Can Women Teach According To Scripture?

Can Women Teach According to Scripture?

I Timothy 2:11-14 “11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer (allow) not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Many would use this as Scriptural proof that woman should not teach, but I would suggest a closer look at the text, and that is to be in context with the whole of Scripture. First note the word “I” in the highlighted phrase above. Paul in writing says that he, Paul does not allow women to teach, and then he gives his Scriptural defense for that belief. Did every word that Paul wrote in the Epistles come directly from God? Well let’s find out by looking at Scripture. See for example later in the same book, I Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly…” this phrase reveals that the Spirit may not have directly inspired all of Paul’s previous words in this particular book. Now see two more instances where Paul makes a clear distinction between his word’s and those inspired by God.

I Corinthians 7:12-15 “12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord…"

I Corinthians 7:25 “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment…"

Now that we have clear precedent that Paul sometimes speaks of his own judgment, and not necessarily directly from God, then we must ask, is it clear when he does this? The answer is yes. If Paul made such a distinction in these cases, it can clearly be understood that he was convicted to separate his own judgments, from the commands and teachings of God. Therefore we should not worry if what we are reading is from Paul or God, because a simple examination of the text should make that distinction clear with little to no effort on our part. Later on we will see an example where Paul did not clarify the source of a statement regarding women, but we should evaluate his teachings in light of the rest of Scripture. This is a major reason why relying on men, rather than on the Spirit of God for teaching is so easy a way in which to be deceived.

In I Timothy 2:12 Paul reveals that it is he himself that does not allow a woman to teach, in that he says ‘I’ do not allow them to. Now we must examine the rest of Scripture and interpret the validity of this doctrine held by Paul in light of other passages.

First thing that I would note is Paul’s defense of his opinion. He claims that his reasoning is because the woman was deceived in the garden, and not the man. He seems to be implying that a woman is more easily deceived than a man. We could first examine this in light of known differences between men and women. You do not need a license, or degree in behavioral psychology in order to know that the woman is more emotionally driven than a man, while a man is more logical. That is not to suggest that man is devoid of emotion, or the woman of logic, but the stronger tendency toward one or the other is strongly based on the genetics of gender, guided by testosterone and estrogen, and this is apparent simply by taking into account your own experiences. Now ask yourself, which is an easier front upon which to cast deception, with a logical argument, to a mind with a propensity for logic, or an emotional plea to an emotionally heavy mind? It is a simple matter to combine a lie, with an emotional plea that resonates with the intended target, and results in deception; whereas it is much more difficult (though certainly not impossible) to combine a lie with logic, because logic is more clear and decisive, and a mind driven by logic is more inclined to carefully consider what is being said. If an emotional plea resonates with it’s audience, then it has automatically gained more strength in their mind than a logical argument to a logical mind, because logic is an activity that takes time to process, whereas emotion is largely an instinctual and immediate response. My point is that according to human logic it seems evident where Paul may have been coming from, though I will say plainly that I feel he missed the mark big time, and I will get to that soon.

As a bit of an aside, I will also say that the Scripture records God telling Adam of His rules, and Adam presumably told Eve later, since she had not been formed yet, meaning that Eve likely never actually heard God say “don’t eat of the fruit”, but she instead received the admonition from Adam. This is just a different possible reason why Satan would have gone after Eve, rather than Adam.

But first I want to show you the prominent roles of women in Scripture. Miriam was a prophetess along side her brothers, maybe you’ve heard of them, their names are Moses and Aaron, Exodus 15:20, Numbers 12:4-5, 26:59. Deborah was a prophetess and a judge over all of Israel in Judges 4-5. Anna was a prophetess in the days of Jesus’ birth Luke 2:26. And whom did the resurrected Jesus use to tell, or to teach the Disciples that He had been raised from the dead? The answer is women, Matthew 28, Mark 16:10.

One could argue that teaching and prophecy are two different offices, but that doesn’t hold water in the case of the legality of women teachers, as you will soon see. True the two offices are different, but first note that there is never a decree in the Old or New Testament for a woman to be forbidden to do either office, except in Paul’s writing’s where as we’ve seen, there is strong evidence that his word’s were of himself, and not from God. Paul’s defense was that the woman was deceived therefore she should not teach. For one, why would a woman teacher be more susceptible to deceit than a woman prophetess? Yet God works through women to prophesy. The answer depends on one thing only, the presence or lack thereof of the Holy Spirit. Can a woman have the Holy Spirit? Simply put, yes she can, see Joel 2:28. It shouldn’t need to be proven that the Holy Spirit needs to be present in order to prophesy, but here’s a verse anyway, II Peter 1:21. But does one teach by the Spirit also? If not, then perhaps an argument could be made that differentiates the office of prophetess from that of teacher, based on the presence or lack thereof of the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 2:12-13 “12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

(A) We are taught by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, I Corinthians 2:12-13, Ephesians 3:5), (B) women can receive the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28), (C) so why then can a woman not share what she has been taught by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps a better question is why cannot the Holy Spirit be poured out of the vessel of women in the realm of teaching, and yet He can be poured out in the realm of prophecy? I submit that the answer is because some men agree with Paul, and use his lone teachings, which requires that they also ignore the rest of Scripture on the matter of women.

I submit to you that Paul’s doctrine on a woman’s ability to teach lawfully was actually and likely un-knowingly denying the power of the Holy Spirit to work in women as He does in men. A woman teaching is forbidden nowhere in Scripture other than in Paul’s writings, and there the language is clearly showing it to be a Pauline doctrine, and not from God. Not that it is an evil doctrine, but rather that it is founded on the notion that the Holy Spirit cannot use a woman as He does a man, which is not Scriptural. Again, if God uses women as prophetesses and judges, why is it suddenly forbidden for them to teach, even though it is not forbidden anywhere else in Scripture, or even by any other New Testament writer?

Other Passages Used to Facilitate This Doctrine

In I Corinthians 14:34-35 we read “34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Here Paul does not clarify the phrase “it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church” by showing it to be his belief as opposed to the doctrine of God, but because of the rest of Scripture, we can still see that this is most likely the case; in other words the facts that no other writer commands or even suggests that women should not be able to teach, coupled with the fact that women held high spiritual offices in past times, unchallenged by God, is reason for a firmly Scriptural defense that the notion of women being forbidden to teach is a strictly Pauline doctrine, and not one from God. I will now remind you that Paul did at least have a Scriptural reason for his belief, albeit one that was seemingly not inspired or commanded by God Himself.

Also, don’t let a single dogmatic statement like the one in the passage above be the end of a discussion. Ask who said it, to whom was it said, in what context was it said, and how does it compare to the rest of Scripture? Who said it? Paul said it. To whom was it said? To the church at Corinth who had a plague of prophecies and speaking in tongues that was so chaotic that nothing else was getting done when they met together to worship, i.e. these gifts were being abused. He limited each gift to two or three occurrences per church gathering, and he said that tongues should never be spoken in the church without an interpreter present. The context is that Paul is essentially saying, “If a woman has a question about a prophecy that is spoken, let her not disrupt the service any further, but rather that she is to ask her husband at home”. Again we find his bias, but it is still his bias. Because the last question is How does it compare to the rest of Scripture, and we have seen that it does not mesh with the allowed office of prophetess and judge, and the total silence on women teachers being forbidden in the rest of Scripture.

Perhaps the single best argument for this doctrine lies in Genesis 3:16. As a penalty for original sin, God decrees, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Does the man’s authority over the woman equal her not being allowed to teach, but somehow allowed to prophesy? I submit that if the husband allows the woman to teach, then she is well with God. If the husband refuses to allow her to teach, then she is not well with God if she does so anyway; not because He has forbidden her to teach, because I believe it to be clear that He has not, but rather because he has given her husband rule over her, as a penalty for original sin, and she is to submit to that rule. As an aside, the husbands rule does not facilitate commands from him that are contrary to Scripture i.e. if a husband tells his wife to steal, or break another command of God, then she is not obligated to obey him. Also, God has given command to the husband to love his wife as himself, and as Christ loved the church, which is to say, sacrificially. A God fearing husband will not take advantage of his rule, and therefore, the rule of the husband over the wife, should not be used to claim that God or His Word is sexist. The rule by husband over wife is penalty for the fall, and the complimentary command to love her sacrificially is also a non-negotiable command.

Some might use verses out of context in order to propagate this doctrine. Verses like John 3:34 “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” As if to say that God sent Paul, therefore Paul speaks for God, but this passage is referring to the Son only, and I remind you that Paul wrote several things that can be verified were of his own opinion.

Summary

The verses you will need to remember in order to make a Scriptural defense for women teachers are the following: (A) We are taught by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, I Corinthians 2:12-13, Ephesians 3:5) + (B) women can receive the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28) + (C) the husband has rule over the woman (Genesis 3:16), = (D) Women can teach, so long as their husbands condone it. A + B + C = D. You will also need to remember the verses that illustrate Paul’s documented propensity for giving his opinion (I Timothy 4:1, I Corinthians 7:12-15, & 25), and the verses that contain Paul’s decree that forbids women to teach (I Timothy 2:11-14).

I would be interested to hear counter arguments, but please be Scriptural, I am not interested in opinion.

PS Husbands, God has not forbidden your wife to teach, so please don’t lord your headship over her and forbid something just to play god with the ordained headship from God. And remember, Christ is the head of the church as the husband is the head of the wife i.e. you are a part of the body that is Christ’s bride i.e. you are also a wife. And please don’t forget that you will be held accountable for the way in which you use your God given headship.

Is Eternal Suffering Real? Part III

*Isaiah 34:6-10, “6 The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea [Idumeans are the descendants of Edom Isaiah 63:1, which is Esau, Genesis 36:8, Jacob’s [Israel’s] brother Genesis 25:25-26]. 7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. 8 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. 9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into (*B*) brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 10 (*C*) It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.” *for more on the destruction of Edom see Jeremiah 49:7-22. The ancient land of Edom occupies roughly the same land as modern-day Jordan.

Some might compare this to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as if to say that the destruction of Edom is not an indication of the presence of the lake of fire, but I’ll remind you of the fact that this passage further qualifies the statement “the smoke thereof shall go up for ever” with the phrase “from generation to generation”, giving strong emphasis on a literally eternal burning. Also, this destruction clearly has not happened yet, as the land of Jordan is currently occupied, and it is not a perpetually smoldering bed of fire.

One last piece of evidence is from Isaiah 66:24 where the unquenchable fire is again mentioned along side the worm that does not die. Here God declares that all who worship Him will also look upon the carcases of those who have transgressed against Him, implying that this place is on the Earth. He even mentions the new Heavens and the new Earth in verse 22, but remember that the order of events described in prophecy can often be jumbled. This verse is actually the single strongest evidence that I’ve seen that those who are cast into the lake of fire will perish, since God describes their carcases, which means exactly what it sounds like; dead bodies. The word is H 6297 in Strong’s: Peh-gher. But I also remind you that a flesh corpse does not demand a soul that has also ceased to exist. The testimony of Scripture is clear that the flesh and the soul are separate entities, so using a passage that describes a dead body to insist that the soul is also dead is flat out wrong.

(9-4) Revelation 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of (*B*) fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented (*C*) day and night for ever and ever.”

Even though this verse does not describe human occupants, it is still very good evidence fore eternal suffering, because the same terms are used here, as are used in (9-3) above: (*B*) fire and brimstone, and (*C*) they are tormented day and night. This is done at the beginning of eternity, so let there be no question, the devil, the beast and the false prophet, will be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire. While the eternal torment for the human souls is still less provable, it is still the interpretation that is best supported by the evidence.

(9-5) Revelation 20:15 “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” All those upon the earth whose names are not written in the Book of life, will worship the beast, Rev. 13:8; and the smoke of the torment of those who take the mark of the beast shall go up for ever and ever, Rev. 14:9-11, see (5-8).

(9-6) The lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, Matthew 25:41 (i.e. it was not created for us, also God is not willing that any should perish, but that all have eternal life, nor does he take any pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, see II Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 33:11). This passage goes on to say in verse 46 that those who saw the hungry and did not feed them, thirsty and did not give them drink, etc, will “go away into everlasting punishment”, which is pretty hard to debate around, that sounds like eternal punishment to me, and it was said by Jesus Himself. I've heard people say that these who "go away into everlasting punishment" are those who claimed to be Christian but did not live a life of love and caring for others, as Jesus commanded, but I'm not 100% sure if that can be proven, I'll have to look into it. If so, that could change the eternal destination of those who do not do this, and who also do not take the mark of the beast.

Summary

The most telling arguments for eternal punishment in my opinion are points (9-2), (9-5) & (9-6). I have presented all arguments that I know of, and I leave it for you to continue searching. Be careful to note the way in which temporal punishment arguments are formed and how they require you to throw away what the seemingly obvious interpretation of a passage is, and how they often demand that you ignore or reject certain other passages. Remember that evidence is not proof. The evidence is overwhelmingly against temporal punishment, and for eternal punishment, but I have still yet to find a passage that explicitly states that all who are not saved will go on forever in eternal punishment. We know for certain that those who take the mark of the beast will, as well as those described in Matthew 25:41-46, which is a somewhat uncertain group (are they those who are simply unsaved, or are they people who claimed to be Christians, but did not follow Christ's command to love?).

Is Eternal Suffering Real? Part II

*(5-10) All those who take the mark of the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the smoke of their torment will ascend up for ever and ever, Revelation 14:9-11. This passage does not specifically call this the lake of fire, but the Lake of Fire will also burn with fire and brimstone, Revelation 21:8, which means that the place of the suffering described above probably IS the Lake of Fire itself, yet it is not so plainly stated that this passage can be considered proof of the eternality of the suffering of it’s occupants. I will note that just because the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever, does not necessarily mean that the ones being tormented live forever and ever. I believe that they will live on, otherwise from where does the smoke come? But we are looking for hard facts; and while this passage comes so close, in the end it is merely the strongest of evidences, but not definitive proof. One more thing to note, is that there are people in Sheol who did not take the mark of the beast, as that has not happened yet, but they have rejected Jesus’ salvation, and therefore, there seems to be a differentiation between common unbelievers, and those who take this mark. In other words, even though this is good evidence for eternal suffering, it only seems to apply to those with the mark.

(6) Tartaro’o

Tartaro’o (tar-ta-raw-oh) Strong’s Greek #5020: This Greek word only appears once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartaro’o], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” According to the Blue letter Bible site, this is the Greek equivalent of Gehenna [the lake of fire]. However, I believe that it is actually a Greek equivalent of Sheol [the pit, or prison], since Peter says the angels that sinned are being “reserved unto judgment” and the final judgment is the second death, which is the lake of fire. It wouldn’t make sense to say that they are in Gehenna reserved in chains of darkness until they are delivered to Gehenna. Strong’s concordance defines this as the deepest level of Hades/Sheol [the pit, or prison for disobedient souls].

(7) Arguments for Temporal Punishment

I heard a 7th day Adventist named Doug Bachelor, argue against the existence of eternal suffering in Hell this past Sunday [9/16/12] and he used a few passages to back this up.

(7-1) Psalm 37:10 & 20 written by king David, “10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. 20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.”

His argument is that because the wicked will be consumed, then Hell is not an eternal suffering, but rather it’s occupants will quickly cease to exist. Well there’s another verse that mirrors this one: Psalm 104:35 “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. … ” In other words, David, in Psalm 37 was likely only referring to their disappearance from the earth, I don’t see proof or even decent evidence that David was suggesting that once departed from the earth, they would consume away in every aspect including the soul.

Also it is imperative to note his words “as the fat of lambs”. The author is using a simile, and therefore it cannot be taken too literally. These literary devices are often used to reveal an aspect of a thing that is less understood, by comparing it to a more familiar thing, but the analogy only goes so far. The real test is to compare these passages to other’s that describe the same thing in this case we should look at the fate of the wicked as described in other verses like Psalm 104:35. A simile cannot contradict the rest of Scripture, so we must now consider what the rest of Scripture has to say on this matter, before we presume to take this simile as a literal description. Also consider the possibility that this consuming away is a never-ending process, as evidenced in (5-8). It is entirely possible that this simile ceases to be literal in regards to the suffering on the other side of death, i.e. it is only referring to the death of the body, and not the death of the soul.

Also, note that in the Scripture given by Mr. Bachelour that David says, “as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.” [Emphasis added], which parallels (5-8) that describes the smoke of their torment going up forever; further suggesting that the destruction that David describes is a perpetual one, and not temporal.

Finally, and most notably, David did not know of the lake of fire, which is where eternal suffering is said to take place, so he is simply referring to Sheol, where we know the spirit carries on [I Peter 3:18-20]. This is one of many examples of verses concerning Sheol, being used to discredit doctrine concerning the lake of fire.

(7-2) Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” See also Luke 12:5. It does seem that using the physical death, and the death of the soul together could imply that both death’s are the same in all or many aspects, but this is still not explicitly stated, meaning that this evidence is only circumstantial and can at best only be used to supplement other evidences. Also consider that the first death is not permanent, the soul goes on (Psalm 16:10, II Corinthians 5:8, I Peter 3:18-20); because both the just and unjust will be raised from the dead to be judged, Acts 24:15. Therefore, if the spirit goes on after the first death, and both deaths are the same in that regard, this would actually be evidence of eternality after the second death as well.

(7-3) Isaiah 66:24, “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” This verse is actually the single strongest evidence that I’ve seen that those who are cast into the lake of fire will perish for good, since God mentions their carcases, which means exactly what it sounds like; dead bodies. The word is H 6297 in Strong’s: Peh-gher. But still remember, the presence of dead flesh; that no longer lives, does not demand a spirit that also ceases to be. In other words this verse is one of the strongest evidences for temporal punishment, but it is still very far from proof. This verse only proves that the carcases of those men’s flesh will be dead, but proves nothing concerning the soul.

An Argument For Temporal Punishment That Doesn’t Work

Some might use Jesus’ parable from Matthew 18:23-35, where a servant is given a free pass on an extreme debt that he owed the King, but that same servant turned around and demanded a far less debt be paid to him from his fellow servant, and so the first servant ends up having to pay his original debt which was FAR greater than the one owed to him. Jesus makes it clear in the end that He is speaking of forgiveness. The amount due to the King, which represents God, is 10,000 talents. This is roughly 160,000 YEARS wages, while the debt owed to that servant is only about 4 months wages. The unjust servant ended up having to pay his debt in prison, because he did not extend the same forgiveness to his fellow servant.

The reason this could be used to argue for temporal punishment is that while the amount owed, 160,000 years wages, is a big number, it is nothing in comparison to eternity, which is never ending. One could conceivably argue that people will eventually be let out of this “prison” once their sins are paid for. The big problem with this argument goes back to the definitions for words translated as Hell. Sheol is the place called the prison, not the lake of fire, but the lake of fire is the place where punishment is supposed to be eternal. So this parable seems to be in reference to Sheol, not the lake of fire. Also, this punishment is presumably for believers since the subjects serve the King, and they have received forgiveness, while not extending the same; therefore, it doesn’t make much sense to believe that those who have outright rejected the forgiveness that is in Christ will qualify for this end. In other words, there is no logical reason to believe that this possibly-temporary punishment will apply to those who have never received forgiveness in the first place.

(8) More From Doug Bachelour

I went looking for his study on youtube, but I found another one from him on Hell instead. I could barely watch half of the video without becoming so angry at his slick and blatantly dishonest tactics that I just couldn’t take listening to him anymore. I’d like to address several things that he said in just the first half of this video, and show with Scripture why they are wrong. Some of these things he outright insisted, and others he mockingly insinuated.

(8-1) He said that teaching everlasting punishment is in direct violation to the Garden of Eden testimony, where God says that man shall not eat of the tree of life and live forever. He makes the argument that Satan was the one who said they would not die, thereby insinuating that it is a satanic doctrine to believe that sinners live forever, even in everlasting punishment. Again, we have seen WITH Scripture that the soul DOES go on, otherwise what should we make of passages like I Peter 3:18-20 that reveal there to be disobedient souls in prison? The argument that the eternality of the disobedient soul is a satanic doctrine is flat out contrary to Scripture.

To disprove this notion I want to show that the eternality forbidden by God in the garden must have been in regards to the flesh, not the soul. In other words God did not want the sin stained flesh to live forever, but Doug is insisting that we need to believe that God meant the soul as well. We know from I Peter 3:18-20 that the soul goes on for the disobedient, and thanks to II Corinthians 5:8 we know that obedient souls who are absent from the body are present with the Lord. Secondly, we know that there will be a bodily resurrection from the dead for both the just and the unjust Acts 24:15. Also, believers who have passed on will be resurrected; and they will be changed along with those believers who are still living and they will ascend just behind the dead in Christ [I Thessalonians 4:16-17, I Corinthians 15:52-53]. Furthermore, we know that Jesus was resurrected with a flesh body Luke 24:39. And finally, in Revelation 2:7 Jesus says that those who overcome the temptations will eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life. How can the soul eat something that is physical, and why would it eat something that would cause it to live since it already lives on as seen by previous verses? In other words, flesh and bone bodies will consume this fruit. The eternality kept from sinners in the garden is that of a flesh and bone eternal body, not the soul. The eternality of the soul is completely separate from the eternality of the flesh. Scripture states that the soul goes on regardless of its righteousness or unrighteousness, so the bodies that will eat of the Tree of Life will clearly be flesh bodies, meaning that God’s objection was to the eternality of the sin stained flesh, not to the eternality of the soul. What we have here is a purely Biblical doctrine being called satanic by a false teacher.

(8-2) Doug also insinuated that the doctrine of eternal torment, coupled with baptism salvation means that un-baptized babies will burn in Hell forever. First of all, I know of no verse that substantiates that claim. Secondly baptism is a token of true faith, or ”the answer of a good conscience toward God“ [I Peter 3:21] and it is done only after faith. Jesus says in Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Notice that Baptism is left out of the description of those that will be damned. In other words, faith is what saves, and baptism is one of many tokens of true faith, but baptism does not in itself save souls. See also Acts 8:12-13 & 18:8. Also consider the thief on the cross who had no time to be baptized; yet Jesus declared to him that he would be with Him in paradise.

(8-3) Doug also insinuated that those who believe in eternal suffering also believe that God loves to punish sinners, which is in direct violation with Ezekiel 33:11 and II Peter 3:9 which state emphatically that God takes no joy in the destruction of the wicked, and that He desires all to be saved. Here Doug has misrepresented the views that his opponent’s hold (eternal suffering), based on an attribute that they do not hold (God taking satisfaction in the death of the wicked). Mockery and mud slinging should ALWAYS be an automatic red flag.

(8-4) He also mocks the idea that Satan is in charge of Hell. He claims that this doctrine comes from paganism, when in fact it actually comes from Revelation 9:1-11 which describe the locusts and their king, which is the king over the bottomless pit [Sheol]. This king’s name is Abaddon in Hebrew, and Apollyon in Greek, which means the Destroyer in both languages. Who this destroyer actually is may or may not be clear, but the death angel of Exodus 12:23 is also called the destroyer, though the word Abaddon is not used. It is fairly understandable that so many assume Satan to be the king over this pit, but just because it is not 100% clear, does not mean that the idea came from paganism. As I have shown, the Bible gives fair reason to think the devil is the king over the bottomless pit. But in the end, no Christian is holding so tightly to this idea that it should be ammo for opponents to eternal suffering. Once again, the method reveals the motive and the motive reveals the man. He’s reaching far outside of the discussion at hand, which is supposed to be the doctrine of eternal suffering, to sling a little mud that is only related to the topic in that it deals with the place called Hell. This is an attempt to further cause his opponents views to seem childlike, and un-Biblical. Mockery is very often a tool used by people with little or nothing to back up their claims. Also notice that he is using facts about The Pit/Sheol/Hades that does have a king over it, in order to back up his claims about Gehenna/The Lake of Fire which has no king or leader mentioned and therefore no educated Bible believing Christian would argue that point. This is why we need to know the difference between the two places.

(8-5) Doug insinuated that the eternal suffering doctrine is only a tool of fear to get congregants to pay more money. That is a bold, dishonest, and misleading statement, seeing that most proponents can quote lots of Scripture to back up their claims, while Mr. Bachelour needs to do some serious spinning and even lying to convince people that his view is correct. He is saying that the very idea of eternal punishment was created to fatten the wallets of the church, as if there is no Scriptural basis for this idea, when there is actually FAR more for it than against it. The method reveals the motive, and the motive reveals the man.

(8-6) He also mocks the idea that Hell is under the earth. First of all, he is once again (I presume intentionally) blurring the line between Sheol and Gehenna. In (2-1) we learned not only that the location of Sheol is indeed below, but also we see that it is the most confirmed aspect of Sheol in that 6 different authors or witnesses, in 8 different passages proclaim it and two of those are quotes from our Lord Himself. But more importantly, Sheol is not the place where eternal suffering occurs; that occurs in the Lake of Fire, Gehenna. I am sure that a studied scholar such as Mr. Bachelour should be aware of the difference between these two destinations. If he is aware of the difference between the two places, then perhaps this was just a slip of the pen if you will, but if it was intentional, then this is so very devious, and so very telling. Only God and Mr. Bachelour know for sure.

I hope that these 6 points will show how slick and dishonest the methods of some men can be. If these simple things are so clearly wrong, and more importantly dishonest, then we should learn the lesson to be very careful in what we take in as truth, no matter who tells it; no matter how well they speak; how smart they sound; or what Scriptures they give as evidence. In the end the final word is the complete testimony of Scripture. Prove what is told to you, ALWAYS.

If someone uses mockery to describe their opposition, then you need to be as scrutinizing of their words as you possibly can, because people with weak arguments use this tactic. It is used to make their opposition look dumb, in order to build themselves false credibility with their audience. ALWAYS look out for this. Mockery does not necessarily mean that the person speaking is wrong, but it does indicate an un-Christian view of ones opposition, and as I said before, it is often intentionally used to create false credibility. This tactic, when used intentionally, is usually coupled with a twisting of Scripture by several means i.e. passages taken out of context, or bold lies that sound Biblical because they use quotes that are slightly altered to suit the doctrine being pushed.

(9) Arguments for Eternal Punishment

(9-1) II Thessalonians 1:8-9 “8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”

One could argue that the wicked man’s destruction [or absence from life] is everlasting, but his suffering is not i.e. he is fully dead forever, but not suffering forever. I find these kinds of interpretations to be lacking in hard evidence, and they feel very forced given the fact that the passage seems to clearly reference an ongoing destruction, and especially in light of all the other Scriptures on the matter, but I’ll leave it for the reader to decide.

(9-2) Mark 9:43-45 “43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”[Emphasis added]

Again I remind you that I do not believe that Jesus is suggesting literal mutilation, but rather a spiritual separation from unrepentant sinners within the body of Christ. But what should we make of the phrase “Where their worm dieth not”? For more on this passage see (4-4). Also ask yourself, if it is “better to go through life maimed than to be cast into Hell whole”, then how can one consider the suffering in Hell to be temporary? That notion seems illogical to me.

(9-3) Revelation 14:9-11 “9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink (*A*) of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with (*B*) fire and brimstone [the lake of fire? Revelation 21:8] in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and (*C*) they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” [Emphasis added]

If the smoke ascends up for ever, then it seems very likely that they are being tormented forever and ever, otherwise from where would this smoke come?

It is important to note that the term “ever” can apparently mean “until the end of the age” which means that it may not indicate eternity, but simply the rest of the duration of a specific dispensation of time. This seems like a flawed interpretation for a couple of reasons: (A) because the word 'ever' is doubled “for ever and ever”, and (B) because these events happen at the end of an age, just before the millennial reign of Christ. Also, the word “ever” should not necessarily be translated “until the end of the age” it is simply a supposed possibility. I say “supposed” because I do not know enough about translating Hebrew to know if this possibility is truly valid. It is worth remembering that the doubling of something in Hebrew is a way to emphasize, meaning that this double use of the word ‘ever’ in “for ever and ever” likely means for eternity.

Also important to note is that (*A*) the wine of the Wrath of God that is poured out into a cup, may represent the cups of God’s Wrath that are poured out during the final destruction in Revelation, and this happens upon the earth; presumably not in the lake of fire. However, there is a Scriptural reason to believe that *the lake of fire may be on the earth, and that notion comes from Isaiah 34:6-10.

Is Eternal Suffering Real? Part I

Is Eternal Suffering Real?

Well there are many schools of thought on this, and many of them are claimed to be Biblical. So what is the answer? Well let’s start by defining what we mean by Hell. There are several words translated as Hell in the KJV, and they essentially reference two different places. First let me say that we are looking at the notion that there will be those who will suffer the ravages of Hell eternally after the end of days; this is called the lake of fire. Now let’s clear up a couple of definitions of Hell.

(1) Sheol

Sheol Strong’s Hebrew #7585: Most often in the Old Testament the word Hell is translated from the Hebrew word Sheol, which is also called the pit, or the grave. The Greek New Testament equivalent to this is Hades see Strong’s Greek #86, and for an example of this usage see Revelation 1:18. Sheol is not the Hell that we are asking about, but we will go ahead and take a Biblical look at what this place is like, and whom it is for. Knowing the difference between the two will actually help us recognize false teachings that purposely mix the two places in order to give a false representation of one or both. First let me begin by saying: if you are wondering why we would give multiple verses that say essentially the same thing, keep in mind that by the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing is established (witness #1: Moses Deuteronomy 19:15, #2 Jesus Matthew 18:16, #3 Paul II Corinthians 13:1), meaning that when two different authors say essentially the same thing, the thing is not open for debate, it is established. Just because a truth is only written once, does not mean that it is not true, but if it is written multiple times, there is a much stronger case for its doctrinal weight. This rule of two or three witnesses is used in court for old Testament cases, so that accusations against someone can be proven. But, for the sake of disqualifying certain erroneous interpretations of Scripture, we will be counting Scriptural witnesses today. Each author will be counted as a singular witness, but each individual Psalm will be counted as an individual witness, since different authors wrote different Psalms. Giving multiple Scriptural witnesses weakens and sometimes destroys the arguments against the existence and true nature of Hell. Another reason for making note of multiple passages is because some people, even some Christians, and many Jews, believe that unless God Himself spoke a word concerning something, it is not inspired, and can therefore not be taken as hard doctrine. Finding things spoken by God, or not originally spoken by God, but later endorsed by Jesus adds much more weight to their significance in some people’s eyes.

(2) Facts About Sheol

(2-1) Sheol is below us, witness #1 Proverbs 15:24, #2 Isaiah 14:15, #3 Ezekiel 31:16-17, 32:21 & 27, #4 Amos 9:2, #5 Matthew 11:23, #6 Luke 10:15.

(2-2) Sheol has various layers, #1 Deuteronomy 32:21-22, #2 Psalm 86:13.

(2-3) Some verses seem to imply that Sheol is an actual being, #1 Job 26:6, #2 Isaiah 5:14, 14:9, 28:15, which would likely be the king of the bottomless pit mentioned in Revelation 9:11.

(2-4) Sheol is for the wicked, #1 Psalm 9:17, #2 55:15.

(2-5) The Messiah would spend a time there, #1 Psalm 16:10, #2 Acts 2:27-31, #3 I Peter 3:18-20.

(2-6) Sheol is associated with sorrow and pain, #1 II Samuel 22:6, #2 Psalm 18:5, #3 116:3, #4 Luke 16:23.

(2-7) The strange woman [the harlot, who represents idolatry, which is spiritual adultery] leads to Sheol, Proverbs 5:3-5, 7:5-27, 9:11-18.

(2-8) Physical correction (done properly; not in anger, but in love) will deliver a child from Sheol, Proverbs 23:13-14.

(2-9) Sheol is never full, Proverbs 27:20.

(2-10) Sheol has desire, which may be used to further solidify the notion that it is an actual being as well as a place, Habakkuk 2:5.

(2-11) Sheol/Hades has a gate, Matthew 16:18, that requires keys to open, Revelation 1:18.

(2-12) The gates of Hades will war against Jesus’ church, but will not succeed, Matthew 16:18.

(2-13) Hades will give up the dead in it, also possibly showing it’s personal nature, Revelation 20:13.

(2-14) death and Hades will both be cast into the lake of fire, possibly showing that they are beings, and definitely showing that the lake of fire is a real and separate place, where the occupants of Sheol/Hades will eventually be thrown, Revelation 20:14.

I would now like to take a special look at the book of Jonah, because a passage from this book is erroneously used to prove that Hell is not a literal place. Jonah 2:2, “And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell [Sheol] cried I, and thou heardest my voice.” The argument is that Jonah was literally in the belly of the whale, so describing it as Sheol somehow proves that it is not a literal place, but rather a figurative one. There are several reasons that this is a flawed interpretation. A. The multiple witnesses (including Christ) previously seen already establish the reality of Sheol. B. We have already seen that Sheol is below us, so the fact that Jonah was in the great deep makes it clear why he chose this word picture. See also verse 2:6 “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains”. C. Jonah was likely using poetic license in his description of his situation as evidenced by his statement in verse 2:6 “the bars of the earth were about me for ever”. To my knowledge these “bars of the earth” are a figuratively poetic statement, which serves to give credence to the notion that Joel was simply using poetic license. And also consider the possibility that Jonah was given a literal spiritual vision in which he visited Hell. There is no description of this in the book, but that does not mean that it couldn’t have happened. When he said he cried from the belly of Sheol, this could have been a subtle clue that perhaps Jonah received a vision of this place. After all, he was called to preach to sinners that were actually going to repent and be saved from this fate, so God may have given him a vision of the place that those people were otherwise going to occupy, since Jonah had refused to preach to them out of hatred for them based on their past actions.

As we will soon see, Jesus’ own words concerning the Lake of Fire, are pointed and literal. Also remember that Sheol and the lake of fire are two separate places, so using Jonah’s words concerning Sheol to disprove the eternality of the suffering in the Lake of Fire, is either uneducated, or else it is dishonest depending on the knowledge held by the one suggesting that this verse disproves eternal suffering. The word translated as bars is Strong’s Hebrew #1280, which means bars of wood, or of city gates; [see (2-11) & (2-12)]. This word can also be used to refer to the bars of: tribulation, a fortress, or of the earth as a prison. The poetic license, as well as the reason for choosing the word Sheol to describe his situation, should be pretty clear; Jonah was likening his experience to the intense sorrow of Sheol.

(3) Gehenna

Ge’enna (or Gehenna) Strong’s Greek #1067: The Greek word Gehenna is translated as Hell on many occasions, and it refers to the Lake of Fire. The term Lake of fire does also appear. This Gehenna is the eternal punishment that we are questioning the existence of.

(4) Facts About Gehenna

(4-1) A person who says to another “Thou fool” is in danger of Gehenna, Matthew 5:22.

(4-2) It is better to cut off a member of your body that offends you, rather than be thrown into Gehenna with your body in tact, witness #1 Matthew 5:29-30, 18:9, #2 Mark 9:43-47. I should point out that this passage requires some major study of it’s own, and I do not recommend, nor do I believe that Jesus is recommending that you actually mutilate yourself to avoid Hell. I also personally believe that Jesus is referring to the body of believers, and a “member that offends” meaning those people who sin openly, with no repentance, who need to be kicked out, or “given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit might live” as described in I Corinthians 5:1-8. And looking at the letters to the seven churches from Revelation 3-4 we can see that it is the responsibility of a body of believers to remove such that offend, and that the body is punished for not taking action, even though they did not commit the sin in question. Revelation 2:14 “But I have a few things against thee (the church at Pergamum), because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” The whole church was going to be punished because it allowed people with this false doctrine to remain among them, even though the whole church wasn’t given over to it.

(4-3) We are not to fear him that can kill the body, but we are to fear Him [God] that can destroy the body and the soul in Gehenna, #1 Matthew 10:28, #2 Luke 12:5.

(4-4) Gehenna is a place of fire that shall never be quenched, Mark 9:43-45. Why would this fire never be quenched if all who are thrown into it will be snuffed out immediately, as temporal punishment would suggest? [It is possible that this fire burns for those who would disobey after eternity begins, since Revelation 22:14-15 seems to indicate that rebellion will still be present after the new beginning, meaning that this lake would then still serve a purpose. This possibility is supported by the fact that in Revelation 22:14-15 Jesus describes those who have right to the Tree of Life, and who freely enter into New Jerusalem; this is followed by the phrase “for without, are dogs, and sorcerers, …” etc. possibly implying that rebellion still exists outside of the city gates. However the word “without” may not mean “outside of the city”, but rather those “without the right to the Tree of Life”. A deeper study needs to be done on this passage to see if a more definitive answer can be found.] And, why would He say in Mark 9:44 that “their worm dieth not” if their punishment is temporary? (Also stated in Isaiah 66:24)

(5) Facts About the Lake of Fire

Now let’s look at passages that describe the lake of fire, which do not use the Greek word Gehenna.

(5-1) The fire of this lake is everlasting, Witness #1 Matthew 25:41, #2 II Thessalonians 1:8-9, #3 Revelation 14:11.

(5-2) It was prepared for the devil and his angels, Matthew 25:41 (i.e. it was not created for us, also God is not willing that any should perish, but that all have eternal life, nor does he take any pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, see II Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 33:11). This passage goes on to say in verse 46 that those who saw the hungry and did not feed them, thirsty and did not give them drink, etc, will “go away into everlasting punishment”, which is pretty hard to debate around, that sounds like eternal punishment to me, and it was said by Jesus Himself.

(5-3) The beast and the false prophet are the first occupants of the lake of fire to be mentioned, Revelation 19:20.

(5-4) The lake burns with fire and brimstone, Revelation 19:20, 21:8.

(5-5) The devil will be thrown into the lake of fire after spending 1,000 years in Sheol/Hades followed by a brief period loosed upon the earth, Revelation 20:1-10.

(5-6) The devil, the Beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever, Revelation 20:10; (Here we learn that these specific occupants will be tormented constantly for ever, but human occupants are not mentioned here. So for strength of argument we cannot stop here as if the eternal suffering for these specifically named occupants is a shared fate for all who inherit the lake of fire).

(5-7) The lake of fire is also called the second death, Revelation 20:14.

(5-8) Those whose names are not written in the book of life will end up in the lake of fire, Revelation 20:15.

(5-9) The fearful [Presumably Christians who renounce their faith due to persecutions], the unbelieving, the abominable, and murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire, Revelation 21:8.

How Do I Show God That I Love Him?

How Do I Show God That I love Him?

Another way to ask this question would be, how can a person be sure that their professed love for God is real? The answer is very, very simple. John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” And in John 14:21 “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” 14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

This of course begs the question, what are His Commandments? I John 3:23 “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” Jesus summed it up this way in Matthew 22:37-40 “37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

To learn more about the Biblical role of the Old Testament law, see the study linked below. http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120727/1343415433

And to learn more about the New Covenant law, see this link. http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120829/1346260564

This is also related to repentance. The word repentance means to change your mind. In terms of this discussion, repentance means to change your mind about your sin and about God’s law. A part of repentance is to begin to see your sin as a cause of division between you and God, and to recognize that God hates sin because He loves you, and He wants to fellowship with you. God hates anything that keeps you from His presence, because He loves you, and He wants to fellowship with you.

Christians still struggle with sin so long as they inhabit their fleshly bodies. You can read of the Apostle Paul’s own struggles in the second half of Romans 7. The difference is that it is now a struggle, whereas before there was an eagerness to run to sin and please the flesh. The old way is to bow to sin, but the new reborn man or woman will bow to Christ, and know that His laws are for our own good. This will naturally give way to a desire to do right according to God’s Word, because we recognize that He loves us, and that His laws are for our own good, and not in order to keep us from some great pleasure. I always liken it to this; parents do not warn their children about the dangers of fire in order to keep the child from some great pleasure, but in order to keep the child from self-harm. God’s laws are the same.

So, if you or someone you know, find God’s New Covenant commands; love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, to be grievous things, then there is good Scriptural reason to believe that this person is not truly saved, because there is no evidence of true repentance in their actions. If you harbor animosity toward people who think differently from you, or who challenge your beliefs, you might want to re-evaluate your salvation, because you are not demonstrating love, which is a token, or a sign of genuine repentance and salvation

And if you want God to manifest Himself to you, which means to become so tangible in your life that there will be no question as to His existence or His love for you, then you need to strive to keep these two commands, and this can only begin with a change of heart concerning His laws and your sin. He has promised that He will manifest Himself to those who have and keep His Commandments.

If you are not a believer, and you want to know if God is real, then consider this information, because I can tell you first hand, He is telling the truth about His manifest presence. If life is a constant struggle with no inner peace or joy, the answer absolutely does not come from within, it comes from God. Your sin is what separates you from God. Redefining sin, or making excuses for it, has no part in true repentance. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, left His throne of glory, where angles worshiped Him day and night, so that He might come to earth in order to live the life of a humble servant, and walk willingly to the cross of Calvary, where He endured humiliation and brutality that you and I cannot even begin to understand, and all that paled in comparison to the Father’s wrath that fell on Him for our sins. All this was done so that you and I might be redeemed, purchased by His Blood, bought back from our slavery to sin, that we might escape that very punishment that He took on our behalves, and also that we might become heirs to the Kingdom of God through Him. Rejecting Him means that the punishment for your sins rests squarely upon you, and that punishment is fully justified. Think of it as a legal matter, because it is. If you murder someone in cold blood, and you are not caught for some time, can you stand before the judge after being caught, claim to have changed, even if it is true, and expect not to be made to pay for your crimes? And can you bribe the judge by listing all the good you’ve done in your life? Of course that would not work in a court of law, and it will also not work when your life is through and you stand before the One appointed to be The Judge of all. Repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Have and keep His commands to love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself; in doing so you will demonstrate to others that your professed love for Him is genuine, and if that love is real then He will manifest Himself to you.

And please don’t be deceived by the claimed oppositions of science, because that same science has done so much more to substantiate the claims of Scripture, and throw down the claims of evolution than people would have you believe. Don’t reject the Truth because a man with a fancy title told you it was a lie. Peek behind the curtain, and see for yourself.

For abounding scientific evidence look for Ian Juby on youtube, (he goes by the name Wazooloo there), and subscribe to his program Genesis Week. Here's a great episode to start out with - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mPl6Jhf9Xg

Some scientific subjects to study individually would be:

(1) Earth’s gravitational pull as it pertains to the past.

(2) The interdependent mechanisms in even the “simplest” of cells, and how those complex interdependent systems could not have evolved one part at a time. The respiratory and reproductive systems are two examples on a larger scale than the molecular one.

(3) The science behind Biblical circumcision -http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20111028/1319845490

(4) Typology. Here’s my 2 part study on that subject.

Typology Part I - http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120822/1345634931

Typology Part II - http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120820/1345482065

And rest assured there is a plethora of other information that you will absolutely not hear about unless you research it yourself. Please do not allow ignorance to cause you to reject the truth.

Does The Bible Condone Slavery? Part I

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

This subject is used so frequently by opponents of Christianity, I felt that it was time to address the issue extensively. First of all, it is important to remember the difference between the old law and the new law, as well as the difference between the 10 commandments and the 613 precepts. The precepts are legal bounds by God for legal cases between men, they are for judicial precedent for the punishment of sin, and they are also for a guide to healthy and holy living demonstrated by the dietary laws and seed laws, whereas the 10 commandments are a condensed form of God’s law that anyone can remember, upon which all of the 613 precepts hang. The precepts are in some ways more detailed versions of the 10 commandments, but more specifically they reveal the way mortal men are to deal with sin in a judicial manner. If a law is contained outside of Exodus 20:1-17 or Deuteronomy 5:4-21, it is a precept. For a deeper understanding of the role of the Old Testament law, and the New Covenant law of Christ, please see the following links respectively.

The Role of the Law -http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120727/1343415433
New Covenant Law -
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120829/1346260564

And here’s an article from Apologetics Press that I will be referencing in large part. I find this article to be a work of art, and a masterpiece at that. My purpose in utilizing their info is not in order to receive any of their glory, but instead to take this rather long article, and condense it into bullet points that will hopefully be easy for the reader to remember in a debate/discussion setting. There will also be some additions. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1587

Getting Started

The AP article starts off with a truly inspired point. When grilled by the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-10, Jesus reveals that divorce under the old law was only permitted after infidelity because of the hardness of men’s hearts, not because it was God’s Will to facilitate divorce i.e. God desires that no one would ever get divorced for any reason. This sets a HIGHLY important precedent that (A) just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce.

But there are even greater truths held in this passage; read Matthew 19:8-9 “8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (allowed) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Note three things that this passage seems to indicate, (1) it was possibly Moses who gave the edict on adultery not God, (2) this came after the law was given, and in light of the weakness of man (“from the beginning it was not so” though you could argue that this phrase indicates the beginning of creation rather than the beginning of the law), and (3) In verse 9 Jesus immediately gives His endorsement to this seemingly manmade edict. In summation, it seems possible that Moses altered some laws, and God concedes to the validity of at least this particular alteration. This is highly relevant when discussing the doing away with some OT laws, by the Disciples for example in Acts 15 (remember that in regards to the dietary laws this change was based on a direct vision and command from God in Acts 10 as opposed to a manmade edict or alteration). God seems to empower those who are in charge of the first delivering of a new law to also make adjustments according to their understanding. Carefully note that only Moses and the Disciples have been able to do this as recorded in Scripture (those charged with first delivery of their respective laws).

As for studying the subject of slavery, for the Christian, the question should ALWAYS begin by asking, “what did Jesus teach?” The Old Testament law should be viewed through that lens, and NOT the other way around, in light of the fact that some of the old laws were done away with. Opponents to the Word of God will almost always use the Old Testament in an attempt to define Christianity, effectively putting the cart before the horse. Three common practices for Bible opponents are to (1) take a verse out of context, (2) to use verses that condone things that most modern people will find abhorrent i.e. slavery, death by stoning etc. and (3) to use the record of an act, as evidence that God condones such an act: for example, they will say that because Lot tried to give his daughters to the angry mob who wanted to “know” the angel visitors, then God must condone this. Well, God neither commanded, nor condoned this act, and furthermore, Lot never actually gave his daughters over to the men. It is important to recognize these tactics, and even more important to read, and seek to know and to understand the God of the Bible, in order to defend against such easily slain arguments. Otherwise, you will find your faith shaken, and you will likely become angry and combative with people, rather than reasoning with them in love, while attempting to show them the error of their argument against God (their argument is not against you by the way, it is against God).

What Did Christ Teach?

Luke 22:24-27 “24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” See also Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

Jesus clearly doesn’t want His followers exercising lordship, but rather we are to be willing servants, as living examples of Christ’s love for mankind. He also knew that among converts to the faith, there would be those who had servants since it was a common practice of the day, and so protection was given to those servants, and a warning for those masters. And remember that important precedent that (A) just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce.

Ephesians 6:5-9 “5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1 “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”

I Timothy 6:2 “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."

Is Slavery Ever Lawful?

(Concept inspired from AP article) Is it lawful to imprison someone who sacrifices his or her child by fire? Is it lawful for that prisoner to be put to death, or to be kept from society and made to work? The nations that were overtaken by the children of Israel did this, and a massive host of other sins, and for these reasons God gave them over into the hands of the children of Israel. God even says in Leviticus 18:25 that the land itself is vomiting out her inhabitants. Some of these individual nations were wiped out, and some were taken into slavery, according to the command of God. For a full list of the grievances before God, read Leviticus 18:6-25 and Deuteronomy 18:9-14. Among them are all manner of sexual sins including beastiality, incest of all kinds, sorcery and witchcraft, idol worship, and of course child sacrifices by fire. Is it unholy to have these nations to serve the children of Israel?

If a man owes someone a large sum of money that he cannot pay back, is it lawful for him to work for his debtor until the debt is paid? This is another main reason for Biblical servitude. See Leviticus 25:47-49.

I’ll jump a little ahead and show that menstealing, which was the method of slavery employed in the US, was forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 21:16, I Timothy 1:9-10), revealing that people sold into slavery in Biblical times were there for a legitimate reason such as for debt and as punishment for crimes, not because their intrinsic value was ignored or because they were stolen to be sold.

Biblical Words for Slave

Quoted from the AP article Quote: “Arndt and Gingrich documented that the Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman."

The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.” End Quote

The purpose of this word study is to show the wide array of uses for the word slave/servant, in order to illustrate that the use of the word in Scripture should not automatically draw a comparison to US slavery, simply because the same word is used. It would be like saying that watching baseball is ALWAYS EXACTLY the same experience, regardless of whether it is little league, or the majors. Sometimes the word slave is used to describe a “mutually beneficial” relationship, as evidenced by this quote from the article Quote: “To illustrate further the true nature of much Old Testament slavery, Abraham’s relationship with his slave Eliezer should be examined. In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham lamented the fact that he was childless. In his dialogue with God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was Eliezer of Damascus. In verse three of chapter 15, Abraham described Eliezer as “one born in my house.” Later, in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably Eliezer) “ruled over all that he had.” Add to this the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants (Hebrew ebed) to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves.” End Quote Deuteronomy 15:16-17 “16 And it shall be, if he (the servant) say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; 17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.” Do the previous examples describe an oppressed and brutalized people as is automatically associated with US slavery? Clearly not; therefore, (B) it is dishonest and unfair to compare US slavery to that of Biblical slavery: when it is carried out according to God’s Word.

Furthermore see Job 31:13-15 and remember that according to God, Job was perfect and upright (Job 1:8) “13 [Job speaking] If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; 14 what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? 15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” If a man whom God Himself calls perfect and upright could say this, then how should that logically reflect upon the nature of God concerning slavery? Two conclusions are clear, slavery in and of itself is not evil, and God cares for both the servant and the master. Once again we see that (B) it is dishonest and unfair to compare US slavery to that of Biblical slavery: when it is carried out according to God’s Word.

Does Partiality for Hebrews Equal Racism?

The following is a highly condensed version of a section of the AP article. Many will use certain verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15 or Exodus 21:2, to insist that the God of the Bible is racist in favor of Israelites. This plainly disregards passages such as Deuteronomy 24:14 “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:” and Leviticus 19:33-34 “33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” See also Deuteronomy 10:17-19, and Acts 17:26-31. Also consider the year of Jubilee where all inhabitants were to be set free, except for those who chose to serve their master for life (Leviticus 25:10). The AP article points out that even in the US today legal citizens have rights that foreigners do not enjoy, such as voting privileges, so to say that a distinction being made between Israelite and stranger should automatically equal racism, would be to say the same of the US today because foreigners cannot vote in our elections. (C) National privileges do not equal racism. Truthfully, the argument for a racist God wouldn’t hold any ground in a court of law. Remember that (D) an assertion generally stands or falls when it has been carried out to it’s full extent, it does not stand simply because it sounds right or because it is well spoken. If someone challenges the Word of God, it is sometimes fruitful to carry their logic out as far as you can take it, because the further you go, the more prominent the cracks become in the logic of their assertions.

Is Biblical Slavery the Same as the Slavery of US History?

Today we hear the word slavery, and we think automatically of the plight of the African American community in the recent past. Is this fair? How does that period, and the treatment of those slaves, compare to the treatment of servants in the Bible? Again I remind you of the varied forms and reasons for servant hood in the Scriptures (criminal punishment, debt payment, but not by menstealing.)

(1) Menstealers: The common practice for wrangling slaves to be sold in the US, was to kidnap them (usually from Africa or from the Native American communities), and sell them into slavery. This practice is punishable by death in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:16), and is also considered a sin in the New Testament (I Timothy 1:9-10), not punishable by death only because capital punishment for sin is now in Christ’s capable hands, no longer in the hands of sinners (John 5:22 & 27, 8:2-7). This prohibition for manstealing in and of itself reveals that (E) people who were slaves for reasons which aligned with the laws of God, were there for legitimate reasons, such as debt (Leviticus 25:47-49) and as punishment for crimes (Leviticus 18:6-25, Deuteronomy 18:9-14[still trying to find better verses to confirm this]) and not because they were stolen (Exodus 21:16).

(2) 6 year limit for Hebrews: In Scripture, Hebrew servants were to be set free on the 7th year (Exodus 21:2). Remember (C) National privileges do not equal racism.

(3) Hebrew life servants are willing: To be a servant for life was the choice of the Hebrew servant, and not of the master (Exodus 21:5-6). Remember (C) National privileges do not equal racism.

(4) Beating forbidden in New Testament: In the US slaves were commonly beaten, and this was after the New Testament was written, where we read this to be forbidden (Ephesians 6:9). Therefore, those who attempted to create a Scriptural defense for slavery were hypocrites if they abused their slaves, or if they condoned it. The actions of hypocrites should not be used to discredit the group to which they claim membership. Some will commonly use OT passages to suggest that God did at one time condone the beating of slaves, and they will also insist that therefore the NT is contradicting the Old. Coming up we will explore the claim that the OT condones the beating of slaves.

(5) Runaway slaves are free: Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” So if a slave was mistreated, he could be free simply by running away. If this law is there, will masters mistreat their servants seeing as they simply have to run away in order to be free? (F) It is neither logical nor Scriptural to assume that God condones the indiscriminate abuse of servants because He gave provision that all they needed to do is run away in order to be free (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) and because He commanded that neither the Israelite nor the stranger should be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14). i.e. it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, so don’t let it stand in a discussion.

(G) Biblical slavery cannot honestly be compared with US slavery, due to a simple, and logical examination of the two, based on facts concerning them. It is like saying all apples are rotten, because I’ve never personally seen a good one.

Does The Bible Condone Slavery? Part II

Difficult Verses

(1) Exodus 21:20-21 “20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Many will use this passage to say that God condones the beating of slaves. Remember (F) it is neither logical nor Scriptural to assume that God condones the indiscriminate abuse of servants in part because He gave provision that all they needed to do is run away in order to be free, (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), because He commanded that neither the Israelite nor the stranger should be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14), and (A) just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce. Also noted in the AP article, it was a common practice of the day for surrounding nations to put out the eyes of slaves, documented in Judges 16:21 and II Kings 25:7. Here God is actually protecting the slaves from such practices.

Assuming that a servant will be struck, isn’t the same as condoning it to be done indiscriminately. Is it the same to spank a child for wrong doing, as it is to do so just because you want him to fear you? And remember the other verses commanding the fair treatment of slaves, be them Hebrews or strangers (non-Israelis). God is not condoning the indiscriminate beating of slaves, but rather He is aware that recompense for criminal activity will be meted out to the unruly, and God’s decree is actually in protection for those slaves who offend, and not an endorsement for indiscriminate beatings. Don’t forget Deuteronomy 24:14 “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:” and Leviticus 19:33-34 “33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

(2) Leviticus 19:20-22 “20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.” [Emphasis Added]

Here I will let the Apologetics Press article speak for itself, because I could do no justice to its examination of this passage. Quote “Of course, skeptics have a heyday with this reading from the King James Version, which seems to indicate that if a free man has sexual intercourse with a slave woman who is betrothed, then the slave woman is to be scourged and the man simply supplies a ram as a trespass offering. However, upon further investigation, it can be seen that this passage says something far different.

In the first place, the translators of the KJV most likely mistranslated the part of the text “she shall be scourged.” The ASV translators rendered the passage as follows:
“And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; they shall be punished; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, unto the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a trespass-offering.”

The NKJV translators offered this reading:
“Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, a ram as a trespass offering.”

A brief look at these three translations shows that the recipient(s) of the punishment is not as clearly delineated as the KJV indicates. Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on the Pentateuch, noted that the scourging “referred to both parties, as is evident from the expression, ‘they shall not be put to death’” (1981, p. 422). G.J. Wenham has introduced another interesting solution regarding this passage by translating the disputed passage about scourging as “damages must be paid” (1979, p. 270). Concerning this translation he wrote:

“This is the most problematic phrase in this law: literally, “there will be a biqqôret.” The word biqqôret occurs only here in the OT, and its meaning is therefore quite uncertain.... Other renderings of biqqôret have less to commend them. “An inquiry shall be held” (RSV; cf. NEB) is vacuous: every legal dispute would have involved inquiry. “She shall be scourged” (AV) goes back to an old Jewish interpretation, probably based on the dubious derivation of biqqôret from bâqâr, “ox, i.e., an oxhide scourge” (pp. 270-271, emp. added).”

Taking these things into account, it appears that the passage does not indicate that the female should be scourged apart from the guilty male. Rather, whatever punishment was inflicted should be applied equally, except for the fact that the guilty male alone shoulders the responsibility of supplying the ram for the trespass offering.” End Quote [Emphasis Added]

All Men Created Equal?

The argument can still be made that all men are created equal, which was stated in the Declaration of Independence, but is that true? To tell the truth, it is a red herring, or a miss-leading statement designed to throw the discussion onto a track that leads to the Bible opponents perceived victory. In an open forum the statement is generally used to equate the value of a human life, to a persons work status, i.e. all are created equal therefore none should be slaves. This is miss leading because a person’s intrinsic value of life as a human being is not disregarded because they are a servant, after all, servants were cared for if their masters feared God, because the Scriptures (Old and New Testament) specifically give many commands to treat them fairly. Therefore, servitude does not equal inequality. A person’s status is not the gauge of the value of their life, i.e. just because a person is of a low status among men, does not make their life of little value. By that logic, the life of Donald Trump would be more valuable intrinsically speaking (not in terms of human wealth) than that of a homeless person. Scripture is clear that this is a HIGHLY sinful practice (James 2:9). In fact the book of James was in large part written because his audience was a church that was neglecting the poor, and favoring the wealthy. Therefore, one cannot honestly say that the Bible condones the brutal and inhuman aspects of US style slavery simply by quoting the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence as if it negates the Scriptures. (H) Servitude does not equal inequality. Equality can only logically be used to describe the intrinsic value of life, and not a person’s work status. We are not a nation of CEOs after all, yet the intrinsic value of our lives is equal.

The opening to the Declaration is as follows, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the persute of happiness.” [emphasis added] Here the exact meaning of the equality that was aformentioned is spelled out as follows: the right to (1) life, (2) liberty, and (3) the persute of happiness. And while these things sound great, they are partially contradictory to God’s Word, which is worth looking at, since these “rights” are claimed to be endowed by our creator. (1) Life: This one is good. Yes God wants us to live (Deuteronomy 30:19, Ezekiel 33:11, John 14:6, II Peter 3:9). (2) Liberty: Does God want us free? He wants us free from sin and the penalty thereof, but at the same time God wants us to be servants of Christ first (Matthew 23:10), and servants of all second (Luke 22:24-27). (3) The persute of happiness: God wants us to persue Him (James 4:8), and He will fulfill our needs, (Luke 12:16-34), and if we delight ourselves in Him, He will give us the desire, or petition of our heart (Psalm 37:4), which should be God (Luke 10:27). The full opening statement to the Declaration of Independence, while it sounds great to human ears, is not in perfect harmony with the Word of God, and therefore it should not greive a Christian into shame, nor should it be used to discredit the Scriptures. (I) Extra-Biblical writings should not be used to interpret, validate, or to invalidate Scripture. The desire for liberty, while sounding great, can also create a subtle disdain for the plan of God in the life of the believer, which is to be a servant, and it places a stigma on the idea of being a servant in general. The persute of happiness, while sounding great, does not define happiness, and therefore leaves room to place carnal pleasure at the front of the line, i.e. if sin makes you happy, persue it. The Declaration of Independence should not supercede the Word of God for the believer, nor should it give them lisence to persue happiness first, as oppossed to persuing God first. The Declaration should also therefore, not grieve the faithful servant of Christ, if it seems to contradict God’s Word on some level.

All men are not created to be kings, and the notion is a preposterous one, logically speaking. Servants are required to run a kingdom (or an office where they are called employees, remember that Biblical slaves had freedoms and rights that US slaves did not). Having an enterprise comprised entirely of CEOs would make for an enterprise that got nothing done. On the other hand, having an enterprise devoid of leadership would mean chaos and a lack of focused direction. In other words, if someone says that equality means being a servant is evil, then you can easily show how this logic falls apart if it is carried out fully. (H) Servitude does not equal inequality. Equality can only logically be used to describe the intrinsic value of life, and not a person’s work status. We are not a nation of CEOs, yet the intrinsic value of our lives is equal. (Job 31:13-15 along with 1:8). Equality of life is not measured in a persons work status, and so, just because a person is a servant, does not mean that they are not equal in terms of intrinsic value as a human being, especially in God’s eyes, who is not a respecter of persons (status). Equality is in regards to the intrinsic value of ones life, and not in one’s work station in life. Job’s words in 31:13-15 reflect that both Job and his servant’s life have equal value, even though they have differing social statuses.

New Testament Silence

Also, many will argue that Jesus never condemned slavery therefore He must condone, it. They will also give verses that command servants to do well, even to abusive masters, as if this is an endorsement of such practice. When Jesus commanded His disciples to turn the other cheek when they are struck, was He condoning that abuse?

Christ revealed many, many times in the Gospels that His Will and the Father’s Will are One, and that His Teachings are perfectly in line with the Old Testament. He also didn’t speak about beastiality, but no one would argue that His stance had wavered from that of the OT’s record on the matter. Jesus and the Apostles message was that of salvation from sins primarily, and secondly it was the summation of the entire law into two points; Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor (everyone else) as yourself. They didn’t have to picket plantations in order to make a change; the Gospel would do that from the inside out within the lives of believers, when and if it is carried out in full with an honest heart.

Also remember that Jesus was actually not silent on the matter, as we saw in the beginning of this study. He commanded His Disciples to follow His example and be servants, and not masters. Forging a host of Disciples as willing and loving servants is in opposition to the practice of abusive ownership.

People will also use the following passage out of context. Luke 12:47-48 “47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Skeptics will use this as “proof” that Jesus condones the beating of slaves. But they are completely disregarding the context. If you read Luke 12:36-48 you will see that the servants were Christ’s servants, and they knew their Lord’s Will (Love God first and love your neighbor as yourself) yet they refused it. The two verses prior to these also give a much more clear picture of these unjust servants: “45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” These servants were refusing their masters will, by abusing their fellow servants, who belong to Christ. Context is EVERYTHING. This verse should make charlatan ministries who bilk lovers of God out of their money, to quake uncontrollably, because they are some of whom Christ is speaking.

Illogical logic

One more common argument is that, because proponents of slavery during the abolition movement provided Scripture to back up their pro-slavery stance, then Scripture must condone these men’s wicked desires. They will even give verses that, when read alone, out of context, and by an angry fist waving opponent to Scripture, will sound horrible. But, as we have seen, this idea does not reflect the full message of Scripture. The atrocities of US slavery are not condoned by the Bible, thanks to the protection of slaves contained in Scripture (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, 24:14, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1, I Timothy 6:2), and Christ’s New Testament decree that established a flock of willing servants (Luke 22:24-27), and His command for us not to be lord’s and masters (Matthew 23:10). In other words, just because someone claims that Scripture endorses their beliefs, does not mean that it does so. In the case of those attempting to condone slavery in US history, these men twisted Scripture, either by ignorance or by deception, but they do not represent the accurate commands of God. If I say, “I’m killing this man because my neighbor asked me to”, does that mean my neighbor asked me to? Should he be implemented in my crime simply because I used his own words out of context, if he is actually innocent?

Summation

If someone insists that the Bible condones slavery, they would only be partially right. The New Covenant in Christ’s Blood is forged to set the captives free from oppressive bondage, and to reveal the good master that one is to serve, Jesus Christ. It does not however condone indiscriminate abuse, or froward treatment of human servants, and it certainly does not condone human trafficking. If someone insists that Biblical slavery is the same as the injustices done in the past, they are either deceived, or else they are a deceiver. God is calling champions to learn the truth in a way that they can communicate it on the spot, in order to clear the air of this smokescreen for those who would be deceived by the lies of the enemies of God.

Below is a bullet point list with Scriptures that explain all of the truth’s from this study. Please at least copy and paste the following section, study, and attempt to retain the information in such a way that you can bring it out at any moment. Human souls are perishing because of the lies perpetrated on them. This is not the extent of a Christians work, but it is a part of it. I Peter 3:15 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

Take Away Points

(A) Just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce. Matthew 19:3-10

(B) It is dishonest and unfair to compare US slavery to that of Biblical slavery: when it is carried out according to God’s Word. Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Job 31:13-15 (1:8), Colossians 4:1, I Timothy 1:9-10

(C) National privileges do not equal racism; God cares for other nationalities the same as the Hebrews; He is not a respecter of a person’s status. Leviticus 19:33-34, Deuteronomy 10:17-19, 24:14, Acts 10:34, 17:26-31

(D) An assertion generally stands or falls when it has been carried out to it’s full extent, it does not stand simply because it sounds right or because it is well spoken. For example, if someone insists that the separate treatment of Hebrews as opposed to servants of other nations equals racism; you could ask them if it is racist to not allow a non-US citizen to vote on matters and elections that concern US citizens? And if they say that these are two different topics all together, than ask why US law should discredit the Word of God, and politely ask for evidence that would hold up in court.

(E) People who were slaves for reasons which aligned with the laws of God, were there for legitimate reasons, such as debt (Leviticus 25:47-49) and as punishment for crimes (list of crimes of Canaanites, Leviticus 18:6-25, Deuteronomy 18:9-14; examples of these nations being taken as slaves, still looking for verses to verify this) and not because they were stolen for human trafficking (Exodus 21:16).

(F) It is neither logical nor Scriptural to assume that God condones the indiscriminate abuse of servants because He gave provision that all they needed to do is run away in order to be free (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) and because He commanded that neither the Israelite nor the stranger should be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14). see also (B) & (C).

(G) Biblical slavery cannot honestly be compared with US slavery, due to a simple, and logical examination of the two, based on facts concerning them. It would be the same as asserting that watching Baseball is ALWAYS the EXACT same experience, regardless of whether it is little league or major league.

(H) Servitude does not equal inequality. Equality can only logically be used to describe the intrinsic value of life, and not a person’s work status. We are not a nation of CEOs, yet the intrinsic value of our lives is equal. Job 31:13-15 (1:8)

(I) Extra-Biblical writings should not be used to interpret, validate, or to invalidate Scripture.

(J) I am a servant of Christ, and I have never been fulfilled, loved, or cared for like I am now. The slave masters and taskmasters of the past, both good and evil can in no wise be compared to the Good Shepherd who created you with care and love and with a specific purpose and destiny in mind. No earthly father can compare to your Heavenly Father. And as for serving Him goes, well, can that really be called work? Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, so that you will live, and so that you may know the creator and the lover of your soul.