternity in pain and suffering is mentioned nowhere in the Scriptures. The fire in the Valley of Hinnom, South of Jerusalem, is the city garbage dump during Christ's millennial reign only; it is not a place of eternal torture. The Lake of Fire is clearly stated to be: "The second death," not a place of eternal torture (which would be "life"). Dr. Kennedy was not correct in stating that "eternity in Heaven" is mentioned some 300 times in Scripture. "Heaven" by itself is mentioned hundreds of times. However, verses suggesting anyone "going to Heaven" or "spending eternity in Heaven" or "being rewarded in Heaven" are very few indeed. That King David said he would rather be a doorkeeper in the House of God has no reference to actually "going to Heaven". Christ said: "In My Father's House are many abodes ... I am going to make ready a place for you" (Jn. 14:2). Now where does it say that the apostles "go to Heaven" to receive this "place?" Notice Verse 3: "And if I should be going and making ready a place for you, I AM COMING AGAIN ... that where I am, you also may be." When Christ returns a second time to this earth, does He then immediately depart again to Heaven with His saints? Show me a Scripture. He reigns for a thousand years, ON THE EARTH. That's where He will be, and that's were His apostles will also be. Read Rev. 19:16: " ... He has a name written: 'King of kings and Lord of lords.'" Rev. 20:4: "And I perceived thrones ... and judgment was granted to them. And the souls of those executed because of the testimony of Jesus ... THEY ALSO live and reign with Christ a thousand years." Does this "reigning" take place in Heaven? No. Rev. 5:9-10: "For thou wast slain and dost buy us for God by Thy blood. Out of every tribe and language and people and nation. Thou dost also make them a kingdom and a priesthood for our God, And they shall be reigning ON THE EARTH." Where will the place of authority be for Christ's faithful apostles? "Yet Jesus said to them [His apostles], 'Verily, I am saying to you ... whenever the Son of Mankind should be seated on the throne of His glory, YOU ALSO shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mat. 19:28). There are any number of things that are held in store in Heaven for God's saints (treasures, name in book of life, etc.), but all of these things are brought back by Christ to this earth. It is the bride of Christ (those called under Christ and His apostles' ministry-Israel and a few gentile proselytes), who lives and reigns with Him on the earth. " ... for the wedding of the Lambkin [Christ] came, and Its bride makes herself ready ... Happy are those [Israel] invited to the wedding dinner of the Lambkin" ( Rev. 19:8-9). Notice Rev. 5:9: " ... which are the prayers of the saints." What was one of the most important things that the saints of Israel were to pray for? Mat. 6:10: "Thy kingdom COME [to the earth]. Thy will be done, AS in heaven, ON EARTH ALSO." It is the body of Christ (those called through Paul's gospel and ministry-the Gentile nations and a few remnant Jews), that has a celestial or heavenly calling: Eph. 1:3: " ... our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us [the body of Christ] with every spiritual blessing among the CELESTIALS ... " Ver. 23: " ... the ecclesia [church] which is His BODY ... " And Eph. 2:6: " ... and rouses us [the body of Christ] together and seats us together among the CELESTIALS, in Christ Jesus ... " From Genesis to Acts, there is no mention of Christ reigning in the Heavens. That was a secret that Paul only reveals in his writings, when he tells us that God is, " ... making known to us [the body of Christ, not the bride of Christ] the SECRET of His will ... to have an administration of the complement [Gk. pleroma, that which fills up] of the eras, to head up ALL in Christ-both that in the HEAVENS and that on the earth ... " (Eph. 1:9-10). It is the Gentiles, not the Jews who are being called for this complement. The body of Christ is this complement: " ... to the ecclesia which is His body, the COMPLEMENT of the One [Christ] completing the all in all" (Eph. 1:23). The twelve apostles never taught this secret. Notice Eph. 3:3, " ... by revelation the SECRET is made known to ME [Paul] ... " Its knowledge was committed to Paul only, Ver 9: "To ME [Paul], less than the least of all saints, was granted this grace: to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the NATIONS, and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the SECRET, which has been concealed from the eons in God ... " And what does this secret entail? Ver. 10: " ... God, Who creates all, that now may be made known to the sovereignties, and authorities among the CELESTIALS, through THE ECCLESIA, the multifarious wisdom of God." Wow. I'll bet you never heard that in Sunday School. Just as the knowledge of God is going to cover the earth (Hab. 2:14), the knowledge of God is going to permeate the entirety of the universe. And it is those who are called through Paul's evangel (Christ knows those who are His), that will reign and judge and make known the multifarious wisdom of God, to the sovereignties and authorities among the celestials in the heavens. This great calling has zero similarities with the fabled ideas that we will have wings, floating on clouds, playing harps, singing rock'n'roll and rap gospel music till we all go nuts. (If one could sit on clouds, one wouldn't need wings. Besides, I don't think it rains in Heaven. Most people don't like harp music, and I, personally, hate rap.) I know of only seven Scriptures that actually do promise a reward and/or abiding place in Heaven or more frequently [Gk: epouranion = ON-SEE-UP-ed] celestial or among the celestials. They are: II Cor. 5:1-3, Phil. 3:20, Col. 1:5, Eph. 1:3, Eph. 2:6, Eph. 3:10, and II Tim. 4:18. Possibly there is another one or two times such a phrase is used, but not 20 or 30 and certainly not 293 more times as Dr. Kennedy has suggested. You said: "Hell is heaven's junkyard!" Where does Scripture say such a thing? I think a little discretion is needed when referring to God and His habitation.
"Hell" is not in the Greek Scriptural Vocabulary. "Hades," on the other hand, is not an eternal abiding place, nor is it ever referred to as a "home." Nowhere do the Scriptures speak of souls remaining in hades permanently.
This statement is true and Scriptural. Too bad it had to come from the mouth of a demon. True, many of God's judgments, chastisements, and punishments are severe by our standards, but, truly, as "demon # 3" reportedly stated: "God would never send anyone to a place this horrible." And how do we know that for sure? Because God's punishments are temporary and serve a purpose. When this purpose is completed, punishments will be discarded:
These verses are not difficult to understand. The problem is that men don't want to believe them. It is faith that you lack, Pastor Hagee, faith to believe these marvelous scriptures regarding the salvation of all. And God does more than "just" save His children. He will have a relationship so close to us that He says He will be "All in All." God Almighty says that He will save all! Yet you teach that God will torture most for all eternity. The first statement is derived from many verses of Scriptures. The second statement (yours) is derived from the vile hearts men.
I can't understand how you could say such a thing. The pulpits of the Churches of America say no such thing. I'm certainly not defending these churches, but to attribute that statement to them is in gross error. Most churches in American teach and preach a strict adherence to the Old Testament Laws (though this is contrary to the teachings of the Apostle Paul). On the other hand, you teach a plethora of sins, that are not sins according to the Scriptures. You teach that it is a sin not to tithe. Tithing was for the nation of Israel. Only certain commodities were tithed. Only Levites could receive tithes. It was used for administering their office in the Temple. There is no temple today. There is no Levitical priesthood today. I don't think that I am a Jew. And Paul NEVER taught the Gentiles to tithe. Don't deceive yourself, Paul never said, "God loves a cheerful tithe-payer." If one sins by not tithing, then it is also a sin for you, Mr. Hagee, if you don't adhere to all of the following laws contained in the same scroll of the law as tithing is found.
Do you do and observe all these laws, Mr. Hagee? Since you teach that it is SIN to not pay tithes (which was just one of many precepts contained in "the law"), how is it not a sin if you fail to keep all of these other points of the same law? "Accursed is everyone who is not remaining in ALL things written in the scroll of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). If you don't keep all of the laws contained in the scroll of the law, Mr. Hagee, I would be interested in knowing just where and when God Almighty gave you authority to pick and choose which laws you will keep and which laws you will break. Speaking of the Old Testament law, the Apostle Paul (apostle to the Nations), never taught the Gentiles to "tithe." Don't deceive yourselves, Paul never said, "God loves a cheerful tithe-payer ... " Did he? We are to give from a cheerful heart, not to fulfill a law. We are no longer under the law, but grace. Mr. Hagee, read Paul's epistles and notice that those under Grace are held to a much higher standard of conduct and morality than those who put themselves under law. Paul instructs Titus to set standards of morality for elders in the church that are far higher than what was expected of law-keeping Israelites. How many law-keeping clergymen do you think would qualify according to Titus 1:9: " ... able to entreat with sound teaching as well as to expose those who contradict." Much of today's Christian teachings are so unsound and unscriptural that they do nothing but contradict. Of course, your teaching on grace and how we receive grace makes the very meaning of the word void. It reminds me of the man who wrote a book entitled: HUMILITY And How I Achieved It. You could write a book entitled: GRACE And How We Must Qualify For It. Grace is only given to those who deserve just the opposite. That's why it is called grace rather than wages, rewards, or compensation. I am 59 years old, Mr. Hagee, and I have never heard a minister say that the grace of God gives one a blank check to sin. I have never heard it on radio, I have never heard it on television, I have never heard it in person, I have never read it on a printed page. Never once. I think you exaggerate, Mr. Hagee.
But you are not talking about "punishment for sin." You are talking about "eternal torture." If they would forget the idea of eternal punishment for sin, that would be a good thing. Let's talk about "punishment." Do you have any idea what it is and how God uses it? PUNISHED/PUNISHMENT
"Punished," "punishing," or "punishment" is found only three times in the Greek text. And two of those occurrences have to do with Paul punishing the saints. Therefore, there is only ONE time that the word "Punishment" is used with reference to evil doers in the entire Greek Scriptures. I hope this doesn't disappoint you. "Punishment" is translated from the Greek word timoria = VALUE-LIFT. "Punishment" has to do with satisfying the one doing the inflicting. Whereas, "chastening" has in view the amendment of the one being disciplined. Both can be severe or mild. They can be for a short time or for an extended period of time. The words themselves do not set parameters. In Heb. 10 we have three words in view regarding deeds of evildoers: Punishment, Vengeance, and Judging. Where God uses "chasten," we must not translate it "punish." These are two different words in Greek, and must be rendered such in translating them. When we look at Paul's persecution of the Church (Acts 22:5, 26:11), Paul was not "chastening" the Church, but "punishing" them. It was not a "disciplinary" action on his part, but rather causing pain, suffering, and loss to the Church for crimes Paul imagined they had committed. "Punishment" inflicts pain, loss, and suffering, which are humbling to the human spirit. "Vengeance" has to do with evening the score, while "punishment" is retribution for harm done. Only God can do this in righteousness. This is not too far removed from the administration of an "eye for an eye." However, Christ said we are not to follow that law any longer. We are not to exact from someone in like manner as they have exacted from us. This is now God's prerogative. God says "Vengeance is mine." And for those who are not now called in Grace, this certainly demonstrates to the sinner the abundance of those sins for which he is being punished. And in these verses we are certainly talking about the grossest of sins - "Trampling on the Son of God," "deeming the blood of the covenant contaminating," and "outraging the spirit of grace." "Judging" has to do with setting things right. We can learn the meaning of this word "Judge" by looking at Gen. 18:25. The Authorized Version has: " ... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" This verse is not really translated properly, however, its meaning is "right on." That is, both "judge" and "right" in this verse are from the same Hebrew word shaphat. The proper translation is: "The Judge of the entire earth, will He not execute Judgment?" But the Authorized Version does bring out the true meaning nicely. To "judge" is to "do right." But oh, how the simple meanings of words have been corrupted by theologians! We have been told that "Judgment Day" will be the most feared event to ever overtake Earth. In reality, "Judgment Day" will inaugurate one of the most marvelous works of God since creation. In this connection, notice an amazing verse. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." (Mat. 23:23). Oh how Christ berated the Pharisees for their many evils. They kept what they thought was the law so strictly that it became an overwhelming burden. Notice the company judgment keeps: "mercy and faith." Judgment is not bad, it is good. The Pharisees lacked mercy, faith, and judgment. They didn't do right. They didn't set things right. And they didn't just neglect it at times, they left it and "omitted" it altogether! After the wicked are "punished" and "avenged," then God sets them right. In fact, He sets all things right. Read it again: "The Judge of the entire earth, will He not do right?" Christ's sacrifice paid the penalty for our sins. We are more than pardoned or forgiven, we are "justified." However, that does not "set right" all the evil that has been done. This God does at judgment.
Seeing that Satan is the "god" of this world [eon], most of Satan's works involve mankind. And all of these acts are going to be annulled. Annulled! Do you have any comprehension of what that means? These are the grand topics of Scripture you should be preaching and teaching. It sure beats the unscriptural topic of eternal torment. Why don't you preach a sermon next week on "annulling the acts of the Adversary" or "The repudiation of sin?" How can you possibly explain these two verses using the doctrines you teach? You teach that sin and evil are permanent fixtures in God's creation, and that they will go on eternally in your fabled Hell. According to you God can never abolish sin and evil. Do you know what "repudiation" means? It means to UN-PLACE. The name "God" means "placer." The Great Almighty PLACER is going to UN-PLACE sin. Repudiation means DIS- ANNULING. Disannuling means "To annul COMPLETELY; to render ABSOLUTELY VOID" Webster's Twentith-Century Dictionary p. 480. Yet you tell us that men, women, demons and devils will continue to "sin" in the fire of Hell for all eternity. You tell us that Christ will not "repudiate" their sins, that is, He will not annul them and render them void. As I study God's Word I keep asking myself: "How can anyone not see these simple truths? The answer is: "The blind cannot see." What about "chastisement?" Simply by understanding the meaning of this word all notions of "eternal" chastening are nullified. "Chasten" is used with a view to amendment, in contrast to punishment, which is penal. Webster's first definition is: "to punish in order to make better." Since chastisement has to do with a view to the future (of making one better or corrected), how, pray, could it ever be eternal? Since "chastisement" is used in connection with the eons, the translators should have deduced that since "chastening" is temporary, therefore "eons" cannot be eternal! No Scripture shows chastisement to last beyond the eons. And usually it is used with destruction and death that last for the eons. There is no pain, suffering, or torture while one is dead. (Psa. 146:3-4 & Ecc. 9:10) Let's just look at one Scripture used by orthodox Christianity to try to prove eternal punishment. Mat. 25:31-46 is used to represent Judgment Day, when God separates all peoples into either sheep or goats. The sheep supposedly receive eternal life, while the goats are put into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Who is being judged here? The dead? No. The Jews? No. Individual people? No. Read the context. Verse 32, " ... before Him shall be gathered all nations ... " And " ... He shall separate them one from another ... " Separate who? The NATIONS. Christ then judges the nations according to how they treated the Jewish nation. It has nothing to do with individual sins of individual people. These are "nations" that are being judged. If these are individuals being judged for their treatment of Jewish people, then anyone who doesn't visit Jewish people in jail will suffer this consequence. Ridiculous. This judgment is on the nations and how they treated the Jewish people during their greatest trial and tribulation in history. That is, just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. Notice that the Jews are not judged at all. Only the nations. Verse 46 should be translated: "And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian." "Everlasting punishment" is not a proper translation. This chastening of the nations is to be "eonian," not "everlasting." "Jesus said fear not those who can kill the body, but fear those who can kill both the body and put the soul in hell." Mr. Hagee, Jesus never said any such thing. Not even the King James Version defends you here. This verse says:
Jesus said: " ... fear him," not " ... fear those." And where does it say to " ... fear those who can kill both the body and put the soul in hell?" " ... put the soul in hell?" That false expression is unscriptural. You made it up. God's Word has something to say about "false expressions:" "Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of FALSE EXPRESSIONS ... " (I Tim. 4:2) Concordant Literal N.T. You have used dozens of "false expressions" in just one sermon. God says that it would be a sign of our time (subsequent eras) that men would use "false expressions." Anyone who does such things is grouped with those who: (1) Withdraw from the faith, (2) Give heed to deceiving spirits, (3) the teachings of demons, and (4) are hypocrites! That sounds like a pretty serious indictment to me, Mr. Hagee. Look carefully at what Jesus really said in Matt. 10:28:
Jesus said not to fear those who can "kill," but rather fear Him [Jesus Christ] who is able to destroy the soul as well as the body in Gehenna. The first part of the verse is man's operation, but the second part of the verse is God's. Men have no jurisdiction over the soul. All they can do is kill the body. But God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. This verse isn't even talking about what happens to the body and soul at death (there are dozens other Scriptures that tell us that), but rather, who has the jurisdiction over it. A man can throw another man into Gehenna fire and he will burn up in exactly the same manner as if God threw him there. Man can "kill," but has no jurisdiction over the dead once he has killed. God, on the other hand, can kill in like manner as a murderer, but only He has the power to bring back to life. The body in which a man dies is not the body that is resurrected. In this case of Gehenna fire, there would not even be a body left. But what of the soul? God can easily restore it in resurrection. Man consists of a body which, when God imparts His spirit to it, becomes a living soul. The soul is the result of the combination of body and spirit. There is "soul" only as long as God's spirit unites with the body. At death, God takes back His spirit and the "soul" goes to the unseen (or imperceptible). Hades in Greek or Sheol in Hebrew are not geographical locations, but rather a condition. Those who teach annihilation rather than eternal punishment use this verse to show that when God destroys, the soul is irretrievable. This, however, is not true. "Destroy" comes from the Greek word Apollumi = FROM-WHOLE-LOOSE, that is, to "lose." The disciples were afraid that they would perish [apollumi] by drowning (Mk. 4:38). The sheep was lost [apollumi] by straying (Lk 15:4). We may destroy [apollumi] a weak saint by our knowledge (I Cor. 8:11). And Christ destroys [apollumi] both body and soul in Gehenna. Never does the Greek word apollumi mean annihilation! Besides destruction is the prelude to SALVATION! All we like sheep have gone astray. To be "lost" is the same Greek word used for "destroy." So it is axiomatic that if an apollumi [LOST] sheep can be SAVED, then certainly an apollumi [DESTROYED] soul can be saved also. Believe God's Word, not man's doctrines. Why does anyone believe that since Jesus will have a few evil men thrown into the fires of Gehenna at the start of His millennial reign, that He will not save them later? Have we forgotten Sodom? "And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to the unseen [hades]; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." And, therefore, it shall be " ... more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee" (Matt. 11:23-24). All it takes is a few miracles from God and He can save anyone-everyone It is so sad that most Christian Clergy don't believe this. I'll give you all the Scriptural proof you need at the end of this letter to show that God Almighty is going to save all His creatures-under the earth, on the earth, and throughout the entirety of the universe-mortals and messengers, sinners and saints, demons and angels-all (Phil. 2:10)!
What? You have got to be kidding. I don't even know of a religious group that openly acknowledges Satan as their god. I have heard of an occasional small group from time to time that makes the news for one day. They are usually small groups of five to ten, and consist mostly of teenagers. And usually, these groups fall apart just about as fast as they get started. But to say that Satanism (those who openly and admittedly worship Satan) is the fastest growing religion in America is absurd. The fastest growing religion in America is undoubtedly T.B.N.! Now if you had said, "The fastest growing religion in America is those who worship Satan under the guise of God and the Bible," maybe I could agree with you. Satan is called: " ... the god of this world [Gk. eon]." Jesus said that Satan would deceive many: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many" (Mat. 24:11). These false prophets are not rising from unorganized scattered teenage cults claiming to worship Satan. If those small groups really deceived anyone, then their numbers would be growing. But show me where they are the fastest growing religion in America. They're not. Let's look very carefully at three Scriptures:
Nearly every year, I hear of some troubled individual who actually claims to be Jesus Christ. Their ministry usually lasts a few hours or a few days. They deceive no one. Christ said the ones who will really deceive many are the ones who will be saying: "I [Jesus] am the Christ." The real deceivers are those teaching that Christ is the Christ, not that Satan is the Christ. We must find (1) many who pretend to be apostles of Christ, who (2) Prophesy in Christ's name, and (3) cast out demons in Christ's name, and (4) do many wonderful works in Christ's name, and (5) teach that Jesus is the Christ. The real key to understanding who these end-time deceivers are is to realize that they will do all that they do, in the name of the Lord (in the name of Jesus, the Christ). I can just hear all those Catholics out there saying: "Right on, brother Smith, all those Protestants are all screwed up ever since they rebelled against the Catholic Faith." And I can hear just as loudly from the Protestants saying: "Right on, brother Smith, tt's those Catholics out there with all their statue worship, isn't it?" The truth is there isn't a nickel's work of difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both theologies teach that Christ's sacrifice for all will utterly fail, sending the majority of humankind into the tortures of Hell for eternity. So when you locate this large group who do and teach what Christ said in these verses, these are the ones then to whom Christ said He would declare: "I never knew you! Depart from Me, workers of lawlessness!" (Mat. 7:23). Back to your sermon:
Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Hagee. This sermon of yours on Hell can hardly be called a "gospel sermon." You didn't preach a whiff of the gospel. The gospel is "good news." Your sermon was the worst of "bad news." Why assume that the fruit of the true gospel (which a few people do preach) will culminate in "standing before the judgment bar of God - guilty as charged?" "What is the result of the gospel without the place called hell?" What is the result of a gospel with this teaching of yours on Hell? You are driving millions from God and God's Word-that is the result. There is no gospel (or good news) in this teaching.
One doesn't have to believe in a fabled Hell of eternal torture to realize that there is plenty to be saved from! How about saved from sin and evil? What about being saved from ourselves? What about being saved from weakness, stupidity, ignorance, foolishness and vanity? What about being saved from corruption, immorality, mortality and death? (What about being saved from any more of Pastor Hagee's sermons on Hell?) You don't think these are things to be saved from?
Jesus never even said the word "hell" so how could He believe in it? Mark 9:46-- " ... to be cast into Gehenna, into the unextinguished fire, where their worm is not deceasing and the fire is not going out." This is not "hell." This is "Gehenna." So why call it "hell?" The exact Greek word is Ge'enna (in Hebrew it is: RAVINE-of-HINNOM). It is a ravine just below Jerusalem where the city waste was incinerated. What justification is there in translating this ravine into the English word "hell?" You're not " ... distinguishing the things that differ" (Phil. 1:10). You are not " ... having a pattern of sound words" (II Tim. 1:13-14). You are "adding to" the Word of God (Rev. 22:18-19). You are following the "traditions of men" (Col. 2:8). The "ravine of hinnom" (Gehenna) was the city garbage dump in Jerusalem where the garbage was burned. And just like all garbage dumps, there were worms. The reason they didn't die out was because there was a constant supply of refuge being fed them. This is not a parable. Gehenna is a real place. This place existed at the time Jesus spoke these very words. It was burning with fire, with a daily supply of garbage, and a daily supply of worms to eat it. But if you go there today, it is not burning and there are no worms. This Gehenna is not eternal. It will be reinstituted during Christ's millennial reign, then be eliminated after His reign. How is it that learned men can so pervert and corrupt God's Word? There is not one word in either the Greek or Hebrew languages that means "a place where evil dead people suffer in fire for all eternity." What "exact" Greek or Hebrew word has such a meaning? I can say that the Greek word pro'baton [sheep] should be translated into the English word "snakes," but that doesn't make it so. That's nonsense.
I'll quote John 3:16: "For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian." I'll quote it from the King James: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I'm sorry, Mr. Hagee, but I don't see where John 3:16 says that: "You perish in the place called Hell?"
You quoted II Thes. 1:8-9. Let me quote it from a proper translation: " ... in flaming fire, dealing out vengeance to those who are not acquainted with God and those who are not obeying the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ-who shall incur the justice of eonian extermination from the face of the Lord ... " (Concordant Literal New Testament). Notice please. These people are not "tortured" in fire. They are "exterminated." The Greek word here is ol'ethros = WHOLE-RUIN. It means to "kill or destroy completely." Notice that the firstborn of Egypt, which included little children and even babies, were "exterminated." (Heb. 11:28). It's the same Greek word. So let me assure you, Mr. Hagee, that those little Egyptian babies are not being tortured in any fires of your fabled hell! And how long is this "extermination" to last? For all eternity? Get a concordance and read it. The Greek word translated in the Authorized Version "everlasting" is aionion. And I proved conclusively in the beginning of this letter that aionion means "age lasting" or "eonian," not eternally or everlasting. So how does this verse show that Paul believed in Hell?
You quoted Rev. 14:10 and Rev. 20:15. Those who worship the wild beast and its image are to be "tormented in fire and sulphur." It is those "worshipping" the wild beast and its image who are having "no rest day and night." It doesn't say they that "worshipped" the beast are in Hell Fire suffering. And who are these people? "Babylon the great" and "all nations" who drink of the wine of her prostitution (Ver. 8). You lump this verse in with Rev. 20:15, but these don't "lump." Rev. 20:15 is a totally different subject. Babylon the Great and her followers are not thrown into the "lake of fire." "The fumes of their torment are ascending for the eons of the eons" is a figure of speech similar to Jude 7, "a specimen ... the justice of fire eonian." Notice Gen. 19:28, "And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." There fiery destruction has been remembered to this very day. In the same way, the "fumes of their torment" will ascend and be remembered for the last two eons [the eons of the eons]. These worshippers of the beast will be "tormented" and have "no rest" until they DIE! Notice Rev. 16:2, "And an evil and malignant ulcer came on those of mankind who have the emblem of the wild beast, and worship its image." Verse 9, "And mankind is scorched with great heat, and they blaspheme the name of God ... " And what is their final state after being tormented with these plagues? Rev. 18:8--"Therefore in one day shall her calamities be arriving: death and mourning and famine. And she shall be burned up with fire ... " They are burned up and die. It's that simple. Who is thrown into the lake of fire? And who is tormented "day and night for the eons of the eons?"
The Adversary, the wild beast, and the false prophet are tormented day and night in the lake of fire. These three and no one else! These are "spiritual" powers, not humans. The humans who are resurrected are judged and thrown into the lake of fire, where they do die. "This is the second death! Death. Not, "life in fire." Humans can't live in fire. God Himself inspired Revelation to read: "This is the second death-the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15). How can you turn around and teach people that what God calls "death," is really "life?" What justification do you have for doing such a thing? The lake of fire is not a place of "life." It is the second death. Now, we shall all stand before the Dais of Christ one day. Are you going to say: "Lord I thought when You said death that what You really meant was an eternal life of torture." If Christ should then ask you: "Why do you think that I would mean such a stupid and contradictory thing?" What would you answer Him? You say, in effect, that when a living person dies, he is immediately alive in either Heaven or Hell. So, to use your line of logic, when Christ resurrects a person, he would be immediately dead! According to your teaching, Mr. Hagee, there really is no such thing as death or the dead! According to you, the second one dies he is alive, just at a different geographical location. Abraham died back in Gen. 25:8-9 and in John 8:52 it plainly says, not one second later, but centuries later, that "Abraham is dead!" It would have been just as correct for them to say: "Abraham is still dead." Do you have any idea how many Scriptures your teaching contradicts on this one word alone? Do you know how many times the Scriptures talk of "dying," "death," or the "dead?" Over one thousand, two hundred times. Paul said "Concerning the expectation and resurrection of the dead am I being judged" (Acts 23:6). "Concerning the resurrection of the dead am I being judged today by you" (Acts 24:21). How can you believe the Scriptures and not believe in the resurrection of the dead? People who are alive in your fabled hell cannot possibly be resurrected from the dead, because according to you they aren't dead. Read your Bible. Dead people are resurrected out of their graves not out of Heaven or Hell. Christ resurrected Lazarus out of a tomb, not out of Heaven or Hell. I hear so much anymore about "life after death." Even more so in the secular world than on T.B.N. There are so many TV specials, videos, and books on near death experiences and "life after death." What you and theologians need to seriously consider is that, according to the Scriptures, there really is "death after life!"
The Scriptures say no such thing, and Christ said no such thing! What Bible are you quoting? Let's read it: "Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat" (Mat. 7:13). Where does this verse say that the broad way leads to hell? It leads to "destruction"! It is "God" Who makes these vessels "adapted for destruction" (Rom. 9:22). This has nothing to do with eternal torture in fire. Of course, the majority of mankind does not know God and therefore is in this class headed for destruction. But don't throw away all those Scriptures I already gave you concerning their ultimate salvation when God removes their blindness and saves them.
Webster's p. 257: "fanatic, a person who carries his interest or belief in something to a point that is no longer reasonable." I think, Mr. Hagee, that maybe you are too eager to leap where Angels fear to tread. It is your teachings that are "no longer reasonable," not Christ's teachings! Christ was not and is not a "fanatic!"
Mr. Hagee, read the section of this letter directed to Dr. Kennedy. Most of the population of the entirety of the world, through the entire history of the world, have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you say they are going to hell because they rejected a gospel they never heard?
The Bible says no such thing. The rich man died and was entombed. And in "Hades" he figuratively lifts up his eyes-not in a fabled hell. Lazarus died and was figuratively carried away into Abraham's bosom-not Heaven.
Where is the "city of the dead?" And how can someone "walk out of it" if they are dead?
I am so glad that my salvation is not a thing of chance. Sounds more like something you would find in Las Vegas than the Scriptures. Salvation through Christ's Sacrifice is sure! "Surely, He Who spares not His own Son, but gives Him up for us all, how shall He not, together with Him, also, be graciously granting us ALL?" (Rom. 8:32)! By the way, I did hear some months back that TBN was offering a tape titled "To Hell and Back" where many people claimed to have died, went to Hell, and came back, to a second chance. I believe this was immediately followed by a trip to Caesar's Palace, but I'm not sure. And, of course, again we have to ask: "What about all those millions and billions of people who never even got a first chance? Mr. Hagee, did you accept Christ at the very first "chance" you had opportunity to do so?
You made a statement regarding someone who didn't believe in Hell. You said: "You say, 'Preacher, I don't believe in Hell.' That's too bad, it's still there and you're going ... " I noticed how you often build to a crescendo with your voice when soliciting an applause, as you did in this statement. The congregation then began to snicker, laugh, and then broke out into an enthusiastic applause. That's really sick! Laughing and applauding at the fancied notion that someone is going to burn in a place called hell for all eternity is sick. If you think that's funny, you'll answer for it to God. Your statement on women in hell brings up an interesting point. I have never heard this discussed. What about pregnant women, Mr. Hagee? I would speculate that possibly 1000 women die each day, somewhere around the world, who do not know Jesus Christ, and are pregnant. That would equal approximately one million such women every three years, or since our Lord's resurrection approximately six hundred million (600,000,000) pregnant women suffering in the fires of Hell. Now we know that an undelivered fetus cannot live or survive in a dead woman's womb. We also know from your teachings that God hates abortions. So obviously, God is not going to abort these millions of babies. As the unsaved woman has a one-way ticket to Hell, it is apparent that her unborn baby is also going to Hell with her. Now, (1) Will the unborn fetus suffer in the flames of Hell, albeit in its mother's womb, for all eternity? (2) Will the baby be born and then suffer in the flames of Hell as an infant for all eternity? (3) Will the baby merely die? (No, forget #3. According to you there is not such thing-everyone is always alive somewhere, even if they die.) (4) Will the baby remain in its mother's womb until maturation, then be born into the flames of fire, but then very quickly (assuming some evil demon doesn't eat it first) be transported to Heaven? (5) Will the baby be born "a little red devil," and then suffer in the flames of Hell for all eternity? Continuing with your sermon:
That statement is so sick, who can comment on it?
No, the lake of fire is called the lake of fire. It is never called "hell." "Hell" is a word not found in the Greek language. And the lake of fire is not hades either. "Hades" is thrown into the lake of fire. Since it is thrown into the lake of fire, how could it be the lake of fire? Only three are tormented in the lake of fire: Satan, the False Prophet, and the Beast. They are not human. They do not die in the lake of fire. Satan is loosed again at the end of the Millennium (apparently unharmed) and deceives the nations again (Rev. 20:8).
No, "outer darkness" is not in a place called Hell. Those who are not allowed to sit down with Abraham in the Kingdom are cast into the darkness outside. Besides, how could Hell "fire" be so dark that one cannot see one's own hand in front of his face? Did you ever see a large fire on a dark night? It throws off a lot of light and it's easy to see your hand in front of your face.
No, this verse is not talking about Hell, hades, Gehenna, or the lake of fire, but those cast out of the Kingdom. Besides only the "sons of the Kingdom" are weeping and gnashing their teeth-the Jews. They rightfully should have been in the Kingdom, but were disqualified. This condition is not, however, eternal.
No, Gehenna is a place of fire. Those thrown into Gehenna are burned up. Those thrown into the lake of fire are burned up-it's called the second death.
No, the lake of fire is a place of no rest, but only for three individuals, Satan, the False Prophet, and the Beast.
No, Gehenna is where the fire is not quenched and the worms don't die. It's a burning, city garbage dump. No one quenches the fire. If someone quenched it, it would loose its useful purpose, namely to burn up the garbage, offal, and any criminals that are thrown there. The worms don't die, because there is plenty to eat and keep them breeding. When nothing more is thrown into the fire, it will go out. It won't need to be quenched. When the food supply runs out the worms will die. How do I know that? Because the Valley of Hinnom (south of Jerusalem) was burning in Christ's day with many worms and now the fire is gone and the worms are gone.. It is no longer used for that purpose. But it will again be used during the Millennium.
No, there is no consciousness in Hell, and there is no consciousness in hades which is translated into the English word "hell." Ecc. 9:10 says, " ... in the grave." "Grave" in this verse is translated from the Hebrew word sheol (which means the unseen or imperceptible). When an Old Testament Scripture is quoted in the New Testament, they translate sheol into hades. So is there "consciousness" in the place sheol in the O.T.? Absolutely not. " ... there is NO WORK, nor DEVICE, nor KNOWLEDGE, nor WISDOM, in the grave [the Hebrew translated "grave" in this verse is sheol, which is synonymous with the Gk. hades] where you go" (Ecc. 9:10). According to God's Word, not your word, Mr. Hagee, when a person dies and returns to his earth, does he still have conscious thoughts? GOD'S answer: "His spirit goes forth, he returns to his earth, in that very day his thoughts PERISH" (Psalm 146: 3-4). Seriously, Mr. Hagee, which part of the word "NO" in these verses don't you understand? There is "No " work, "No" device [Heb. "No" contrivance, "No" intelligence, "No" reason], "No" knowledge, "No" wisdom ... in the grave ... " [Heb. sheol] (Ecc. 9:10). One's very " ... thoughts PERISH!"
Okay, let's have a Scriptural verse on that. Well?
The bottomless pit of eternity. That sounds like something out of Star Wars. Mr. Hagee, it was you who made the statement that "Greek is the most exact language on the face of the earth." This statement is what prompted this letter in the first place. You talk about exactness and correctness, and truthfulness, etc., etc., and then you turn around and use the most ridiculous unscriptural phrases imaginable. First of all, "bottomless pit" is an absurd translation. There is no such thing, and could never be. It's like cold fire and square circles. It doesn't equate. It's an impossibility. Secondly, you take the ridiculous phrase "bottomless pit" and turn it into "The bottomless pit of eternity." Why do you do things like this? Do you just like the way these things roll off your tongue? A proper translation of Rev. 9:2 is: "And to him was given the key of the well of the submerged chaos." There is nothing bottomless about it. This place is not called "hell." There are no people there. There are locusts and demons here. Mr. Hagee, it does no good to talk about the exactness of words and then give sermons that are filled with unscriptural, impossible words and phrases. They can only lead to heresy: "Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras [latter times] some will be withdrawing from the faith [apostasy], giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of FALSE EXPRESSIONS ... " (I Tim. 4:1) Concordant Literal N.T. You said in your sermon that the Jews did not kill Christ, but that the Romans did. Are you trying to avoid being branded "anti-Semitic?" Here are the Scriptural facts:
"The 'JEWS' didn't kill Jesus!" I'll bet you're a real popular guy at Rabbinical Tea Parties. If your logic is this twisted, why don't you get on national television and tell everyone that Hitler never killed a single Jew? What makes your teaching so harmful, is that you are teaching millions of people disgraceful, false things about God. Maybe you think everyone out here is Biblically illiterate. Let me assure you that there are carpenters, plumbers, postal workers, and the like out here who would shame most theologians when it comes to Biblical knowledge. But it's not just "technical" knowledge that I'm talking about. It's teachings like this sermon on Hell of yours that does so much harm. The people who accept your teaching out of fear are not benefited, and those who reject it because of its stupidity, end up blaspheming God because of your unscriptural teachings. Most people's rejection of God is directly related to the false information they have been fed by self-appointed teachers. The truth is, Mr. Hagee, there is very little in many of your sermons that is Scriptural. Even then, any truth loses its impact because of all your unscriptural teachings. I believe that if you had to discard all your unscriptural, unhistorical, untrue, physiologically impossible slogans, your preaching would practically disappear. Try it sometime. Preach a whole sermon without using one unscriptural word or slogan. The result might just amaze you and your congregation! I can not summarize your sermon any better than to parrot your own words describing most sermons found in the media today: "WE HAVE SHOUT WITHOUT SUBSTANCE!" Amen!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of, nor have I ever heard of a teaching or doctrine of any pagan, heathen, barbaric religion on the face of the earth or in the history of the world that approaches the insanity of the Christian doctrine of eternal torture in hell fire! Unlike most people and most theologians and clergymen, I have meditated at length on the absurdity of a loving God creating billions of creatures with complex emotional and nervous systems that are extremely sensitive to not only pleasure, but especially pain, knowing in advance that He would end up torturing most of them in the fires of a hell for all eternity, without mercy. What pagan religion has a god this evil? I know of none. If the Scriptures taught such a thing, surely we would have to accept it. But thank God that the Scriptures teach no such thing as eternal torture. Pain and evil for a season, yes, but not for eternity. Mr. Hagee, it isn't that you just add a "little" or take away a "little" from the Word of God; you turn an age into eternity, you reduce the salvation of all to just a few, and you diminish God's very WILL, to nothing more than a weak wish! So now what Scriptural proof do you have left to substantiate an eternal hell of torture? You are left with The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. Mr. Hagee, let's now take a very close look at the common teaching regarding this parable. I will then follow with the prophetic portence of this parable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARABLES "Parable: [Greek, para bole'= BESIDE CAST]--A statement 'cast beside' or parallel to its real spiritual significance, a figure of likeness in action."GREEK-ENGLISH KEYWORD CONCORDANCE p. 216. In Old English it was called a "near-story." The "parable of Lazarus and the rich man" has become a sort of theological passport to the annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the gross error in translating aion into "eternity," I know of no greater misrepresentation of any section of Scripture than that which occurs with this parable. Therefore, I demonstrate the absurdity of teaching this parable or any other parable as a literal and historical event. Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable? I was surprised and puzzled to hear you call this a "parable" in your sermon on Hell. If you know this is a parable, how is it you think it is a literal, historical fact? It CANNOT be both. Many in orthodoxy say, however, that it is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name. The mention of an identifiable person is not the test of a parable. Besides other parables mention identifiable persons:
Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and multitudes in parables. "And He begins to speak to them in parables." (Mk. 12:1). Jesus spoke to the multitudes only in parables. "All these things Jesus speaks in parables to the throngs, and apart from a parable He spoke nothing to them ... " (Mat. 13:34). Jesus spoke in parables so that his listeners would not understand Him. "Wherefore art Thou speaking in parables to them? ... To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has not been given." (Matt. 13:10-11). Not even the apostles understood these parables. Jesus had to explain their meaning to them in private (Mat. 13:18, 36), (Mat. 15:15), etc. A parable is not to be taken literally. It is to be understood figuratively. The real meaning is not in what the parable literally says, but in what the symbols and figurative language represents. That's why they are called parables. Literal, factual, historical stories are never called parables. Let's test this just to be doubly sure there's no misunderstanding the purpose of a parable.
If the parable (and I heard you call it a parable) of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also hundreds of plain verses of Scripture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN According to your teaching, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. If this is so, let's be sure to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms. Below is listed in each column the exact "literal" facts regarding each man's character, virtue and deeds that are the reason for the fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven:
Examine these two columns closely. Is it not obvious that what is literally revealed here does not lend itself to an eternal life of torture for the Rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man? If you are going to teach this gospel to the Gentiles, it cannot but confuse them. Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column deserve eternal condemnation? And where else in Scripture do the character traits in the right column deserve salvation in Heaven? From what is literally stated about these two individuals, it is hard to find condemnation or praise for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement, but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so. The Rich man received "good things" in life and Lazarus received "evil things" in life. That is obviously true. However, neither of those is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Christ said that it is difficult for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom, for example, and that certainly is true. But it is not the fact of being rich that makes this so, but rather the power that wealth has over the soul to keep one from pursuing spiritual things. Some people are "rich" and are right with God. Other people are "rich" and are not right with God. But it is how God has constituted the person himself that makes the difference, not the fact that he is wealthy. Don't suppose that I am siding with the Rich man at the expense of Lazarus. I am not. Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally:
Is this a sin? Abraham, just talking distance away here, was very rich (Gen. 13:2). Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Joseph was rich, David (a man after God's own heart) was rich. Job was the richest man in all the East (Job. 1:3). And it was God Who made them that way. Being "rich" is no character flaw. The Scripture says: " ... God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, shall be reaping also ... " (Gal. 6:7) And " ... who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also ... " (II Cor. 9:6-7).
Why should we care what color or what fabric clothing he wore? Fine clothing is not a sin. What does clothing have to do with a man's character, virtue, or deeds? If taken literally, nothing. But, if these clothing have some symbolic meaning, then even the clothing could be a key to understanding the whole parable.
Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I don't think so. Paul says: " ... that I may be of good cheer ... " (Phil. 2:19). David's heart was "glad" ( Acts 2:26). And the angels dressed "splendidly" (Acts 10:30).
Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about "poverty." " ... a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come ... " (Prov. 6:10-11). "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand ... " (Prov. 10:4). " ... The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing ... " (Prov. 13:4). Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin. Again, Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7. It is God Who makes rich and poor (I Sam. 2:7). "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18).
Why should we know this man's name? A common name like "Lazarus" is of little value, unless we can determine who this particular Lazarus represents. Remember, to understand a parable, one must know what the figurative language and symbols represent.
Being thrown out into the street is no virtue.
Being sick and diseased is not a virtue. Diseases associated with "the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers" are very often a direct curse from God in the Scriptures. See: Ex. 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut. 28:27, 35, Rev. 16:2, and many others.
It is no virtue to be begging for bread. "Crumbs falling from a table" is an idiom. It is not literal. I have eaten at "Rich men's tables" myself, (off a $25,000 a place setting from some Chinese Dynasty collection), and I can guarantee you that scraps of food were not falling from that table. A few "crumbs," possibly, but not enough to feed a hungry ant, let alone a grown man. Read Psa. 37:25: " ... Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed BEGGING BREAD."
It is a dog's nature to lick sores, but they didn't come to this man's house for that purpose. They came there to get scraps of food as well. However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken literally? Nothing! He could have told us that, "the sky was cloudy" or "the cock was crowing" or "there were holes in the street." So what? What do "wild dogs" add to our understanding, if it's literal? The Rich man was obviously blessed of God. "The Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods ... " (Deut. 28:11). And " ... bless all the work of thine hand" (Ver 12). As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7). He got "good things in life" and the Scripture plainly tells us that "Every GOOD gift is from above ... " (Jas. 117). Lazarus was obviously cursed of God. " ... thou shalt not prosper" (Deut. 28:16). The "botch and scab" (Ver. 27 & 29). He obviously sowed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street, it doesn't get much worse. I don't know what you are thinking, Mr. Hagee, but if you are going to continue to teach that "hades" is an eternal burning hell of torture and Abraham's "bosom" is an eternal heaven of bliss, and that this parable literally proves that this is already an historical fact, then you have more than a few major problems with the rest of God's Word. You will have to use a black marker or cut from the Bible most verses dealing with spirit, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, grace, salvation, and the sovereignty of God, just to name a few! All of these contradict your teaching. All of them.
Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. You say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Lord was still on the earth? "Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing." (I Cor. 15:20). Abraham wasn't the "firstfruit." Lazarus wasn't the "firstfruit." Christ was. The latter fruit, Paul tells us, "are [still] reposing." Jesus plainly said, not only had David not ascended into the heavens, but that "NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven." (John 3:13). You make Christ out to be a liar. When our Lord was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said: " ... no man has ascended up to heaven ... " You say, at the same time our Lord was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are up in heaven. There's just one of your many problems with the Scriptures, Mr. Hagee. There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when he dies. The Scriptures say he "returns" to where he "came." So if he goes to Heaven, then he "came" from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he "came" from Hell. But this is unscriptural. Read these plain and simple verses that tell us exactly where man came from and where he goes when he dies:
Beasts don't go to either heaven or hell when they die. Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or angels don't take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a "dead" Lazarus into the ancient cave of a "dead" Abraham, for the resurrection is yet future (I Thes. 4:16:18). Or, are you, Mr. Hagee, in the same camp as Hymeneus and Philetus who " ... swerve as to truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred subverting the faith of some" (II Tim. 2:18)? Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abraham's bosom. Abraham's bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abraham's bosom is not Heaven. Not more than one person could literally fit into Abraham's chest. It's a parable. Besides, Abraham is dead. "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died ... and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in a cave ... " (Gen. 25:8-9). When Jesus was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. "Abraham is dead" (John 8:52)! After Christ's crucifixion and resurrection (nearly 30 years after), Abraham was still dead. "By faith Abraham ... sojourns in the land of promise ... he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God ... In faith died all these, being NOT requited with the promises ... for He [God] makes ready for them a city" (Heb. 11:8,9,10,13,16). Abraham had not yet, as of the writing of the book of Hebrews, received the promises God made to him. Besides, Abraham was not promised Heaven but Earth, along with King David (Jer. 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rev. 5:10). And the City, New Jerusalem, comes down from heaven to the New Earth. (By the way, after Christ's resurrection, David was also still dead. " ... David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day ... " "For David is not ascended into the heavens ... ") (Acts 2:29 & 34). You teach your doctrines as if these Scriptures I just quoted don't even exist. The Scriptures says that Abraham died. When Christ was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. And thirty years after that we read in Hebrews that Abraham has not yet received his promise. So how can you say he's been in Heaven with Lazarus for thousands of years?
Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? What happens when a body is exhumed from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And it's usually rotten and the "eyes" are decayed away. " ... was entombed. And in hades ... " No man can be "entombed and in hades" at the same time. And we know his body was still in the tomb. So, where did he get a new one? And how could this man literally lift up his eyes in the unseen [hades or the imperceptible]? He's in hades. He just died. He can't be dead and alive at the same time. Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with Sheol in the Hebrew O.T.) and it has a meaning. The elements are "UN-PERCEIVED." It can be properly translated into English as "unseen" or "imperceptible." Now how can one "see" in the unseen?" It's ridiculous. How can anyone have "perception" in the "imperceptible?" The dead can't "see." It's a parable. You said in your sermon that there is consciousness in hades. There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Gk: Hades](Psa. 146:4)--none. "Sheol" and "Hades" are synonymous. In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew sheol. Look carefully at these two verses: "His spirit [ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146-3-4). " ... there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go" (Ecc. 9:10). "Device" [Heb. mchesh - bown - contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Now, seriously, do these two verses sound like "dark sayings?" or "tricky proverbs?" or "difficult parables?" or "deep mysteries?" They are plain, simple statements that any child could understand. They also contradict your "consciousness in hades" theory.
In the left column we have seeing, feeling, hearing, talking, and reason. In the right column we have nothing. The left column is based on one parable that should never be taken literally while the right column is quoted right from the Hebrew Scriptures' teaching on death. You said in your sermon: "This is no soul sleep ... here." You said that in a very loud, sarcastic and demeaning voice, as though you were poo pooing such a ridiculous idea. I would be careful, Mr. Hagee, since it is God Himself Who likens death to sleep. Although the phrase "soul sleep" itself is unscriptural, the idea that the "dead" are "sleeping" is most Scriptural.
I believe all of these Scriptures. Either Abraham is dead, buried, and sleeping with his fathers, just as Moses, David, etc., or these Scriptures can't be trusted. You said that this eternity of Hell begins the second after death in a life without Christ. What about all these verses? Not only did all these patriarchs go to sleep, but they went to sleep with their fathers. And many of their "fathers" were idolaters. I just gave you a dozen Scriptures stating that God likens death to sleep. In what way is being conscious and tortured in the flames of Hell analogous to "sleep?" Well? God says death is "sleep." In what way is conscious torture in Hell fire analogous to "sleep?" In what way is a blissful life in Heaven analogous to "sleep?" Therefore, your teaching that the dead Rich man and dead Lazarus are not asleep is unscriptural heresy. Let me give you a Scripture that will "lay to rest" (pun intended) this issue once and for all. What happens after one dies:
When a person dies, he must: wait ... till ... appointed time ... change comes ... God calls ... he lives again ... and answers thee. When Jesus taught this parable there were no Greek Scriptures. So when this "rich man died" he went to Sheol [Heb. "the unseen or imperceptible"] It's the same sheol that Christ's soul went to at death: Psalm 16:10--"For Thou will not leave my soul in the unseen [Sheol]." This verse is quoted in the New Testament Greek: Acts 2:27--"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [Gk. Hades]." Sheol and Hades are synonymous. The Old Testament says Christ's soul went to "Sheol," the New says His soul went to "Hades." Surely you have read the Scripture stating that Christ was the "firstfruit" of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, I Thes. 4:16-18). And we follow, in His presence, at His coming, at the last trump. This does not occur the second after death, as you suggest. Read I Cor. 15 again. "Christ died for our sins," "He was buried," "He rose again the third day." All right, let's be Scripturally exact.
Now, back to the parable:
Impossible. The man is enveloped in "flames" and can clearly identify two personalities from "afar" across a great chasm? Not with human eyes.
Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17-- " ... let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]." There it is! There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally shout in hades or sheol they make God a liar.
Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. If anyone is so silly as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most-the eyes and skin, or the tongue? Besides a "drop" on the "tip" of one's finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. It's a parable. This language is figurative.
Impossible. It is possible to be "pained in flame." However, it is impossible to talk about it while it is happening! If his body was "human" so as to have a nervous system and "feel pain," then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (it's dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die.
We're still talking "literal," right? The Rich man is in Hell, right? Why then didn't Abraham say something like this: "Be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, ungodly, unholy, unrepentant, incorrigible piece of slime in your life-so burn in Hell for ever." Considering the colossal penalty put on this man, I would think that somehow the "crime" would have to come a little bit closer to matching the "punishment." Don't you think that is sound reasoning? Doesn't God match the punishment with the crime? Suppose one of our Federal Courts were to sentence a man to one hundred years at hard labor. Don't you reckon he would have had to do something pretty bad to get a sentence like that? Well, you're sentencing (yes you, not God) the Rich man to all eternity in Hell fire and I don't see where he did anything bad. He lived a life of "good things!" You want to take this literally? Okay. According to you then, here is the reason that the rich man is in hades (which you interpret as Hell) and Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom (which you interpret as Heaven). The rich man got good things and Lazarus got evil things.
So we are to take this parable literally? As an historical fact? Okay. What does it "literally" say? Not what you "think it means" but what it actually says:
Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That's because this is figurative and symbolic language. It's a parable. Your interpretation of this parable is ridiculous. If what you teach about this parable is true, here's the bottom line:
You know, if this parable is literal, Abraham is on the wrong side! Abraham possessed many more of the qualities of the rich man (if literal) than he did of Lazarus! Abraham was very rich, loved his family, was concerned for the welfare of others, provided for his servants, was respectful of authority (especially of God), was tremendously blessed of God and had a life of many good things. According to your interpretation of this story Abraham should be in Hell. Actually Abraham is in hades (sheol), as are all the "fathers." "And these ALL [all mentioned in this chapter], being testified to through faith, are NOT requited with the promise of God concerning us (the looking forward is to something better), that, apart from us, they may NOT be perfected" (Heb. 11:39-40). It's very quiet in hades; no thoughts, no praise, no anything-it's "imperceptible" and "unseen." Like Job, they are all waiting (in sleep) until their "change comes." Back to the parable:
You say that this is Heaven. Lazarus is in Heaven? Where are the other people? Where is Christ? Where is the reward? Where is the happiness and joy? Lazarus is "consoled." This word in Greek is used in conjunction with someone who is "in distress." So Lazarus is being "consoled in his distress." Doesn't sound like much of a Heaven to me. And the rich man is "in pain." Why? It doesn't say he did anything wrong, or evil, so why is he in pain? Who judged him? When? For what? If this is literal, you place a huge blot on the character of God. According to you, this man is spending an eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. He has been sentenced without being judged! This man could not have been judged, because when our Lord spoke this parable, "The Judgment" was yet future. "Verily, I am saying to you, More tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that day of judging than for that city." (Matt. 10:15) Now I never was good at grammar, but I don't think "will be" is in the "past tense," is it? And again, "Men, Ninevites, will be rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it ... " (Mat. 12:41) The "evil" men of Sodom have not yet been judged. The "righteous" men of Nineveh have not yet risen or been judged. What are we to do, Mr. Hagee? Get the scissors out again and clip more verses from the Bible so that you can be at liberty to turn a parable into an historical event? Besides, judging has to do with setting things right. "Punishment is meted out according to the degree of the crime. Punishment is never eternal. (Refer again to section on the "eons.") And how does eternal torture in Hell fire equate to the punishment for "having good things in your life?" But you say, "No, he's in Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But it doesn't say that. And it's you who demands that this parable be taken literally. Well, okay, let's look at your premise anyway. I heard you say in your sermon: "You go to Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But, you do err not knowing the Scriptures or your history! Not only didn't the rich man literally "reject Christ's sacrifice," but it was literally impossible for him to literally do so. When Christ taught this parable (Luke 16) He was not yet sacrificed (Luke 23). You have the audacity to teach millions of people that our Merciful God has sent millions of fellow human beings to an eternal Hell to suffer in torturous agony, all without a "hearing" or "trial" or "just judgment" and for rejecting a "sacrifice" that had not yet been sacrificed? Dr. Kennedy says: "Hell is fair." You say: "It is justice." I say: "You are binding loads, heavy and hard to bear on men's shoulders!"
Impossible. "Thus also is the resurrection of the dead ... It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:42 & 44). How can a "gulf" or "chasm" keep such a spiritual being from crossing it? " ... those wanting to cross hence to you ... " What? Do you think that is translated correctly, Mr. Hagee? I assure you it is translated correctly. So why, why, would anyone in Heaven "want" to go to Hell? "Nor yet those thence may be ferrying to us." King James uses "pass" both times. The first "pass" is [Gk. diabaino=THROUGH-STEP], cross. But the second "pass" is [Gk. diaperao =THROUGH-OTHER-SIDE, and is used of passage over water], "ferrying." Here is WATER! Since there is water separating Lazarus from the rich man in this chasm, why doesn't the rich man just jump into the water? And the word "ferrying" also presupposes ferry boats. Even if the Rich man can't swim; better to drown than burn. Imagine that - "water" in HELL!
Impossible. The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. He even called him "Father." How could someone who knows Abraham " ... hear Moses ... ?" Moses didn't live until hundreds of years after Abraham. How could the rich man's "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn't live until far into their future. And where in Moses and the Prophets does it warn that if one is rich and blessed of God that when he dies he will go to an eternal hell of fire and torture? Or that a poor man cursed of God will go to an eternal heaven of bliss? I have a few concordances, Mr. Hagee, but I can't find any such verse. Can you help me? You said this is literal, so somewhere in Moses and the Prophets it must say such a thing! Where?
Impossible. You say that Lazarus isn't dead. You say he's alive in heaven. Why didn't the rich man say, "No, father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from heaven, they will be repenting?" How could Lazarus, who you say is alive, " ... go to them from the dead?"
The rich man is now persuaded. Why wouldn't they also be persuaded? Because it will take more than Moses and the Prophets and more than one returning from the dead to persuade them. Matt Crouch said on international television that since the Jews were prophesied to not understand, Christ spoke in parables so that this prophecy would be apparently voided and they would understand. Unscriptural nonsense!
It wasn't Christ's "explanations" that none understood, it was his "parables" that none understood. The multitudes did not understand Christ's parables: "This parable spake Jesus unto them; but they understood NOT what things they were which He spake unto them." (Jn 10:6). If, as Matt Crouch suggests, Christ taught in parables so that the the masses would understand, then the Scriptures themselves would prove that He failed utterly. Are we sure that we want to make such an unscriptural assertion? Not even Christ's own disciples understand His parables. "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Mat. 13:13). "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower" (Ver. 18). "Then answered Peter and said unto him, declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, 'Are ye also [like the multitudes] yet without understanding?'" (Mat. 15:15-16). "And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?" (Mk. 4:13) Christ had to explain all the parables to them! "And with many such parables spake he the word ... but without a parable spake He not unto them: and when they were ALONE, He expounded all things to His disciples" (Mk. 4:33-34)! It is interesting what Christ said here. If his disciples didn't understand this parable, "how then will ye know all parables?" There is a continuity among most of the parables. They basically speak of the same peoples and the same events. The disciples weren't so foolish, however, as to believe that this parable was to be taken literally, any more than they believed any of the parables were to be taken literally. That's why our Lord explained all the parables to them in private. Read it and believe. As I have said, one can't take this parable "literally" at the expense of contradicting hundreds of other plain Scriptures. I have presented ample Scriptural proof that this is a parable and that it cannot be taken literally. Like most parables, it was prophecy not history. If one persists in thinking this parable is literal, that person will remain ignorant of God's revelation. Maybe the "Flat Earth Society" of Great Britain is still accepting new memberships. Before I explain this parable, please notice something. The condition the Rich man now finds himself in was not something he had anticipated in "life." Abraham's reference to Moses and the Prophets presupposes that the Rich man was familiar with these writings. However, nothing in these writings gives any warning of going to a "fiery place of torment" immediately upon death. Nor does the parable state that this condition of the Rich man [in torment] and Lazarus [consoled in his distress] is permanent or endless. Furthermore, being "not persuaded" by either "Moses and the Prophets" or "someone rising from the dead" does NOT preclude that there is nothing that ever will persuade them in the future. The truth is, there are many, many Scriptures that do tell us when and what actually will persuade the "Rich man," "his brothers," "all mankind," and "every celestial being" in the universe, that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father. That, Mr. Hagee, is the truly Good News Gospel that
you and most of Christendom are failing to teach. (Read Eph. 1:10-11, Phil. 2:10 &
Isa. 45:22-23, I Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10) "These things command and teach" (Ver. 11). THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN Before I explain Lazarus and the Rich man, some background information is necessary. Biblically speaking there are two broad categories of people in the world-the Children of Israel and the other nations. Later this designation was shortened to "the Jews and the Gentiles." It all began with Eber [Heber] the forefather of all Hebrews (Gen.10:21). Abraham [Abram] was of this lineage and so is an "Hebrew." There were other lines of Hebrews also. God changed Abram's name to Abraham signifying that he would become a "Father of Many Nations" (Gen. 16:7-11). Abraham had a son Isaac, and Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob. God changed Jacob's name to "Israel" (Gen.. 32:28). Israel had twelve sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Napthali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin (Gen.. 35:23-16), who then became known as "The Children of Israel." The "Children of Israel" became God's "chosen" people: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6). God's relationship with Israel was so close that He married them: "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall He be called" (Isa. 54:5). The Tribe of Judah was chosen of God to lead in battle (Jg. 1:2). The various Tribes warred against each other during a period of civil wars. They finally became united under two houses, Judah and Israel. David was anointed King of Judah (II Sam. 2:4) and then later King over Israel (II Sam. 5:3). In I Kg. 12:19-21 Judah (with the tribe of Benjamin) was again at war with Israel. Israel was then known as the "Ten Tribes." Many of the Priests and Levites left Israel and went to Jeru- salem under Judah (II Chron. 11:13). And so the Kingdom of Israel (with its capital at Samaria) and the Kingdom of Judah (with its capital at Jerusalem) were separate nations for several centuries. Eventually, Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians (II Kg. 18:11) and later Judah was taken into captivity by Babylon (Jer. 30:9). According to II Kings 17:24-27, the king of Assyria brought people from numerous nations, including Babylon, and repopulated the cities of Samaria. He then sent one of Israel's priests to go back to these cities and teach them about God, because God sent lions to devour some in the land. These displaced foreigners intermarried with the remaining Israelites, and thus we have the "Samaritans" who were part Israeli and part Gentile (II Chron. 30:6.) They became known as "Hellenists," who were imitators of the Greek language and culture, with their religion a modified form of Judaism. There was constant antagonism between the Hellenistic Jews (dispersed Israel) and the Jews at Jerusalem. It is interesting that even these dispersed ten tribes of Israel were historically known as "Hellenistic Jews." Nehemiah came to power and returned eventually to Jerusalem to rebuild it. He took Priests and Levites with him (Neh. 2:1-8). Ezra also returned to Jerusalem with a large company of Jews (Ezra 7:8). "Even all the Jews returned out of all places whither they were driven ... " (Jer. 40:11-12). I doubt that many in Judea and Jerusalem even knew for sure which Tribes they came from by the time of our Lord's ministry. To show how dominant Judah was in absorbing many from the ten Tribes and passing on his name to them, look at Judges 17:7: "And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite ... " He was a Levite who was considered Juhah's family. The priests, of course, had to know their lineage or they were disqualified for the Priesthood. Paul was an extremely well-educated man and therefore knew his lineage. With all these things in mind, maybe we can better understand how these different names are used and applied to even the same person. Paul, for example, was an Hebrew (Phil. 3:5) through Abraham (Rom. 11:1). He was of the line of Isaac, and was an Israelite through Israel (Rom. 11:1) through Jacob. He was a Benjamite through the Tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1). Paul came from Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 21:39), was educated in Jerusalem, trained a Pharisee under Gamaleil. Paul spoke Hebrew & Greek (Acts 22:2-3), and was also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37). Yet, Paul said he was a Jew (Acts 21:39). So here's what happened. In the Old Testament all Jews were Israelites, but not all Israelites were Jews. Like all Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. Because Judah was always the dominant Tribe, many Israelites who once again gathered in Judea, came under Judah's leadership. Many of the individual Ten Tribes became mixed in intertribal and interracial marriage. By the time of our Lord, they all were designated "Jews." Even today, many known "Jews" may really be "Danites" or "Reubenites" etc. Many thinking themselves Gentiles could really be descendants of Israelites or Jews or other lines of Hebrews and not even know it. I always considered myself a "Gentile" until a recent trip to Germany and Amsterdam, where I talked to different people about the early immigrants to America. My last name was "Schmidt" two hundred years ago, but when I mentioned other family names in my genealogy they told me: "That's Jewish, that's Jewish, etc." My father was David, his father was Charles, his father was Thomas, his father was Manuel, his father was Isaac, his father was Abraham, and his father was Jacob. They told me that true Germans almost never named their children with Hebrew names. So maybe I'm a Jew. Only God knows for sure. But the point I want to make is that at the time of our Lord, Judah (the Jews) dominated to the extent that all non-Gentiles were referred to as Jews, although "Israel" as their historical origin was still used. The name "Israel" is used some 120 times in the N.T., while "Jews" is used some 360 times. So they really are used interchangeably. They are all Israelites, but Judah has always dominated. It will be important to keep these things in mind as we discuss this parable. Without this background information it would be impossible to narrow the "rich man" of this parable down to one historical personage. Parables are of little spiritual value if taken literally. When taken literally, most parables are physiological impossibilities, or they tell us little we didn't already know. Let's look at the parable of the tares: A man sows good seed. An enemy sows tares. A servant suggests they pull out the tares. The owner suggests that would pull out the good wheat too. So he says to wait till harvest and then separate the wheat from the tares. (Mat. 13:24-30). None of the parables are to be understood in their literal language. Interestingly, this parable of the tares could be taken literally. That is, it makes sense even in its literal language, and does not contradict other Scriptures. However, this parable was not meant to be taken literally, and if we do, what do we learn? Quite frankly, not much. Did Christ waste His time giving little household hints and horticultural tips? I don't think so. When Christ explains this parable to His disciples, it takes on enormous meaning never even suggested in the "literal" story. The "sower" is the Son of man. The "field" is the world. The "good seed" are the children of the Kingdom of God. The "tares" are the children of the wicked one [Satan]. The "harvest" is the end of the age (Mat. 14:37-43). Now that's some pretty heavy stuff! This is no horticultural tip to farmers. And, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Christ is not telling us about some "one" individual rich man and some "one" insignificant beggar in the street. Look at that parable of the "tares" again. Literally, it is nothing. But what it represents in figurative and symbolic language is awesome. It has to do with the operations of God", "Satan", "millions of people", and the very "end of this age." Through "symbolism" and "personification," God often uses one thing or person to represent many or even multitudes and whole nations of people: "This image's head was of fine gold ... Thou, O king, art a king of kings ... thou art this head of gold" (Dan. 2:32, 37, 38). The "image" represented King Nebuchadnezzar, but the "King" represented all Babylon and all the nations and kingdoms that he conquered. "And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah ... " (Deut. 33:7). This was not "literally" the voice of the one man, "Judah," but of his Descendants. Judah had "literally" died hundreds of years earlier. "And Judah said unto Simeon his brother ... and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men." (Judges 1:3-4). Judah was dead, Simeon was dead, and two individuals could hardly "slay ten thousand men!" Clearly, Judah represents the children of Judah or as they are called, Jews. Remember this, for it is important. All of the parables have huge consequences. They depict giant events yet to come. They deal with the future of millions of people-not just a beggar in the street somewhere. Let's not cheapen or demean this parable. There is a continuity running through most of the parables. Virtually all of the parables deal with punishments and rewards for the same people at the same event. Although the meaning of His parables was hidden, on one occasion Christ did identify Himself in a parable. Correctly translated thus: "Undoubtedly you will be declaring to me this parable: 'Physician cure your self'" (Concordant Literal New Testament). On one occasion the Pharisees did realize that Christ was talking about them. "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on Him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them" (Luke 20:19). Note that a few verses before this parable it is stated that Christ was giving these parables partly because the Pharisees were " ... inherently fond of money" (Lk. 16:14). But in the parable of "Lazarus and the Rich man," surely they understood who Christ was speaking of. In the parable of the "tares" no one could even guess who or what the "tares" represented without explanation. But in "Lazarus and the rich man" there are more hints and more identifiable symbols and facts given than in any other parable in the Gospels. The Pharisees may have been hypocrites. Nevertheless, they were highly educated and familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. They knew what "Purple and Fine Linen" symbolized. The name "Lazarus" wouldn't necessarily have meant much to them (it was a common name) until we find him "in the bosom of Abraham." Then they knew for sure which Lazarus our Lord was speaking of. And when they were told that the rich man had "Moses and the Prophets" there was little doubt left. And this rich man had "five brothers." That clinched it. Surely they knew for sure who this man was. And although they probably hadn't a clue as to the real meaning of the parable, there was no doubt that our Lord did not portray the rich man in a very favorable light. THE PARABLE
I believe that the first and second verses of this parable may be a question. The Greek word ti (neuter), tis (mas. and fem.) generally has the meaning of "any." However, "Any, the indefinite pronoun, used freely, especially in questions, where English uses 'who,' 'whose,' 'which,' 'what,' 'why,' or with negatives, '(any)one', though, when possible, we seek to preserve its indefiniteness by rendering it 'any,' 'some,' or 'certain.'" (Greek-English Keyword Concordance p. 15). Certainly we can render this word in this particular passage as "certain," that is if we use Webster's Third definition of "certain" which means "3. not named or described, though perhaps known." However, if we use Webster's First definition of "certain" it destroys this "questionable" character of the word: "1. Without any doubt or question; sure; positive." Christ asked: "Who [tis] touched my clothes?" (Mk. 5:30). Certainly, the answer couldn't be "ANY." And, likewise, Christ asks "Whose [ti] is this image and the inscription?" (Matt. 22:20). Again, the answer certainly could not be "any image," or "a certain image." It was definitely "Caesar's" image. Showing someone a famous image and then asking "who" it is, is a pretty big clue. Now this verse is particularly interesting, because everyone or anyone would have known whose image was on the coin, yet Christ merely asked the question to confirm that fact! In the same way I believe Christ asked "who" was this rich man and "who" was this poor man Lazarus, (with all the accompanying clues and symbols) to merely confirm in their minds that they already knew who these two personages were. I firmly believe that the "who" of this parable is just as important or even more important than the "what" of the parable. Without knowing "who" is spoken of, the "what" makes almost no sense. Although I know of no translation that does translate this verse into a question, I nonetheless, do not at present believe it would violate any rules if it were translated a question.
Yes, "Who?" That is the question. And it appears evident from the rest of the clues and symbols in the parable that they did know "who," but Christ asked them anyway, just as He asked "Whose image ... " was on the coin when surely everyone knew "whose" image it was. And remember, it is the same Greek word ti or tis that is used in all four of these places. There were lots of "rich men" and lots of "poor beggars" and Lazarus was a common name. But "who" was this rich man and "who" was this particular Lazarus, that's the question! It is not necessary, however, to the explanation of the parable whether it should have a question mark or not. I just believe it lends itself to a question as do the other scriptures where "who?" is used. There is only one man who Scripturally fits all the descriptions of the "rich man" in this parable. Only one person who "personifies" all of the symbols and identifying clues given of this rich man. And that man is:
But not just Judah as an historical individual, but Judah collectively, representing all of Israel under the headship of Judah, the Jews. And the Jews were "rich." Beginning in Gen. 15:14 God prophesied that Abraham's descendants were to be very rich.
So yes, Judah was "rich." And "who" to this day are universally known for having money and being successful in the financial world? The Jews. However, these were just some of Judah's material possessions. Judah was rich in another way - very rich. Judah possessed something far more valuable than all of these possessions. God bestowed on Judah a treasure greater than any other on the face of the earth, in the history of the world.
Prerogative is translated from [Gk. perisson' EXCESS, SUPERABUNDANTLY] Who has a diamond collection, an art collection, a string of corporations, or fifty Swiss Bank accounts that could begin to approach the value of the oracles of God?
So not only was Judah rich materially, but God bestowed on Judah His very word. And from the tribe of Judah came Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World. Who but Judah possessed such wealth?
Imagine Christ asking His disciples: "Oh, by the way, would you fellows be interested in knowing what color clothing this Rich man was wearing just before he went to Hell?" Nonsense! But what is nonsense in the literal becomes symbolic in the parable. And this symbol is one of the main keys to understanding the rich man's identity. Purple is: "A color used in garments of a bluish red, by a dye obtained from a shell fish, purpura. It denotes rank of royalty" (Greek-English Keyword Concordance p. 236). Purple was worn by Kings (Judges 8:26). Even the Caesars of Rome wore Purple as a symbol of their royalty. And who was to carry the "royal" line in Israel? Judah.
David was of the Tribe of Judah and was anointed King of Judah. Our Lord was of the line of Judah (Mat. 1:2), and will be not only King of Judah, but King of Kings. During our Lord's ministry, Judea was under Roman rule, however, there were still rulers in Judea-The Jews. There were Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests. Jesus said they had power and authority from God. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ... " (Mat. 23:2-3). God has always elevated Judah above the other Tribes. In I Chron. 2:1-3 we read: "These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. The sons of Judah; ... " Notice Judah was the third born to Israel [Jacob] and is listed third, but when God gives their children's names He starts first with Judah. To show Judah's dominance in Rulership, Judah is put at the head of the list, when the Tribes of Israel are enumerated in Revelation 7:4. This, without being the firstborn.
The Rich man didn't just dress in "Purple," but "Purple and Cambric." He wore both. Cambric or Fine Linen was the clothing of the priests (Ex. 25:4, Ex. 28:5), and of the interior decorations of the Tabernacle itself (Ex. 26:1). Our Lord would not have told us that the Rich man wore these two specific types of garments except that they have great symbolic value in identifying who this man typifies.. But if "Purple" symbolizes "Royalty" and "Fine Linen" symbolizes "Priesthood," how can the same man wear both? Only our Lord is both King and Priest. Remember, the Levites and the priests were loyal to Judah through their long history. When they got the opportunity, they went with Ezra and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem-back to Judah. They were "part" of Judah. They were "called" Jews. Only one had both the Scepter and the Priesthood: Judah. Notice this Scripture carefully:
There it is! Judah had both the royalty and the priesthood. And all these leaders of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, became who were known in Christ's time as "the Jews." And that's why, although the Apostle Paul was of the Tribe of Benjamin, nonetheless, he said of himself, that he was "a Jew." In Judah were both the Royal Scepter (purple) and the Priesthood (fine linen). And that's the reason Christ took the time to tell us what the Rich man was wearing. No other personality in Scripture has both these designations, along with all the other identifying features attributed to "the Rich man."
The Rich man could therefore legitimately call Abraham, "Father." Abraham was Judah's Great Grandfather. Abraham could legitimately call the Rich man, "Child." Judah was Abraham's Great Grandchild.
The Kingdom of Judah did have "Moses and the Prophets." They were the protectors and scribes of those very documents till the time of our Lord's ministry, when Jesus said that they "sit in Moses' seat." Judah was the very depository for The Law (Moses), The Prophets, and the Writings. Remember the Oracles were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:1-2). The Rich man said: "I have five brothers ... " There's a rule of Scripture study that is very sound, which I believe is applicable here. It goes like this: "Literal where and when possible." Most of this parable cannot be taken literally. Why? Because for one, it often contradicts the laws of science and physics. And two, it would contradict hundreds of other plain verses of Scripture. It's the "parable" that cannot be taken literally. That does not mean that certain facts contained in the parable are not literal. Abraham is, undoubtedly, "literally" Abraham. Moses and the prophets are, undoubtedly, "literally" Moses and the prophets. They obviously represent themselves, not someone else. So, at first glance, you might think Judah can't be this "Rich man." Didn't Judah have eleven brothers? Yes and No. True, there were twelve sons of Israel, one of which was Judah, but not all by the same mother. Judah's Mother, Leah, bore (1) Reuben, (2) Simeon, (3) Levi, (4) Issachar, (5) Zebulun and Judah makes six (Gen. 29:31-35, 30:18-19). So who had five brothers? Judah. That "Judah" (the Jews), is here personified in this Rich man, there can be little doubt. Who then is this "Lazarus?" The answer is not far to find when we see where he is: "in Abraham's bosom." Being in someone's bosom shows a very close emotional relationship and position of honor. Christ likens Himself as being in the "bosom" of His Father (Jn 1:18). John, likewise, who was very fond of Jesus leaned back into Jesus' bosom (Jn 13:23). To be in the bosom of Abraham, or the bosom of Christ, or the bosom of the Father, are certainly positions of great honor. The Jews coveted that relationship with Abraham. They were so proud of their Father Abraham. They knew that God thought highly of their Father Abraham, and they wanted to be connected to that lofty position themselves. However, they did not come even close to qualifying for such an honor. They loved to say: "We have Abraham for our father!" But as Christ told them, they didn't do the works of faith that their Father Abraham did. So Judah is not in the bosom of Abraham, but Lazarus is. Why? Who is this "Lazarus" that he should have such a lofty position of honor with the Father of the faithful? I said earlier that the Jews, undoubtedly, understood "who" Christ was referring to in both the Rich man and Lazarus. Remember that the Jews of Jerusalem knew Hebrew. Their scriptures were written in Hebrew. They were a lot closer to these symbols and the Hebrew language than we are today. "And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir." (Gen. 15:2-3). In chapter 13 God had already promised great land and possessions to Abram's seed. But Abram had no seed! Abram told God that since he had no son, his chief steward, Eliezer, would be his heir and inherit all that was his. Eliezer was so faithful a steward to Abraham that Abraham was planning to make him his heir and give Eliezer all his possessions and inheritance. Eliezer would have been wealthy. He would have inherited the "promised land." He would have received the "oracles of God." Ah, but no, God had different plans. Abraham would have a son Isaac who would continue the Abrahamic line. It appears that Eliezer will be left out, for he lost his one big claim to fame. Now he's just a "Gentile" from Damascus. All his generations will be "gentiles" (dogs). Eliezer knew he would inherit all of Abraham's posessions one day. And now, that's all gone. But he remains faithful. He had ample opportunity to do away with Isaac on any number of occasions, but he remained faithful to Abraham. He even journeyed to get a wife for Isaac. He did all that a faithful steward should do. Imagine just how faithful and trustworthy a steward would have to be for Abraham to leave ALL his possessions to him. Abraham was extremely rich. Why look for "another" to pass these blessings onto? Eliezer has already proved himself faithful. Abraham had already concluded that Eliezer was the only logical heir: "This Eliezer of Damascus ... born in my house is mine heir" (Gen. 15:2-3). It appears that either Eliezer becomes Abraham's heir, or nothing. Absolutely no spiritual promises or possessions were ever made by God to Eliezer If he is not to get Abraham's inheritance, which included all that Abraham already had plus all that God is about to bless him with, then Eliezer is going to be poor as far as spiritual blessings are concerned. As a Gentile, all he can ever hope for are the spiritual "crumbs" that fall from the Rich man's table. Not to fear: through faith God works many miracles. Note: "Now the woman was a Greek, a native of Syro-Phoenicia [A Gentile], and she asked Him that He should be casting the demon out of her daughter. Yet Jesus said to her, 'Let first the children [The Jews] be satisfied, for it is not ideal to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.' Yet she answered and is saying to Him, 'Yes, Lord, For the dogs also, underneath the table, are eating the scraps from the little children.' And He said to her, 'Because of this saying, go. The demon has come out of your daughter.'" (Mk. 6:27-29). Clearly this Syro-Phoenician woman was not asking for a small portion of food (crumbs or scraps), but rather a small portion of Christ's spiritual blessing. And clearly, Lazarus does not represent a street beggar in need of a small portion of food. When Christ entered Capernaum a centurion [a Roman, a Gentile] asked Christ to heal his boy. Christ said He would come. The Centurion said He need only to "say the word" and he would trust Christ for the healing. "When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to them that followed, 'Verily I say unto you I have not found so great faith no, not in Israel'" (Mat. 8:5-10). Why then, are the Gentiles relegated to "dogs?" Not in all Israel did our Lord find such faith as in these Gentile "dogs!" But "Judah" gets all the blessings while the "Gentile" dogs get the crumbs. Ah, just when we think things are going bad and God isn't fair, He shows us His strange and marvelous wisdom! As Paul Harvey says, "And now for the rest of the story ... " What was Christ's response to this marvelous exhibition of faith by the Centurion? "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and the west [Gentiles], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the children of the kingdom [Judah] shall be cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat. 8:11-12). If these "from the east and the west" are not the "children of the kingdom" (that is some combination of Jews and Israelites), then they would have to be gentiles. Christ is not telling us that "Jews" from the East and "Jews" from the West will sit down with Abraham, but that the "Jews" shall be cast out. That's contradictory. It's the "Jews" (also containing members of the other ten tribes) who are the "children of the kingdom" who are "cast out." Those from the East and West are "Gentiles." Christ is telling us who these "many" are because He is commenting on the faith that God has given to this Centurion "Gentile." This statement of Christ's at this particular occasion would be totally out of context, except for the fact that He is marveling over the faith of these Gentiles. In His ministry, Christ speaks only rarely of the Gentiles. But He does speak of them. And, although He said He was sent only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Mat. 15:25), in His human ministry He nonetheless was making provisions for the Gentiles, as in this prophetic statement. As Christ's disciples were to be like "salt" to the earth, this Syro-Phoenician woman, Cornelius of the Italian squadron, the Roman Centurion, and others were certainly like "salt" among the Jews. When it comes to God's blessings, faith is thicker than blood. God has not "cast off" the Gentiles! So we find "Lazarus" [Gk: helpless] begging scraps from a rich man's table. Can "helpless" find "help?" Will God have mercy on him just as He did the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Centurion? Yes! "Lazarus" is "Eliezer." The Greek "Lazarus" is from Lazaros
[Heb. HELPLESS]. If Lazarus knew his Hebrew name, he would have known that help was on the way. The "God of Help" had already planned this whole marvelous drama from the time of Abraham. Just as the Jews can look to their ancient "father" Abraham as a sterling example of faith in God, so now, likewise, can the Gentiles look to Abraham's Steward, Eliezer as a "father" of rare faith. Truly there is no partiality with God - it only appears that way when we let the relative get in the way of the absolute. It is the Gentiles that God is primarily dealing with today. Paul says there is to be only a remnant of Jews. His calling was to the nations. Paul, however, knew that God was still calling a few of the Jews. "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh [Jews], and might save some of them" (Rom. 11:14). For nearly two thousand years now God is calling primarily people among the Gentiles.
It was the "Gentiles" who were not allowed into the Royal and Priestly House of Judah. They could go no further than "The court of the Gentiles." Any blessings they received had to come to them from inside where they were never allowed to go. Though designated as "proselytes," they were, nonetheless, like "dogs" who only got the "crumbs" or scraps. Hence we find Lazarus cast "at the gate." Little could these Jews hearing this parable realize that in just a few short years all this would change. "Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you [Gentiles], who once are far off are become near by the blood of Christ. For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier [middle wall of partition] ... He brings the evangel of peace to you [Gentiles] ... for through Him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have had the access, in one spirit to the Father" (Eph. 2:13-18). And so today, the Gentiles don't have to stand outside the gate, or be separated by a barrier, or stay in their own court and wait for handouts. They have direct access to God. And who has been preaching the Evangel for the past two thousand years? The Jews? Hardly. It has been the Gentiles (as far as we can know the identity of modern nations), that have translated the Scriptures into nearly every language on earth. It is those called of the Gentiles that are accepting Christ Jesus as their Savior, not the Jews. It is a rare thing to find a person known for sure to be a Jew accepting Christ as the Messiah. And that's why we find Lazarus [Eliezer-the Gentiles] in the bosom of Abraham, and the Rich man [the Jews] engulfed in the flames of Anti-Semitism for the past two thousand years.
Lazarus is not full of sores in Abraham's bosom. He has been healed. In fact, that's what "salvation" meant in New Testament times. "Salvation" is a beautiful sounding Latin word, however, it was never part of the New Testament Greek Vocabulary. Not until six or eight centuries ago did the word "salvation" come into translations. Before that time it was "health" that was one's salvation. And all of the very oldest Anglo-Saxon Scriptures translate it "health" not "salvation." So for Lazarus, "health" in the bosom of Abraham was salvation! Lazarus doesn't represent "materialistically" poor Jews, but "spiritually" poor Gentiles. That's the whole point in the parable. Judah was rich and knew it! They were like the Laodiceans who said: "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17).
In "figurative and symbolic language" the Rich man asks for a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus' finger. How appropriate! Who was it that refused to help the "poor" with so much as their little finger?
Now Judah begs the assistance of a "finger" from a poor man! And not just a poor man, but a poor Gentile! It was custom for pious Jews to cut a section of their garment off if it where so much as touched by the finger of a Gentile. Now he begs for the assistance of that Gentile finger. "God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also" (Gal. 6:7).
It isn't his "flesh" that he wants cooled from the flames, but his tongue. This man is frightened. His tongue is swelling. And well it should be. When people are petrified from fear their tongue dries and swells. That's why some public speakers often need a whole glass of water just to get through a 15 minute speech. King David said: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion" (Psa. 137:1). Well, God brought Judah back from Babylon to Jerusalem, but Judah didn't have the same heart as King David. He failed to "remember." David said: " ... let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ... if I forget to remember Jerusalem." It was because of Judah's "tongue" that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first place: "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen; because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord ... " (Isa. 3:8). So in the parable we find Lazarus [Eliezer] (a Gentile) in the bosom of Abraham, and Judah, who should be there, on the other side asking for mercy. But Lazarus can't come over to the Rich man even if he wanted to, because of this "chasm."
Earlier I showed you from the Greek that there is water in this gulf or chasm. What could this be all about? Certainly there is no literal chasm between hades [unseen] and Abraham's bosom. What or where is this great chasm? Does the Bible speak of a great chasm that has anything to do with salvation or rewards? When the Children of Israel made their exodus out of Egypt, they were on their way to the "Promised Land." After receiving the Ten Commandments at Mt Sinai, (where they stayed approximately one year), they headed north to Kadeshbarnea. They sent men to spy out the land. They were very close to Canaan. But God sentenced them to thirty-nine more years in the wilderness for their unbelief. How different they were from their ancient Father Abraham. After thirty-nine years they again headed north, only this time through Edom and Moab and approached the Jordan from the East. To get to the Promised Land they had to cross over the Jordan River Valley. The River Jordan runs through a "great chasm [or gulf]." From Mt. Nebo Moses could see the Promised Land. The Jordan is in a huge chasm. It's a "far" way to the other side. This chasm is, in fact so large that it may well be one of the largest fault lines on Earth. It starts on the southern boundaries of Turkey and runs through Palestine, through the Dead Sea, through the Red Sea, through Africa to Lake Victoria. Some scientists and geologists believe it continues through Africa and the South Pole and reemerges again in the Pacific Ocean. Now that's a "Great Chasm." Because of Moses' sin, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land. "Crossing over Jordan" has always been symbolic as a type of salvation. Just as Israel couldn't cross the Red Sea except by a miracle of parting the waters, so too, God supernaturally dried up the Jordan so they could cross over. So literally they didn't get wet crossing the Jordan; they didn't "get baptized." Neither did most of the rulers of the Jews "get baptized" at John's baptism. It is always God who determines boundaries. Moses could not cross that chasm. And no one else could cross over except it were God's intention. Just as Israel looked to the crossing over Jordan as their salvation in a new land, so we too, are looking for a future Kingdom of God. And God alone determines who will and who won't be in that Kingdom. In a real sense we too go into the Kingdom of God by way of the Jordan. Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan (Mat. 3:13). And " ... whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death. We, then were entombed together with Him through baptism into death ... For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also ... " (Rom. 6:4-5). Mortality kept the majority of Israelites from entering the Promised Land. The generation that started on this journey died in the wilderness. Only a remnant crossed over Jordan under the leadership of Joshua. Likewise, today, God is calling only a "remnant" to salvation: "God does not thrust away His people whom He foreknew ... Thus, then, in the current era also, there has come to be a remnant according to the choice of grace" (Rom. 11:2 & 5). Mortality kept most of Israel out of the promised land, and by immortality we will enter the Kingdom of God: "Lo! a secret ... we all shall be changed ... at the last trump ... the dead will be roused ... this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality (I Cor. 15:51-53). And we enter the Kingdom under the new Joshua (Jesus) the Christ! Judah had the "promises," the "Oracles" of God, the "Royalty," the "Priesthood," the "Seat of Moses," the "Temple of God," the "Ark of the Covenant," enormous "wealth and riches," the "Possession of the Land," and the prophesied "Messiah." And still, they rejected God!
Judah [the Jews] proved to be totally unworthy of their high calling. Their hearts turned from the declarations of God. Claiming Abraham as their father did not exonerate their evil.
Not only were they no longer " ... of the faith of Abraham," but they had, in fact, utterly corrupted themselves. After King David, Solomon broke God commandments and covenant (I Kg 11:11). King Rehoboam said:
And King Manasseh, of Judah, went from bad to worse:
According to your "literal" teaching of this parable, the Rich man did nothing to deserve his torment. Once we identify this Rich man, however, we find a mountain of sins and evils that are attributed to him: When John the Baptist saw these same descendants of the Jews, (the Pharisees and Sadducees) coming to his baptisms, he remarked: "progeny of vipers." Our Lord used the most derogatory language possible in describing the Jews of the first century:
Yes, there is more than ample reason for "Judah" finding himself in a "place of torment!" Can we see how God combines them all together? Christ said: "Ye are the children of them which killed the prophets" and "Ye fill up then the measure of your fathers" (Ver. 32). So why shouldn't Christ picture the Jews in hades viewing this disaster of their race? Of course it is figurative! But didn't God figuratively say that " ... the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground" (Gen. 4:10)? You could say, "impossible!" But God is talking figuratively. In Revelation 6 the dead souls of those slain for the Word of God are crying out. This too is figurative. God wouldn't allow His Conscious Saints to be all piled up on a bloody heap under an altar for thousands of years. Jonah was literally in " ... the fish's belly" (Jonah 2:1), but figuratively he called it " ... the belly of hell [sheol=IMPERCEPTIBLE]" (Jonah 2:2). And so we have the Rich man (Judah) "shouting from hades." Figuratively, we have great emotion here. The Jews corrupted themselves. In the person of Judah they see the result of their ways. Notice that the Rich man never said one word in his own defense. He knew what kind of people he represented. I find it hard to believe what I am reading when I see the terminology our Lord used against the Jews and their forefathers. Really, consider His words: adulterous, evil, transgressors, faithless, perverse, hypocrites, murderers, blind guides, fools, generation of snakes. The Jews were given so much by God, but showed ever so little appreciation to God. They have suffered like few races of people have ever suffered. Eliezer, on the other hand, lived an untarnished life of faithfulness, and yet is promised nothing from God, neither material blessings nor spiritual blessings. In life he received "evil." Abraham considered him worthy of inheriting all his possessions. God, on the other hand, disinherited him. This was an "evil" to Eliezer. It was God's wisdom in bringing this evil on Eliezer. Little did these Jews know at the time Christ spoke this parable, that it would be only thirty some years future that their beloved Jerusalem would once again be destroyed. But this time, God would also take from them the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant. And little did the Gentiles know that Saul [Paul] was already being prepared to take God's spiritual blessings "to the nations." It will be Eliezer himself who will be the first Gentile to not only justify God in His actions, but glorify Him for the marvelous blessings that God has bestowed on the Gentiles. For nearly two thousand years the Jews have been without a Temple. That, however, may change soon, as there is to be another Temple in Jerusalem: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation ... stand in the holy place ... " (Mat. 24:15). . The Jews have wandered from country to country for centuries never even having a country they could call their own until 1948 They have been persecuted everywhere they have lived! This greatest slaughter took place during Hitler's death camps when reportedly six to seven million Jews were exterminated. The Rich man said, "I am tormented in this flame." If one checks all the parables it becomes evident that most of them were prophecies. And therefore "flames" is most appropriate in describing the plight of the Jews through the millennia. Not just the "Flames of Anti-Semitism," but even literally-remember Hitler's ovens? I remember the words of a Jewish teenager after the Holocaust, bemoaning: "The world stood still while the Jews burned. The pain! The pain!" Yes, Judah is still crying out from the unseen. And it will get even worse. There is coming a time of great tribulation worse than the world has ever seen, and especially is this tribulation directed toward the Jews. So once again, (but thank God for the last time), "let them which be in Judaea flee ... " (Mat. 24:16)! The Rich man's thoughts turn to "his father's house" and his "five brothers." What will happen to them? Even if they didn't hear Moses and the prophets, surely, if "someone should be going to them from the dead, they will be repenting."
How could Abraham know that for a fact? Because, (1) it is really Christ who is speaking, (2) it's a parable, (3) it's a prophecy of things to come, and (4) Christ knows all. Ironically, the only person ever resurrected from the dead that we know by "name" at this time was Martha's brother Lazarus. Did that miracle persuade the Jews? Yes, many. "Many of the Jews, then, who came to Mary and gaze at what Jesus does, believe in Him" (Jn 11:45). Yet when other Jews reported this miracle back to the Pharisees, "From that day, they [the Jewish leaders] consult that they should kill Him" (Jn. 11:53). It's always the religious leaders who have the most trouble believing. But how many of these "many who believed" stayed faithful? When Christ began teaching them really "spiritual things," many could not handle it. Christ told them that "The flesh is not benefiting anything" (Jn 6:63). That was more than they would tolerate as most "Christians" today do not tolerate such a thought either, and therefore: "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him" (Jn. 6:65-66). This parable, however, is not speaking about Lazarus' resurrection, but Christ's resurrection from the dead. All of Judea did not know of the resurrection of Lazarus, but everyone heard about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only the Jewish leaders who killed Him, but all Jerusalem, all of the Rich man's brothers and everywhere the descendants of his brothers were scattered: (1) Jerusalem, (2) Judea, (3) Samaria, (4) The limits of the land (Acts 1:8), and (5) to the dispersed among the nations. And the message sent to all these Jews, everywhere, was that the Christ whom they crucified had risen from the dead. Judah did not obey God through most of their long history. The Jews as a nation did not repent at the preaching of John the Baptist. They killed their own Savior! "Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God Makes Him Lord as well as Christ-this Jesus Whom you [Jews] crucify!" (Acts 2:36). But Christ forgave them before He even died: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). He commissioned his apostles to herald the good news of His resurrection and the coming Kingdom of God to them again. But again, as a nation, the Jews rejected Him. So now what? Christ calls Saul to be "Paul." Paul preaches and teaches in Jerusalem. And what kind of reception did Paul and his message receive? "Now he [Paul] argued in the synagogue on every sabbath ... Paul was pressed in the word, certifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. Now at their [the Jews] resisting and blaspheming, shaking out his garments, he said to them, 'Your blood be on your head! Clear am I! From now on I shall go to the nations" (Acts 18:4-6). Just as Christ prophesied, " ... neither will they be persuaded if someone should be rising from among the dead." Not that I expect you to believe this, Mr. Hagee, but the Scriptures do plainly state that the Jews shall yet find salvation through Christ's Sacrifice, because it was God who blinded them in the first place so that they would not and could not understand and repent. Isaiah prophesied that they would not repent and so Christ did not heal them (Mat. 13:1915). " ... us [Gentiles], whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also ... " (Rom.. 9:24). And "I shall be calling those who are not My people [Gentiles] 'My people,'" (Rom. 9:25). And "I became disclosed to those [Gentiles] who are not inquiring for Me" (Rom. 10:20). Since the time that Paul said "From now on I shall go to the nations," the Jews have, except for rare and individual cases, rejected Christ risen from the dead. What about these Jews then? Is the Rich man [Judah, the Jews, the whole house of Israel] going to suffer in a fancied Christian Hell of devils and flames of torment for all eternity? Why can't we believe the Scriptures? Not just one or two, but hundreds of Scriptures that point to the fact that all is of God. God is operating all. Many years ago I learned something most profound: "The 'blind' can't see!" Not many theologians believe that. Surely, if we present it in just the right way, they will see. No, they won't. If they get sick enough of their life and sins, then they will see. No, they won't. If we tell them often enough and with enough conviction, with hundreds of scriptures, and with charts and diagrams, and with analogies and examples, surely then at least "some" of the blind will see. No, they won't. I'll tell you why. Because the blind cannot see. I told you it was profound. You can hold it closer to their face, you can shout, you can shine a bright light on it. It doesn't matter, "The blind can't see!" Christendom teaches that if people want to see and understand, then they can. It's all up to them. No, it's not. I know people who are physically blind, and they want to see, but they can't because the blind can't see. When God Almighty "blinds" someone, they cannot see. I do not entertain any such notion that this letter will persuade anyone who is blind to see its truth unless God uses it to open their mind and remove the blindness. Let the Scriptures speak: "Does not God thrust away His people? ... God does not thrust away His people whom He fore knew" (Rom. 11:1-2). "Thus, then, in the current era also, there has come to be a remnant according to the choice [God's choice] of grace" (Rom. 11:8). "What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen [those God chose] encountered it. Now the rest [the rest of the Jews, all the rest of Israel] were calloused ... " (Rom. 11:7). Who calloused them? Who is operating all? Now pay close attention to this next verse. I just checked twenty-six translations and the Greek Text to be sure I'm right on this point, and they all say the same thing.
"Till this very day," was written 2000 years ago, and yet "till this very day" today, as a race, as a nation, as a religion, and as a people, the Jews have universally rejected their only Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes it was "God" Who did these things! Why would God do such a thing? Is there some purpose to it all? Yes there is.
Since it was God who blinded the Jews and cast them away, will He ever take them back and remove their blindness?
Look at Ezekiel 37 beginning in verse 13, "And ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves." (Notice they come out of their graves, not out of hell). Ver. 14, "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live ... " (Notice they shall "live." That means they were "dead," not alive in hell.) Ver. 23, "Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, so shall they be my people, and I will be their God." Ver. 25, "And David my servant shall be king over them ... " I cannot see how you could possible believe any one of these verses and yet believe that unbelieving Jews will burn in Hell for all eternity. Let's be Scripturally honest here:
I know that you can read, Mr. Hagee, but can you believe? These Scriptures are not wrongly translated. And they contradict your whole teaching! Perverting a parable to such gross extremes so as to nullify hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture (that are not parables) is a damnable thing. Consigning billions of human beings to an eternal Hell of torture is unspeakable, not to mention totally unscriptural. God's punishments and chastisements are severe enough without multiplying them a trillion times to the power of infinity. That's INSANE! This parable, like all the others, has great and enormous consequences. This is not the story of a single, nameless rich man and one poor beggar in the street named Lazarus. Christ preached the kingdom of God. "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent" (Lk. 4:43). Christ likened Himself to a "bridegroom" (Lk. 5:34). Look at all of the parables, and see how they point to the coming Kingdom of God when the Bridegroom will make a great feast and hand out rewards or punishments according to the "faithfulness" and "stewardship," or lack thereof, of His servants. But time and again, those initially invited to this Great Feast are rejected and those who had no claim to attend such a feast are invited in. "Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither, the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind" (Lk. 14:21). But, " ... none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper" (Ver. 24). Don't fight the Scriptures. First it looked as if God had forsaken the Gentiles-He had not. Then it looked as if He had forsaken His chosen people (the Jews)--He had not. It's God's way. This is God's wisdom. And it is so much higher than puny man's ability to appreciate or comprehend. When God removes all blindness, gives faith to believe, removes all sins, and convicts the heart of the greatness of God and the nothingness of our own selves, all will be persuaded. You can doubt it all you want, but we are not our own achievement. Rather: "For HIS achievement are we ... " (Eph. 2:10). " ... our Saviour, God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4). How dare any doubt God's own ability to fulfill and accomplish His own will? If God cannot accomplish and fulfill His own will, what hope is there for us? It is a gross lack of faith to believe that God will not accomplish His own will. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I heard you say that faith is "substance." Faith is "tangible." But, faith is no such thing. Mr. Hagee, you need to check the "exact" Greek words on such important topics. It appears that TBN places much emphasis on "tangibility." Beautiful buildings, great music, speaking in tongues, healings, financial blessings, miracles, etc. Things that can be touched, felt, heard, handled, and seen. That's not faith. That's sight. Have you not read what Paul prophesied? "Love is never lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or languages, they will cease, or knowledge, it will be discarded ... Now whenever maturity may be coming, that which is out of an instalment shall be discarded ... I have discarded that which is a minor's ... Yet now are remaining faith, expectation [hope], love ... Be pursuing love." (I Cor. 13:8-13 & 14:1). It is these very "tangible" things that TBN emphasizes so highly that Paul calls immature toys of minors. But "faith" is one of the three that is "now remaining."
Heb. 11:1 is properly translated thus:
It requires no faith to observe something. The reason proof and evidence are presented in a court of law is because no one believes that anyone in the court room will tell the truth If everyone always told the truth, the court would have "faith" in their testimony and they wouldn't need to present proof and evidence. God always tells the truth. Probably ten thousand times a day people are being told by the clergy that "faith is the substance ... and evidence." It is clearly no such thing. You're teaching people to "live by sight" if you think "faith" is substance, proof, tangible, weighable, visible, evidence. I have not seen or handled the Resurrected Christ, yet I believe in Christ through faith. And it is certainly not my faith, but the faith of Christ, Who imparts it to me. We "assume" that God is Who He says and will do what He says not because we have proof and evidence, but because He is GOD! Those who believe in Him have received that grace from God. The reason Abraham is in this parable, is because Abraham is the "father" of the faithful. Both the plight and the flight (the bad and the good) of this parable have their origin in either belief or unbelief. "By unbelief are they [the Jews] broken out, yet you stand in faith" (Rom 11:20). Now listen to Paul's admonition very carefully: "Be not haughty, but fear" (Ver. 20). "God parts to each the measure of faith" (Rom. 12:4). Yet most Christians think faith is the one thing, for sure, that they must contribute on their own to be saved. To believe that is not only unscriptural, but vain. "Now what have you which you did not obtain? Now if you obtained it also, why are you boasting as though not obtaining?" (I Cor. 4:7). All of the arrogance of Christendom would vanish over night if they would just believe and comprehend this one beautiful and profound verse of Scripture! We must be thankful, not haughty, that God is calling us (the Gentiles). You think we are special but the cast-off Jews are not? No. The Jews are very special to God. The Rich man asked for mercy, and he will yet receive mercy. " ... God is able to graft them in again." (Rom. 11:24). "For unregretted are the graces and the calling of God. For even as you [yes, you, Mr. Hagee, and me] once were stubborn toward God, yet now were shown mercy at their stubbornness, thus these also are now stubborn to this mercy of yours, that now they [the "Rich man" and all his descendants-all Israel] may be shown mercy. For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all [Jews and Gentiles]. O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God!" (Rom. 11:29-33). God gave Abraham that kind of faith. God gave Eliezer that kind of faith. Faith that doesn't require substance, evidence, and proof. Every step of faith that Eliezer took put him that much farther from his inheritance. Eliezer's faith wasn't in the "visible evidence." It was faith in God. In Abraham's case the "evidence" (his and his wife's old age) that God would give them seed, was a faith destroyer. There was nothing in the visible evidence that would have given anyone faith. Abraham's faith wasn't in "evidence," but in God. Children need proof. The Mature live by faith. I am sure there is much more that can be learned and understood regarding this unique parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. However, whatever we teach regarding it must at least stand on solid Scriptural ground and not contradict. Please don't accuse me of not taking the Bible "literally." I believe with my whole heart that "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is literally, a parable. But the real truth of this parable is not nearly as morbid as it may appear at first glance. God has a plan that eventually brings all the Jews and all the Gentiles to salvation. And that, my friend, really does GLORIFY GOD! ------------------------------------------------------- Surely you are aware of the Geneva Convention. Even sinful human beings have seen fit to outlaw torture in war. Killing, slaughter, destruction, all are allowed, but not torturing. You make God out to be worse than the worst of corrupt men. Have you ever been burned? I have. I once had a stove blow up in my face. I was burned and blinded for some time. If nothing else, it allowed me to see the absolute absurdity of torturing someone with burns for all eternity. Burns are very painful things. A few minutes can seem like a very long time. Imagine being burned over your whole body and suffering with this for one year. No not in a hospital with a comfortable bed, with pretty nurses attending to your every need. Not with good food, or with friends visiting you and consoling you, and certainly not with pain killers. But rather in the middle of more flames, with no water, no food, nothing but pain, anguish, misery, and total despair. Imagine languishing and writhing without an instant of relief. Children screaming for mommy and daddy. Everyone blaspheming and cursing the name of the God Who put them here. All the while their friends and loved ones watch from Heaven, singing songs and praising God for the precision and extreme skill employed in exacting the most severe pain and torture possible. Have you ever meditated even for ten minutes on the absurdity of being tortured like this for eternity? I seriously doubt that one in a million has.
TIME VS. ETERNITY Picture yourself being burned and tortured without relief and without any hope for trillions of centuries. Well, of course, we humanly cannot imagine such torture or such a long period of time-our minds and our emotions are incapable of it. If any sane Christian could witness, even for a few hours or a few days, the kind of hideous torture presented by Christian doctrine, I believe he would seriously reconsider whether a loving God is capable of such sadistic punishment. But consider a trillion centuries of such torture? For WHAT? Who is appreciating or benefiting from the specter of such a hell hole of misery, pain, sorrow, and total despair? God the Father? Christ Jesus? The Saints? The heavenly Host? Next, try to imagine this torture for most of the human race, continuing for trillions upon trillions of centuries. Try this: A grain of sand contains millions and millions of atoms. Imagine that every atom in the known physical universe represents a trillion centuries of torture in Hell. It would thus take billions of trillions of centuries just to complete the atoms in a single grain of sand. Now imagine going to the second grain of sand, the third, the seven hundred and eighty ninth billion grain of sand, then all the atoms in the Earth, our Milky Way Galaxy, the next closest galaxy, the next billion closest galaxies, etc., etc., ONE ATOM (a trillion centuries) AT A TIME! Why don't you put down this paper and think about that length of torture. I'm sorry if it interferes with you afternoon cookies and tea, DO IT ANYWAY! How far into eternity do you suppose such a mind-warping number of centuries would take us? It would take us NOWHERE into eternity! Victims of such a heretical teaching as eternal torment would be NO closer to the end of their ordeal after all these trillions upon trillions of centuries than when they began. They would not be ONE SECOND closer to the end of their suffering. NO AMOUNT OF TIME CONCEIVABLE CAN DIMINISH AUGHT FROM ETERNITY! Yet, the world of Christendom is teaching all nations, that this is the God of the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Kennedy says: "Hell is fair." You say: "Hell is justice." I say, "you can't recognize THE DEPTH OF SATAN when it's staring you in the face"! This may be the god of Christendom, but I assure you it is NOT the All Wise, All Knowing, All Merciful, All Loving, All Saving, ALMIGHTY GOD, of the Holy Scriptures! Christendom is fast becoming the dominant religion of the world. We only need to consult God's Word to see who is "the god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), and we will know who it is that rules over these world-deceiving religions. " ... the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the WHOLE INHABITED EARTH" (Rev. 12:9). "For such are FALSE APOSTLES, fraudulent workers, being transfigured into APOSTLES OF CHRIST. And no marvel, for Satan himself is being transfigured into a MESSENGER OF LIGHT [not a red, hoofed monster with horns and a pitchfork]. It is no great thing, then, if his servants also are being transfigured as DISPENSERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS-whose consummation shall be according to their acts" (II Cor. 11:13-15)! These fraudulent apostles even confess that Jesus Christ is the Christ, yet they are deceivers: "Beware that no one should be deceiving you. For MANY shall be coming IN MY NAME, saying, 'I [Jesus] AM the Christ!' and shall be DECEIVING MANY" (Matt. 24:4-5). Jesus didn't say the many would be deceived by those coming in the name of Satan, but by those coming in His name and teaching that He (Jesus) IS the Christ! I apologize for highly understating my feelings on this despicable teaching. Had you ever considered the real horrors of this teaching at any length, it would have driven you to the Word of God to search these things out as never before. Had you not been so eager to teach these traditions of men, but rather really studied the Greek words in question, you could have easily and quickly discovered that the "exact" words that God inspired do in no way support such a damnable doctrine as "eternal torment!" If engineers and scientists handled dangerous chemicals and explosives with the same lawless, reckless abandonment with which theologians handle the Word of God, all of the laboratories of the world would have exploded long ago. I have now shown you from very Scriptures that "aion" does not mean "endlessness." God made the eons. Some were in the past, we are living in one of the eons, there is coming another eon after this one and another eon after that. Past eons have ended. This eon will end. The next eon will end. The eon after that will end. All eons had a beginning and all eons have an end. And I have shown you the Scriptures that say these eons have beginnings and they have ends. So there it is. Yes, God is the creator of "evil" (Isa. 45:7). It is not our duty to shield God from evil, but to understand its grand purpose and temporary existence. The true saints can justify God in all His doings, through faith. Why water down and pervert God's grand declarations? Pray for wisdom and understanding, and then teach all of God's word without timidity. THE REAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD "Yet even if we have known Christ according to flesh, nevertheless now we know Him so no longer. So that, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: the primitive passed by. Lo! there has come new! Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation, how that God was in Christ conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation" (II Cor. 5:16-19). "For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us. We are beseeching for Christ's sake, 'be conciliated to God!' For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in him" (II Cor. 5:20:21). Unfortunately, most have never heard this verse correctly translated, most do not teach it, most do not believe it: " ... yet God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes. Much rather, then, being now justified in His blood, we shall be saved from indignation, through Him. For if, being enemies, we were conciliated to God through the death of His son, much rather, being conciliated, we shall be saved in His life" (Rom. 5:8-11). For reconciliation to take place, one party must be conciliated to a second party and the second party must be conciliated back to the first party. Then, and only then, is there reconciliation. God is now conciliated [Gk: katalla'sso = DOWN-CHANGE] to the world because of His Son's sacrifice, and the world will one day be reconciled [Gk: apokatalla'sso = FROM-DOWN-CHANGE] to God! Conciliation has to do with one side only in an estrangement, whereas reconciliation has to do with both sides of an estrangement. The Authorized Version does not make this vital distinction in the Greek Text! Here is how God does it: "Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying For even as, through the disobedience of the one man [Adam], the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One [Christ], the many shall be constituted just" (Rom. 5:18-19). That verse summarizes the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the Gospel. Although God is now conciliated to mankind because of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, will mankind ever be conciliated to God, thus bringing about full reconciliation? Absolutely: "For He is our Peace, Who makes both one [Jews and Gentiles-that's all the people there are in the whole world], and razes the central wall of the barrier (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees, that He should be creating the two [both Jews and Gentiles], in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace; and should be reconciling both in one body to God, through the cross, killing the enmity in it" (Eph. 2:14-16). Second witness: Christ "Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has it cohesion in Him. And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross, through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Col. 1:14-20). Read it again! "makes both one," "creating the two," "killing the enmity," "every creature," "all created," "in the heaven," "on the earth," "the visible," "the invisible," "all is created," "before all," "all," "in all," "the entire," "to reconcile all," "on the earth," "in the heavens." Where, pray tell, are the billion of people that you think are left out of this Scripture and are going to burn in Hell Fire for all eternity? Christ created all and will reconcile all-not only on earth, but also the whole heavenly host! Do you honesty doubt that Christ "created all?" Do you? How then can you doubt that He will reconcile the same "ALL?" " ... in Him is all created ... and through Him to reconcile all to Him ... "(Col. 1:16-20). The phrase "all things" is not in the original Greek Text. It should simply read: "all," not "all things. It is "faith" that you lack in believing these simple Scriptures! MORE SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL After all of God's punishments and chastisements are meted out, all will be reconciled to God. Death will be abolished (I Cor. 15:26), and all will be vivified and given immortality never to be subject to pain, heartache, or death again. The Scriptures fully substantiate this grand truth.
Notice that God is "not reckoning their offenses to them." Then who is God "reckoning offenses" to? It is to Jesus Christ His Son that He is reckoning the sins of the world. Ver. 21: "For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be SIN for us ... " Pardon me for just a moment, but I want to share with you the emotion that I am feeling at this moment. I cannot believe that I am trying my best to explain the meaning of a verse of Scripture that is so simple, so clear, and so profound to two theologians with Doctors degrees who teach on international television and who do not understand it. This verse is in your Bibles. What do you think this Scripture means if it doesn't mean what it says? I feel like someone trying to convince an astronomer that there really are stars in the heavens and that he should stop denying it and start believing it or get another job. Look at this again. This is the Word of God. God is "NOT reckoning their [the whole world] offenses to them" (Ver. 19)! He is not doing that. But He IS making His Son Jesus Christ "to BE sin for us." How could God consign the vast majority of humanity to the eternal flames of torture in Hell if He no longer reckons that they have any sins? Of what value is Christ's sacrifice FOR them if they still have to pay their own penalty for all eternity? This verse is talking about the WHOLE WORLD. The sins of the WHOLE WORLD. But what if all these sinners of the world reject Christ? Of course most people do reject Christ, but they won't always do so. God has not given them belief yet. Remember "every knee will bow and every tongue will acclaim ... to the Glory of God." Of course most don't will to believe God now, but they all will later. " ... for it is GOD Who is operating in you to WILL as well as to work for the sake of His delight" (Phil. 2:13).
I think the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God damages your pride. I heard you say: "I'm not saved because my grandmother believed ... I am saved because I found Him by myself.." Mr. Hagee, didn't I hear you say that "pride is a greater sin than adultery or homosexuality?" You did not find Christ "by yourself." That's boasting and unscriptural.. Look at a few Scriptures:
When you boast, Mr. Hagee, saying that you found Christ all by yourself, you are telling your international audience that everyone else is, therefore, responsible for finding Christ "all by themselves." Charles Darwin taught "survival of the fittest," and you teach "salvation of the wisest." According to you, one must be wise enough to find Christ, accept Christ, and then qualify on his own to be saved. This "bootstrap" mentality of self-qualification for salvation is nonsense, Mr. Hagee. But let me be more Scripturally "exact." Paul said he had many more reasons to have "confidence in his own flesh" than anyone. But when Christ called Paul (yes, Mr. Hagee, Christ called Paul - Paul did not find Christ "all by himself"), he said: "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ" (Phil. 3:8), King James Version. There is a parallel between your teachings and the teachings of atheistic evolutionists. Those learned men who promulgate the hypothesis of evolution (I say "hypothesis," because there isn't any scientific proof that would elevate it to a "theory"), use the same authoritative language in their writings to prove the unprovable as you do. Surely (non-thinking people reason) since hundreds and thousands of learned scientists point to nature and science for their proof, then what they teach concerning evolution, must be true. And, surely (non-thinking Christians reason) since hundreds and thousands of learned clergymen point to the Holy Scriptures for their proof, then what they teach concerning Christ, must be true. Mr. Hagee, you have about as much Scriptural proof that man must find God and qualify for salvation all on his own, as evolutionists have scientific proof that all the species evolved from the same ancestor, all on their own-NONE! You have about as much Scriptural proof that God is going to torture most of His children in the fires of a Hell for eternity, as evolutionists have scientific proof that life spontaneously generated itself from dead sea slime - NONE! "Proof" is evidence that something is true. Just saying something isn't proof of its validity. One can say that since outdoor dogs grow longer hair during extended periods of cold weather, that they are "evolving long hair." Is that true? No. The ingenious mechanism that enables a dog to grow long hair in cold weather is already built into the dog's physiology - it is "evolving" nowhere. One can say that animals "reproduce by evolving through thousands of stages of mutations." But, is that true? No. The laws of science prove and have proven, millions and billions of times, that animals reproduce just as the Scripture states: "after their kind." Yet millions believe these intellectual falsehoods, just as millions believe the theological falsehoods I have countered in this letter. And just like evolutionists, Mr. Hagee, you say things that you claim are Scriptural, but are not. You teach that a man's soul has immortality. But is that true? No. There is NO scientific proof that man has an immortal soul. And the Scriptures plainly tell us that "Christ ONLY has immortality," and that "man is MORTAL." You teach that "the dead" are actually "alive" in a different geographical location. Is that true? No. There is NO scientific evidence that dead people or dead animals are alive at a different geographical location. And the Scriptures plainly tell us that "death is sleep," with "no knowledge, no thoughts, not anything." This is in full agreement with what science knows about death. And yet, millions believe these theological lies So who are we to believe? Evolutionists or True Science? John Hagee or the Word of God? Evolutionists deny the very scientific evidence that they study to supposedly prove their hypothesis. And you, Mr. Hagee, deny the very Scriptures you preach from in trying to persuade others of your theories. Most people do not know, actually, factually, and scientifically, what the hypothesis of evolution is based on, and most people have little knowledge of the Scriptures or how to study the Hebrew and Greek from which they were translated. Give me just ninety minutes with any open-mined person of normal intelligence, and I will prove to him (scientifically), the fallacy of both spontaneous generation and evolution of the species from common ancestors. Give me ninety minutes with that same person and I will prove to him (Scripturally), the fallacy of your theories on Hell and all your false expressions that go with it. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, asked his audience of evolution experts a most telling question. He later posed the same question to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and again to The Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. All evolution experts. Here was his question:
All he got was silence! So, I likewise, Mr. Hagee, after going into the Hebrew and Greek meanings of many words, plus a mountain of Scriptural references, including the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, will now ask you: "Can you tell me anything about God's failure to save all humanity, or about most of God's children being tortured in a Hell fire for all eternity, that is TRUE? ... I'm waiting. You teach a Godless Hell for the majority of mankind for all eternity. Do you even begin to understand the damage you cause by such unscriptural (not to mention anti Scriptural) teachings? This doctrine of eternal torment is now and has been, blaspheming the very name of God among the nations for hundreds of years! Everywhere one turns today, he finds atheistic, Godless, evolution being taught. In the finest magazines like National Geographic. On all scientific and educational channels. The Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel. In virtually all public schools in America, Europe, and around the world. All major colleges and universities. Not as a theory, but as the FACT of evolution it is taught. Why? Where did this teaching come from? Who is condoning it? Charles Darwin is the "father of evolution." Little improvement or changes have been made to his original premises regarding survival of the fittest or the origin of species. Darwin is the main man when it comes to evolution. Now, why did Charles Darwin reject God and start this global rebellion against God and His Word which continues unabated to this very day? Was it really "God" that Mr. Darwin was rebelling against, or the "Godless doctrines" of depraved men? According to Gertrude Himmelfarb's biography of Darwin, "One of the passages which was deleted from the autobiography explained why Charles not only could not believe in Christianity but would not wish to believe in it. Citing the 'DAMNABLE DOCTRINE' that would condemn ALL DISBELIEVERS TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, he protested that 'this would include my Father, Brother, and almost ALL MY BEST FRIENDS' - which made it an unthinkable, to say nothing of thoroughly IMMORAL, idea. There may be more sophisticated reasons for disbelief, but there could hardly have been a more persuasive emotional one." (p. 22) (Emphasis mine). The damnable unscriptural teaching of eternal torment (which you enthusiastically shout from your pulpit) has probably done more to cause the name of God to be blasphemed among the nations than any other false teaching on Earth, including the teaching of evolution. CONCLUSION God is sovereign. God is all wise and all knowing. He is all powerful and almighty. And God is LOVE. He has a plan, a purpose, a will. He is carrying out that plan. He has set man against His own will while He carries out His intentions which absolutely no one can withstand. To know good, one must have an experience of evil. God created evil (Isa. 45:7). It is only temporary. He has given an experience of evil to mankind to humble him thereby (Ecc. 3:10). It will be completely successful. God has called a privileged few to understand His plan now. He will call and enlighten everyone else later. Death cannot separate God from His love for them. There is coming a resurrection of the dead. All of the dead. They will be taught the truths of God and God will be their saviour. Evil and death will be abolished (I Cor. 15:26, II Tim. 1:10, Rev. 21:4). The culmination of this portion of God's plan is for God to be "All in all." (I Cor. 15:28). Other than this one Scripture, God tells us nothing concerning our future with Him beyond the eons or His plans for eternity. We trust Him in faith that it will be as He says:
And, of course, " ... those who are loving Him" will include all humanity and all in the heavens (Phil. 2:11). Let me clarify the reason I have written these two rebuttals to Dr. Kennedy and you. It is not specifically because of what you are teaching, as much as it is where you claim to get this teaching. There are hundreds of religions that teach thousands of ridiculous things. I haven't written to any of them. I have written to you, however, because you claim to get your teachings and doctrines from the Hebrew and Greek Holy Scriptures. This makes your teachings particularly offensive to anyone who has their ear tuned to the true teachings of the Scriptures, and is deceptive and even blasphemous to those not knowledgeable of the Scriptures. There is more than ample proof in this letter of your disregard for the meanings of words-while inserting your own meanings into words of the Scriptures! Adding to God's Word - turning ages into eternities! Taking away from God's Word-reducing the salvation of all to just a few! Diminishing God's grand declarations-teaching they will never be fulfilled. Teaching that the unbelieving dead are not really dead-but rather are suffering in the flames of Hell for ever. Making dozens of statements of gigantic proportions - contradicting hundreds of plain Scriptures to the contrary. Badgering your audience to keep one particular precept of the law - while you disregard most of the very same law that contains that one precept! Teaching that we are saved by the grace of God - then listing dozens of things one must do to qualify for that same grace! Watering down the very will of God - reducing it to little more than a weak wish! Here, then, is one final reason for this letter. Our Apostle Paul warned that in the latter days there would be a great "apostasy." Heathens are not apostates. Atheists can never be guilty of apostasy unless they once knew the truth. An apostate is one who falls from the truth. Most of what Paul cautioned his own disciples to be aware of were things that were to increase as Christ's return draws nearer. With regards to elders and supervisors in the Church, Paul told Titus:
I pray that some place in this long letter a little ember of light might have started glowing in your spirit regarding the mountain of Scriptural references I have presented. Maybe you have even for an instant entertained the idea that you could have been wrong in many of your teachings. But then, maybe your thoughts turned to yourself, your reputation, your status, your office, your financial support. What would your friends and associates think if you were to admit your error on such major themes? One loses a lot sometimes when one starts teaching the truths of God, but nothing is more valuable than truth! Don't let my chiding you dissuade you from meditating and searching all the Scriptures I have given you. Everything I have said was for a purpose. Just because I find much wrong with your teaching, doesn't mean I am attacking your character, or have any ill feelings toward you. There are three great evils of men on earth today: corrupt government, false science, and deceitful religion. Of these, the Christian doctrine of "Eternal Torment" for the majority of God's children, is by far the single greatest evil and contemptible teaching ever foisted on the human race anywhere on the face of the earth, in the entire history of the world! As God wills in the years ahead, the truth concerning this and other Christian doctrines will be made known for all Americans to see. People will finally see this evil teaching for what it is: an anti-Scriptural, anti-God, doctrine of demons, and Satan's greatest effort to blaspheme the very name of God among the nations. And those who teach these evil lies, will, like the Naked Emperor, also stand exposed before all! If you have any questions, or if I can help you in any way, feel free to write or call any time. Sincerely, L. Ray Smith Email Ray at L.RaySmith@worldnet.att.net |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||