Question of the Week: Is the Bible vague on the topic of Abortion?

The simple answer is no. The only mindset that would allow this kind of conclusion is one that doesn’t want to hear the answer. Or at least, wants to avoid a conclusion that is unpopular or uncomfortable. If the Bible is going to be clear or vague about anything, we need to first clarify how the Bible presents information. Once our standard for a proper handling of scripture has been set, we can use it to determine whether the Bible’s stance on abortion is vague or clear.

If our standard for something being clear is for it to be spoken in a yes or no format in plain English, we’re reading the wrong books. The Bible is a collection of books originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic in order to record history, present the character of the God of Israel, and verify His authority through predictive prophecy. If we were looking for a rulebook, we’d need to limit ourselves to the laws of ancient Israel given in Exodus 20-24. Obviously there’s more to the Bible then a list of ethics. A Christian isn’t using to Bible to determine what set of rules will make God bless them. We establish our understanding of His character through the witness He’s left of Himself throughout history. From that understanding of who He is, we are given more reasons to trust Him and recognize He will do right by us. The relationship is based on knowing who you love. It’s not about memorizing a list of His likes and dislikes.

All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; Nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.
Proverbs 8:9-10 (NKJV)

Now that the Bible has been properly defined, how do we recognize its position about certain issues like abortion? Looking for modern terms like Abortion, Pro-Life, or Pro-Choice are non-starters. They didn’t exist at the time scripture was revealed. We shouldn’t expect them to be used. In order to address an issue based on a Biblical worldview, we have to clarify what the issue actually is. The dividing line for those on either side of the Abortion issue is what defines a human life. Those on the side of abortion do not recognize an unborn child as a human life. Thus the accusation of murder is unfounded based on this worldview. Those against abortion believe that life begins at a point within their mother’s womb, rather than at an undefined point outside of it. If Christian scripture makes truth statements that exclude or promote one of these positions over another, then we can come to a clear conclusion about whether the Bible is vague or not.

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
Psalm 139:13-16 (NKJV)

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV)

“Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
Isaiah 49:1 (NKJV)

These passages form the foundation of a Christian’s understanding of abortion. In the Old Testament, we have statements made by David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, where in their contexts we have them being known by God in their mother’s womb. Thus having identities. They are all given spiritual callings while still in their mother’s womb, thus having agencies. And they are speaking these words both in and outside of a poetic context. If an observation is made in exclusively a poetic setting, one could claim these aren’t necessarily doctrines. Symbolism could be an alternative. However, Isaiah and Jeremiah are speaking in the context of prophecy. If God’s perspective of human life includes the ability to know, speak to, and identify people while they are still in their mother’s womb, then the premise of a pro-abortion worldview is something God disagrees with.

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Luke 1:41-44 (NKJV)

Moving on to the New Testament, we have the plainest opposition to the truth claims a pro-abortion argument puts forward. The mothers of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth are both pregnant with their future children. If they were not yet human, then the only individuals that should be interacting or reacting are the conscious women involved in this situation. Yet this passage claims that a fetus developing within the first trimester was in fact the same Jesus who was recognized as God outside of Mary’s womb. And to verify this, John the Baptist was the one reacting to the presence of his Lord while still in the second trimester of his mother’s womb. There is no room for this passage to be reconciled with the presumptions made by those in favor of abortion.

Is the Bible clear on the topic of abortion? That depends what you mean by clear. If what you mean by clear is that there is a yes or no statement that denounces or promotes abortion in a modern sense, you’re setting up a standard that most legal documents won’t pass. If what you mean by clear is that there are truth statements made in scripture that recognize the life and agency of a child before they are physically born, then it is absolutely clear. The willful ending of a life is murder. If a Christian justifies murder by redefining life in direct contradiction to scripture, they’re not in line with a biblical worldview and would have a hard time applying the same standards to the very things they believe that make them Christian.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H
Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Is Isaiah 53:5 talking about physical healing from the effects of disease or spiritual healing from the effects of sin?

Sherlock Holmes had an interesting method of coming to the truth. Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth no matter how improbable. In order to understand the true interpretation of this passage, we are going to take a page from Sherlock Holmes and apply the three rules of reading and understanding the Bible. Context, Context, and Context. Does God heal physical diseases? Is this passage quoted anywhere in scripture as the reason someone’s physical disease was healed? And if not, what did the people who witnessed its fulfillment take it to mean?

Does God heal physical diseases? Yes. We have direct reference to Jesus doing exactly that in His earthly ministry. We have further affirmation that the Holy Spirit does this in the church following the Resurrection. And we have celebration of the Father’s goodness including physical healing. This isn’t an area of controversy at all.

Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget not all His benefits: Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases,
Psalm 103:2-3 (NKJV)

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.
Matthew 4:23 (NKJV)

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
James 5:14-16 (NKJV)

Is Isaiah 53:5 quoted anywhere in scripture as the reason why someone was healed? Old and New Testament examples of people who were allowed to experience physical infirmities for a purpose beyond human understanding wouldn’t apply here, since they took place before Jesus received the stripes that produced access to this kind of healing. (If the text is in fact saying that) We will allow the man born blind in John 9:3 and Job’s physical affliction from Satan in Job 2:8-9 to not apply to this interpretation. The problem is we have people after Jesus’ resurrection that were allowed to remain sick despite this promise being in effect. This leaves us only two possibilities; They were unaware of this promise, or they understood this wasn’t the meaning of that promise. Paul the Apostle was allowed to suffer a physical affliction of the eyes and Jesus allowed him to remain in that state. Paul’s disciple Timothy was encouraged to take advantage of Roman medicine to deal with his frequent stomach problems. And at the end of Paul’s life, he mentions one of his closest companions wasn’t with him due to the fact he was still physically sick. These passages either suggest God failed to keep His promise (the impossible), or that God was promising something else entirely.

And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (NKJV)

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.
1 Timothy 5:23 (NKJV)

Erastus stayed in Corinth, but Trophimus I have left in Miletus sick.
2 Timothy 4:20 (NKJV)

Since we have ruled out the impossible, where is Isaiah 53:5 actually quoted in the context of healing?

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps. “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
1 Peter 2:21-25 (NKJV)

The Apostle Peter quotes Isaiah 53:5 in the context of our dying to sins and living for righteousness. This is made possible by the fact that He had bourn our sins on the tree He was nailed to, and died for them. Thus the healing we have before God. The fancy seminary term for this is substitutionary atonement. Jesus was our legal substitute before the Father on our behalf. If God’s justice understands the penalty for sin is death, (Romans 6:23), the mercy of God complimented this further by fulfilling the just penalty of death to the letter. Anyone who trusts in Jesus shares in His bodily death to sin, and thus will also benefit from what followed three days later. He rose from the death free from the power of sin and death forever. An ultimate and permanent healing took place on Jesus’ physical body through the Resurrection. This is something we also participate in through the spiritual healing that redemption has made available to us. That is what the entirety of Isaiah 53 was talking about and we have further quotation from the eyewitness of their fulfillment to confirm it.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4HFollow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Are the Abraham Accords the covenant predicted in Daniel 9?

The short and simple answer is no. While peace in the Middle East is a historical exception rather than a rule, the Antichrist’s covenant with many is going to involve more than the nations currently participating in the peace accords being signed right now. It is certainly a foreshadowing, but not a fulfillment of this prophecy.

“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
Daniel 9:26-27 (NKJV)

The prophecy as a whole is as follows;
1. After the Messiah’s execution, a foreign nation will destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. We know this today to be the Roman Empire in 70AD.
2. A covenant will be made with many for 7 years.
3. A man from the nation that destroyed the Temple will violate that covenant half-way through and persecute the Jewish nation religiously. This also implies that the Temple his nation destroyed in the past will be rebuilt during or leading up to his reign.
4. At the end of this 7 year period, the 70 weeks (7 year periods) will be completed as detailed in Daniel 9:24-27.

As stated already, phase 1 of this prophecy has been fulfilled to the letter. Phases 2-4 are referred to as the time of Jacob’s Trouble or the Tribulation Period. It is from this passage and others that we identify the Antichrist ethnically as Roman. And it is also from this passage that we make a distinction from any other peace treaty made in the Middle East involving Israel. The Antichrist will be the one to make this peace treaty for a very specific period of time. The nations involved in it will form his 10 nation kingdom through which he will establish global influence. This understanding of the End Times politically is fairly uncontroversial apart from those who reject the concept in its entirety. We understand these extra details about this prophecy from within Daniel itself, within the Old Testament itself, and further emphasized in the book of Revelation as well.
(Daniel 11:21-28, Zechariah 13:8-9, Revelation 13:1-8, Revelation 17:12-18)

If we compare these statements to what we already know about the Abraham Accords, there are key details missing if we are going to claim that this is a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.
1. We are not told the length of time the peace treaty will hold effect. It is expected to go on indefinitely, rather than a 7 year agreement.
2. The only nations explicitly stated to be involved in the treaty are the United Arab Emirates and Israel. Saudi Arabia has announced cooperation in the treaty to allow unimpeded flights between the two nations, and various Sunni states in Northern Africa have also recognized the deal, but it is more out of a mutual distrust of Iran than actually participating in the treaty.
3. The Jewish Temple has not been rebuilt nor has restored Jewish worship through animal sacrifices played any part of this treaty.
(All of the official information about the Abraham Accords can be read on the White House’s own website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/abraham-accords-peace-agreement-treaty-of-peace-diplomatic-relations-and-full-normalization-between-the-united-arab-emirates-and-the-state-of-israel/)

We certainly do not want to turn a blind eye to anything that Israel does involving peace treaties. However, we also don’t want to be so reactionary to these events that we cry “Prophecy Fulfilled” when that simply isn’t the case. Our prayers as Christians should always be for the peace of Jerusalem. This is a good start. However, the false peace established by the man of sin/son of perdition/cruel king of the north/antichrist/etc will be a peace established with more nations than the U.A.E. And even if you consider the United States and Saudi Arabia’s affirmation of the treaty significant, it is still too little information to go on in order to conclude that this is the peace spoken of in Daniel and that Revelation 6:2 is currently taking place.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Does God still speak to people through dreams and visions today?

The topic of miracles in general is a controversial one among Christian circles. The reason for this controversy is not because of a lack of biblical evidence of God being able to act, but the abundance of those who abuse the concept in order to draw attention to themselves and their ministries. While using fraud in any form is not the sort of behavior any Christian should approve of, we are making an equal and opposite mistake by reacting to false doctrines with an equal and opposite doctrine. Radical swings on the pendulum rarely end up correcting errors. They only end up creating new ones. Therefore, the proper response to this question isn’t cessationism. The proper response is responding to the abuse of scripture with a sound and consistent use of scripture.

For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
Romans 3:7-8 (NKJV)

How do we define miracles? Dreams, visions, and other interventions on God’s part to the laws of nature He put in place are examples, but not the definition. In order to ask if God is still doing these things today, we need to know what we’re looking for. The definition of a miracle is simply when God introduces a new factor to what would normally have taken place in nature for the purpose of verifying the authority of His word and glorifying His name. For example, a “miraculous” healing of someone from a normally terminal illness is not a biblical example of a miracle. It certainly is a rare occurrence, but it isn’t necessarily because God was intervening in the affairs of men. On the other hand, Moses was instructed by God to perform a healing of a terminal illness in his hand in order to verify the identity and authority of the One commanding Pharaoh to let His people worship Him in the wilderness for four days. This does qualify as a miracle because it is not only an occurrence that wouldn’t have taken place without outside intervention, but directly correlated with God’s purpose for those interventions throughout history. This is also the reason why miracles are so infrequent. If they were commonplace, they wouldn’t get anyone’s attention in showing the words they were meant to verify were in fact the words of God. Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t to entertain His disciples. It was to leave a miraculous witness in history to verify His claim that He was deity and His death had ransomed those who trust in Him back to the Father. God never performs miracles without purpose, and that purpose is defined throughout history. God always backs up His words with deeds.

Furthermore the Lord said to him, “Now put your hand in your bosom.” And he put his hand in his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, like snow. And He said, “Put your hand in your bosom again.” So he put his hand in his bosom again, and drew it out of his bosom, and behold, it was restored like his other flesh. “Then it will be, if they do not believe you, nor heed the message of the first sign, that they may believe the message of the latter sign. And it shall be, if they do not believe even these two signs, or listen to your voice, that you shall take water from the river and pour it on the dry land. The water which you take from the river will become blood on the dry land.”
Exodus 4:6-9 (NKJV)

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31 (NKJV)

With this standard and purpose established for miracles, we now have the tools to spot a counterfeit. The counterfeit miracle is not determined by the timing of the miracle, but the purpose behind it. If it is only to entertain or appease the individual requesting it, at best it fulfills the criteria of a coincidence. The reason for this is because it does not fit the Biblical criteria of a miracle. The ongoing command for the church isn’t to despise people who claim God is speaking or acting through them, but to test these claims and hold fast to what is good. The burden of proof is on the skeptic who insists this only applied to the lives of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is permitted to act even in our day and age. This includes the miracle of dreams and visions.

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 (NKJV)

The response on the part of the cessationist, someone who believes the gift of miracles died with the last Apostle and the purpose of verifying His word ended with the completion of the canon of scripture, is 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. The thing that is perfect is the complete witness of scripture according to their interpretation, and once it has come the gift of tongues, prophecies, and miracles in general will cease. To their credit, it does fit the biblical criteria of miracles to come to this conclusion. If God’s word has been fully revealed, then there is no need for future generations to receive further confirmation for what’s already been verified historically. The problem is in their proof text itself. The context of 1 Corinthians never mentions the canon of scripture or the completion of God’s written word to man. The context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the proper use of miracles in the church, and the superiority of the ultimate gift of the spirit. The ability to love people like Jesus does through the filling and empowering of the Holy Spirit is a miracle for today. The ability to receive salvation through the conviction and reception of the Holy Spirit is a miracle for today. With the best of intentions, this position of denying miracles altogether is a reaction to their abuse. However, if your reaction ends up conflicting with scripture then it’s simply exchanging one mistake for another.

Does God still speak through dreams and visions today? Of course. He has before and can again. Does everyone who claims God has spoken to them through a dream or vision have our full and undivided attention? No. Every claim about God’s deeds should be tested according to God’s word, and vice-versa. God is not going to speak to someone revealing they should hate someone’s ethnicity, rob a bank, or commit murder. Nor is God going to speak to you about what bank investment or breakfast cereal you should purchase. Our standards for miracles should be high, but not so high that they extend beyond the realm of possibility. Test them according to the character and credibility of His written word. This criteria will not only keep you from falling for people’s false claims made in the name of God, but also avoid reacting to one error with another.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Is Dr. Michael Heiser’s view of the Divine Council biblical?

For those who are unaware of who Dr. Michael Heiser is, he is an expert in ancient biblical languages including Hebrew and is one of the preferred scholars in his field for insights into these languages on the Logos Bible Software program. He has a lot of teaching experience and is a regular guest on very popular and powerful internet apologetics ministries like Cross Examined. He identifies himself as a trinitarian monotheist, meaning that he believes in the Bible’s explanation of God’s nature and that He’s the only being like Him in all of existence.

Within the spiritual world, as in the human world, entities are differentiated by rank and power. Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. This is what an orthodox Israelite believed about
Yahweh. He was not one among equals; He was unique. The belief that Yahweh is utterly and eternally unique—that there is none like Him—is not contradicted by plural elohim in the OT.
-Dr. Michael Heiser, “Elohim as “Gods” in the Old Testament” page 3

So far so sound when it comes to the non-negotiables of Christianity. However, if you preface a statement with truth, then proceed to speak in error, you’re still in error. The Divine Council, largely expounded upon in Heiser’s book “The Unseen Realm” as well as his website “thedivinecouncil.com” where his articles on the topic are encouraged to be read to understand his position on the topic, is grounded upon his interpretation of Psalm 82:1. And using that interpretation as the groundwork for similar conclusions about the supernatural realm in 1 Corinthians 10:20, Ephesians 6:12, Deuteronomy 32:17, and others, Heiser’s position ends up taking you a long way from very plain truths given to us in scripture.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV)

It is worth noting in this passage that the term “God” in which the LORD, YHVH, says there is no other besides Him is Elohim. That is what brings us to Heiser’s foundational text that put him on this journey to his conclusions that we should be extremely critical of given the entire witness of scripture. If the foundational truth for his interpretation of other passages is faulty, another standards should be applied to those passages. The clear passages should always be a foundation over the unclear passages, especially when it ends up contradicting those plain statements like there being no other God but YHVH. Likewise, if the argument in Heiser’s favor is that he’s a scholar in Hebrew and we aren’t, this is what is known as an appeal to authority fallacy. Dr. John Lennox, a student of C.S. Lewis and graduate of Oxford University rightly observed that “Nonsense from the mouths of genius’ is still nonsense.”

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
Psalm 82:1 (ESV)

The plain statement in this passage is that God judges the gods. The Psalm then goes on to clarify these “gods” aren’t actually gods and will die like men.

“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
Psalm 82:2-8 (ESV)

Regardless of the translation you look to, the point made in this Psalm is the same. The ESV is used here because it is Heiser’s preferred translation in his articles and academic papers. In order to get to the heart of the issue, we need to understand how he is choosing to handle the term “God.”

This fact alone should immediately and unambiguously tell us that the word Elohim ought not be identified with one particular set of attributes. That is our fundamental mistake. We are accustomed to equating the word spelled g-o-d with the God of Israel and his unique attributes. As a result, the idea that other gods are indeed real—even if that is what the biblical text says—has been something to escape or obscure.
-Dr. Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council” page 7

In the spirit of full context, he gave a series of example to support his claim before making the following statement. YHVH is referred to as Elohim over 2000 times, but also notes individual instances where the term is used to describe YHVH’s divine council in Psalm 82, the gods of foreign nations in 1 Kings 11:33, demons in Deuteronomy 32:17, dead human beings in 1 Samuel 28:13, and Angels in Genesis 35:7. The problem is that all of these examples are either begging the question or making the assumption that using the word “God” means God in the sense of a divine being. Every example given either assumes they aren’t mistaken, or using that term based on the perception of other nations in contrast to their own.

because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and they have not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my rules, as David his father did.
1 Kings 11:33 (ESV)

Given a plain reading of the passage and read in light of Isaiah 44:6, is God providing special revelation that Ashtoreth is an actual goddess whose territory and authority is limited to the Sidonians, Chemosh to Moab, and Milcom to Ammon? Or is it more consistent to claim these actions on the part of Israel are the problem being addressed? You can behave like pagan nations and not acknowledge their reasons for doing so are an insight to a deeper spiritual reality. Even if you read this passage in light of 1 Corinthians 10:20 and Deuteronomy 32:17 and clarify these are only referring to the demons behind them, it’s still begging the question. Doctrines of Demons is referring to false doctrine, not an insight to these demons being divine authorities over their respective territories. Which Heiser concludes in his exposition of Deuteronomy 32:17.

The concept of cosmic geography is illuminated by other examples. Israel, as Yahweh’s inheritance, was holy ground. Similarly, the territory of other nations, according to Yahweh’s decree, belonged to other gods. But in the course of Old Testament history, Israel had become enslaved to the Egyptians and required supernatural deliverance from Egypt and its gods. To subsequently inherit the promised land—now occupied by nations who worshiped other gods—Israel would have to reclaim its landed
inheritance by holy war. Thus, once in the land, Israelites still believed that their land belonged exclusively to Yahweh and was His sacred domain: other nations, even if they were in Israel, were under
the dominion of evil, lesser gods.
-Dr. Michael Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the Old Testament Worldview,” page 2

The same kind of error is performed in his exegesis of 1 Samuel, given the fact he neglects to mention in his scriptural support that his source on this “human” being referred to as an Elohim/God was from the witch of En-Dor trying to defraud King Saul unaware of the fact her séance was even going to work.

The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.”
1 Samuel 28:13 (ESV)

Heiser uses this conclusion on the part of a witch as the foundation for his conclusion that Elohim is merely a description of a spiritual being existing in the spiritual realm, rather than a term only rightly applied to the True and Living God.

All the things called elohim in the Hebrew Bible have one thing in common: they all inhabit the non-human realm. That is, they are by nature not part of the world of humankind, a world of ordinary embodiment. Elohim as a term describes residence—it identifies the proper domain of the entity described by it. Yahweh, the lesser gods, angels, demons, and the disembodied dead are all rightful inhabitants of the spiritual world. They may cross over to the human world, as Scripture informs us, and certain humans may be transported to their realm (e.g., prophets; Enoch), but their proper domain and humanity’s proper domain are two separate places. Within the spiritual world—as in the human world—there are differences of rank and power.
-Dr. Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council” page 9

The problem with Heiser’s conclusions aren’t in what he gets wrong. It’s the things he gets right. We do agree that the enemy and his demons have authority and exist in heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12. We do not agree that the enemy is rightly referred to as a god, or his demons are rightly identified as the gods of the nations. Let alone function in a council that YHVH is only distinguishable within due to his ability to create. All of these premises are either banking on obscure passages with much simpler interpretations available to them, or are stated without the opportunity for recourse given the fact he’s a scholar and you aren’t. The plain things of scripture are the main things of scripture. And if someone’s thesis banks on an assumption that directly contradicts plain statements made in scripture, then we should seek another source of spiritual edification and insight to the scriptures. There is no passage of scripture that can’t be understood in its proper context without a working knowledge of the original languages. Heiser’s entire stance on these kind of interpretations bank on the assumption that it would be obvious if we only had a working knowledge of the Hebrew language and culture.

A close reading of Deuteronomy and Isaiah shows the denial language’s context (Heiser, “Monotheism”). The denials are not based on any claim that other יםִ להֱ ֹא) elohim) do not exist, but on Yahweh’s unique qualities. In Isaiah 43:10–12, the reference points are Yahweh’s pre-existence, ability to save, and national deliverance. In Isaiah 45, the focus is on Yahweh’s justice, salvation, the deliverance of His children, and the impotence of the other gods. Yahweh is being compared to lesser gods—it would be empty praise to compare Him to beings that did not exist.
-Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council” page 10

The Hebrew Bible has phrases that explicitly parallel these Ugaritic expressions (Parker, “Sons of [the] God[s]”; Cooke, “The Sons of [the] God[s]”). Psalm 82:1 is perhaps the best example. It calls the council (לֵ ת־אַ דֲ ע ,adath-el) and describes gods under the authority of Israel’s God: “God (יםִ להֱ ֹא , elohim) stands in the council of El/the divine council (לֵ ת־אַ דֲ ע ,adath-el); among the gods (יםִ להֱ ֹא , elohim) he passes judgment.” The second occurrence of יםִ להֱ ֹא) elohim) must be semantically plural due to the preposition “in the midst of.” This does not refer to the Trinity—Psalm 82 goes on to describe how Israel’s God accuses the other יםִ הֹלֱ ֹא) elohim) of corruption and sentences them to die “like humankind.” This plurality does not refer to human beings. Psalm 89:5–7 places the God of Israel “in the assembly of the holy ones” (יםִ שֹדְ קֹלַ הְ קִ ב ,biqhal qedoshim) and then asks “For who in the clouds (קַ חַ שַ ב ,bashshachaq) can be compared to Yahweh? Who is like Yahweh among the sons of God (ֹיֵ נְ ב יםִ לֵ א ,beney elim), a god greatly feared in the council of the holy ones (יםִ שֹדְ וד־קֹסְ ב ,besod-Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz, eds. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012). Page 2. Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:29 PM December 11, 2013. qedoshim)?” Psalm 29:1 commands the same sons of God (יםִ לֵ אֹיֵ נְ ב ,beney elim) to praise Yahweh beney, בְ נֵ יֹהָ אֱ ֹלהִ ים ,elim beney, בְ נֵ יֹאֵ לִ ים) “God of sons “Divine. obeisance due him give and ha’elohim; or יםִ להֱ ֹא יֵ נְ ב ,beney elohim) appear in other biblical texts (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Deut 32:8–9, 43 (Septuagint; Qumran); Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8”)
-Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council page 1

Translations which translate ֹ ַהֹ֔ לֱ ֹא) eloah) as plural produce a reading that denies that יםִ דֵ ש)shedim, “demons”) are gods. Such translations, however, are forced to juxtapose this denial with the next clause, ום֑ ּעָ דְ יֹא ֹֹ֣ לֹיםִ ִ֖ להֱ ֹא) elohim lo’ yeda’um) (“gods which they did not know”) which appears to
clearly contradict that denial. How can the demons be gods and not gods in the same verse? Translations which take ֹ ַהֹ֔ לֱ ֹא) eloah) as singular do not suffer this tension. There are in fact no occasions in the Hebrew Bible where ֹ ַוהֹלֱ א) eloha) is contextually plural or is used as a collective noun
(Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:17”). Denying the existence of gods in Deut 32:17 means denying the existence of these demonic entities.
-Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council page 7

For these reasons and others, we do not believe that Michael Heiser’s conclusions about Psalm 82 and the divine council are biblical. It plays far too much into the hands of the Mormon doctrine of Plurality of Gods, which is a heresy and false doctrine we stand adamantly against. Even if Heiser’s conclusions don’t necessarily take it that far, it is nonetheless a dangerous concession to make when the doctrine of monotheism is a non-negotiable salvation issue that separates us from cult groups regularly citing this kind of material to deceive them into further false doctrine.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4HFollow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: What is the prophetic significance of the peace treaty between Israel and the U.A.E/Saudi Arabia?

There are two equal and opposite mistakes people make when looking for prophetically significant events in the news. Their standards are either so low that anything qualifies as a fulfillment of prophecy, or their standards are so high that prophecy as a whole is no longer relevant to their Christian life. Both are making the same mistake. The dismissal and mishandling of scripture. Therefore the solution is being properly informed concerning what to look for.

Is peace in the Middle East prophesied in the Bible? Yes. Is that all we are told? No. The prophecies in the Bible aren’t vague generalities in order to give them wiggle room if reality ends up catching up with their claims. They are so specific that it actually ends up putting itself in dangerous positions. If the circumstances, nations, locations, and even individuals don’t end up living up to the claims the Bible makes about them, the entire credibility of Scripture is put at risk. However, falsely claiming this event or individual was what the prophecy had in mind and ended up failing is misrepresenting the passage. This is what brings us to exactly what kind of peace in the Middle East is predicted in the Bible as well as the events that are going to follow.

“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
Daniel 9:26-27 (NKJV)

There’s a lot to unpack from this passage. The setting and initial audience is the prophet Daniel. Tested according to the standard laid down by Moses. If he were to say anything inaccurate in the name of God, he would have been taking his life into his own hands. If we were to claim he was lying, there would need to be the sort of means, motive, and opportunity to support that claim. Daniel was a captive in a foreign land with an entirely different religious demographic. Pursuing any kind of status among the Jews would accomplish nothing since they were all captives like he was. If he was looking for status, he’d be making claims about the Babylonian pantheon. He had nothing to gain for himself in making up claims about the God of Israel, and everything to lose among his fellow Jews as well. The only reason people have given to dismiss Daniel’s words is a bais against the supernatural. The assumption that there is nothing beyond the material prohibits the possibility of predicting the future to this degree of accuracy. Yet true to his Jewish blood, he continues to communicate and clarify the promises the God of Israel has been making about the Messiah since the founding of their nation regardless of the biases of Daniel’s critics.

The claim in this prophecy centers around the first and second comings of the Jewish Messiah. The word “week” in the language this was originally spoken in was translated using the term used to describe 7 days. However, words in two different languages don’t necessarily carry the same meaning. In Daniel’s spoken language, week means a unit of 7. In this context, it’s referring to 7 years. The 62 + 7 weeks (see verses 24-25) add up to a total of 69 weeks of years or 483 years. From the time the order is given to rebuild Jerusalem (445BC by Artaxerxes Longimanus according to the Babylonian calendar) Using the Jewish Lunar Calendar given the context and audience of this prophecy, we lose about 5 years along the way. When we subtract 445 from 483 including the 5 leap years, we are brought to the day Jesus of Nazareth entered Jerusalem in 33AD. This is a very broad summary and can be a question on its own. However, to understand the last two verses of the prophecy, it is necessary to grasp what has been said by the first two.

Daniel goes on to claim that after this event, the Messiah will be cut off. Literally, he will be executed. History affirms that Jesus was executed the week He entered Jerusalem at this time. With 69 of the 70 weeks fulfilled, Daniel claims the last week will begin when a prince from the people who destroyed the Jewish Temple will make a covenant with many, resulting in the beginning of that final week. There are graphic details given within this passage as well as the two chapters that follow Daniel 9. These are all quoted in the Book of Revelation as being fulfilled in the final Antichrist.

“There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle. And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant. And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time.
Daniel 11:20-24 (NKJV)

And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
Revelation 13:3-5 (NKJV)

Both texts speaking of this final ruler clarify he will establish his authority peacefully. It won’t last, but it will be built on intrigue rather than force of arms. Just like the prior passage in Daniel clarifies.

So to summarize what has been said so far, the peace in the Middle East that Christians are associating with this agreement will include the following. It will be an agreement that will last 7 years. It will involve the entire world. It will be based on the universal admiration and trust of the man who establishes it. And it will mark the beginning of the final week of Daniel, also known in Jeremiah as Jacob’s Trouble and the New Testament as the Tribulation Period.

What has actually taken place in recent news? A ceasefire was declared between three nations, (Israel, the U.A.E, and Saudi Arabia), for an undetermined period of time based on their mutual distrust of Iran. In short, this isn’t the peace spoken of by Daniel that will mark the beginning of the Tribulation. The Rapture of the Church hasn’t happened yet. This peace deal wasn’t based on the global admiration and trust of the man who wrote it. And the agreement between these nations isn’t set to any specific time period. Let alone 7 years.

It has been wisely observed that Israel should always be our focus when it comes to the prophetic calendar. However, don’t mistake foreshadowing for fulfillment. And likewise, don’t dismiss everything involving prophecy because some people haven’t been reading their Bibles carefully before posting videos and blogs about it.

Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,
Matthew 24:46-50 (NKJV)

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4HFollow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Does Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 teach that there is no consciousness after death?

When reading any book of the Bible, it is important to ask three primary questions before even engaging with the text.
1. What kind of book is it? History, Poetry, or Prophecy?
2. Where does the full statement in the text begin?
3. Does the Bible say anything else that would support our conclusion?

The answer to the first question is Poetry. The book of Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon towards the end of his life where cynicism and disappointment became the defining characteristic of his life. He describes this state as living “under the sun.”

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” What profit has a man from all his labor In which he toils under the sun?
Ecclesiastes 1:1-3 (NKJV)

This sets up the literary context as a guide for how this passage should be handled. Poetry can present doctrine. For example, Psalm 51:4 is the basis for our understanding that only God can forgive sins. However, this is further verified elsewhere in the Bible when the God of Israel expresses His desire to forgive Israel’s sins and Jesus uses this as one of His first claims to deity. However, Poetry can also simply be the author expressing their emotions to God. We need to know whether a truth statement is being made, or simply being set up later in the passage. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 is indeed a statement found within scripture. But in order to understand what the statement actually is, we need to read the full statement before coming to conclusions about the point actually being made.

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:3-6

The full statement turns out to be an observation repeatedly referencing the setting in Chapter 1 and verse 3. Under the sun is emphasizing a life separate from God. In this state, the only thing you have going for you is the fact that you haven’t died yet. Once that takes place for someone who only lives for this world, then they’ve lost everything. That’s why he makes the contrast between a mighty creature like a lion and a detestable creature like a dog. The dog is better off than the lion because it’s still alive. That’s his point. If you’re under the sun, you’re only worth something if you’re producing something. The question is if there’s an alternative. This is what brings us to the end of the book.

Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, Before the difficult days come, And the years draw near when you say, “I have no pleasure in them”
Ecclesiastes 12:1

This is the point of the entire book. Solomon had no pleasure in life because he wasn’t serving his Creator like he had in his younger years. You can find further context to this time and his transition into hedonism in the book of 1 Kings.

Solomon isn’t giving a description of the afterlife. He is making an observation about death. Death for the non-believer is the end of everything they have and ever will accomplish. The Bible as a whole presents a very different picture for those who are living under the Son, rather than the sun.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Can you please explain where Jesus came from? Is Jesus the real son of God like a child is a father’s son?

Jesus is called the Son of God in Christian scripture. In order to properly define this, we need to be careful to let the Bible define it’s terms rather than assume our definitions for them. The word “son” describes a relationship. This can either be a biological description of their origins, or a description of their relationship with another person. When referring to Jesus as the Son of God, the Bible isn’t saying that God the Father biologically sired Jesus through Mary like anti-Christian cults have tried to claim in the past. In order to support this claim, we will do the same thing anyone should do when making claims about God. Confirm it based on what He said about Himself.

Was Jesus the biological offspring of the Father? No. There are truth claims made about who and what God is by nature that make this impossible.

“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:24 (NKJV)

Speaking to the Samaritan woman after she asked Him a question about where one properly worships God, Jesus clarifies that God in His fullness isn’t bound by time and place. He is Spirit. Therefore, not biological. If you aren’t a physical being, you can’t physically sire offspring.

Was Jesus biologically produced by the Father? No. There are truth claims made about Jesus that would make this comparison to human existence beginning at their birth inaccurate.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
Micah 5:2 (NKJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (…)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-3, 14 (NKJV)

In both the Old and New Testaments, we have clarification about the child named Jesus, who would be the Christ. First, it is established by the prophet Micah that the child to be born in Bethlehem’s “goings forth” were from everlasting. Literally eternity. He is the only child who existed before He was born, and existed from eternity into the past. This is affirmed in the beginning of John’s Gospel by clarifying the Word, that was God, became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus’ origins were the same as the Father’s. They existed for eternity together. This sharing of divine attributes between Jesus and the Father are the foundations for the doctrine of the Trinity. That there is one God with a unique nature including multiple persons. This is what brings us to the final fact to properly understand what the Bible means when it calls Jesus the Son of God.

Was Jesus conceived through sexual reproduction? No. Jesus is the only person in the human race to enter this world entirely through a woman without the involvement of a man.

Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.”
Luke 1:30-37

Referencing the prophecy in Genesis 3:15, the angel Gabriel clarifies to Mary exactly how she is going to become pregnant without a man. The Father isn’t mentioned in producing Jesus, but rather the Spirit going to her and overshadowing her. There is no reason to read into this a sexual interaction given the data we already have. Neither the Spirit or the Father are biological beings capable of having sexual intercourse with Mary. Jesus already existed at the time of His biological conception and already had existed from eternity. The only ones who would require this as the means by which Jesus entered this world are those reading into the text the pagan understanding of the gods having sons. Pagan deities are indistinguishable from humans apart from their power. The God of the Bible, who adopted human nature in the person of Jesus Christ as the second member of the Trinity, explicitly stated that He would enter this world through a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14) The God of the Bible, who adopted human nature in the person of Jesus Christ as the second member of the Trinity, explicitly stated He relates to God as His Father. (John 8:29) The God of the Bible, who adopted human nature…You get the point. Jesus claims the sort of things that only God can rightly say about Himself. He is called Creator, the Final Judge, the Giver of Eternal Life, the First and the Last, the I AM, and many other things that only the God of the Bible can rightly claim about Himself. Therefore, we rightly conclude that Jesus is God. Yet at the same time, Jesus is called the Son of God who relates to God as His Father and can function independently from Him as a person when He adopted human nature in a moment of human history. Since we can’t reconcile this by stating Jesus began to exist through a biological relationship, nor can we rightly claim that Jesus was produced from the Father through physical means, we understand that Jesus meant His relationship with God the Father is like a Son does with His Father. It’s a term describing their relationship within the Trinity.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.