|
|
If Jesus is God, then who raised God from the dead?
Never in the New Testament is there any implication that Jesus Christ raised himself from the dead. Rather, this is inferred from the belief that Jesus is God. Throughout the book of Acts, and especially in the early chapters, the resurrection of Christ is an important theme of apostolic teaching.
In Acts 2:24, it says of Jesus that God "raised him up, having loosed the pains of death." Jesus had no hand in releasing himself from the pains of death. In Acts 2:27, Peter refers to David's prophecy "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," and notes that this prophecy applied to Jesus, not David. He then repeats, "This Jesus hath God raised up." The idea that God raised Jesus from the dead is repeated in Acts 3:15 and Acts 3:26. In the latter reference, Jesus is actually called God's Servant in the Greek, although the KJV translates this 'Son.'
The resurrection of Christ is addressed again in Acts 4:10, 5:30-31, 10:40, 13:30-37, and 17:31. In each occasion it is revealed that God raised Jesus from the dead. Not that the Father raised the Son from the dead, but that God raised His Son and Servant, Jesus, the man of Nazareth, from the dead. This separates Jesus from the Godhead and defies the Trinitarian theory that the First Person raised the Second from the dead.
If the Trinity is really taught in the Bible, why are the "three Persons" only mentioned together in four passages of the Bible?
The three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, generally agree upon what God's attributes are. The main difference between the three is that popular Christianity is Trinitarian, while Judaism and Islam are "strictly monotheistic" - i.e. they believe in a One Person God. The Trinity is therefore a very singular belief. However, is this doctrine found in the pages of Scripture? For starters, no form of the word "Trinity" appears in the Bible. This is no tan argument against it, because as Trinitarians hasten to point out, "Trinity" is a word used to describe an idea, and while the word is not in the Bible, they claim the idea is. However, the fact that such a doctrine lacks a word to describe it in the Bible is evidence against it. One would expect that the apostles would have placed great emphasis on it in their teaching, especially those who dealt mainly with the non-Trinitarian Jews. However, this is not the case.
There are only four
occasions in Scripture where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all
mentioned together! They are:
I Pet. 1:2 - "Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace be
unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
Does this verse imply any sort
of "three-in-one" relationship between these three nouns? (we neglect to say persons because we do not believe the
Spirit to be a distinct person).I would say no, it does not imply anything of
the sort.
Matt. 28:19 - "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".
Again, this verse does not imply
the Trinity. The Father is the source of salvation, the Son is the means, and
the Spirit is the modus operandi. That is why all three are mentioned - it does
not mean they are "Three in One" and it does not say so.
II Cor. 13:14 - "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen."
Not only does this verse not
imply the Trinity, it contradicts it! This verse mentions "God"
distinctly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This implies that "the
Father" and "God" are interchangeable terms, which Trinitarians
must deny, and it implies that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are
not God.
In these three verses, the point
being made is nothing to do with the Trinity; the fact that the three so-called
"Persons" are mentioned together does not mean the verses teach the
Trinity. Clearly each verse is concerned with a different theme than the
attributes of the Godhead. I Pet. 1:2 is speaking of
the calling of the saints, Matt. 28:19 is speaking of baptism, and II Cor. 13:14 is a salutation that contradicts the Trinity!
This leaves us with I John5:7,
the infamous "Johannine Comma" as
Theologians call it. It reads,
"For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one."
It is generally (but no universally)
agreed among Greek scholars that this verse is a forgery, based upon two main
points:
A) It only appears in four Greek manuscripts still in existence, all of which were written in or after the 15th century A.D.
B) It is not quoted by the early
Church fathers, notably during the Arian controversy of 325 A.D. in which the
Trinitarians would definitely have brought up the verse in support of their
view -- had it existed then.
In reality, I John 5:7 should read,
"For there are three which testify:" and then continue on to speak of
the spirit, the water and the blood in verse 8. Almost all English
translations, except for the King James Bible and Catholic Bibles, translate I
John 5:7without the Johannine Comma.
In summary, no verse in the
Bible combines the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit into one Divine Being,
or even implies such an idea, and on these grounds we utterly reject the idea
of the Trinity.
Addendum: It should be noted that I was, in fact, mistaken in my statement that there are but four Bible verses which contain a reference to all three "Persons" of the Trinity. There are, in fact, significantly more than four. When I said four, I was implying those references in which the three Names are so aligned as to permit some manner of argument towards the theory of the Trinity. The reader should also note that there are other cases where the Three are mentioned in the same context, but not in the same verse. While most of the following references, then, have no application to that doctrine, they do nonetheless exist. Some of the references name one or more of the three only by pronouns, and others, as in the case of 2 Cor. 13:14, call the Father 'God,' which as we have stated, is a contradiction of the Trinity and not an evidence thereof. Those verses marked with an asterisk refer to the Father as 'God,' and for this reason it cannot properly be said that all three "Persons" are listed, as Trinitarians do not believe God to be a Person, but three Persons.
Matt. 3:17*; John 14:16,26; 15:26; Acts2:33*; 5:32*; 10:38*; 11:17*; Rom. 15:16*,30*; I Cor. 6:11*; Gal. 4:6;Eph. 2:18; Heb. 9:14*; I Pet. 3:18*; 4:14*.
If the human soul Is immortal, how can it be said that we carry nothing out of the world with us?
In I Tim. 6:7, Paul wrote, "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing else." While the passage specifically refers to temporal assets such as food and raiment, by extension the "we can carry nothing out" applies to the human spirit itself. Now compare this to Obad. 16, where it says of the heathen, "They shall be as though they had not been."
In other words, it will be as though they had never existed! Unless these people were in fiery hell torments before they ever came into existence, it cannot be said that they will be in that state in the future. As James says, "Whereas ye know not what ye shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." We could quote many similar verses from the Psalms, such as "Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away" (Ps. 144:4). The idea that man continues in any form after he dies, is certainly foreign to Bible teaching.
Did Jesus really go to hell for three days?
One of the most startling points of so-called 'Orthodox' Christian teaching is that Jesus went to hell during the time he was dead. This view comes about because of what Peter said in Acts 2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Since they believe that hell (Gr. hades) is a place of fiery torments of human souls, this theology is trapped into the opinion that Jesus went to fiery torments. There are many faults with this theory.
First of all, being in Satan's power for three days would certainly have been as painful, if not more so, as the crucifixion. Therefore, when Jesus declared, "It is finished"(John 19:30) as he expired on the cross, he was gravely mistaken – for there awaited him three agonizing days in the fires of Hades!
Another verse these theorists claim as backing is Matt. 12:40, where Jesus told the Pharisees, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The heart of the earth, they say, must be the earth's fiery core, where hell is said to be located. However, the invention of a mythical place is unnecessary to understand this verse. By being laid in a sealed tomb, it might just as well be stated that Jesus was in the heart of the earth, and it is undoubtedly the tomb to which Jesus is referring in Matt. 12:40.
There is also, of course, the obvious argument that being the perfectly righteous man that he was, Jesus should have gone to heaven, and not hell, even if we assume the immortality of the soul is a true doctrine! No mention is made when speaking of Christ's sacrifice, of suffering in hell. It says he bare our sins on the tree, and Caiphas prophesied that he would die for that nation, but nowhere doe sit say, "Jesus went to hell to atone for our sins." Because of these arguments, we must conclude that Jesus did not go to a place of fiery torments during the three day period when he was dead. He went to hades all right, but hades is simply the grave, and so the word is translated in I Cor. 15:55- "O death, where is thy sting? O grave (hades), where is thy victory?"
What is the Source of Temptation?
'Orthodox Christians' criticize Christadelphians for suggesting that when the "diabolos" is referred to as he or him in the Scriptures, this does not necessarily make him a person. They claim that Christadelphians are stretching the Bible in order to make it fit their theology.
However, the word translated "he" in John 8:44 with reference to the devil, for example, is ekeinos, which is not even a masculine pronoun! John 8:44 might just as well read, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. It was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in it." The main reason that we read "he" instead of "it" is because the devil is personified as a father. Obviously, the devil was not literally the father of these Jews, and consequently, if Jesus is figuratively calling the devil their father, is it not equally plausible that he should be personifying it at the same time?
John 8:44 says that the devil was a manslayer from the beginning. Since we read in Rom. 6:23 that "the wages of sin is death," the devil must be none other than sin.
Likewise, we read in James1:14-15, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Again, the "manslayer" in this passage is obviously sin, and not a fallen angel. What about "the lusts of the devil" spoken of in John 8:44? They are no different than the lust spoken of in James 1:14-15! And in James 1:14, we find that every man is tempted by his own lust. Temptation comes from within, not from an outside source. As Jesus said in Mark 7:21, "Fo from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries ,fornications, murders...All these things come from within, and defile the man."
As a final thought, it is interesting to note that in Rom. 6:16-17, sin is personified as a master, just as the diabolos was personified as a father in John 8: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
Who, or what, is Satan?
The popular theological conception is that 'Satan' is a fallen angel, also called the Devil, who walks through the earth seeking whom he may devour by inciting temptation. For example, in Acts 5:3, Peter asked Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" Now, if Satan (or "the adversary," as it reads in the Greek)was a person distinct from Ananias, then Peter's question was not blaming Ananias for the crime! Peter was merely blaming the fallen angel who Is the cause of sin. However, as we find in verse 5, upon hearing these words, Ananias fell down dead! Certainly it would only have been right to punish him for lying if he was responsible for his action! Obviously, then, "the satan" must be an entity not distinct from Ananias himself. We find this to be true from verse 4, as Peter repeated the same accusation in different words: "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?" The idea was clearly conceived in Ananias' own heart, and not implanted there by a supernatural being. It is clear, then, that "the adversary" that tempted Ananias was none other than Ananias' heart. This is consistent with Jer. 17:9, which states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
In another instance, Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan" to Peter. It has been argued that Jesus was speaking to the fallen angel who was controlling Peter, but this is simply incorrect. We read in Mark 8:33, "But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Clearly, Peter was being called an adversary because he seeked to follow the human will, which did not want Jesus to die, rather than the divine will, which has the law "without the shedding of blood there is no remission."
One further example of the inconsistency of the "orthodox" position on Satan is found in 1 Tim.1:19-20, where Paul instructs Timothy that he must be "holding faith, and a good conscience, which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." If we understand "the satan" as the fallen angel of Miltonic lore, then this is a truly incongruous statement by Paul. A) He wilfully delivered two men unto this fallen angel, and B) he hoped the experience would teach them not to blaspheme! If Satan is truly the epitome of evil, he would obviously instruct Hymenaeus and Alexander to blaspheme!
In a similar instance found in 1 Cor. 5, Paul instructed the Corinthians to deliver an incestuous person "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit maybe saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (v. 5). Once again, it was expected that the evildoer might be corrected by being delivered unto Satan. Now if deliverance unto Satan is not what the "orthodoxy" says it is, then what is it? Well, Paul repeats the command in different words in 1 Cor.5:13 - "But them that are without (i.e. outside) God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." It is clear that deliverance unto Satan is merely putting the offender out of the congregation and into the outside world. "Satan" refers to the world. The idea was that the sinner might be disciplined into repentance by this action.
From the above examples it is relatively clear that Satan cannot possibly refer to a fallen angel. The word means "adversary," and it refers to various sources of adversity: whether it be the world, the wicked human heart, or Peter.
What was
meant by the New Testament phrase "the
The phrase "the
Popular Christianity has
various false teachings about what "the
In 1 Chr.
28:5 David said that the Lord "hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the
throne of the kingdom of the Lord over
Since this kingdom was
destroyed by
This is what the apostles
understood the
In our day we can seethe
Is David in heaven?
One of the central themes of 'Orthodox' Christianity is the belief that saints go to heaven at death, to enjoy eternal bliss with Jesus. However, there are some serious inconsistencies with this viewpoint of Scripture. For example, there is David.
In Acts 13:22 Paul calls David "a man after [God's] own heart, which shall fulfil all [God's] will.” There is no doubt that David was a "saint." We would expect, then, that David ascended to heaven at death, and is currently there playing his harp. This idea is, however, in direct conflict with what Peter said about David in Acts 2. In the context, Peter is explaining that Psalm 16, which says” Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," is speaking prophetically of Jesus. Peter explains that this Psalm cannot apply to David because, "he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day" (Acts 2:29). In verse 34, it goes even further: "For David is not ascended into the heavens". Now those who believe in heaven-going will tell you that this passage speaks of David’s body only, and not his disembodied soul. What a stretch!
When Peter says explicitly that David hasn't ascended to heaven, he doesn't qualify it with "His body hasn’t ascended to heaven, although his soul has." It simply says David has not ascended to the heavens. Not his body, not his soul.
What is Hell in the Old Testament?
There is only one Hebrew word translated "hell" in the Old Testament. It is "sheol." It is more frequently translated "grave", and sometimes, "the pit". Now, "hell" and “grave", to the Englishman, are two words with very different meanings. However, in Hebrew it is one word; and therefore, since there is no evidence for a literal meaning and a figurative meaning, sheol should have only one English equivalent. It should not be translated "hell", "grave" and “pit".
Which of these is correct? If we eliminate "hell", then the 'Orthodoxy' would be forced to acknowledge that hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament, which would be fatal to their theology. On the other hand, if we eliminate "grave" and "pit", and always translate sheol as "hell", then we are left with situations where the word "hell" makes very little sense.
For example, in Job 14:13,Job expressed his desire to die thus: "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave (sheol), that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! “Was Job expressing a desire to descend to fiery torments? Of course not.
After Jacob presumed Joseph to be dead, he "refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave (sheol) unto my son mourning" (Gen. 37:35). Did Jacob think that his beloved son was in fiery torments, and want to join him there? Again, "hell" would be a ridiculous translation in this context. Nevertheless, this is the only Hebrew word ever translated "hell".
In Job 17:13-16, "the
grave" is equated with "corruption", "the worm",
"the pit" (also sheol),and "the
dust". This shows that "sheol" is a place of annihilation, not
one of eternal existence.
Consider even the case of
the wicked: in Ps. 31:17, David prayed that God would "let the wicked be
ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave (sheol)."
The hell of the 'Orthodoxy' is presented as a place of deafening shrieks and crying,
not silence.
In these instances, sheol is translated "grave" because "hell" does not make sense in the context. The definition of "sheol" is "the world of the dead", which is a metaphor for death: it does not suggest that the dead actually have a kingdom of their own. There is truly no case in the Old Testament where "sheol" can be identified as the "hell" of popular theology. Sheol is generally translated “hell" in any context which does not contradict the myth of a world of fiery torments. However, there is no single context of "sheol" in the Old Testament which demands the translation, "hell".
Conclusion: Hell is not in the Old Testament. It is most interesting that God did not inform Adam about hell when he became mortal; nor is fire ever introduced in the Old Testament as a form of punishment after death. Is it not unreasonable tosuggest that hell is not in the Old Testament, but is a well-grounded New Testament concept?
Who is to blame for our sins?
The 'Orthodoxy' generally recognizes personal responsibility for transgressions, but at the same time claims that there is an external force, a fallen angel named "The Devil," which somehow tempts humans to sin without their knowing it.
Before examining this claim, it is necessary to state the importance of the subject. In Heb.2:14 we read of Jesus, "that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil". If the destruction of the devil was the purpose of Jesus' death, it is evidently essential that we understand just what the devil is.
In James 4:1 the writer asks, "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" He goes on to speak about lust for three more verses, and then says, "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? "The word "spirit" (Gr. pneuma) is used here in the sense of mind, or disposition, as it is in Eph. 4:23, 2 Tim. 1:7, 1 Pet. 3:5, etc.
Up to this point, James has been discussing the internal lust in these believers which was inciting them to envy each other. He then says, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (James 4:7).Did James change wavelengths entirely at this point? Obviously not. He was still talking about "lust" and "the spirit that dwelleth in us;" he merely changed the name he described it with to "the devil."
In proof that he did not change subjects in verse 7, we take verse 8, where he concludes the thought: "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." Evidently it was the hands, hearts and minds of these people which were causing and doing the envious acts. For as Jesus said, "Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man" (Matt.15:18-20). The devil (diabolos - false accuser) that James commands believers to "resist" is not a fallen angel. The enemy is within, not without. The enemy is the heart, for Jeremiah writes, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9).
The Orthodoxy truly misses the boat when they invent a supernatural monster to fit the concept of “ the False Accuser." And as we stated at the beginning, this is no insignificant matter. Jesus' death had the purpose of destroying the devil. If Jesus' death did destroy a supernatural monster, then by the time James wrote to believers, the enemy was long since vanquished, and James had no place in writing "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." However, if we understand the devil to be the lust that proceeds from the heart, then we understand how Jesus conquered this "enmity in himself" (Eph.2:16, KJV margin) by living a sinless life.
Do our thoughts perish at death?
As with all other important issues about life, the Bible is very clear and practically unmistakable in its teachings regarding what happens to a person at and after death. Eccl. 3:19-20 reads, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." While the teaching of this verse is universally acknowledged, it is not universally understood. The 'Orthodoxy' would have us believe that while the bodies of men and beasts die in the same way, men actually do have pre-eminence above beasts in that men have immortal spirits or souls, while beasts do not. However, what this theory fails to account for is that in verse 19 it says "Yea, they have all one breath". The Hebrew word for "breath" is the same word translated “spirit" throughout the rest of the Old Testament, and therefore it must be acknowledged that the human "spirit" is the same as the animal "spirit."
The Orthodoxy teaches that the body dies, but the spirit does not. By the spirit we are supposed to understand some abstract, immaterial entity that lives inside the body, gives life to the body, and eventually escapes from the body at death. Some say that the spirit is the same as the mind. However, it is an established Biblical fact that the mind does not continue to exist after death. In Ps. 146:3-4 we read, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
The concept is reinforced by Eccl. 9:5,10: "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Could the Scriptures be any clearer? It is manifestly obvious that the human body returns to dust, and the "spirit" (a.k.a. breath) "returns to God who gave it" (Eccl. 12:7).This leaves the person with precisely nothing: no body, no spirit/soul How then are we to understand heaven and hell? Can a person who has nobody, and therefore none of the five physical senses, enjoy heavenly bliss ? If we insist that the bliss is purely psychological, then we still must remember that the thoughts perish at death! Having neither physical nor mental sensation, how could a person possibly continue to exist in any form? How could a person "go to heaven" in absence of body and spirit?
We are no better off when we consider hell torments. In the absence of the body with its nervous and respiratory systems, the smoke and fire of hell could inflict no torment on the dead; nor could the utter darkness, since the eyes would also have perished along with the body. And again, the prospect of purely psychological torment not only nullifies the purpose of hell fire, it also contradicts what the Bible states about there being no memory, knowledge or wisdom in "the grave" (Hebrew sheol, elsewhere translated hell).
The Bible and the 'Orthodox' doctrine of the immortality of the soul are entirely at odds!
Will the earth be destroyed?
A popular belief of the Orthodoxy is that in the end times, the earth will be completely destroyed and the righteous will either live on a new planet, or else they will abide in heaven with the Lord for ever. The concept of a "new earth" is quite familiar to the Bible, but it is misinterpreted. Peter says (2 Pet. 3:13)that "we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." Now the Greek word for "new" is kainos(pronounced ka-hee-nos), which means "new" with respect to freshness and not new with respect to age (the Greek word for new in age isneos - pronounced neh-os).
Therefore, we may say that the "new heavens and new earth" will not be an entirely different heavens and earth, but the same heavens and earth, "wherein dwelleth righteousness" - refreshed. In Acts 3:19-21, Peter refers to the coming of Jesus Christ as "the times of refreshing" and "the times of restitution of all things".
In 2 Pet. 3:13, Peter quoted
from Isa. 65. Verses 17-19 of that chapter read as
follows: "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the
former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice
for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create
There is a multitude of verses in the Bible which show that the earth will never be destroyed, nor the righteous removed there from. An example of a very clear one is Ps. 104:5, which says of God, "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." And, in Prov. 10:30, "The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth." There are dozens of others: you may wish to read Eccl. 1:4; Ps. 119:90; Ps. 37:9,29;Job 18:17; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 45:18; and Num. 14:21, for example.
How then should we understand2 Pet. 3:10 in the face of all this evidence that the earth abides forever and will never be removed? 2 Pet. 3:10 reads as follows: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. "First of all, the Greek word for "burned up" is katakaiw (pronounced kat-ak-ah'ee-o)literally means "to burn down (to the ground)" (Strong's). We therefore understand that the earth, and the works of men's hands on it, will be burned down to the ground. The word "dissolve" in verses 11-12 of the same chapter tend to confuse people perhaps; but they need not, since that word literally means to loosen and is translated "destroy" and "break" on other occasions.
2 Pet. 3:10 is better understood
in light of the context. We find in verses 5-7 that the earth also
"perished" (the Greek word meaning "to destroy fully") at
the flood. Peter then speaks of "the heavens and earth which are now"
as if it were a different earth than before the flood. We know that physically,
it is the same earth; but in the eyes of God it is a new heaven and earth because
it was refreshed (albeit to a lesser state) after the flood. Therefore, we can
extrapolate and come to realize that the destruction of the second heavens and
earth, and the creating of the third heaven and earth (called
The "Orthodox" interpretation of this earth's future is diametrically opposed to the hopeful prayer of David, "And blessed be [the Lord God's] name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory" (Ps. 72:19).
FOR MORE INSIGHTFUL
COMMENTARY,PLEASE VISIT http://www.biblebeliefs.net/
Back to We're
In The Last Days Ministries Home Page
| The
Catholic Church Examined Historically and Biblically | Mainstream
Doctrines Exposed | A
Declaration of Truth | The Devil...a
Supernatural Fallen Angel?? | The
Antichrist Family | What Must I
Do To Be Saved? | What is
the Gospel? | Does It
Matter What We Believe? | Satanism
or Christ | Gospel Tracts
| Shortwave
Stations | The
Day of the Lord | The Great
Delusion - The Future Antichrist | Can You
Believe? |Am I
Immortal? | Misinterpreted
Scriptures | regeneration?
|Questions
to think about | is Jesus
of Nazareth Christianity's Future Antichrist? |Eternity in an
ever-burning inferno??? |False doctrine
of the week | What and
Why? |
Sports cards for sale