Part 1

Did Jesus Exist?

Is there any historical proof that a person called Jesus Christ ever existed? Although it is sometimes claimed by atheists and agnostics that the very person of Jesus was an invention by early writers, very few educated people down through history have doubted the existence of Christ. There are more than 1,000 works of literature that were written very early in Church history affirming the existence of Christ, and much of it was written by pagans or Jews—people who acknowledged His existence, but denied that He was, indeed, the Son of God.

H.G. Wells wrote in “Outline of History”: “…one is obliged to say, ‘Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.’” Will Durant, professor of philosophy, and a non-Christian, wrote extensively about Christ’s existence and His effect on society in “The Story of Civilization.” The Encyclopedia Britannica refers to Christ more than 20,000 times—more than Socrates, Aristotle, Buddha, Napoleon, Confucius, Mohammed, or Shakespeare. It says in one instance: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

John Singleton Copley, also known as Lord Lyndhurst, one of the greatest legal minds in British history, once commented in this way on the existence of Christ, His death, and His resurrection: “I know pretty well what evidence is: and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet.” Also, Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, once said: “no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”

Consider also this brief synopsis of many other non-Biblical sources attesting to the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ:

• The Huleatt fragments were written in AD 50 and contain the quote from Matthew 26:7–15, referring to Christ’s anointing with oil.
• Tatian, the Syrian, wrote in AD 170 that, “God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21).
• Melito of Sardis wrote in AD 177 about the baptism of Christ and His miracles (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13).
• Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote in AD 52 about the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion of Christ.
• Mara Bar-Serapion wrote in AD 73 to his son about the death of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus.
• Cornelius Tacitus wrote in AD 112 or AD 115 in his Annal (15.14) that “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias.”
• Lucian of Samostasa (AD 115–200) wrote about Christ as “the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.”
• Phlegon wrote in his “Chronicles” in AD 140 about the ability of Jesus to foresee future events.

In addition, Christian authors such as Clement of Rome [AD 30–101], Ignatius [martyred in AD 117], a writer naming himself Barnabas [in the Epistle of Barnabas, written between AD 70 and 135], and Justyn Martyr [AD 100–165] wrote about Christ and His followers.

The Jewish Talmud contains several references to Jesus Christ. It states on one occasion, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged” (The Babylonian Talmud, vol. iii, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281). Another quote states, “Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples—Mattai [i.e. Matthew], Nakkai, Netzer, Buni and Yodah” (from Sanhedrin 43a). Other sources talk about Christians who were following Christ (compare, Aristides, Apology 16 [AD 140]; Pliny the Younger [AD 112]; and Suetonius [AD 120]).

Also, the famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, mentions Christ on at least two occasions, along with John the Baptist; Herod; James, the brother of Christ; and Ananias, the High Priest. An undisputed reference about “James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ” can be found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1. A rather lengthy reference to Christ, found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3, has been disputed as not genuine by some “scholars.” This quotation reads:

“About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ). And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those who are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless others marvel about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.”

Some “scholars” regard the whole passage as spurious—totally false. Others regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions. Then, there are scholars who regard the entire passage as completely genuine. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out: “The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following: … all codices or manuscripts of Josephus’ work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way… Eusebius…, Sozomen…, Isidore of Pelusium…, St. Jerome…, Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia continues to state about other Jewish writers (sources omitted): “The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit…, or even adulterous, union of His parents… The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents…, with the flight into Egypt…, with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of Twelve…, with the call of the disciples… , with His miracles…, ‘Schabbath,’… with His claim to be God…, with His betrayal by Judas and His death… Celsus… tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth… repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulcher.”

The evidence of Jesus’ existence becomes, of course, indisputably compelling when considering the Biblical record. Some scholars of the “Historical Jesus” movement hold that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries. However, such a theory is not supported by evidence.

Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. For instance, Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, including those in the ‘Historical Jesus’ movement, will admit that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. In addition, Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s. In Romans, Paul declares that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God. Galatians is another undisputed letter of Paul written in the mid-50s. In Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, Paul discusses his interaction with Peter and James, two of Jesus’ primary disciples, at least 14 years earlier. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, Paul states that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead three days later. Scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above “creed” at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

Further, Paul’s testimony of Christ’s resurrection and His appearance to His disciples is important, as Paul was referring to over 500 witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ, “of whom the greater part remain to the present” (1 Corinthians 15:6). In other words, Paul was naming witnesses of the events who were still alive when he wrote the letter. Paul was describing these events and naming witnesses so that people could check up on them. Are we to assume that all of these witnesses had collaborated to lie, including Paul, who had formerly PERSECUTED Christianity?

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthians) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ’s life; they have at times been called the ‘fifth gospel’; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; … it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates.”

Considering the overwhelming and undisputed evidence, it is nothing less than willful and deliberate ignorance that would bring one to believe that Jesus Christ never existed!

Part 2

Who Was Jesus?

Although historical records clearly prove that a person called Jesus Christ did exist, the question remains as to who He was. This is a subject that has been grossly misunderstood by many, including orthodox Christianity! The CORRECT understanding of this topic has been sadly lacking, even in some, if not many of the Sabbath-keeping Church of God organizations. We dare to say that this is perhaps the TOPIC WITH MORE ERRONEOUS BELIEFS THAN ANY OTHER! Yet it is fundamentally important that we understand the truth of the matter; otherwise, we are in jeopardy of DENYING the very sacrifice of Jesus Christ! While orthodox Christianity, as well as the world as a whole, are in total ignorance on this vital subject, some in the Sabbath-keeping Churches of God are dangerously close to rejecting Christ and His sacrifice without realizing it, because they do not fully understand and appreciate who Jesus was when He lived here on earth as a human being!

Some have come up with their own ideas on the matter and they refuse to change, even rejecting the very plain teaching from the Bible. Some use terminology that is not Biblical, and in doing so, fall into the trap of accepting concepts that are taught by orthodox Christianity, clouding the issue rather than clearly explaining it.

Some have gone back to Judaic thought, adopting a full-fledged monotheistic viewpoint of just one God being prior to Jesus’ birth, and thereby have rejected the sacrifice of Christ.

What, then, is the Biblical teaching on who Jesus was when He was here on this earth?

In order to fully understand what is a mystery to many, we must first briefly address who Jesus was before He came to this earth. The Biblical record is very clear on who Christ was before He was born of the virgin Mary, and all who teach something different are WRONG. They are, in fact, DECEIVERS!

Christ was God Before He Came to This Earth!

Yes, Christ was God before He came to this earth! This all-important statement is supported Biblically in many places. Paul explains in 1 Timothy 3:16: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.”

HOW, exactly, was “God” manifest in the flesh? Some claim that God is just one Being and that He somehow placed some of His thoughts into the mind of a human being called Jesus. But they are wrong. Jesus actually did exist as a God being—a second, individual God being to God, the Father—prior to His birth as a human. The Bible clearly confirms this.

Philippians 2:5–7 reads: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of GOD, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, TAKING THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT, and coming IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN.”

Notice, too, John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the WORD [Note that Christ is still referred to as the “Word of God,” for instance in Revelation 19:13], and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. He was in the beginning with God [that means there were two God beings—Christ, the “Word of God,” and God the FATHER]. All things were made through Him [the Word, Jesus Christ, compare Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1–2], and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

These passages are clear and speak for themselves. Unless one wants to deceitfully twist, change and pervert the Scriptures, the Biblical testimony is unequivocal: Jesus Christ was GOD before He came to this earth! For more explanation and Scriptural proof, see our booklet, “God Is A Family,” specifically, page 14.

We have established the fact that Christ did exist as a human being, and we have shown from the Scriptures that He was a God being before His human birth. So then, where is Christ now? What kind of being is He? And what is He doing?

Christ Is God!

Again, the Bible is very clear that Christ IS God! For undeniable proof, notice Titus 2:11–14: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”

Jesus Christ, who had been a God being (the “Son of God”) before His human birth, is a God being today, functioning now as our High Priest. He sits next to God, the Father, in heaven and intervenes on our behalf so that we can obtain mercy in time of need (Hebrews 1:3; 4:14–16; 5:5–10; 7:8, 24; 9:11, 24–28; 10:12, 19–22).

But now, let’s go back a bit and address in much more detail, one of the most important mysteries about Jesus Christ.

Who Was Jesus When He was Here on Earth?

The question of who Jesus was when He was here on earth elicits a multitude of responses, suggestions, and interpretations. Some say that He was “God and man”; that He was “truly God and truly man”; that He was “fully God and fully man”; that He was “only and fully God, and not man”; that He was “fully man, and not God”; and, that He was “fully man, but still God in some ways.”

Are any of these concepts right? How can we know the truth of the matter? Again, we look into God’s written Word to find the truth. But before we do that, let’s consider what effect some of these concepts have had on people.

Those who claim that Christ was “fully God and fully man” have, first of all, created a contradiction. If you are fully one thing, then you can’t be fully something else; even more so if the two things don’t correlate. So, if we say that Christ was “fully God,” then He could not also have been “fully man.” In the same way, if something is fully animal, then it cannot be fully human (a scientific fact that is true in spite of the erroneous ideas of the satanic concept of evolution, according to which a man is just the last evolutionary step within the animal world. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution—a Fairy Tale for Adults?”) A horse cannot be fully a horse and fully a cat. A flower cannot be fully a flower and fully a bird. To think that Christ was fully God and fully man is just as ludicrous as the aforementioned examples! The retort that this is a mystery which cannot be understood is Biblically incongruous, as the Bible is God’s word in print, and He HAS REVEALED to His disciples just who and what Christ was when He was here on earth, and for a very good reason! Without an understanding of the mystery of Christ, we could not accept His sacrifice, our sins would not be forgiven, and we would have no hope of our ultimate resurrection!

The Bible is clear that humanity and immortality are exclusive of each other—they are separate. Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). The Bible teaches that it is the potential of man to become a member of the God Family. (This important truth is more fully explained in our free booklet, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.”) This means that man must be changed into spirit (1 Corinthians 15:51–52, 42–49) before he can attain immortality and enter the Kingdom of God. We read that God is not a man that He would lie (Numbers 23:19). We read that it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2). It is impossible for God to SIN! He cannot even be tempted to sin (James 1:13). And most importantly, it is impossible for God to DIE (compare 1 Timothy 6:16; see also Luke 20:35–36). But we read that Christ is the One “who lives, and was dead, and behold,” He is “alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:18). We are told that Christ, as God, now “lives forever and ever” (Revelation 4:9). But as a human, He did die, and was then resurrected from the DEAD (1 Corinthians 15:12–13, 16).

So, then, if Christ was fully God when He was here on earth, as some have reasoned, He could not have died; therefore, He could not have become a sacrifice for us. In addition, if Christ was fully God while He was here on earth, He could not have overcome sin in the flesh (compare Romans 8:3). Again, He could not have become the perfect sacrifice for us.

Some say that Christ did not die. They use the argument that He was fully God and somehow covered Himself with a fleshly mantle, like a piece of cloth, and so did not die. They reason that while Jesus—the earthly shell—died, the true Son of God—Christ—stood right next to Him. Orthodox Christianity, in fact, teaches the concept that the Son of God never died. In doing so, they reject the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. They say that since Christ was fully God, He did not really overcome sin because it was impossible for Him to sin. They further reason that Satan thought he could tempt Christ to sin, but Christ, as God, could not be tempted to sin, as God cannot be tempted to sin. Therefore, Christ did not really have to struggle against sin, as it was impossible for Him to sin, so the argument goes.

Sadly, some of these ideas have been embraced over time by some of the splintering entities of the true Church of God, but ALL of these concepts are unbiblical and dangerously WRONG! Casting all wrong concepts aside then, let’s turn to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, for the truth.

Jesus Christ Came in the Flesh

God clearly reveals who and what Christ was when He was here on earth, and He also tells us that people have been deceived by the “spirit of antichrist” if they don’t accept this clear Biblical revelation. 1 John 2:22–23 warns us: “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

What, exactly, is the “spirit of antichrist”? We are told that one follows the “spirit of antichrist” if one denies Jesus Christ. But in what way, specifically, does the “spirit of antichrist” deny Jesus Christ? 1 John 4:2 tells us: “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ HAS COME IN THE FLESH is of God.”

The “spirit of antichrist,” then, denies that Jesus Christ actually CAME IN THE FLESH. But just how did Christ come in the flesh? By clothing Himself with a flesh-like mantle? Or by materializing or manifesting Himself as a human being like angels are able to do (compare Hebrews 13:2)? Did Christ only “manifest” Himself as a human being without actually BECOMING a human being? We know that Christ—before He was born of the virgin Mary—appeared to the ancients, like Abraham, looking like a human being without actually being human (John 8:54–58). Is that the way Christ “came in the flesh” as referenced in 1 John 4:2?

A closer look at the Biblical explanation reveals just HOW Christ “came in the flesh.” 1 John 4:14 points out: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” Christ came in the flesh to be the SAVIOR of man. This means that whatever He did while in the flesh would lead to man’s ultimate salvation. As we will see, when Christ came in the flesh—lived as a human being—HE HAD TO OVERCOME SIN. He had to CONQUER SIN IN THE FLESH!

Notice 2 John 7: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” The New King James Bible correctly translates that the spirit of antichrist denies Christ as “coming” in the flesh. Christ not only came in the flesh in the past, but He is still coming in the flesh TODAY! That is to say that Christ lives today IN His disciples who are flesh and blood (compare Galatians 2:20). In so doing, He gives His disciples the power to overcome sin while in the flesh.

Do you see the parallel? Christ came in the flesh—born as a human being—to overcome sin in the flesh. He was able to do that only through the power of God’s Holy Spirit within Him. Today, we who are in the flesh have the same power available to us to overcome sin—the power of the Holy Spirit in us, which is the power of God, the Father, AND of Jesus Christ, the Son.

Jesus Christ was Fully Man

How, exactly, did Christ come in the flesh? Was He, at that very time, “fully God and fully man”? Was He “fully God”? Or was He “fully man”?

Notice the clear revelation of this mystery in John 1:14: “And the Word [the “Word” referring to Jesus Christ, Who in the beginning was God and was with God the Father, John 1:1–2] BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Did you catch this all-important statement? Read it again! Are you willing to BELIEVE what God says here without arguing against it? Are you willing to release your preconceived notions and ideas about Christ “coming in the flesh” and to replace them with the truth as revealed by God Himself in the Bible?

God clearly tells us that the Word—Jesus Christ—who was God before His human birth, BECAME flesh. Christ came in the flesh by BECOMING flesh. This means that He became totally and fully flesh and blood, like you and I! This is CRUCIAL for you to understand! When Christ BECAME flesh, He was no longer Spirit. He was no longer fully God, because He had become fully man!

Think for a moment about the word “became.” When a poor person becomes rich, he is no longer poor. When a person becomes sick, he is, at that point in time, no longer healthy. When a woman becomes pregnant, she is, at that point in time, no longer barren. Likewise, when the Word became flesh, He was no longer Spirit. He was no longer an immortal God being as He was before.

When Mary became pregnant with Jesus, how did that happen? We read that the Holy Spirit of God, the Father, came upon her—that the power of God overshadowed her (Luke 1:35). From this we can understand that through the Holy Spirit, God, the Father, changed the all-powerful Spirit being, Jesus Christ, into a tiny physical human sperm, fertilizing the egg in the womb of Mary, thus impregnating her. The fetus grew within Mary’s womb like any other human fetus. Jesus was born as a little baby like every other human baby. He was fully flesh, just like you and I are fully flesh.

Every human being has within him or her, the spirit in man, and, if converted, we also have dwelling within us the Spirit of God (Romans 8:12–16; 1 Corinthians 2:9–12). The same was true, then, for Jesus Christ. He had the spirit in man from conception because He was fully human. In addition, Christ had God’s Holy Spirit dwelling within Him, but He had God’s Spirit without measure or limit—given at conception—which is how he was able to overcome sin in the flesh.

We read in John 3:34, in the Authorized Version, that God the Father gave Christ the Spirit without measure: “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” Some feel that the words “unto him”—as referring to Christ—are not in the original text. Whether they are or not, John was clearly talking about Christ in the context of the One whom God, the Father, had sent to speak the words of God. When it comes to us, we DO receive the Holy Spirit “with measure,” meaning in a limited way. (Compare 2 Corinthians 1:22, New American Bible: “[God the Father] has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.”) When we are baptized, we don’t immediately receive all of the fullness of God’s Spirit. Rather, we need to GROW into all the fullness of God. Christ, however, had the entirety of God’s Spirit, which is a Spirit of POWER. This is HOW He was able to do the mighty miracles that He did.

Notice Acts 10:36–38: “The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.”

Christ said about Himself, that left to His own humanity, He could do nothing, and that the Father, through His Spirit, gave Christ the power and strength to do what He was able to do as a human being (John 5:30).

Some say that Christ was fully God, when here on earth, as it says that the fullness of God dwells in Him bodily, referring to Colossians 2:9–10 to support their claim. However, this passage does not say what they claim it says. We read: “For in Him dwells all the fullness of God bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”

First of all, this passage talks about the present—not necessarily the past. It says that the fullness of God “dwells,” not “dwelled,” in Christ bodily. Today, God’s fullness dwells in Christ because Christ is God. Some claim that this could not be talking about Christ today as Christ, as a Spirit being does not have a “body.” This retort is unfounded, as the Bible clearly teaches that Spirit beings have spiritual bodies; that is, their bodies are composed of Spirit (compare 1 Corinthians 15:44. There is much more detail about this in our free booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World.”) But even if we were to apply this Scripture to Christ when He was here on earth and in the flesh, it would be accurate as well, in this way: God’s Spirit dwelled in Christ without measure. Therefore, the fullness of God, through His Holy Spirit, dwelled in Christ when He was in the flesh.

Breaking this down further, let us discuss the word “bodily.” The Greek word for “bodily” is “somatikos.” This word is derived from the Greek word, “soma,” meaning “body.” It refers many times to the church, the BODY of Christ (compare Colossians 1:18, 24; 2:19). Christ is today the Head of the church. His fullness dwells in His body, the church. Notice the analogy in Colossians 2:10 (“…you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”). Because Christ’s fullness dwells in His body, the church, we are complete in Him. This is not to say that we are already perfect or that the fullness of God dwells already in each and every one of us. But it does show that the fullness of Christ is available to us. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Now notice Colossians 1:19: “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.”

Again, this statement could refer to Christ now, as a God being, and it could refer to the fullness of God’s Spirit dwelling in Christ when He was here on the earth as a human being. Notice that the Scripture does NOT say that Christ was fully God when He was here on earth. Rather, that the fullness of God (the Father) should dwell IN Him, in the same way as the fullness of God should dwell in US. Notice Ephesians 3:19: “… to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

The fullness of God should dwell in us too, ultimately. It is already available to us today through the Holy Spirit in us, but due to our human limitations, we have not been able to take advantage of the FULLNESS of God’s Holy Spirit. Rather, we are told that we have to GROW in the knowledge of Christ to “a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). Or, as the New Jerusalem Bible translates Ephesians 4:13, we need to become “fully mature, with the fullness of Christ Himself.”

We are to become perfect, as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48). We are to grow in the gift of the Holy Spirit. We are to receive more and more of God’s Holy Spirit, until finally, the fullness of God can dwell in us, too, so that, at the time of our resurrection, we will be changed to a God being. Then we will be fully God, as Jesus Christ today is fully God. But until then, we are not fully God, just as Christ was not fully God before His resurrection.

Now notice Ephesians 1:22–23: “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Here “the fullness of Him” could refer to God the Father’s fullness dwelling in Christ, but it could also refer to God’s fullness dwelling in Christ’s body, the church, again pointing out that the church is to grow spiritually to reach perfection in order to come to “the measure of the stature of the FULLNESS of Christ.”

It is interesting how the Philips translation renders Ephesians 1:23: “…and in that body lives fully the one who fills the whole universe.”

No matter how we look at the Scriptures dealing with the fullness of God in Christ and the fullness of Christ in us, none of the passages say that Christ was fully God when He was here on earth in the flesh. They do not contradict the truth that Christ was fully man, like you and I are fully human today, even though God’s Spirit dwells in us. Christ even told us that we will be able, with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, to do mightier works and miracles than He did (John 14:12).

We read that Jesus said that He could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19, 30). When in the Garden of Gethsemane, He prayed to God, the Father, for strength and God sent an angel to strengthen Him. He knew that the Father could do everything and that nothing was impossible for the Father (Luke 22:40–46; Matthew 26:39–42).

Jesus Christ Died a Physical Death

It was absolutely NECESSARY for Christ to become FULLY MAN, because only in that way could He become the Savior of man. Notice this in 1 Corinthians 15:21: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.” We are told that “by MAN came the resurrection of the dead.” We read that Christ was DEAD. HE HIMSELF had died—the person that He was—the Son of God Who had become Man. Revelation 1:18 confirms that HE was dead, not just a part of Him.

Philippians 2:8 adds that “He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of DEATH, even the death of the cross.”

He died the first death, a physical death. He did not die the second death, the final death, mentioned in Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; and 21:8. If He had died the second death, then, again, we would have no Savior, and God, the Father, would not have resurrected Him to eternal life. Neither would we have any hope of being resurrected to eternal life in the future.

Romans 6:9 confirms that Christ DID die the first death: “… knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death NO LONGER has dominion over Him.” So, we see that death had dominion over Him, when He was here on earth, in the flesh—He died the first death.

Romans 14:9 adds: “For to this end Christ DIED and rose and LIVED AGAIN, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” This passage defines death and life as opposites: Christ died, and when He was resurrected, He lived again. He did NOT LIVE while He was dead!

1 Corinthians 15:3–4, 13, 15–16, 20 reveal that orthodox Christianity is hopelessly confused on the issue of life and death. When we are dead, we are no longer alive. When Christ died, HE WAS DEAD. Paul says in the aforementioned Scriptures: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures… But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen… Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen… But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” If there is no resurrection from the dead, then Christ was not raised from the dead. This would mean that Christ would still be dead, and, again, we would have no hope of our future resurrection.

Some teach that Christ rose Himself up from the dead, since, so they say, Christ, the Son of God, never died, only His “human mantle” did. They falsely claim that the alleged immortal Son of God—Christ—raised Himself up. They postulate that Christ—the Son of God—raised up the human mortal Jesus. This ABOMINABLE HERESY is nowhere taught in the Bible! We just read the truth of the matter—it was God, the FATHER, who raised CHRIST from the dead.

Some regard John 2:18–22 as alleged proof that Christ raised Himself up. This passage does not teach this. It says: “So the Jews answered and said to Him, ‘What sign do You show to us, since you do these things?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then the Jews said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.”

Christ prophesied that He would raise the temple of His body within three days. We know from other Scriptures that Christ died, and that the Father brought Him back to life. The Bible teaches that the Father raised up Christ. (Compare Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)…”). When a person dies, his spirit—the spirit in man—returns to God who gave it (compare 1 Corinthians 2:11; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:46).

For instance, Scripture reports an incident of God resurrecting a girl from the dead so soon after death that her body had not decayed. God placed the spirit of that person back into the same body (compare Luke 8:51–55). Of course, when the body has decayed, God creates a new body—either physical or spiritual—into which He gives the spirit of that person (Ezekiel 37:1–8; 1 Corinthians 15:35–49). When Christ died and was brought back to life shortly thereafter as an immortal spirit being, God CHANGED His physical body (which had not yet decayed) into a spirit body. That is why Christ, after His resurrection, could go through closed doors (John 20:19), and it is also why He could disappear after He had materialized Himself in a bodily, albeit different form (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13–16, 31). In fact, when Christ returns, His disciples will be resurrected to immortality and those who will still be alive at that time will be CHANGED to spirit beings (compare 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51–52).

After three days and three nights in the grave, God the Father changed Christ’s physical dead body to spirit and gave Him the spirit in man that He had when He was human, as well as God’s Holy Spirit that He had from conception. Christ was brought back to life. He got up, and at THAT moment, He fulfilled the prophecy that He had given to the Jews—He raised up His body. In other words, He was lying on the ground, but when He received life from God the Father, He got up from the ground. The word for “raise up” (in Greek, “egeiro”), as used in John 2:19, is used many times to describe someone who simply stands up. It is used in Mark 1:31; 9:27, and in Acts 3:7, as well as in James 5:15. In all of those cases, sick people stood up from their sick bed. God “raises or lifts” them up by giving them the power or strength to stand or to get up.

So then we see that John 2:18–22 does not teach that Christ raised Himself up from the dead. Rather, it teaches that after God the Father resurrected Him from the dead, Christ raised up the temple of His body, by getting up.

Some say that John 10:17–18 teaches that Christ was not really dead but that He raised Himself up from the dead. Let’s note what this Scripture says: “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

The Greek word for power is “exousia” and means “privilege or authority.” It is not the word “dunamis,” which is more commonly used and is also translated as power, which describes power in the way of ability. In other words, God, the Father, granted Christ the privilege to die for man. Christ then willingly gave His life. He said that man did not really take it away from Him, against His will. He came to die for the world, willingly.

He said, “…I have power [better—the privilege] to take it again.” The Greek word for “take” is “lambano.” It can also mean “receive” (compare Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible). For instance, we read in Matthew 7:8 that everyone who asks “receives.” In the Greek, the word for “receives” is “lambano.” The Authorized Version translates Galatians 2:6 as, “God accepteth no man’s person.” In the Greek, the word for “accepteth” is “lambano.” In other words, Christ took—received or accepted—what was given to Him. God, the Father, gave Him eternal life, and He received, or took, or accepted it.

Jesus was not preaching here that He would raise Himself up by giving Himself eternal life. That very idea is preposterous!

We have established, then, that Christ did die. Further confirmation can be found in 2 Corinthians 5:15. So then, in order to be able to die a physical death, He had to be a human being.

Hebrews 2:9 teaches very powerfully that Christ died just as all humans die. In fact, He HAD to die that way in order to “…taste death for everyone.” We read: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Christ was made lower than the angels, which means that He became a human being so that He could die. We are told that He was made lower than the angels FOR the suffering of DEATH. As a Spirit being, He could not have died. He had to become a human being in order to DIE. He was to taste DEATH for everyone!

This concept is extremely important to fully grasp and understand! And it is essential that we correctly understand the ramifications and consequences of Christ’s humanity. We have read multiple Scriptures that show that Jesus Christ became flesh—that He came in the flesh—so that He could die. The only way that Christ—who had been GOD since all eternity—could die, was to become flesh. When He became flesh, He was totally human! He was no longer God, the all-powerful Spirit being! He was certainly not half god/half human like the Greek mythological figure, Hercules, who is portrayed as being the offspring of the Greek god Zeus and a human mother, having great powers but still being earth-bound.

When Christ became flesh, He gave up all of His divine attributes and powers. Simply put, He became a man so that He could die! He was no longer a Spirit being, He was no longer God as we think of God, since God, a Spirit being, cannot die (compare Luke 20:35–36; Isaiah 57:15; 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 Timothy 1:17).

Christ Overcame Sin in the Flesh

We have hammered home the point that the reason Christ became human was so that he could die a physical death. However, there is another reason why He became human. Christ became flesh so that He could overcome sin in the flesh. He had to prove that it is possible for man, with the help of God’s Holy Spirit within him, to overcome sin! In fact, Christ COMMANDS us to overcome sin so that we can inherit the Kingdom of God.

We read in Hebrews 2:14–18: “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore in all things He had to be made like His brethren… For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted…”

Christ was tempted in all points, as we are, but He stayed sinless (Hebrews 4:15, “[He] was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”). He overcame sin in the flesh, resisting temptation (Revelation 3:21). God, a powerful perfect Spirit being—cannot be tempted (compare James 1:13). But we read that Christ WAS tempted. This proves that He was not the all-powerful perfect Spirit being when He was here on this earth that He HAD been prior to His birth as a human being. It shows that it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to sin. Christ had become a flesh-and-blood human being, with human nature, who COULD HAVE SINNED.

Romans 8:3 tells us: “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh [human beings, all by themselves, without God’s Spirit dwelling in them, are too weak to keep the law], God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.” In other words, He OVERCAME SIN as a human being.

In that Christ condemned sin in the flesh, He made it possible for us to do the same, as Romans 8:4 explains: “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

We understand, of course, that God, the Father, had total and complete confidence in Christ that He would not sin. But success was not guaranteed. There was always the possibility, however slim, of failure as long as He was human. It was not impossible for Christ to sin. That is why He had to struggle in the days of His flesh, so that He would not sin. Notice Hebrews 5:7: “… who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear…”

God, the Father, heard His pleas. The Father gave Christ strength to not sin, through His Holy Spirit, thereby saving Him from the SECOND death—permanent, eternal death. Christ was not saved from the first death—physical death as a human being. In fact, He had to experience the first death in order to free all of us who want to be freed from the second death!

As further proof that Christ was fully man, consider these additional Scriptures:

John 4:6 tells us: “Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well.” Notice that Christ was wearied from His journey. God, of course, the all-powerful Spirit being called God, is never weary as Isaiah 40:28 tells us. When Christ was in the God-state before His human birth, He did not become weary. But when Christ lived in the man-state, He did become weary, just as we human beings do.

Matthew 9 describes one of the mighty miracles that Christ performed. Verse 8 concludes: “Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified GOD, who had given such power TO MEN.” God, the Father, had given the power to perform miracles to the Man, Jesus Christ, as well as to Christ’s disciples.

It was Christ, the Son of God—the One who had been God and who became Man—who overcame sin in the flesh and died for us so that we need not die “the second death” for our sins (Revelation 2:11). When we accept Christ’s sacrifice, we fully understand that the immortal and eternal God being, Jesus Christ—the second member of the God Family—gave up His divine nature and BECAME a flesh-and-blood human being so that He could die for you and me. As the God being that He was, His life was much more valuable than the lives of all human beings combined, since He was the one who created all of mankind. And in becoming a human being, He paid—as a human being—the death penalty that human beings brought upon themselves by sinning against God’s law. (The wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23.) When we understand all of that and choose to embrace Christ’s way of life, but then willfully turn away and reject Him permanently, there is no further sacrifice available to us. Hebrews 10:29 points out: “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?”

Notice from the above Scripture that it was “the Son of God” who died for us. When Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died, there was only one God being left alive—God, the Father. For three long days and three long nights the Father was alone, until He brought Jesus Christ back to life as the eternal and immortal God being He had been before He became human. He was God, the Son—the “Word”—through whom all things were made (again, see John 1:1–3).

It is therefore Scripturally false to say that Christ, when He was here on this earth, was fully God and fully man. CHRIST WAS FULLY MAN! He was no longer the powerful and immortal God being that He had been before.

God With Us?

Having established that fact, why, then, do we read that Christ would be called “Immanuel,” which means, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23)? And why do we read that people worshipped Christ (Matthew 8:2), since only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 4:10; Revelation 22:8–9)?

Based on what we have already read in the Bible, the answer should be obvious. Christ had been an immortal God being. He was changed into a human being, but He was still the same personage He had been since all eternity. Christ, who became human, was still the personage He had always been. He was still the one who had previously met with Abraham, the one who created Adam and Eve, and the one who spoke to Moses face-to-face. He lived as a human being—growing as children do, developing into a young man, and then becoming a rabbi, or teacher, in Judah. But He was still the same individual that He had always been. He had been an immortal God being and He knew that He would become an immortal God being again, subject to qualifying by being and remaining sinless.

By way of analogy, a powerful ruler over a nation may become a poor slave of a conquering empire. But he would always remember who he had been—the king. When King David had to flee from Absalom when he took over Jerusalem, usurping David’s power and becoming king over Jerusalem (compare 2 Samuel 15:34; 16:16), David was still referred to as “King David” (2 Samuel 16:5). David was not in a position to carry out his powers as king at that moment in time, but he had been the king, and he would again become the ruling king over Jerusalem.

Also, in the United States, we still call former presidents by the title of president even though they do not carry out the function of president after they leave office. We still refer to the late President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford, President Clinton, or President George Bush, although they no longer carry out the office of president. In the same way, the Bible referred to someone as a “high priest” even though he was not currently a high priest, but was a former high priest. (Compare John 18:13, 19, 24 where both Annas and Caiaphas are called “high priest,” although only Caiaphas was the high priest “that year.”)

The same is true, in that sense, for Christ. He HAD BEEN God since all eternity. It was HE who had created man. He Himself identified Himself as the “I am.” He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). In John 18:5–6, He identified Himself to those who had come to arrest Him, as the “I AM.” (The word “He” is in italics; it is not in the original Greek and was added by the translators). Christ, when He was here on earth, was, quite literally, Immanuel, or, “God with us.” He was the Son of God who had become a man.

Herbert Armstrong wrote in his article, “Is Jesus God?”: “Jesus was God made mortal human flesh, ‘for the suffering of death.’ So Jesus… was changed into flesh so He could die for our sins… Christ… had now been changed into flesh—still having the personality and will to do right which distinguished Him as an entity—yet now had become human, having human nature with all of its desires, weaknesses and lusts… God cannot be tempted. Yet Jesus Christ was tempted in all points like we are. He was human. He was tempted through the lusts of His human nature (inherited from Mary)…”

Who WAS Christ? Christ was God Eternal, who BECAME man, so that man COULD ultimately become God! Christ was tempted, He suffered, and He died as a man.

Who IS Christ Now? Christ is God. Christ, the man, was resurrected by God, the Father, as the mighty and powerful God being that He had always been before His days in the flesh. He is now the mighty God for whom we wait to bring us redemption, salvation, and eternal life in the very Kingdom of God (Titus 2:11–14)!

Part 3

Christ’s Relatives

Was Jesus the only child of Joseph and Mary? Did Mary have other children, or did she stay a perpetual virgin, as some claim? And if Christ did have brothers and sisters, does the Bible tell us about them, or are there other historical records that correlate with the Biblical record?

The question of whether Jesus was Mary’s only Son has confused many people and has even caused at least one major religion to come to very erroneous and, for that matter, unbiblical concepts. Let us examine what God’s Word tells us about Christ’s relatives.

We find a description of Christ’s physical genealogy in the 1st chapter of the book of Matthew. Verse 16 tells us that this record explains Christ’s lineage through His stepfather Joseph: “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.”

When we turn to the 3rd chapter of the book of Luke, beginning in verse 23, we find another record of Christ’s genealogy. This record does not describe Christ’s lineage through Joseph, but His descent from His mother, Mary. Verse 23 reads, as translated in the New King James Bible: “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…”

This rendering gives the impression that Joseph was the son of Heli, and that Luke is describing Christ’s genealogy through His stepfather Joseph. This is not correct, however, as Joseph was not a son of Heli, but of Jacob, as we read in Matthew 1:16.

Luke is, in fact, setting forth Christ’s genealogy through His mother Mary, NOT through His stepfather Joseph. Accurately translated, Luke 3:23 should read: “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, (being, as was supposed the son of Joseph), which was of Heli…” The parenthesis should start with the words, “being, as was supposed,” and it should end after “the son of Joseph.”

The word “son” in “son of Heli” cannot be found in the original Greek text. It was added by the translators. So Jesus, who was supposed to be a son of Joseph, was, through Mary, a grandson of Heli. To put it still differently, Heli was the father of Mary.

Luke 3:23 tells us, though, that Jesus was considered to be a son of Joseph, since people at that time did not accept the idea that Jesus had been supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb through God’s Holy Spirit (compare Luke 1:26–35).

The reaction to this truth by the people at Christ’s time can be found in several passages. For instance, we read in Luke 4:22: “So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, ‘Is this not Joseph’s son?’”

They erroneously believed that Christ was the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary. John 6:41–42 tells us: “The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven.’ And they said: ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?’”

To summarize, the genealogy of Matthew sets forth the legal lineage of Jesus through His stepfather Joseph, while the genealogy in Luke sets forth the real lineage of Jesus through His mother Mary.

When returning to Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy, we notice that Matthew does not neglect to mention that Jesus’ legal genealogy included ancestors who had committed adultery (such as Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, verse 6). Ruth, the Moabitess (compare Ruth 2:2), who married Boaz (Matthew 1:5), is also included. Some claim that Ruth was an Israelite in a foreign land—that she was a “Moabitess” because of geography rather than by natural birth. In any event, we find that God does not have any prejudice against any nation or race, and that any sinner—regardless of his race, ethnic background, color or descent—who repents can obtain forgiveness and become a member of the Family of God (compare Galatians 3:26–29).

Mary’s Betrothal to Joseph

We should take note of another important fact when considering the relationship of Joseph and Mary prior to Mary’s conception. We read in Matthew 1:18–20: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’”

The angel told Joseph that he and Mary were already considered to be husband and wife. But they had not consummated the marriage yet—they were living in the state of betrothal. Legally speaking, they were married, but they had not come together, sexually, as husband and wife.

The concept of betrothal is quite different from today’s concept of engagement. In our society the word “engagement” does not seem to carry much value, as people commonly get engaged and then dissolve the engagement without legal consequence. In ancient Israel and Judah, a betrothal was considered to be a binding agreement, and could only be dissolved through divorce. This is why Joseph wanted to “put her away,” a Biblical expression for divorce.

The Luther Bible comments on “betrothal”: “The Jewish engagement constitutes a legally binding marital promise. The marital intercourse only occurs, however, after the wedding, when the bridegroom takes the bride into his home.”

Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible states, “Betrothal, unlike modern engagement, was legally binding and could be broken only by divorce.”

Since Mary became pregnant through God’s Holy Spirit prior to the consummation of her marriage to Joseph, the Jews would later claim that Mary had committed fornication and that Jesus was the product of such fornication. We read in John 8:41: “… Then they said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication…’”

When Joseph realized that Mary was pregnant, he, too, believed that Mary had committed fornication and initially wanted to put her away. But since Joseph was a just man, he did not want to make a public example of Mary, so he was trying to divorce her secretly. As an example of the seriousness of fornication or adultery at that time in that society, the hypocritical and merciless Pharisees would later drag a woman caught in the act of adultery into a public spectacle before Christ to have Him condemn her (compare John 8: 3). Joseph, by contrast, was not anxious to announce Mary’s supposed sin to the world. Having made a commitment to marry her, he was obviously deeply hurt, but because he loved Mary, he was willing to cover her sin rather than make a display of her (compare Proverbs 10:12).

It is interesting to realize that both Joseph and Mary were righteous people who were diligent in keeping God’s laws, including God’s ritual laws, which were still in effect at that time. (Only when Christ died were the temporary sacrifices and rituals done away.)

We read in the book of Luke that Mary and Joseph carefully observed the temporary ritual laws, still in force and effect at the time of Christ’s birth (Luke 2:21–24, 27, 39), as well as God’s permanent laws (Luke 2:41–42).

This does not mean, however, that Mary and Joseph were converted. There is no hint in the Bible that Joseph became converted during his life, and neither do we read that Mary was converted during the time of Jesus’ human life here on earth.

Returning to Matthew’s account of Jesus’ lineage, we realize that Matthew, who described Christ’s lineage through Joseph, actually emphasized the role Joseph had in his own family and toward Jesus. Matthew wanted to stress the Biblical teaching that Joseph, as long as he was alive, was the rightful leader of the family—the head of the family—not Mary and not Jesus.

We have already read in Matthew 1:20 that the angel appeared to Joseph to give him instructions as to how to conduct himself in this regard. Matthew 1:21, 25 points out that the angel told Joseph to call the name of the child, “JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins,” and that Joseph in fact “called His name JESUS.”

Matthew emphasized Joseph’s role in giving the boy the name “Jesus.” In the parallel account in Luke 1:31, we find that the angel tells Mary to name the boy. There is no contradiction, however, for we read in Luke 2:21: “His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel.”

Since the angel told both Joseph and Mary, on different occasions, what the name of the boy should be, it is clear that both Joseph and Mary named the boy—there was no doubt in the minds of either one of them that this had to be the name for the boy. But Joseph was the leader, so he did it, while Mary, of course, agreed with that decision, knowing that it was in accordance with the will of God.

We find further confirmation of Joseph’s dominant role as head of the family in Matthew’s account in the 2nd chapter of Matthew, verses 13–14, 19–22. The angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, telling him to take the mother and the child and to flee to Egypt, and then later to return to the region of Galilee. Within this region, Joseph then was inspired to choose the city of Nazareth for his family to dwell in (verse 23).

In the account of Luke, however, there is emphasis on the important role of Christ’s mother, Mary. Recall that Luke described Christ’s genealogy through Mary and the appearance of the angel to Mary. Luke also mentioned Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, and when the shepherds approached the young couple and Jesus, Mary was mentioned first (Luke 2:16). The prophet Simeon spoke directly to Mary in the temple (Luke 2:34–35). Also, when the couple was looking for the 12 year-old Jesus and found Him in the temple, it is, again, Mary who spoke (not, however, as the leader of the household) in Luke 2:48: “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” Christ did not rebel against the leadership of His mother and His stepfather; in fact, we read: “Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject [margin: obedient] to them…” (Luke 2:51).

There was no question who was leading the family. But Luke’s emphasis of Mary makes one thing very clear: that Mary was an extraordinary woman, and God, when dealing with people, does not distinguish between men and women—all are potentially heirs and co-heirs with Christ.

We need to understand, too, that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, who would have expected to see that emphasis was placed on the husband as the leader of the family. Also, Matthew started the genealogy with Abraham, stressing the point to the Jewish audience that Christ—through Joseph—was a descendant of Abraham.

Luke, on the other hand, wrote to a Gentile convert, the “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3). His genealogy of Christ, through Mary, went all the way back to Adam, showing that Mary, Christ’s mother, was the descendant from all generations of humans. Luke wanted to show, as well, how God had dealt with a Jewish woman, since women were known to be quite influential in Roman and Greek families.

It is also believed by some scholars that Matthew received his account, at least in regard to the birth of Christ and Christ’s early years, directly from Joseph, while Luke is believed to have received the information for his account directly from Mary (compare Halley’s Bible Handbook, copyright 1959, page 488).

Jesus Had Brothers and Sisters

How extraordinary the woman was who became the mother of Christ can be seen by the fact that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, thereby fulfilling Old Testament prophecies. We read in Matthew 1:22–25: “So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’ Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her…”

Mary was a virgin. She brought forth Jesus Christ, although she had not known a man. The fact of the “Virgin Birth” has been questioned, even by so-called professing Christians. Halley counters this criticism as succinctly as anybody, when he writes: “Both [accounts in Matthew and Luke] state plainly, explicitly, unmistakably and unequivocally that Jesus was born of a virgin. From the beginning, in unbroken sequence, it has been held as a tenet of the church, till the rise of modern criticism. If we believe in the deity of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, what is gained by discrediting the virgin birth? The resurrection is the greatest of miracles. If we do not believe that, why concern ourselves with Christ at all? If we do believe it, then why carp at the other parts of the miraculous story? His supernatural exit from the world pre-supposes a supernatural entrance into the world. To call Jesus an illegitimate child is nothing less than blasphemy” (p. 488).

The “Virgin Birth” is clearly taught in Scripture. However, the Bible does not teach that Mary stayed a virgin for the rest of her life. We read in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”

The word “till” or “until” signifies that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph DID “know her,” that is, he did have a sexual relationship with her. Let us note several passages, where the word “till” or “until” is used.

Matthew 2:15 tells us that Joseph, Mary and Christ were in Egypt “until the death of Herod.” In Matthew 5:26, Christ said that a debtor will not get out of prison “till” he has paid the last penny. In both cases, the word “till” or “until” describes a change in circumstances.

After Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph did have intercourse, and they did produce children. That means that Christ did have brothers and sisters! And it also means that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus!

Luke 2:6–7 confirms this: “So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…” The Greek word for “firstborn” is, “prototokon.” It means, “first-born,” but it does not describe an only child. The word for “only-born” is “monogenes.” In Luke 7:12, the word “monogenes” is used, when describing a person who was “the only son of his mother.”

The Jews knew that Jesus was not the only son of Mary. They knew very well that Jesus had brothers and sisters. We read the account in Matthew 13:53–56: “Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?’”

Christ’s audience knew that He had brothers and sisters. Four brothers are mentioned by name—James; Joses or Joseph; Simon; and Judas or Jude. Notice also the Jews’ reference to ALL of His sisters. They asked whether ALL His sisters were with them. This seems to strongly indicate that Christ had at least three sisters. If He had only two, the Jews would have said, “Are not His sisters with us?” or, “Are not both of His sisters with us?”

Still, some doubt that Christ had brothers and sisters. In relying on some apocryphal sources and rejecting the “most normal interpretation of the New Testament,” as the Anchor Bible Dictionary puts it (under, “James, Brother of Jesus”), they say that the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. This view is favored by the Greek Orthodox Church and other Eastern churches. But the Bible says nowhere that Joseph had been married before. This idea also contradicts the fact that Christ is called Mary’s FIRST-BORN Son, and that the Bible said that Joseph waited to “know” Mary UNTIL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN Son.

Halley’s Bible Handbook points out on pages 416, 418: “[Joseph] was a carpenter, and the head of a family of at least seven children… He surely must have been a good and exemplary man…Who were the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus…Mary’s own children? Or children of Joseph by a former marriage? The plain, simple, natural meaning of these passages is that they were Mary’s own children. This is the opinion commonly held among Bible commentaries.”

Some teach that Christ’s “brothers” were in fact Christ’s cousins. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, although this has recently been criticized by Catholic scholars who have concluded that the brothers were, in fact, Christ’s real brothers and not His cousins. The word for brother is “adelphos.” This Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21, clearly referring to literal brothers. The word for cousin is “exadelphos,” meaning “from brothers.” When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, they used the word “adelphos,” not the word “exadelphos.”

Some propose that the brothers and sisters mentioned in Matthew 13 were Christ’s spiritual brothers and sisters, not His physical siblings. But as we will see, the Bible makes a clear distinction between Christ’s physical brothers and His spiritual brothers. In addition, as we will explain, Christ’s physical relatives did not believe in Him and so they could not possibly have been referred to as Christ’s spiritual brothers and sisters.

It is, therefore, clear from the Biblical evidence that: 1) Mary did not remain a virgin throughout her life; and 2) Jesus Christ had at least four brothers and most likely at least three or more sisters.

Jesus’ Relatives were not Initially Converted

Consider these revealing facts about Mary and her sons and daughters. We read in Matthew 12:46–50: “While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, ‘Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.’ But He answered and said to the one who told Him, ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.’”

This passage affords proof that Christ’s “brothers” were not synonymous with His “disciples.” At that time, His brothers did not believe in Him—they were not His disciples. In addition, Christ made it clear that He would not permit His mother and His brothers to prevent Him from teaching and living God’s Word. In the parallel Scripture, in the 3rd chapter of the book of Mark, we are given an additional detail to show why Christ’s mother and His brothers came to “speak” with Him. We read in verse 21: “But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, ‘He is out of His mind.’” Verse 31 continues, “Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him.”

This account strongly suggests that they had come down to seize Him, thinking He had gone mad. After all, Christ’s brothers did NOT believe on Him, as we are told in John 7:5. Christ told them that the world did not hate them, as they were still part of this world (verses 6–7).

But how could Mary have doubted in Christ? How could she have thought that Christ had gone mad? After all, she had received a special revelation from an angel of God. How could she have ended up NOT believing in Christ?

This is even more astonishing when we remember what was said about Mary after she had received the message from the angel: “Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord” (Luke 1:45). Mary believed the angel’s message that she was pregnant of the Holy Spirit and that her Child would fulfill a special role. But there were things regarding Jesus that she clearly did not understand, and neither did Joseph. We read, in Luke 2:19, that “Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” Later, in Luke 2:33, we are told that “Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.” Subsequently, they “did not understand the statement which He spoke to them… but His mother kept all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:50–51).

They did not understand what role Jesus had to fulfill, and when He later acted in a way that Mary had not anticipated, she thought He had gone mad. We can find somewhat of a parallel in the life of John the Baptist. He had clearly understood who Jesus Christ was, but when he was in prison, he was wondering whether it was really Him or whether he should wait for another (compare, John 1:29–34; Luke 7:18–23; Matthew 11:2–6).

Likewise, Mary and Joseph were uncertain as to what Jesus had to accomplish and Mary could not understand why He did the things He did.

On the other hand, at the wedding in Cana, Mary was totally convinced that Christ could help the bridegroom who was short of wine. Perhaps she believed that Christ could even do a miracle (John 2:3–5). If so, Mary’s subsequent attempt to seize Christ and to stop Him from doing what He was doing would be even more surprising and, at the same time, “human.” Don’t we sometimes have doubts, too, about what God is doing in our life, especially when things don’t go the way we would like?

Note that Joseph is not mentioned when Mary and Christ’s brothers are standing outside to talk to and to seize Christ. After Joseph and Mary were looking for the 12-year old Christ in the temple, Joseph is not mentioned anymore in the Scriptures, except when people talk about him. Many have therefore concluded that Joseph died some time after Christ turned 12 years of age and before He started His public ministry at the age of 30. We can conclude that Joseph must have died before Christ’s crucifixion, since Jesus had committed the care of His mother to His disciple John. In any event, it is very probable that Joseph was already dead when Christ began His public ministry. He was dead, then, when Mary and her sons were trying to seize Christ.

In regard to this episode, we might wonder if Christ’s response showed lack of respect and care for His mother and His brothers. But this is not the case. Rather, Christ wanted to make it clear at that time that His mother and His brothers, and, by implication, His sisters, were NOT doing the will of God when they tried to seize Christ to prevent Him from preaching God’s Word. Since they were not converted at that time, they did not fully understand God’s Will. (Compare Matthew 12:50: “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”) Luke 8:21 adds: “My mother and My brothers are these who HEAR the word of God and DO it.” On the other hand, His disciples, both men and women—spiritual brothers and sisters—WERE doing God’s Will at that moment in time, when they listened to Christ. (At other times Christ had to rebuke Peter, before his conversion, calling him “Satan,” when he desired the things of men and not of God, compare Matthew 16:23). Christ did not try to dishonor His mother or His brothers; rather, He used this opportunity to point out accurately just who His real brethren were.

We might also want to take note of Luke 11:27–28: “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ But He said, ‘More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’” Again, we see the clear implication that Mary was not converted—she was not hearing and keeping the word of God as Christ taught it.

Christ tells us that if we love anything or anyone more than Him, including our own life, our mate, our parents, our children, or any of our relatives, we cannot enter God’s Kingdom. He even pointed out that it may become necessary to leave “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for [Christ’s] name’s sake,” that is, when they prevent us from worshipping God in spirit and in truth (Matthew 19:29).

The Ryrie Study Bible has this comment on Matthew 12:50: “The spiritual relationship between Christ and believers is closer than the closest of blood ties. Obedience to God takes precedence over responsibilities to family.”

Some have erroneously claimed that Christ hated His mother and His brothers and sisters, and that we must do the same. They quote Luke 14:26 to support this assertion, where Christ said: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”

But when comparing this passage with the parallel Scripture in Matthew 10:37, we realize that the Greek word for “hate,” as translated in Luke 14:26, has the meaning of “to love less in comparison.” Matthew 10:37 says: “He who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” We must love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our might. In comparison with that love for God, we must love everything else less, including our own lives.

Still others claim, from John 2:4, that Jesus did dishonor His mother when He said to her (Authorized Version): “‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’”

We must realize that if Jesus Christ committed just one sin, we would not have a Savior. If He had violated the Fifth Commandment (“Honor your father and your mother…,” Deuteronomy 5:16; Exodus 20:12), He would have sinned, as “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). Many Scriptures make it clear that the law spoken of in the New Testament includes the Ten Commandments (compare James 2:8–12).

We read that Christ never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He practiced what He preached. When a young man came to Him to find out what he had to do to have eternal life, Christ told him to keep the commandments (Matthew 19:16–17). He then specifically listed the Fifth Commandment in verse 19. Christ also emphasized in Mark 7:7–13 the continued obligation for children to honor their parents (Compare, too, Ephesians 6:1–3).

Christ NEVER transgressed the Fifth Commandment! When He was twelve years old, He was subject, that is, obedient, to His parents (Luke 2:51). He never dishonored His parents throughout His life.

The potential problem with His statement in John 2:3–4 is caused by the translation of the Authorized Version, stating: “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”

First, let us notice that the expression “woman” did not convey disrespect. When Christ hung on the cross, He told John to take care of His mother. Christ was in agonizing pain, knowing that He would soon die. Still, His thoughts and concerns were directed toward the welfare of His mother. Notice that He called Mary “woman” at that critical time as well (John 19:26). Halley’s Handbook points out on page 533 that the word “woman” was a title of respect in the usage of the day.

Returning to John 2, we should also notice that Mary did not consider Christ’s answer as one of disrespect. In verse 5, she told the bridegroom’s servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” The annotation in Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible, page 536 says: “No one, not even his mother, has the right to put pressure on Jesus. But his reply is not as harsh as some translations make it sound. [The rendering in the] New English Bible, ‘Your concern, mother, is not mine,’ is better.”

Other translations agree with the conclusion that the rendering in the Authorized Version is too harsh. The New King James Bible translates verse 4 as, “‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?’” The New International Version states, “‘Dear woman, why do you involve Me?’”

Halley’s Handbook comments further, on page 533: “The point of his remark seems to be, ‘Suppose the wine is gone, what have I to do with it? It is not my affair. My time to work miracles has not yet come.’ Probably he had just told her of the new miraculous powers bestowed on him by the descent of the Holy Spirit at baptism. She saw in the situation an opportunity for him. While he did this miracle at her suggestion, his ‘hour’ for the general use of his miraculous powers came about four months after, at the official beginning of his public ministry in Jerusalem at Passover time (John 2:13).”

Christ also wanted to tell His mother that the main purpose for His coming was not to perform those kinds of miracles. That is why the New English Bible’s rendering of verse 5, “‘Your concern, mother, is not mine,’” is quite good. Because of respect for His mother, however, He acquiesced, as the performance of that miracle was not against God’s commandments or His will.

Rather than conveying that Christ disobeyed the Fifth Commandment, John 2:1–4, when correctly understood, shows the deep honor and respect that Christ had for His mother, prompting Him to fulfill her desires that were not against God’s Will.

Christ knew, of course, that His mother did not fully understand why He had come. It is also interesting to note when reading John 2:11, that His disciples believed on Him because of this very sign. Apparently His mother and His brothers did not. They are distinguished from His disciples in verse 12, showing that Christ did not regard His brothers as His disciples at that time.

Christ’s Relatives Converted after His Resurrection

Although we do not read that Christ appeared to His mother after His resurrection, we DO read something remarkable about Mary and Christ’s brothers after His resurrection in Acts 1:13–14: “And when they [the apostles] had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

By this time, Mary and Christ’s brothers WERE counted as Christ’s disciples. We are not specifically told whether all four of Christ’s brothers were present, but this is clearly the indication, as it says, “with His brothers.”

Halley makes the following comments, on page 561: “Esteemed and honored as she was as mother of the savior, the apostles gave not the slightest indication of feeling the need of her mediation between them and Christ.”

A change obviously took place that caused Mary and her sons to believe in Christ and the message He preached. 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 gives us some insight: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

After His resurrection, Christ appeared to Cephas or Peter, and then to all of the twelve apostles. He also appeared to James. When Paul wrote this letter, James was referred to as an apostle, at least by implication (as verse 7 says: “He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.”). Who was this James?

Remember that the names of Christ’s four brothers were James, Joseph, Simeon and Jude (Matthew 13:55). It was this James, the oldest of Christ’s four brothers, who saw Christ after His resurrection and who became one of the most important apostles in the early New Testament Church.

Barclay states in his commentary on the book of Acts, on page 95: “In the East, it would have been the natural thing for the next brother to take on the work of an elder brother who had been killed; but from the gospels we learn that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5) and that they actually thought him mad (Mark 3: 21).”

So at first, the apostle Peter was in a leading position, even insofar as the church in Jerusalem was concerned. But James became more and more a predominant apostle, to the extent to which he dedicated his life to Christ, and to which the other apostles began to travel into foreign countries to preach the gospel in all the world. (Compare, as to the prominent role of James, the brother of Christ, Galatians 1:18–19; 2:9, 11–12; Acts 12:16–17; 15:13–20; 21:18).

In regard to the first ministerial conference in Jerusalem described in Acts 15, Eerdman explains on page 560: “The final summing-up and verdict given by James, the Lord’s brother and leader of the Jerusalem church, finds general acceptance.”

We see, then, that James, the brother of Christ, had at that time the position of the presiding apostle of the church in Jerusalem. Barclay points out, on p. 115: “His leadership was not a formal office; it was a moral leadership conceded to him because he was an outstanding man.”

Finally, James wrote the epistle of James, one of the last letters in the Bible. James was called “the Just,” as Eusebius reports. According to historian Hegesippus (180 AD), his knees were said to be as hard as a camel’s because he knelt in prayer so often and so long. Tradition has it that James, after he had heard about Christ’s resurrection, made a vow that he would neither eat nor drink until he himself saw Jesus—and we know that Jesus did appear to him.

According to Josephus, James was stoned right after he had finished his epistle, around 62 AD, for allegedly having violated the law. If this account is true, then the charge would be in reference to James’ decision in Acts 15 that certain rituals were no longer binding.

Another tradition describes the events of James’ death this way: The Pharisees and the Scribes placed James at the pinnacle of the temple and demanded that he deny Christ. When he refused, they threw him down. Although severely injured, he did not die because of the fall. He prayed for forgiveness of his enemies. Then, he was stoned and beaten to death with clubs. He was buried, according to Hegesippus, on the spot by the temple where he was killed.

Also, according to tradition, James was replaced at the time of his death by Christ’s brother Simeon, who became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Simeon died around 100 AD.

Neither the Bible nor tradition tells us anything specifically about Jesus’ second-oldest brother, Jose or Joseph, but as we pointed out, Acts 1 seems to suggest that he, too, had become one of Christ’s disciples. We also read in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that the “brothers of the Lord” had become Christ’s disciples. And we are told that they were married and that their wives, who had also become converted, were accompanying them on their travels.

The Bible contains an additional epistle that was written by another of Christ’s brothers, Jude, whose epistle bears his name. Apparently, Jude was the youngest of Christ’s brothers. He states in verse 1 of the book of Jude that he was the brother of James, the oldest of Christ’s brothers. Jude wrote his letter around 65 to 80 AD.

We know from both the Bible and tradition that at least three of Christ’s brothers, and in all likelihood all four of them, became converted, although they did not at first believe in Jesus. And the same is true for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Tradition tells us that the apostle John was accompanied on his travels by an older woman, obviously Mary, whom John had taken to his own home, faithfully adhering to Christ’s command on the cross to take care of her.

The fact that the resurrected Jesus appeared to James seemed to have started the change. We can visualize how it, perhaps, happened: Now he understood who Christ really was, and he told his experience to his mother and his relatives. Now Mary remembered and comprehended what the angel had told her; what the shepherds had said; what the wise men from the East had done; what the prophet Simeon had proclaimed; and what Jesus had said and done. She realized that Christ had to die, as Simeon had told her, but that the resurrected Christ would come back to rule over all the world. It all made sense to them after Christ appeared to James.

And so, Mary and her sons became influential members of the early New Testament church. They eventually died too and were buried, and they wait in their graves with all the other dead Christians for the resurrection to eternal life. They are not in heaven (compare John 3:13; Acts 2:29, 34; Hebrews 11:39; 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17).

Neither Mary nor any of Christ’s disciples were resurrected after they died. Only Christ Himself was resurrected as a Spirit being and ascended to heaven. Mary did not ascend to heaven, and she does not sit next to Christ to mediate between us and Him or God, the Father. This concept is derived from paganism and is totally without any Biblical foundation. In fact, it contradicts God’s revelation that Christ is the ONLY Mediator between all of mankind and God (compare 1 Timothy 2:5). The Assyrians and Babylonians believed in a “queen of heaven” to whom they could pray. But God condemns this practice in the book of Jeremiah (compare Jeremiah 7:18) and other places. We don’t need any mediator between us and Christ. Rather, we can pray directly to the Father, with Christ as our Mediator. He is the one who represents us before God because, having lived as a human being, He is well-acquainted with our shortcomings and our struggles, and having died as a human being, He became the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

Christ’s brothers and presumably His sisters, too, were married. Obviously, they had children. And who knows, maybe Christ’s relatives are living on this earth today. But from a spiritual standpoint, we do, in fact, have contact with the direct descendants of Christ—His brethren. Remember Christ’s words: “For whosoever shall do the will of the Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Part 4

The Trial of Jesus

Christ committed no sin. He never transgressed God’s Law. We read that there was no deceit in His mouth. We read that He committed no violence to anyone, and that He was only numbered with the transgressors—regarded as a criminal—for our sakes, so that He even became sin for us. He came into sinful flesh because of us, but it is clear that He never violated God’s Law.

But what about man’s law? Was He properly sentenced to death according to man’s law at the time? There are many legal scholars who have concluded, looking at the Jewish and the Roman law, that Jesus Christ was justly convicted; that He was justly executed; and that He was justly killed in harmony with the law of man.

For instance, law professor and lawyer Richard Wellington Husband claimed in his book, The Persecution of Jesus, that Christ’s arrest was legal; that the hearing before the Sanhedrin, which was the Jewish High Court at the time, was legal; that the trial before the Roman Pontius Pilate was legal; that Christ’s conviction was legal; that the evidence provided was sufficient to substantiate the charges; and that the execution of Jesus was legal. Another law professor, Max Radin, also claimed in his book, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, that Jesus was legally convicted and legally executed. But not all legal scholars and lawyers share this view.

In 1964, the Hon. James C. McRuer, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, and former President of the Canadian Bar Association, published a little book, entitled, The Trial of Jesus. McRuer concluded that Jesus Christ was not legally convicted and executed.

To find out whether Christ’s arrest, trial, and execution was legal or illegal, we need to look into the pages of the Bible. Let us start our survey with Matthew 26:3–4: “Then the chief priest, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas [the high priest at that time was Caiaphas], and plotted to take Jesus by trickery [margin: deception] [to] kill Him.”

The Revised Standard Version translates the word for “trickery” or “deception” as “stealth.” They adopted a secret and clandestine procedure to arrest Christ.

Continuing with John 18:3, we are told that they came to arrest Christ by sending officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, as well as a detachment of the troops.

Alfred Edersheim, in Jesus the Messiah, points out: “But in the fortress of Antonia, close to the Temple and connected with it by two stairs, lay the Roman garrison. During the Feast, the Temple itself was guarded by an armed cohort, consisting of from 400 to 600 men, so as to prevent or quell any tumult among the numerous pilgrims. It was to the captain of this ‘cohort’ that the Chief Priests and leaders of the Pharisees would, in the first place, apply for an armed guard to affect the arrest of Jesus, on the ground that it might lead to some popular tumult. This, without necessarily having to state the charge that was to be brought against Him, which might have led to other complications… This Roman detachment, armed with swords and ‘staves’ … was accompanied by servants from the High-Priest’s Palace, and other Jewish officers, to direct the arrest of Jesus.”

No Charge Against Christ Upon His Arrest

No charge was brought against Christ when He was arrested. No charge had been made yet. He was arrested in order to prevent “a potential tumult.” They came by night. Jesus Himself said that they came as against a robber, as if they had to arrest Him right away.

Matthew 26:55 continues: “In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me.” Christ was saying that there was really no need to arrest Him in such a way—in today’s terminology, “without a warrant.” Christ had not done anything to justify this kind of a procedure. But Christ knew, of course, that Satan was behind all of this.

Satan had already entered Judas Iscariot to influence him to betray Christ for 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14–15; John 13:2; Luke 22:3). And Satan had, of course, influenced the Pharisees and the Sadducees to have Christ arrested illegally, with the ultimate goal to kill Him.

Luke 22:47–53 continues the story of events: “And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude; and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?’ When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, ‘Lord, shall we strike them with the sword?’ And one of them [Peter, compare John 18:10] struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Permit even this.’ [Matthew 26:52 points out that He also said, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”] And He touched his ear and healed him [He undid what Peter had done. Peter injured this man and Christ healed him.] Then Jesus said to the chief priests, captains of the temple, and the elders who had come to Him, ‘Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not try to seize Me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.’”

Christ knew who was behind this. He knew that Satan was the one who had influenced them to do all these things. That was the hour of Satan. That was the hour of darkness.

When Satan possessed Judas, Judas left Christ and the other disciples. When this happened, John 13:30 tells us that “it was night.” Why is this fact emphasized? Because this was the hour of darkness.

Let us emphasize again that Christ was not arrested based on any formal charge of any crime that He had allegedly committed. There was no legal basis for the arrest. Nobody had presented evidence or even testified before the Sanhedrin, to justify or warrant an arrest.

First, Christ was brought before Annas. During that year, Annas was not the high priest, but Caiaphas. Annas was the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas, and he had been the high priest in previous years. The Bible still referred to Annas as high priest, although technically the one who was actually fulfilling the role of the high priest that year was Caiaphas.

Illegal Interrogation

Christ’s interrogation before Annas was illegal. First of all, they brought Him to Annas by night. But the Jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night. No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice. The Sanhedrin only sat in session from the close of the morning sacrifice until the time of the evening sacrifice; that is, they would only sit in session during the day. They would never sit in session during the night.

Acts 4:1–3 confirms this fact: “Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening.” They knew that if they wanted to abide by their own law, they couldn’t do anything during the night.

Verse 5 continues: “And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.” They got together the next day to start the trial against the apostles—they didn’t do it during the night.

Another example can be found in Acts 5:17: “Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, ‘Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.’ And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest and those with him came and called the council together [this happened during the day], with all the elders of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.” They didn’t convene any interrogation or trial during the night. They understood that their own law prohibited that, and so they waited until the next morning. But they did not act this way in the case of Jesus Christ. They went ahead in violation of their own law and began to try Him during the night.

Secondly, the interrogation was conducted by a former high priest, Annas, not Caiaphas. It wasn’t even an official interrogation; but rather, it was a private one. Annas had no legal authority to conduct such an interrogation at all. The Jewish law said: “An accused man was never subject to private or secret examination.” But that is exactly what happened in Christ’s case. He was being interrogated by a person who was no longer in any official capacity. Annas had no authority whatsoever to do it.

Why did they even do it? Why did they bring Christ to Annas and not to the high priest, Caiaphas, right away? Because Christ was brought to Annas to be interrogated by him privately for the purpose of gathering evidence to bring a charge against Him. They hadn’t charged Him with anything yet! They didn’t have any evidence for a charge! They didn’t know what to charge Him with! So they tried to get evidence through this private and illegal interrogation by Annas. But Christ responded to all of his questions with dignity and with intelligence.

Christ understood the Jewish law very well. Christ was a Jew. He grew up in the Jewish community. He knew what His Jewish rights were. John 18:19–21: “The [former] high priest [Annas] then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, ‘I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have done nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said.’” Christ didn’t answer the question directly. He said, in effect: “Let them bring forth the charges and the evidence which you say are against Me.” That was not the answer that Annas wanted to hear. Annas and his accomplices resorted to violence and torture in order to try to extract a confession from the prisoner.

John 18:22–23 continues: “And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, ‘Do You answer the high priest like that?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?’” Since nothing further could be gained, Annas sent Christ, bound, to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, the current high priest.

Illegal Trial

To quote from McRuer, “The Trial of Jesus,” on page 52: “Nothing was to be accomplished by private interrogation. The whole proceeding before Annas was illegal from beginning to end according to the Hebraic law. Every accused had the right to be free from any private or personal interrogation until he was sent for public trial… Annas had Jesus bound and sent him to Caiaphas to stand his trial before the Great Sanhedrin.”

Matthew 26:57–58 reports: “And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders where assembled. But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.”

Christ was brought to the high priest’s private home, and all the scribes and elders were assembled there. But it was still night, and nobody could be tried during the night. In addition, the Sanhedrin was not permitted to meet and conduct a trial of a capital offense before an annual Holy Day.

As will be explained in the next chapter of this booklet, Christ was arrested on Tuesday night, and He was killed on Wednesday, before the evening of an annual Holy Day, the first day of Unleavened Bread. Under Jewish law, this was illegal, because a capital case could not be concluded within just one day, unless there was an acquittal. The law demanded that a trial had to last for at least two consecutive days in order to convict someone to death. And because it had to last for at least two consecutive days, a capital case couldn’t start on a Friday or on the day previous to an annual Holy Day, because no proceedings could be held on a weekly Sabbath or an annual Holy Day. The requirement to have a trial of a capital crime last for at least two days was part of an elaborate safeguard procedure in order to make sure that no one could be executed unless it was absolutely certain that the person charged with the capital crime was, in fact, guilty.

To quote from McRuer, The Trial of Jesus, on pages 56–57: “When there was a conviction, sentence could not be passed on the same day. The members of the court were required to go in pairs, eating very little and drinking no wine, to discuss the matter all night and come together the following morning. On the following morning commencing with the most junior member of the court lest he be influenced by his seniors, each was required to make his declaration. Those in favour of acquittal would say: ‘I declared him innocent yesterday and I still declare him innocent.’ And those in favour of conviction would say: ‘I declared him guilty yesterday and I still declare him guilty.’ He who favoured conviction might afterwards acquit, but he who favoured acquittal might not retract and favour conviction. It was said, ‘A Sanhedrin that puts one man to death in a week of years is called ‘destructive.’ The safeguards against the execution of an innocent man did not end with the judgment of the court and with the sentence. The law required the execution which was carried out on the same day as the sentence was passed, to take place outside the walls… A herald led the procession, calling out the name of the condemned man and announcing the offence for which he was convicted and the sentence imposed, adding: ‘ If any man knoweth aught in favour of his acquittal let him come and plead it.’ If it came to the attention of the court that anyone, whether a member of the court or not, wished to advance some further argument, the sentry with the towel signalled the horseman, and the latter thereupon halted the procession and returned the prisoner to the court. Even if the prisoner during the procession said: ‘I have somewhat to argue in favour of my acquittal,’ the law required that he be brought back for further trial, be it four or five times, if there was substance in what he had to say.”

As we will recall, the “trial” took place in the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. This was another violation, because it should have taken place at the regular meeting hall of the Sanhedrin. But, it could not, as the court could not officially convene during the night.

In addition, when Christ was brought before the high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, no charge had been made against Him. This is important, because under Jewish law, the Sanhedrin could not originate charges. If somebody was brought before the Sanhedrin and there was no charge made against them, they had to let him go. The Sanhedrin violated their own law, as they were not interested in letting Christ go. They tried to originate charges during the trial. They attempted to do so by producing witnesses.

In order to convict somebody of a criminal offense, you had to have at least two witnesses who had to agree. The Sanhedrin could not even produce two (false) witnesses who would both make the same (false) accusation.

Let us notice the account in Mark 14:53, 55–59: “And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes… Now the chief priests and all the counsel sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, ‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”’ But not even then did their testimony agree.”

The testimony of these witnesses, like the testimony of most false witnesses, didn’t agree. Since they failed to agree, their testimony, according to Jewish law, had to be discarded. Any evidence given by them had to be treated as not having been given. In addition, the law did not permit the judges to consider the testimony of just one witness to convict the accused.

Mark 14:60–61 continues: “And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, ‘Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ But He kept silent and answered nothing…”

Christ refused to answer. He knew the Jewish law. Since the testimony didn’t agree, there was still no charge. So the high priest’s conduct was, again, in violation of the law. Christ had to answer nothing because there was nothing to answer. And so, Christ kept silent.

McRuer explains, on page 59 (emphasis added): “At this stage, Caiaphas forsook his role as the judge, and violating all the rules of Hebraic procedure, he undertook to accomplish what his minions had failed to do—to get Jesus to make a self-convicting statement… Until the case was established by the evidence of two or three witnesses given publicly, one standing trial for crime was not only presumed to be innocent but to be unaccused. It was the evidence of the leading witnesses that constituted the charge. When they spoke and agreed, their evidence constituted the indictment. There being no evidence and hence no charge, Caiaphas stood up and heaped illegality upon illegality by calling upon Jesus to testify against Himself.”

Mark 14:61–64 continues: “…Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus said, ‘I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?’ And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.”

This conduct of the high priest was an egregious, flagrant violation of Jewish law. The Jewish contemporary scholar Marimonius wrote in his book, Sanhedrin: “We have it as a fundamental principle of our
jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make a confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses.”

Even if an accused made a confession, it had to be disregarded, unless it was collaborated by two additional witnesses. A confession, all by itself, was not sufficient for a conviction.

That fact is also confirmed by Mendelsohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews. He points out, on page 133: “No attempt is ever made to lead a man on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self- accusation.”

The high priest’s conduct, attempting to get Christ to incriminate Himself, and to then use His “confession” as evidence, was blatantly illegal.

In addition, we also read that “all” condemned Him to death. The verdict against Christ was unanimous. But under Jewish law, a unanimous verdict against a criminal, who had been charged with a criminal capital offense, had the effect of an acquittal. Jewish law decreed that at least one of the judges had to defend the accused. Wise writes in Martyrdom of Jesus: “If none of the judges defends the culprit, i.e., if all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict guilty was invalid and sentence of death could not be executed.”

Mendelsohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, adds the following: “A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.”

Christ had to be released. But that was not according to plan. The verdict was predetermined. Nothing Christ could have done would have made a difference, because this was the hour of darkness.

The fact that Christ’s verdict was predetermined by all of His judges poses another problem, since under Jewish law, judges had to be impartial. Nobody could judge over a person who was his enemy. Benny writes in “Criminal Code of the Jews,” on page 37:

“Not under any circumstance was a man, known to be at enmity with the accused person, committed to occupy a position among the judges.”

All of the judges were, of course, Christ’s enemies. This means that none of them had any jurisdiction based on procedural rules of the Jewish law, to even try Him.

Their predetermined purpose was clearly revealed in the 11th chapter of the book of John. Beginning with verse 46, we read: “But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things that Jesus did. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, ‘What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.’ And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.”

The high priest prophesied that Christ would die for all of us so that we wouldn’t have to die. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of the high priest, he was saying this to bring Christ to death. He did not understand that Christ’s death was necessary for us to be forgiven of our sins. He wanted to see Christ killed because he was afraid that the Romans would come and take away the authority they had. They had plotted to kill Christ even before they had arrested Him.

This whole trial is somewhat reminiscent of the People’s Court sessions in Nazi Germany under Judge Freisler. In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer reports about the trial of those German officers under Count Stauffenberg who had unsuccessfully attempted to kill Hitler in 1944 (pages 1273–1275, copyright 1960): “Hitler … himself laid down the procedure for dispatching them. ‘This time [he said]… the criminals will be given short shrift. No military tribunals. We’ll hail them before the People’s Court. No long speeches from them. The court will act with lightning speed. And two hours after the sentence it will be carried out. By hanging—without mercy.’ These instructions from on high were carried out literally by Ronald Freisler, the president of the People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof), a vile, vituperative maniac, who as a prisoner of war in Russia during the first war had become a fanatical Bolshevik and who, even after he became, in 1924, an equally fanatical Nazi, remained a warm admirer of Soviet terror and a keen student of his methods… The court-appointed defence lawyers were more than ludicrous. Their cowardice… is almost unbelievable. Witzleben’s attorney… outdid the state prosecutor and almost equalled Freisler, in denouncing his client as a ‘murderer,’ as completely guilty and as deserving the worst punishment… All that summer, autumn and winter and into the new year of 1945 the grisly People’s Court sat in session, racing through its macabre trials and grinding out death sentences, until finally an American bomb fell directly on the courthouse on the morning of February 3, 1945… killing Judge Freisler and destroying the records of most of the accused who still survived.”

Although terrible convictions of innocent people happened throughout history, nothing can remotely equal anything that Christ had to endure. Quoting from page 62 of McRuer’s book, The Trial of Jesus: “Jesus was unlawfully arrested and unlawfully interrogated in secret by one of the highest ranking members of the court, one who was to sit among his judges. The court was unlawfully convened by night. No lawful charge supported by the evidence of two witnesses was ever formulated. When he was questioned by Caiaphas Jesus was, according to Hebrew law, innocent. No charge had been laid against Him. As he stood at the bar of justice he was unlawfully sworn as witness against himself. He was unlawfully condemned to death on words from his own mouth. ‘Our law,’ says Marmonidis, ‘condemns no one to death upon his own confession.’ ‘It is a fundamental principle with us’ says Bartenora, ‘that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment.’”

To add insult to injury, let us notice what happened next, in Mark 14:65: “Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.”

To hit a convicted prisoner was against the Jewish law, too. The Jewish law provided that a person condemned to death could not be previously scorned in any way. Following this, the Sanhedrin delivered the bound Jesus Christ to Pontius Pilate to be crucified by him.

Let us notice, in passing, an interesting account in John 18:28: “Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium [“hall of judgment,” Authorized Version], and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.”

Within the palace of Pilate were the altars of Roman gods. The Hebrew priests and the scribes wouldn’t want to go to such a place during the Passover week, so that they would not be “defiled.” Some have claimed that this passage proves that all the Jews kept the Passover on a different day than Jesus Christ did, because Jesus and His disciples had already taken the Passover the previous night. But this Scripture may or may not actually say that, because, according to some commentaries, the reference in John 18:28 to the word “Passover” might be a reference to the goat which had to be sacrificed on the first annual Holy Day, which sacrifice was also called the “Passover.” There was also a dispute at the time between the Pharisees and the Sadducees as to when to slaughter the Passover lamb. The Pharisees believed it should be a day later, but the Sadducees believed it should be on the day when Christ and the disciples ate it. The Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were in charge of the temple. Although some Jews, following the Pharisees, kept the Passover one day late, others followed the Sadducees and kept it when Christ and the disciples ate it.

Continuing with John 18:29: “Pilate then went out to them and said, ‘What accusation do you bring against this Man?’” That was a very pointed question. He wanted to know, what they were charging Him with? McRuer points out, on page 67: “The request for the charge made it quite clear that there was to be no formal confirmation of the judgment of the Sanhedrin. It was evident that Pilate intended to do his duty as a dispenser of Roman justice and dispose of the case on its merits. Before the Sanhedrin there had been no accusation. The verdict had determined the charge. The problem that perplexed Jesus’ accusers was this: if they said, ‘We have tried him and found him guilty of blasphemy,’ Pilate would regard the whole matter as a religious dispute which could well be left to the Jewish court. In that case, the Roman governor would not likely ratify any death sentence.”

John 18:30 continues: “They answered and said to [Pilate], ‘If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”

They didn’t want to answer Pilate’s question. They were calling for a pro-forma confirmation of the judgment of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrists were surprised, though, about Pilate’s conduct for another reason. Edersheim points out, on page 590, that “the inquiry would come upon them the more unexpectedly, that Pilate must, on the previous evening, have given his consent to the employment of the Roman guards which effected the arrest of Jesus.”

But, apparently, Pilate had not consented to arresting Christ for the purpose of killing Him. And now, Pilate was trying to find out what it was that they charged Christ with.

Continuing in John 18:31: “Then Pilate said to them, ‘You take Him and judge Him according to your law.’ Therefore the Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.’”

Now they stated plainly what they really wanted to do. McRuer explains, on page 67: “To the members of the Sanhedrin Pilate’s conduct of the proceedings was becoming alarming. He was about to do the very thing they didn’t want him to do—leave the matter to the Jewish courts. So they changed their strategy. Ceasing to rely on the judgment of the Sanhedrin which found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, they resorted to something which was calculated to stimulate in Pilate a greater interest in the case. With no reference to the offence for which Jesus had been convicted in the Hebrew court, new accusations were put forward.”

These new accusations are set forth in Luke 23:2: “And they began to accuse Him, saying, ‘We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.’”

McRuer points out, on pages 67 and 68: “The first and second charges were patently false and the third a half-truth presented in such a way as to be entirely false. Taken together, these charges were accusations that Jesus had challenged the authority of the Roman state and attacked its majestic sovereignty.”

At one time, the Jews had asked Christ whether they should pay taxes, whether it was lawful to pay taxes, and Christ’s answer was, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. In addition, Christ had never asked the Jews to rebel against the Romans. So all of these new allegations were blatantly false accusations. And they knew it. But they were becoming desperate now because they wanted to get Christ, no matter what.

To continue with the quote from McRuer, on page 68: “This was majestatis (treason), the greatest crime known to the state… The Roman procedure required that every accusation of treason against a Roman citizen be made by a written charge and the accused, if a Roman citizen, was entitled to all the protection of a properly conducted Roman trial. A Jew, who was not a Roman citizen, [Christ was a Jew, and not a Roman citizen] had no such protection. With Jesus before him, Pilate as Procurator of Caesar, had absolute power limited only by his sense of justice [Pilate could do whatever he wanted. He had absolute total discretion]… The Jews were driven on a course they did not want to take because they well knew there was not the necessary evidence to support the charge. They had tried to get evidence to support the first two allegations but failed. Had not Jesus said: ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’? Pilate must have detected malice in the hearts of the Sanhedrists… Pilate must have discerned that it was from no loyalty to Caesar that the chief priests and elders came with the prisoner at the early hour of the morning, charging that he had been forbidding them to give tribute to Caesar; Pilate well knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. The third accusation—that Jesus had said He was Christ the King—could not pass unnoticed, even though Pilate did know that it was ‘out of envy’ that he had been brought there. A charge that anyone who had created such an impact on the Jewish people had claimed any rights of temporal power must necessarily be investigated.”

Let us turn now to John 18:33–38: “Then Pilate entered the Praetorium [margin: “the governor’s headquarters”] again, called Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ [This was the only accusation that Pilate addressed—not the first two]. Jesus answered him, ’Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate therefore said to Him, ‘Are You a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, ‘I find no fault in Him at all.’”

Let us take note of the legal significance: Pilate had interrogated the prisoner. He had declared that He was guiltless, that He was innocent. He pronounced the judgment. Christ should have been released right there and then. But Pilate was a weak man. He had been in trouble before with Caesar for having slaughtered some of the Jews. Not that Caesar loved the Jews, but he wanted peace in his empire. Christ had referred to that incident in Luke 13:1, stating that Pilate had mingled the blood of the Galileans with the Jewish sacrifices.

The story continues in Luke 23:5–7: “But they were the more fierce [when Pilate said, “I find no fault in this Man,” verse 4], saying, ‘He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place.’ When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.”

This Herod was Herod Antipas, a cruel, cunning and deceitful individual. He was the one who had beheaded John the Baptist (Matthew 14:9–10), and then thought that Christ might have been John the Baptist rising from the dead (Mark 6:14). Christ knew exactly with whom He was dealing. He had called Herod a fox (Luke 13:32) after He heard that Herod, too, was trying to kill Him.

Herod had come to stay in the old Maccabean palace close to that of the high priest. Luke 23:8 reports: “Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad; for he had desired for a long time to see Him, because he had heard many things about Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him.” Herod was always willing to talk to John the Baptist, but he did not accept anything John the Baptist was saying. Now, Herod was trying to see whether Christ could do a miracle for him. But Christ didn’t perform any miracle here. Had Christ done it, He would have performed the role of a magician and He would have given into Satan, who had asked Him earlier to perform a miracle by making bread out of stone. Rather, Christ was exercising His elementary legal rights when He remained silent, because He had already been declared innocent by Pilate. What was there to say? His outcome was predetermined. Christ understood that. Whatever He would have said would have made no difference.

While Jesus was brought before Herod Antipas, another interesting event happened. Judas Iscariot, Christ’s betrayer, approached the Sanhedrin in defense of Christ. We read in Matthew 27:3–4: “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ And they said, ‘What is that to us? You see to it!’”

Recall that even after the sentence had been issued, the Sanhedrin had the legal duty to reconvene if a new witness in favor of the accused showed up. Judas was that new witness. He said, “I have betrayed innocent blood.” The Sanhedrin, however, violated that legal duty as well.

McRuer points out on page 76: “Judas said: ‘I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.’ He probably knew the requirements of the Jewish law in capital cases that the court must hear any witness in favour of an acquittal even after judgment was rendered, as long as the sentence had not been carried out. If Judas didn’t know the law, the court most certainly did. Defying it they said: ‘What is that to us? See to it yourself.’”

Instead, they went to Herod and accused Christ of additional crimes. Luke 23:10–12 continues to report to us the horrible events: “And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate. That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other.”

Herod sent Christ back to Pilate without convicting Him of anything. He made a mockery of Christ to please the accusers, but he did not pass judgment and convict Christ to death.

Luke 23:13–15 continues: “Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, said to them, ‘You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him [better: “he sent Him back to us,” compare margin]; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him.”

This was Pilate’s second declaration of judgment. For the second time, Pilate found Christ innocent! He declared Him to be, “innocent, not guilty.” He went on to say that his judgment was even confirmed by Herod. Obviously, Pilate should have let Christ go, but Pilate was a weak ruler. He was more interested in what the people felt. He was not at all interested in man’s law, let alone God’s law. And so he compromised and he tampered with justice. First, he stated in Luke 23:16: “‘I will therefore chastise Him and release Him.’” He had just found Him innocent twice! Still, he said, “I will therefore chastise Him and release Him.” Chastise Him for what? Christ had committed no offense! But Pilate wanted to please the people. This sign of weakness was all the Jews needed. Now they knew that they could still win.

Matthew 27:15–17 picks up the story: “Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?’”

Christ was Legally Innocent

But Christ had already been found to be legally innocent. He should have been released as an innocent man. Pilate, though, proposed His release as a convicted criminal, to whom amnesty might be granted. This additional sign of weakness convinced Christ’s accusers that Pilate would go on compromising until they had accomplished their murderous intent.

Matthew 27:20–23 reports: “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said to them, ‘Which of the two do you want me to release to you?’ They said, ‘Barabbas!’ Pilate said to them, ‘What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?’ They all said to him, ‘Let Him be crucified!’ Then the governor said, ‘Why, what evil has He done?’ But they cried out all the more, saying, ‘Let Him be crucified!’”

Pilate was still not willing to do that. He had just been told by his wife—probably a Jewish proselyte—not to have anything to do with this just man Jesus since she had been warned in a dream and had suffered many things in that dream because of Him (Matthew 27:19).

John 19:1–4 continues: “So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him. And the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe. Then they said, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they struck Him with their hands. Pilate then went out again, and said to them, ‘Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him.’”

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) translates verse 4 as, “I found no crime in him.” This was the third declaration of innocence! And each declaration was delivered with authority and in the name of the emperor of Rome, because Pilate had full legal authority of the Roman emperor.

John 19:6 states: “Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, ‘Crucify Him, crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.” Again the RSV says, “I find no crime in him.” This is the fourth time that the Roman governor acquitted Christ of the charges brought against Him! And Herod had acquitted Him, as well. Remember that the Sanhedrin had not even made a charge against Him and still “convicted” this innocent man. Pilate stated again that he did not confirm the “judgment” of the Sanhedrin.

McRuer explains, on page 80: “Having failed to secure a conviction for treason, the accusers fell back on a demand for confirmation of the death sentence passed by the Sanhedrin which was based on a conviction of blasphemy.”

Continuing with John 19:7–9: “The Jews answered him [Pilate], ‘We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God’ [in other words, they resurrect the charge of blasphemy]. Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid [presumably, because the charge that Christ was the “Son of God” struck fear and caution in him, and because he realized how desperate Christ’s accusers were to have Him executed], and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, ‘Where are You from?’ But Jesus gave him no answer.”

McRuer states, on page 80: “No answer was forthcoming from the prisoner. All charges of treason having been disposed of, Jesus relied on His simple legal right to remain silent.”

John 19:10–12 reports: “Then Pilate said to Him, ‘Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?’ Jesus answered, ‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.’ From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.’”

What did they do now? They went right back to the charge of treason, not because there was any evidence to support it but because they knew how to strike Pilate at his weakest spot. John 19:13–16 says: “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour [midday]. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’ But they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’ Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away.”

Pilate made it clear one more time that he had repeatedly and consistently rendered the judgment that Christ was innocent. Matthew 27:24–26 records: “When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.’ And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.” Based on the accounts of all the four gospel writers, it is possible that Christ was scourged twice by Pilate.

Matthew 27:25 has been used by many over the centuries to inflict very anti-Semitic feelings. However, the fact of the matter is that all of the people involved here, except the Romans, were Jewish. Christ Himself was a Jew. The early apostles were Jews, too. This most certainly is not a Scripture that can be used to justify or condone any anti-Semitic feelings; it is simply an historical fact.

McRuer summarizes Christ’s trial on page 82: “The whole catalog of illegality was complete; Jesus Christ, the prisoner, had been betrayed to his enemies for thirty pieces of silver; beaten and tortured by His custodians; illegally tried in the highest court of His nation; illegally
convicted of blasphemy against the God of His people—a conviction never confirmed in the Roman court. Confirmation failing, the prisoner was charged with treason against the Roman emperor and found not guilty; nevertheless, he was ‘handed over to be crucified.’ In all the annals of legal history, it would be difficult to find another case in which the prisoner who had been declared not guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction was delivered to the executioner by the judge who had acquitted him.”

McRuer states on page 83: “As a deterrent to others it was the custom to affix to the cross a board on which was inscribed the offence for which the condemned man had been convicted… In this case Pilate himself prepared the inscription. It was written in Latin, Greek and Aramaic. It read: ‘The King of the Jews.’… The chief priest asked Pilate to change the inscription to read: ‘This man said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’ If Pilate had stated the offense for which Jesus was crucified as the chief priest asked, it would have meant that Jesus had been found guilty of treason. This was a judgment Pilate had persistently refused to pass.”

Let us at this point consider the final verdict, which was issued on that dark hour and dark day of human injustice. Luke 23:47 reports: “So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, ‘Certainly this was a righteous Man!’” The RSV says: “Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, ‘Certainly this man was innocent.’”

The Bible confirms that Christ was murdered. It was not an execution of a legally charged and legally convicted person. It was a state-approved and state-commanded murder. His disciples were not afraid to say so. They were not afraid to tell the murderers face-to-face what they had done. The following Scriptures will prove this. Again, none of those passages provide any reason for anti-Semitic feelings, because the disciples who said those things were Jews themselves.

In Acts 2:22–23, Peter stated: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.”

In Acts 5, beginning in verse 27, the apostles—Peter among them—were brought again before the Sanhedrin. We read: “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, ‘Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!’ But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.” The Authorized Version is more precise here, stating, “… Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” The plural noun, “ye,” makes it clear that Peter’s response to the high priest’s question was directed to all the members of the Sanhedrin—not just to the high priest only.

Peter was not mincing any words here. He said to those who were guilty that they had murdered Christ.

Stephen said essentially the same in Acts 7:51–52 when the Sanhedrin had dragged him in front of the court: “‘You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers.”

Neither did Paul—a Pharisee of Pharisees before his conversion—mince any words. He said in Acts 13:27–28: “For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death.”

Jesus Christ was Murdered!

The Bible emphasizes time and time again that the innocent Jesus Christ was murdered. This is very important to understand because Christ died for you and me! In that sense, we, too, have murdered Him! All of us are as guilty as those who actually delivered and killed Christ, because if it hadn’t been for the sins that we have committed, Christ wouldn’t have had to die. He died for each one of us so that each one of us could obtain forgiveness, providing we repent of our sins and accept His sacrifice.

There is no question that Christ was murdered! Notice 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16: “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” This statement also applies to all of us if we don’t repent of our sins and develop a relationship with God that is pleasing to Him.

Christ knew from the very beginning what would happen to Him. He knew He would have to face human injustices, including His illegal arrest and His illegal prosecution. This was no surprise to Him. He made mention, for instance, in Matthew 20:17–19, that they would torture and kill Him. He also knew from the very beginning, as we read in John 6:64, that it would be Judas who would betray Him.

Hebrews 12:1–2 tells us WHY Christ was willing to come to this earth to die for us: “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

What joy is meant here? Jesus rejoiced that you and I can become His brothers and His sisters—His followers—so that we can ultimately become the children of God in His Kingdom. Knowing that His torture and death was necessary for our reconciliation with God, He joyfully endured the shame. Christ was willing to undergo the illegalities that He went through—His illegal arrest, His illegal torture, and His illegal crucifixion—because His sacrifice was necessary to pay the penalty we have earned for our sins, the second death.

Similar injustices might happen to Christ’s present day disciples, too. If it happens to us, we are to act as Christ acted. 1 Peter 2:21–23 summarizes His conduct as follows: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth’; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously.”

Although Christ had all the angelic and Godly powers at His disposal, He didn’t strike back when He was illegally arrested. He actually restrained Peter, healing the ear of the high priest’s servant whom Peter injured in a probable attempt to kill him (Luke 22:50–51; John 18:10). Christ didn’t revile when He was reviled. He asked God to forgive His accusers and murderers, praying for them on the cross (Isaiah 53:12).

Hebrews 12:3–4 admonishes us to have the same mind that Christ had: “For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin [as Christ has].” When Christ was in the garden, He prayed so hard that His sweat became like great drops of blood (Luke 22:44). Christ was in the flesh. He was fully human. He had to obtain strength from God— not only, when He was in the garden, but throughout His human life—so that He was able to live obediently and godly in the flesh. And we most certainly have to do the same.

Part 5

The Time of Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection

The Christian world is confused about the time of Christ’s birth and death. When was Christ born? How long was He dead and in the grave? When was He crucified? When was He resurrected? Did Christ tell us ahead of His death how long He would be dead? And if so, did He fulfill what He had said?

In this chapter, we are discussing the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. For a brief discussion on the time of Christ’s birth, please see the accompanying box.

In Matthew 12:38–40, Christ explains that He would be in the grave for three days and three nights: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.’ But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish [Authorized Version: “whale’s belly”; New Revised Standard Version: “belly of the sea monster”], so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”

Note that Christ talked to the scribes and Pharisees, describing them as an “evil and adulterous generation.” He said that the only sign that would be given to IT was the sign of the prophet Jonah. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so Christ would be three days and three nights—a full 72 hours—in the grave. Christ’s statement goes further, however. He made it clear that He would not stay in the grave for less than three days and three nights, and, that He would not stay in the grave longer than 72 hours. As the sea monster vomited Jonah alive onto dry land, so Christ would be brought back to life and leave the grave after three days and three nights.

Christ was not speaking about parts or portions of three days. In John 11:9, He defined the daylight portion of a day as lasting 12 hours, and after that, in verse 10, He implied that the night [as the dark portion of the day], lasted another 12 hours. In addition, Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three entire days and three entire nights, not just a portion of that time period. And Christ said that He would be in the grave for exactly as long a time as Jonah had been in the belly of the fish.

---

WHEN WAS CHRIST BORN?

Professor J.M. Golby, British historian and co-author of the book titled, “The Making of the Modern Christmas,” made the following comments during a television interview in 1991:

“The Christian church has always been very clever in incorporating other practices and going along with things and then turning them towards Christianity. And in pagan times you had midwinter festivals, and you had religious festivals which were pagan and very much associated with things like the going down of the sun. And during winter it was going down—would it ever return? And so you had a day in which you celebrated the sun. And the Mithraic religion, which was a very important religion in the later Roman Empire, had a particular day that celebrated this. And it so happens that it coincides with December 25th, which the Christian church then adopted as the day of Christ’s birth… There is nothing in the gospels to show that Christ was born on the 25th of December. In fact, it’s clear that he wouldn’t have been. There wouldn’t have been shepherds out in the fields. It’s just the wrong time of year…”

In addition to the fact that shepherds would not have been in the fields on December 25, there is another reason why Christ could not have been born around December 25. Dr. Cunningham Geikie discusses this additional reason in “Holy-Days and Holidays,” in the article, “Christmas at Bethlehem.” He writes: “The twenty-fifth day of December… has little in its favor [for the date of the nativity of Christ] beyond the fact that it was the day on which, in antiquity, the return of the sun from its winter absence was kept… It could hardly have been at that season, however, for such a time would surely not have been chosen by the authorities for a public enrollment, which necessitated the population’s traveling from all parts to their natal districts, storm and rain making journeys both unsafe and unpleasant in winter…”The fact that shepherds were living out in the fields (compare Luke 2:8) and that a public enrollment was conducted at the time of Christ’s birth (compare Luke 2:1–7) clearly proves that Christ could not have been born anywhere near December 25. Sheep were never in the field during the winter months. From the middle of October until the middle of March, the sheep would be kept inside, in stables or barns. During that time, there was too much rain, wind and even frost and snow. The newspaper Wynne Progress published an article on December 21, 1967, titled, “The Christmas Story,” in which it pointed out numerous discrepancies between the Biblical record and Christmas traditions. It stated, “As for the date of December 25, that was chosen by the church during the fourth Century A.D…. The choice seems to have been dictated… by a desire to Christianize the Roman revel that marked the winter solstice. The biblical evidence plainly indicates that Jesus was born during the late summer or early fall. That is the time of year when Palestinian shepherds take their flocks into the field to graze at night” (emphasis added).

The seventh month of the Israelite year, the month of Tishri, in September/October, ends with the beginning of the rainy season. During the eighth month, the month of Marcheschwan, in October/November, the weather is rainy. The ninth month, Chislev, in November/December, marks the beginning of winter, with rain and snow. Christ made it clear, in Matthew 24:20, that a flight of His Church had better not take place “in winter,” as this would be very unpleasant, due to the severe weather conditions. In addition, Song of Solomon 2:11 reads: “…the winter is past, The rain is over and gone.” Note also Ezra 10:9, 13: “It was the ninth month, on the twentieth of the month; and all the people [in Jerusalem were] …trembling… because of the heavy rain… ‘But there are many people; it is the season of the heavy rain, and we are not able to stand outside.’” Finally, the tenth month, Tebeth, in December/January, is designated as the coldest month of the year, with hail and snow.

There is no way that Christ could have been born at the end of December, while a public enrollment was going on, and while shepherds and sheep were staying overnight in the field. Even if it did not snow at that time, the cold weather and the rain would have made it impossible for both shepherds and sheep to be in the field at night. Further, the Roman authorities would not have chosen that time of year for a public enrollment. Rather than having been born in the winter, it is most likely, as was pointed out before, that Christ was born in late summer or early autumn.

For more information on this subject, please read our free booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas.”

---

Scripture tells us that Christ did indeed fulfill this sign. The angel of the Lord told the women, “‘He is risen, as He said’” (Matthew 28:6). God the Father resurrected His Son, Jesus Christ, exactly at the preordained time, as had been announced by Jesus. This means that Christ could not have been crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday, as this would not fulfill the sign of being in the grave for three days and three nights. Rather, Christ was killed on a Wednesday and placed in the grave on Wednesday afternoon, just before sunset. He was brought back to life three days and three nights later, leaving the grave on Saturday afternoon, just before sunset, as He said.

The Romans witnessed the fact that the angel came down from heaven and rolled away the stone from Christ’s grave. They told the chief priests about it, but were bribed with money in order to conceal the truth (Matthew 28:11–15). The chief priests and elders willfully suppressed and denied the only sign for Christ’s Messiahship.

After His resurrection, Christ appeared to many, proving that He was the Messiah. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 the numerous occasions when Christ appeared to His apostles and disciples. In that passage, Paul did not even list all of Christ’s manifestations (compare, for example, Matthew 28:9–10; Luke 24:13–35).

Christ, as a human being, did many signs and wonders. John said that He performed so many miracles that they could not even all be written down (John 21:25). However, do you realize that none of these signs proved that He was the Messiah? The people at that time recognized Him as a prophet who was able to perform miracles, but those miracles did not prove to them that He was THE Christ. His true disciples recognized Him as the Son of God, but this knowledge had to be revealed to them by God the Father (compare Matthew 16:13–17).

The proof of Christ’s Messiahship was in His resurrection from the dead as a glorified God being. The proof lies in the fact that He was DEAD, and that He would come back to (spiritual, eternal) life. He could not raise Himself up or bring Himself back to life. He said that, “I can of Myself do nothing” (John 5:30). Only God the Father could resurrect Him (compare Acts 2:24; 3:13–15). THAT FACT was the sign of His Messiahship. In other words, Christ said to the people, “If I die and if I am buried for three days and three nights, and afterward come back to life, THEN you will know that I am the Christ.”

We should be able to see clearly that this sign totally negates the false concept that Christ was killed on “Good Friday” and resurrected on “Easter Sunday,” as He would not have been in the grave for 72 hours. This sign also totally disproves the false teaching that Christ, when here on earth, was “fully God and fully man;” that only the “man part” died, but not the “God part;” and that the “God part” resurrected the “man part”—that Christ resurrected Himself. This false teaching of orthodox Christianity (commonly referred to as the “two natures of Christ”) DENIES THE ONLY SIGN that Christ gave to “an evil and adulterous generation,” proving His Messiahship: being dead and buried for 72 hours, and then God, the Father, bringing Him back to life as a glorified God being.

Christ’s supernatural birth was not a sign to the “evil and adulterous generation” of His time, as they did not believe that He had been supernaturally conceived by Mary. They believed that Mary had committed fornication (compare John 8:41). The miraculous events at the time of Christ’s birth were, however, a sign to the shepherds in the field (Luke 2:12), as well as to Mary (Luke 2:19). Mary, of course, had already been prepared for Christ’s supernatural birth by the prior appearance and pronouncements of God’s angel (Luke 1:26–38).

For those of us who believe, Christ’s supernatural birth is a most important fundamental tenet, but to those who don’t believe, it can hardly be considered a sign. It is sad, however, that even many of those calling themselves Christians doubt that Christ was actually conceived as described in Scripture. If they believe, however, that Christ was and is the Messiah, they MUST believe in Christ’s supernatural birth, AND in His existence as a God being, full of glory, PRIOR TO His birth as a human being (compare John 17:5).

Many Scriptures prove that Jesus Christ was dead and in the grave for three days and three nights. In addition to Matthew 12:40, note Christ’s statements in Matthew 27:62–64 and Mark 8:31. Sometimes Christ said that He would be killed and raised again “the third day” (Matthew 16:21; compare Matthew 17:22–23; Luke 9:22). To quote from Milburn Cockrell, “Three Days and Three Nights,” in “Message of the Christian Jew,” April 1983, the editor of the “Berea Baptist Banner”: “Unless we believe that the Bible contains errors, we know that all passages must harmonize. Therefore, ‘after three days’ (Mark 8:31) must mean the same as ‘the third day’ (Matthew 16:21).

---

DID THE THIEF GO TO PARADISE ON THE DAY OF HIS DEATH?

If Christ was dead for three days and three nights, how are we to understand His promise to the repentant thief on the cross that both would be in Paradise on the very day of their death? We read in Luke 23:39–43, in the translation of the New King James Bible:

“Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, ‘If you are the Christ, save Yourself and us.’ But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.’”

The word “Paradise” in Luke 23:43 is derived from the Greek word “paradeisos,” which means, “park” or “garden.” The word “paradeisos” appears two more times in the New Testament.

One passage is found in 2 Corinthians 12:2–4: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man— whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Paul was talking about a human being, obviously himself, who was transferred, in vision, to the third heaven—the place where God’s throne is. Paul equated that third heaven with “Paradise.”

In addition, Revelation 2:7 states: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” Right now, the Paradise of God and God’s throne are in fact in heaven.

We also read, however, that the New Jerusalem, a city which God is building for us right now in heaven, will descend to this earth (Revelation 3:12). Revelation 22: 1–3 explains:

“And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits… And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.”

We saw earlier that both the throne of God and the tree of life are in the Paradise of God. Revelation 22:1–3 teaches us that the throne of God and the tree of life will be in the New Jerusalem, when it descends to this earth. This means, then, that the Paradise of God will be here on earth.

Jesus Christ was telling the thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in Paradise, AFTER it had been established on this earth. Christ did not promise him to ascend with Him to heaven; rather, He promised him heaven on earth.

Let us recall what the thief actually asked Christ: “Lord, remember me, when You come INTO Your Kingdom!” The word for “into” (“eis” in Greek) can mean “into” or “in.”

The thief asked Christ to remember him when He would come in or into His Kingdom, which He would establish here on earth, upon His return. The context of the conversation was that the Jews rejected Christ as the King of the Kingdom Who would rule over them—by contrast, this thief was telling Christ, in effect: “I believe in you. I believe that you are the King. I believe that you will establish God’s Kingdom and government here on earth.” And so, Christ assured the thief that he would be there, when the Kingdom of God would be ruling on and over this earth, and when this earth would have become a Paradise.

The thief did not ask Christ to go with him to heaven. Notice, how the Moffat translation renders Luke 23:42: “And he added, Jesus, do not forget me when you come to reign.”

The Jerusalem Bible has the following annotation to this verse: “‘Jesus,’ he said, ‘remember me when you come into your kingdom,’ or else, ‘in your kingly power,’ i.e., to establish your kingdom. Var. ‘when you come with (i.e., in possession of) your kingdom.’”

The German-speaking “Zuercher Bibel” translates Luke 23:42: “Remember me, when you come with your kingly reign.” The Gute Nachricht writes: “Remember Me when you are King.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary states about this verse: “Then the penitent robber turns to Jesus with a plea to be remembered when He comes in His kingly power… [This rendition of the RSV—rather than “in Your Kingdom”] is supported by excellent authorities and fits the context better. “

But, WHY did Christ say that the thief would be with Him in Paradise “today”—that is, at the time of their death? Or, did He say that?

Let’s ask, first, whether Christ Himself went to Paradise on the day He died. The Bible tells us that He did NOT. Rather, He was dead and buried for three days and three nights. He said that this would be the only sign that He was the Messiah. He said that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so He would be three days and three nights in the grave (Matthew 12:40). And even AFTER He was resurrected, after those three days and three nights, He told Mary in John 20:17: “Do not cling to Me, for I have NOT yet ascended to My Father.”

So, even after three days and three nights in the grave, He had still not gone to Paradise in heaven. Christ had not gone to Paradise the day He died—and neither did the robber. After all, Christ had promised him, in the rendering of the New King James Bible: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

What, then, DID Christ say—and what DID He mean?

In the original Greek, there are no commas. Notice what the Lamsa translation tells us in a footnote to Luke 23:43: “Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.”

This means, rather than stating, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise,” this passage could also be translated as, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Notice the verbatim or interlinear literal rendition of this passage, as stated in the Englishman’s Greek New Testament: “And said to him Jesus: Verily I say to thee today with Me thou shalt be in Paradise.”

The Companion Bible states in its appendix, in paragraph 173, that the interpretation of this verse depends exclusively on the punctuation, which is totally dependent on human authority. They explain that until the 9th century, Greek manuscripts had no punctuation at all, and even after that time, they only had a dot separating words from each other. The Broadman Bible Commentary admits: “It is possible to place the comma after today…”

Christ did not promise the thief that he would be in Paradise the day he died. But since He saw his repentant attitude, He did promise him on that very day that he would be in Paradise—here on earth, in the future.

---

Let us now very carefully examine the Scriptures to see when, exactly, Jesus Christ was resurrected. By counting back three days and three nights, we can also determine, then, when Christ was laid in the grave.

We read in Matthew 28:1–6 (Authorized Version): “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it… And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for HE IS RISEN, AS HE SAID.”

We note from the passage that Christ was already resurrected by the time the women came to the grave. We are told that they appeared “in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Many commentaries point out that this phrase discusses the END of the SABBATH, that is, Saturday evening or late afternoon, and NOT Sunday morning.

The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament renders this verse in this way: “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward (the) first (day) of (the) week, came Mary the Magdalene…”

A.T. Robertson’s Harmony of the Gospel comments: “This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koine Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the Sabbath was over (before 6 p.m. on Saturday).”

Cockrell states: “When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Marys came to the tomb ‘in the end of the sabbath’ (Matth. 28:1). The Sabbath always ended at sunset: ‘From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath’ (Lev. 23:32). Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival (Matth. 28:1–8)…”

The Moffat Bible translates: “At the close of the Sabbath, when the first day was dawning…”

The Elberfelder Bibel reads: “But late at the Sabbath, in the dawn of the first day.” It comments: “Days started at sunset.”

The Lamsa Bible states: “In the evening of the Sabbath, when the first day of the week began to dawn…”

The revised Luther Bibel of 1984 translates: “When the Sabbath was over and the first day of the week began…”

The Menge Bible renders this verse as follows: “But after the Sabbath, when the first day after the Sabbath was about to begin.”

Finally, the revised Zürcher Bible of 1942 states: “After the Sabbath, when it was shining (lightening up) towards the first day of the week…” It adds the following comments: “For the Jews a day began with sunset. The expression [in] Luke 23:54, ‘The Sabbath lightened up…’ [The King James Bible states: “The Sabbath drew on” or “drew near”] does not mean that the morning began, but that lights were kindled for the evening… Whether Matthew 28:1 likewise refers to the evening with which the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began, is not clear.”

However, based on the evidence presented herein, it is very clear that Matthew 28:1 refers to the end of the Sabbath, and NOT to Sunday morning.

For instance, please note the following comments from “The Easter Sermons of Gregory of Nyssa,” edited by Andreas Spira and Christoph Klock, 1981, pages 265, 266, and 269: “The only testimony about the time of resurrection is produced by Matthew 28:1: ‘Late on the sabbath’… That means, explains Gregory, it was already late in the evening (this evening being the beginning of the night before the first day of the week) when the angel came… Matthew alone remains testifying the hour of resurrection on Saturday evening… The time of resurrection is Saturday evening according to Matthew 28:1… The time of resurrection [was] ‘late on the Sabbath.’”

This fact is also established, when considering the meaning of the Greek word, translated in Matthew 28:1, as “in the end of the Sabbath.” The Greek for “in the end of ” is “opse.” It is defined as “late in the evening.” It is not a reference to “early in the morning.” Compare Mark 13:35 and Mark 11:19, where the word “opse” is correctly rendered as “even” or “evening.”

Other passages confirm that Christ was resurrected long before Sunday morning. We read that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb on the first day of the week, when it was still dark, and Jesus was already resurrected by that time (John 20:1). This means, Christ was not resurrected on Sunday morning, at sunrise, but He had already been resurrected, “while it was still dark.” In addition, John 20:1 might not even be talking about events that occurred Sunday morning, “while it was still dark,” but it might be talking about events on Saturday evening, when it was getting darker. In the Greek, the word translated as “still” [or “yet” in other translations] is “eti.” It can also be translated as “more,” “yet more,” or, “still more,” as was done in Revelation 9:12 (“Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things.” Compare New International Version: “two other woes are yet to come”; and New Jerusalem Bible: “there are still two more to come”). In addition, Hebrews 11:32 states: “‘What more shall I say?’” This could mean that John’s account is telling us that the women came to the grave when it was getting “even more” dark—or “darker,” after they had begun their walk to the grave when it was getting dark, at sunset. This would then also refer to events on Saturday night, not on Sunday morning.

A similar explanation can be given for a passage in Luke 24:1, stating: “Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they and certain other women with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.” This passage may not be talking about events on Sunday morning, but it could refer to events occurring Saturday night. Word Studies in the New Testament by Martin Vincent, Volume 1, page 433, explains the correct meaning of the phrase, “very early in the morning”: “Literally, ‘at deep dawn, or the dawn being deep.’… Plutarch says of Alexander that he supped ‘at deep evening,’ i.e. late at night.” In any event, Luke 24:1 does not address the time of the resurrection, but the arrival of certain women at the grave, when the stone was already rolled away from the grave (Luke 24:2).

Some claim that the Bible teaches a Sunday morning resurrection, and use Mark 16:9 as proof. The New King James Bible translates: “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.”

Most commentaries and translators recognize that this is a mistranslation. The original Greek reads, “Now having risen early [the] first [day] of the week he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene…” (Compare The Englishman’s Greek New Testament, giving the Greek Text of Stephens 1550… together with an Interlinear Literal Translation).

Mark 16:9 does not say that Christ arose on the first day of the week. This would be in contradiction to the passage in Matthew 28:1, as discussed. The Scripture in Mark 16:9 tells us the time when He appeared to Mary; not, when He rose from the dead. Cockrell points out: “Mark 16:9 tells us Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene early the first day of the week, which was Saturday after sundown. The nearer after sunset this happened, the earlier in the first of the week it was. Mark does not say that she was alone at the time she first saw Jesus, and Matthew tells us that ‘the other Mary was with her.’ (Matth. 28:1).”

Note that there were no punctuation marks in the original Greek manuscripts. The phrase, “early in the morning” is to be linked with the time of Christ’s appearance, not with the time of His resurrection. By simply placing the comma after the word, “risen,” this verse reads (compare the literal translation from The Englishman’s Greek New Testament, as quoted above): “Now having risen, early [the] first [day] of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene…” In other words, when the first day of the week began, Jesus had already risen, the resurrection having taken place just before sundown of the last day of the week, the weekly Sabbath.

In addition, we can also understand Mark 16:9 in this way: Suppose you had been sick for awhile, but became healthy again on Monday evening. You visit your friend a few hours later for the first time in several days. One could correctly describe this situation as follows: “When you were healthy early Tuesday morning, you visited your friend.” This statement does not say that you became healthy Tuesday morning, but when you visited your friend on Tuesday morning, you were healthy. Likewise, Mark 16:9 does not say that Christ was raised on the first day of the week, but rather, when He appeared to Mary on the first day of the week, He was already risen.

At this point, let us quote from another commentary that recognizes the fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected Saturday afternoon, just before sunset. George Carlow, A Defense of the Sabbath, published his book in 1847. He wrote on pages 103 and 111: “Jesus must needs rise in the evening to complete the time prefixed for his laying dead, which time was what Christ had solemnly declared: ‘As Jonahs [sic] was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son [sic] of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ Matth. 12:40. It is then reasonable to believe, that seeing Christ died before the day was ended in the time of his crucifixion, he did rise before the third day was quite ended in the time of his resurrection… Jesus Christ rose from the dead in the even when the Sabbath ended.”

However, there is one Scripture, Mark 16:2, which clearly talks about events that took place on Sunday morning, at sunrise. It does not address the time of the resurrection, but rather the time of the women’s arrival at the grave. We read: “Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.”

Since we know from other passages that some of the women visited the grave Saturday evening, and we know that Mark 16:2 describes the arrival of some women at the grave early Sunday morning, we must conclude that these Biblical accounts describe several different trips to the grave by various women. In other words, they did not all happen at the same time. This is also supported by the fact that the purposes of the trips to the grave were different. Matthew 28:1 tells us that women came to see the grave. Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1 tell us that certain women came to anoint Christ. We also note that it is not always the same women that are mentioned. While Matthew 28:1 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, Mark 16:1 mentions the two Marys and Salome. Luke 24:1 does not identify the women, but implies that quite a number of women went, at certain times, to the grave (compare Luke 23:55). John 20:1 and Mark 16:9 only mention Mary Magdalene.

Some, in a last ditch effort to preach a Sunday morning resurrection, point out an apparent discrepancy between Matthew 28:9 and John 20:17. While Christ does not allow Mary to touch Him in the book of John, as He had not yet ascended to heaven, He is touched by certain women in Matthew’s account. The rationale given is that in the meantime, He had ascended to heaven and returned to earth, and could now be touched. Therefore, so the argument goes, the account in Matthew must follow the account in John.

But as we saw, John’s account may not be talking about events that occurred on Sunday morning, but on Saturday evening, when it was getting darker. In this case, there would be no contradiction between the two accounts. In addition, we might want to note that Matthew and John are using different words in referring to “touching” Christ. In Matthew 28:9, we are told that they held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. In John’s account, the concept is conveyed that the women, in their joy, were trying to seize Him. The Ryrie Study Bible comments: “Touch Me not—More accurately the command was, ‘Do not continue holding or clinging to Me’ (in order to restrain Him).” The NIV translates: “Do not hold on to me.” The New King James Bible says: “Do not cling to Me.” The RSV says: “Do not hold me.”

---

HOW DID CHRIST DIE?

This question might perhaps surprise some. Isn’t it obvious that Christ died by crucifixion? This is true, of course, but the question still needs to be asked and answered, How— exactly—did He die?

Christ died by shedding His blood (Mark 14:24), and it is through His precious shed blood that we can be saved (1 Peter 1:18–19).

When we read Matthew’s account, in the New King James Bible, we will not find exactly how Christ died. The reason is that this translation omits a crucial verse, at the end of Matthew 27:49. Several translations, as well as many old manuscripts, have retained this missing verse. For instance, verses 49 and 50 read in the Moffat translation: “But the others said, ‘Stop, let us see if Elijah does come to save him!’ (Seizing a lance, another pricked [better, pierced] his side, and out came water and blood.) Jesus again uttered a loud scream, and gave up his spirit.”

The Fenton Bible translates the missing verse as follows: “But another taking a spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out.”

A.T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels, states in a footnote to Matthew 27:49: “Many ancient authorities add: And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.”

The Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, add the following footnote: “Other ancient authorities insert And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood.”

The Vaticanus—a Greek New Testament written in the 300’s A.D., contains the missing verse as well. It reads: “And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came forth water and blood.” The Sinaiticus Codex also contains the verse, and so does the Codex Ephraemi. According to The Testament in Greek, by Wescott and Hort, published in 1896, the missing verse also appears in most Syrian, Egyptian, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic translations. It also appears in Origen’s work [around 200 A.D.]. Walton’s Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, published in 1657, claims, in Vol. VI, on page 6 of the appendix, that this missing verse was still a marginal reading of the Greek text when the King James Version was made.

We need to take note of an additional passage in John’s account. We read in John 19:32–34: “Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.”

This Scripture, the way it is rendered, seems to say that the soldier pierced Christ’s side after He had already died. However, the word “pierced” is in the aorist tense in the original Greek, designating a kind of action, not the time of action. It describes an action done at a single moment, and not continuously, but it does not tell us when the action takes place. Only the context can make this clear. Therefore, in John 19:34, the passage could also be correctly translated as, “But one of the soldiers HAD PIERCED His side with a spear.” From the missing verse in Matthew 27:49, we know that John 19:34 has to be translated, in fact, in the past tense.

Christ shed His blood and died when a soldier pierced His side. Revelation 1:7 testifies: “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even theywho pierced Him.” Compare, too, Zechariah 12:10. We also read, in Luke 2:34–35: “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, ‘Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’” Finally, Isaiah 53:5 prophesied about Christ: “But He was wounded [margin, pierced through] for our transgressions.” The New Testament record confirms that this is how Christ died.

---

The difference in Christ’s reaction toward certain ones of the women was this: Mary Magdalene wanted to cling on to Him, refusing to let Him go (John 20:17). The women in Matthew’s account were afraid (Matthew 28:8, 10). They needed to touch Him to be given comfort and reassurance that it was He (compare Luke 24:36–39; John 20:25). In any event, John’s account cannot be used to support a Sunday morning resurrection!

Since Christ was resurrected on Saturday afternoon—three days and three nights after lying dead in the grave—He would have had to be killed and buried on Wednesday afternoon, exactly 72 hours earlier. But how can this be? How could Christ have been killed and buried on a Wednesday?

Those who have never heard this truth before might be quite astonished to learn that the Bible, indeed, teaches that Christ was killed and buried on Wednesday. Cockrell points out: “According to the Bible, Jesus Christ arose before sunset on Saturday… Having shown from Matthew 28:1 that Jesus rose from the grave as the Sabbath ended at sunset and the first day of the week began, this would put the crucifixion on Wednesday at sunset… According to the gospel writers, Jesus died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m. our time) and was buried about sunset that same day… If Jesus was buried at sunset on Wednesday and arose at sunset on Saturday, He fulfilled the sign of Jonah. He would have been in the grave Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night—a full ‘three nights.’ He would have been in the grave during the daylight of Thursday, Friday and Saturday—a full ‘three days.’ All together a full ‘three days and three nights.’ Thus we have a literal fulfillment of the words of Christ in Matthew 12:40.”

Numerous commentators have confirmed and agree with the historical and Biblical fact that Jesus Christ died and was buried on a WEDNESDAY. Please note the following selection:

Donald Grey Barnhouse, Eternity, June 1958: “… in ancient Christian traditions, attested to by the Didascalia Apostolorum as well as by Epiphanius and Victorinus of Petau (who died in 304 A.D.), gives Tuesday evening as the date of the Last Supper and prescribes a fast for Wednesday to commemorate the capture [and subsequent trial and crucifixion] of Christ.”

W.L. Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered, p. 182: “To us it is perfectly obvious that crucifixion was on Wednesday.”

Finis Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, page 13, note on Matthew 12:40: “Christ was dead for three full days and three full nights. He was put in the grave Wednesday just before sunset and was resurrected at the end of Saturday at sunset.”

R. A. Torrey, Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible, 1907, pp. 104–109: “… the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified was Wednesday… everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming discrepancies in the gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to understand that Jesus died on Wednesday, and not on Friday.”

George Carlow, A Defense of the Sabbath, states on page 109: “Christ was crucified and died… Wednesday, at the end of which day our blessed Jesus was buried, from which time to the end of the seventh-day Sabbath was three days and three nights, the term of time that our Lord foretold he should lie in the grave. Matt. 12:40.”

James A. Walther, The Chronology of Passion Week, in Journal of Biblical Literature, June 1958: “References in the Didascalia, in Epiphanius, in Victorinus of Petau… support the Tuesday [night] Passover dating and the subsequent arrest of Jesus in the morning hours of Wednesday.”

Finally, the Companion Bible, published by Oxford University Press, explains in its Appendix 156 that Christ was crucified on a Wednesday.

But again, we ask, How could it be that Christ was crucified on a Wednesday? Isn’t it obvious from John 19:30–42 that Christ was crucified on the “preparation day before the Sabbath,” that is, on Friday?

Again, let us carefully review the passage in the 19th chapter of John. We read: “So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. Therefore, because it was THE PREPARATION DAY that the bodies should not remain on the cross ON THE SABBATH (FOR THAT SABBATH WAS A HIGH DAY), the Jews asked Pilate… that they might be taken away… After this, Joseph of Arimathea… asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus… So he came and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus… also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in strips of linen with the spices… Now in the place where He was crucified there was… a new tomb… So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ PREPARATION DAY, for the tomb was NEARBY” (verses 30–31, 38–42).

From this, some claim that the “preparation day” refers to the day before the weekly Sabbath, and so they teach that Christ was crucified on Friday. If this were true, then Christ was not our Messiah, as He would have FAILED TO FULFILL THE ONLY SIGN that He gave as PROOF of His Messiahship! If He was crucified on Friday, then He did NOT lie in the grave for three days and three nights! Therefore, Jesus Christ would have been an IMPOSTER, and YOU and I would not have our sins forgiven.

Those who claim that the preparation day refers to the day before the weekly Sabbath overlook the fact that the word “Sabbath” can refer to the weekly Sabbath, as well as to the seven annual Holy Days, which are also called Sabbaths in the Bible (compare Leviticus 16:29–31; 23:24, 26–32, 34–35, 39). Annual Sabbaths can fall on any day in a given week. The Elberfelder Bible explains that the preparation day was “a weekday before the Sabbath or a Festival.” For a thorough discussion of this fact, please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”

In John 19, the reference is to the Preparation Day of an annual Holy Day, NOT of the weekly Sabbath. It was the Preparation Day of the Passover (John 19:14), which, by the way, refers to the entire Passover season and, in particular, the First Day of Unleavened Bread—the first annual Holy Day of the year—according to the Hebrew calendar. The Bible says that “that” particular Sabbath was a “high day”—an annual Holy Day. In the crucifixion year, that particular annual Holy Day or HIGH Sabbath fell on Thursday.

Cockrell points out: “The first day of the Passover week, no matter on what day of the week it came, was always an annual Sabbath… The Bible makes it plain, Jesus was crucified and buried on ‘…the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42). John tells us: ‘And it was the preparation of the Passover’ (John 19:14)…. It was the preparation to keep the Passover Sabbath—the annual Sabbath which always came on the 15th day of the first ecclesiastical month. John 19:31 adds: ‘for that Sabbath day was an high day…’ Its greatness was due to the fact that it was the annual Sabbath of the Passover Festival.”

The Menge Bible includes the following annotation to John 19:31: “This Sabbath day was a high Feast day.”

In addition, Matthew 28:1 also reveals—correctly translated—that there were actually two “Sabbaths” during the crucifixion week, a weekly Sabbath and an annual Sabbath. Cockrell points out: “Matthew makes it plain that two Sabbaths had passed since Jesus was crucified. The KJV [Authorized Version] has this rendering: ‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre’ (Matth. 28:1). On this verse nearly all translators have allowed tradition to control their translation. It is not ‘Sabbath’ but ‘Sabbaths’ in the Greek text (the genitive case and the plural number). The verse properly translated would read: ‘In the end of the Sabbaths…’ This allows for an annual Sabbath on Thursday and a regular Sabbath on Saturday.”

The Fenton Bible renders this verse correctly as, “after the Sabbaths,” and it includes the following footnote: “The Greek original is in the plural, ‘Sabbaths,’ which is retained.”

Alfred Marshall’s Parallel New Testament in Greek and English likewise translate the clause as, “after the Sabbaths.”

In the Greek, the word for “Sabbath” in the clause, “after the Sabbath,” is “sabbata.” This is the plural form of “sabbaton,” and it is translated elsewhere many times (but unfortunately, not always, and not consistently) in the plural.

For instance, we read in Matthew 12:5 (Authorized Version): “… how that on the sabbath days [in Greek, “sabbata”] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath [Greek, “sabbaton”].”

Matthew 12:10 (AV) states: “‘Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?’” The Greek is, “sabbata.”

Luke 4:31 (AV) reads: “… and taught them on the sabbath days [Greek, “sabbata.”].” The New King James Bible translates this word quite accurately here as, “Sabbaths.”

Further examples can be found in Luke 6:2, 9; Colossians 2:16; and Acts 17:2.

An interesting example can be gleaned from Acts 16:13. The AV translates, quite inaccurately, “And on the sabbath we went out to the city by a river side…” In the Greek, the word for Sabbath” is “sabbata”—the plural form—and should be translated as Sabbath days, or Sabbaths. Commentaries point out that this happened on the day of Pentecost. So the Sabbaths referred to here, describe the weekly Sabbath and the following annual Holy Day of Pentecost, which always falls on a Sunday. The word “sabbata” describes the time period of two Sabbaths. The same concept is conveyed in Matthew 28:1. Here, too, the Greek word is “sabbata,” so it should read: “In the end of the Sabbaths,” or “…Sabbath days.”

There is additional proof that there had to be two Sabbaths during the crucifixion week. We read in Mark 16:1: “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.” [Note that the Authorized Version incorrectly translates, “had bought sweet spices.” This rendering is blatantly false. The Greek text is clear that the tense is past, not past perfect. It reads correctly, as rendered by virtually all other translations, “… bought spices.”]

But, we read in Luke 23:54–56: “… the Sabbath drew near… They observed the tomb and how the body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”

Do you notice the apparent contradiction if one holds on to the idea that there was only one Sabbath—the weekly Sabbath—during the crucifixion week? Mark 16:1 tells us that the women bought the spices after the Sabbath. Luke 23:56 tells us that they prepared the spices before the Sabbath. Obviously, before one can prepare the spices, one must have first bought them. This means, then, unless one wants to claim that the Bible contains contradictions (but if it does, it is worthless), that there must have been two Sabbaths that week: The women bought the spices and prepared them after the annual Sabbath on Thursday (compare Mark 16:1), then they rested on the weekly Sabbath on Saturday (compare Luke 23:54–56), and then they came, after the weekly Sabbath, to anoint Christ.

Cockrell points out: “The traditional interpretation makes Mark and Luke contradict each other. In Mark 16:1 we are informed that the Sabbath was past when the spices were purchased. ‘Had’ is inserted [in the Authorized Version] without any authority from the Greek text. ‘No reason can be given for the variation—bought sweet spices. Not had bought’ (An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 11, p. 251). In Luke 23:56 we are told that the women prepared the spices and ointments, and rested on the Sabbath day. If Jesus lay in the grave on Sabbath only, Mark and Luke contradict each other. But if He lay there two Sabbaths having a work day between them, then Mark and Luke harmonize to perfection.”

Some claim that Luke 24:21 denies the fact that Christ was crucified on Wednesday and that He was resurrected Saturday afternoon, just before sunset. They say that this passage negates the fact that Christ was dead in the grave for three days and three nights. Luke reports about the two disciples on the road to the village on Emmaus. They are traveling Sunday morning and say that “today is the third day since these things happened.” However, this claim is ludicrous.

As Cockrell explains: “Some make much over the ‘third day’ in Luke 24:21, and they affirm that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is simple. These things were done [including the setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb the following day, or Thursday] just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were thereby completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and the ‘third day since’ Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the Wednesday crucifixion. But if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made ‘the third day since’ these things were done” (Emphasis added).

Jesus Christ is our Messiah. He fulfilled the sign of His Messiahship just as He had said. He was dead, and in the grave for three days and three nights. But He is not dead anymore. He is alive today! He serves as our High Priest, and we are waiting for His Coming!

---

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DURING CRUCIFIXION WEEK

Tuesday evening until Wednesday evening*

• Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover on Tuesday evening, after sunset.
• Jesus is betrayed and arrested Tuesday night (Matthew 26:47)
• Jesus is brought before Annas and Caiaphas Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, after midnight (John 18:13, 24)
• Jesus is mocked and beaten in the early dark hours of Wednesday morning (Luke 22:63)
• Jesus is scourged and crucified during the daylight hours on Wednesday. He dies Wednesday afternoon about 3 p.m. (Matthew 27:46–50). This is the Preparation Day before the annual Holy Day or Sabbath of the First Day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 23:54; Mark 15:42; John 19:31)
• Jesus is buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus on Wednesday, at sunset (Matthew 27:57–66)

Thursday

• First Day of Unleavened Bread, the High Day, an annual Sabbath.
• The women rest on this annual Sabbath (Mark 16:1)
• This is the first 24 hours day during which Jesus is in the grave.

Friday

• The women buy and prepare spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56)
• This is the second 24 hours day during which Jesus is in the grave.

Saturday

• Weekly Sabbath, on which women rest, who had purchased and prepared the spices (Luke 23:56)
• This is the third 24 hours day during which Jesus is in the grave.
• Christ rises Saturday evening, at the end of the weekly Sabbath, around sunset, exactly three days and three nights after He has been buried and placed in the grave (Matthew 28:1)
• Women come to see the grave, in the end of the weekly Sabbath (Matthew 28:1).

Saturday evening, after sunset

• Mary Magdalene visits the grave, when it is getting darker (John 20:1)
• Women visit the grave at “deep dawn,” or late at night (Luke 24:1)

Sunday morning

• Women visit the grave Sunday morning, at sunrise (Mark 16:2)
• Two disciples walk to Emmaus and discuss the events that took place, beginning with Thursday (Luke 24:13–21)

*Remember that days start and end with sunset, in accordance with the Hebrew Calendar

---

Part 6

The Need For Christ’s Sacrifice

We have all heard it said that “Christ died for our sins.” What does this mean for mankind? What does it mean to you as an individual? Why is it important that you understand this statement? Or is it important at all? Have you given any thought as to why it should make a difference to you?

In this chapter, we will help you understand why it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that Jesus Christ die for you and me! AND what consequences Christ’s death should have in the way we live our lives! You will then be able to answer the question: What does it really mean when we say that “Christ died for our sins”?

We All Have Sinned!

To begin with, it is foundational that you understand that every human being is a sinner—EVERYONE SINS! Only one human being did not, and that was Jesus Christ. But you and I are not that person. We cannot say of ourselves that we have not sinned and that we will not sin anymore. 1 Kings 8:46 tells us that there is no one who does not sin. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says: “there is not a just man on earth who…does not sin.” 1 John 1:8–10 explains that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, and that if we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Job deceived himself because he thought he was without sin (Job 10:6–7). Do we sometimes believe that too? If we do, we make God a liar, because it is God who says that we ALL have sinned and still DO sin. Every human being needs constant forgiveness of his or her sins, because every human being has sinned, and still does sin.

Romans 5:12 also tells us that all human beings have sinned, and consequently, all are guilty and are condemned to death. Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin is death.” Wages are something we earn for our work. If we sin, we are paid for that: our wages for sin is death—eternal death—from which there is NO RESURRECTION to life. Romans 3:9, 23 explains that we are all under sin and have fallen short of God’s glory. Being under sin means that sin rules over us. We are slaves of sin. And as sinners, we cannot attain to God’s glory. God wants us to have His glory—eternal life—but we will not acquire it as long as we are “sinners”—as long as we practice the way of sin.

The ONLY way to attain the glory that God wants to give us through a resurrection, is by realizing and accepting what CHRIST did for us, and by acting accordingly in our daily living.

In order to fully appreciate that it is ONLY through the death and resurrection and the life of Jesus Christ that we can be spared from eternal death and attain eternal life, we need to first comprehend that there is NOTHING you and I can do in this life to eradicate the death penalty that we have already incurred through our sins. For example, penance—voluntary self-punishment in order to “atone” for some wrongdoing—is a concept not taught at all in Scripture.

We are, in essence, convicted criminals who wait for our execution, which would surely be carried out unless someone pardons us—unless we somehow obtain mercy so that our execution will not be carried out. Romans 3:19–20 makes it clear that keeping the law today does not, and would not, justify or nullify our past sins. Proverbs 20:9 asks the rhetorical question: “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean? I am pure from my sin’?” It is a rhetorical question, as no human being can say that. NOTHING we can do now can save us from the death penalty that we have already earned because of violating God’s law. We cannot dismiss our sins!

Christ Never Sinned!

As alluded to before, there is only ONE human being who has never sinned. That human being was Jesus Christ. As we fully covered in Part II, He gave up His divinity to become a human being. But He had God’s Holy Spirit within Him from the day of His conception, without measure or limit (John 3:34), and it was this Spirit within Him that gave Him the power to resist and overcome sin. Christ never sinned! He asked in John 8:46: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?”

1 Peter 2:21–22 confirms that Christ committed no sin. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that He was without sin, although He was tempted in all points just as we are tempted today.

But to remain sinless was not an easy task for Christ. As a human being, He faced the same temptations that you and I face, AND it WAS POSSIBLE for Christ to sin! Why else would Satan have tried to tempt Him to sin? Why else did Christ have to pray to God to give Him the power and strength to resist sin? Why else did He ask God to give Him the ability to submit His will to the Father’s will?

Hebrews 5:7–9 explains that Christ prayed to God with vehement cries and tears in order to be saved from the second death—the eternal death. Luke 12:49–50; 22:44 show that He was DISTRESSED about His death. As a human being, He did not want to die such a terrible death. Luke 22:39–44 reports that God, the Father, sent an angel to Christ to strengthen Him, so that He could go through His preordained trial and crucifixion. Matthew 26:36–39 tells us that Christ prayed to the Father to obtain the help needed to submit His will to the Father’s will.

And so we see that, although it was humanly POSSIBLE for Christ to sin, He did not sin! Christ conquered sin! He was victorious over sin! He NEVER gave in to temptation! This is important for us to understand because by, and through His death, our sins can be paid for and forgiven. WHY is this the case? Because Christ’s life was more valuable than the lives of all of mankind combined, because it was He who created mankind (compare Colossians 1:17). The value of the Creator is undeniably far more than the total value of everything He creates.

Christ Paid for Our Sins

Again, Christ became a human being to free us from sin and from the penalty for sinning. Do we fully understand and appreciate what this means and what it includes?

John 1:29 identifies Christ as a lamb upon which the sins of the world were placed—like a burden under which the world is suffering. He carried those sins away. Isaiah 53:6, 11, confirms that God the Father laid our sins on Christ. He bore OUR iniquity! Jesus was, throughout His human life, the lamb that would have to die, thereby carrying our sins away (Isaiah 53:7).

As the Lamb of God, He was made the “propitiation” by His blood for those who have “faith in Jesus,” as Romans 3:25–26 explains. The margin of the New King James Bible explains that the word “propitiation” has the meaning of “mercy seat.” In Hebrews 9:5 it is translated as “mercy seat.” The NIV renders it as “sacrifice for atonement.” The meaning conveyed then, is that Jesus Christ paid for our sins through His blood.

God the Father passes over our sins when He sees Christ’s blood covering them, just as the death angel passed over the ancient Israelites when he saw the blood on the doorposts of the houses. The death angel would not kill the Israelites where there was the blood of the Passover lamb. Our sins will not kill us either, because of what Christ—the true Passover Lamb—did for us. HOWEVER, Christ’s blood covers only those sins that we PREVIOUSLY committed. That means, once we repent of our sins and turn to God and accept forgiveness for our sins by claiming Christ’s sacrifice, we are NOT to turn back and start sinning again. We have no LICENSE to sin after our previous sins have been forgiven (compare Romans 6:1–2).

Just as Christ died a human death, so WE are to die to sin. That means we are to “sin no more!” Christ removed our sins from each of us and placed them on Himself, like a sheep carries a load, and He died with them. WE are not to resurrect those sins for which, and with which, Christ died!

But, we read earlier that we WILL sin from time to time. Even now, there is NO ONE who does not sin. This happens because we are weak and because we still have bad habits that sometimes come to the surface. We might easily just give in to them, perhaps because we are not as close to God as we should be. In any event, we sin because we are still flesh and blood, but we don’t like it. We try to get rid of it. We don’t want to do it. When it happens, however, and when we come to our senses and repent and try desperately not to continue in it, God will forgive us even then—because of Christ’s death. 1 John 2:1–2 tells us: “… And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Christ came to die for us, to pay the death penalty on our behalf, so that we—you and I—don’t have to die the SECOND death.

Perfect Sacrifice

In order to come to the point of DYING for our SINS—to be a perfect sacrifice that the Father would accept—Christ had to fulfill certain requirements, as follows:

1. He had to become a human being. Galatians 4:4–5 explains that He had to be born of a woman; that is, He had to become flesh and blood, a human being. Spirit beings do not and cannot die.
2. He had to become sin for us, as 2 Corinthians 5: 21 explains. This does not mean that He sinned while He was human. But it does mean that He BECAME sin, that He personified sin in the Father’s eyes, so that His shed blood could COVER sin and wipe it away. He—the Lamb of God—placed our sins on Himself, and He, in that sense, BECAME THOSE SINS. In God’s eyes, when Christ was killed, all those sins were eradicated with Him.
3. He had to become a curse for us, as Galatians 3:13 points out. He became a curse for us when He was crucified. In becoming a curse for us, He freed us from the curse that we were under. When we violated God’s law and sinned, the curse of the law—the death penalty—was upon us. Notice that when we sin, we are placed under the curse of the law. Galatians 3:10 tells us: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” James 2:10 adds: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” When we break one of God’s commandments, we are guilty of transgressing God’s law, and the curse of God’s law—the death penalty for sin—is upon us. If this curse were not removed, we would die the second death—eternal death. Notice this in the sobering example given by Christ in Matthew 25:41–46 where Christ is referring to people who have sinned, because when they had the ability to help others in need, they actually held back and refused to extend the needed help. They apparently sinned willfully and maliciously, so that their penalty—their curse—was eternal death in gehenna fire. But Christ became that curse for us so that the curse CAN be removed from us, IF, and WHEN we repent and claim His perfect sacrifice.
4. He had to come in the form of sinful flesh, as Romans 8:3 explains: “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh [humans were too weak to keep it], God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.” Christ was a human being, like you and I. He was exposed to the same human temptations that confront us. He had the same human nature that we have. He was in the form of sinful flesh. He did not sin, but His sinful flesh tempted Him many times to sin. However, Christ overcame His sinful desires, and by doing so, He “condemned sin in His flesh,” that is, He showed that man, with the help of God’s Spirit within him, can overcome sin. He came, as a human being, “on account of sin.” He had to, and did, overcome sin IN THE FLESH.
5. Christ had to experience being separated from God the Father. Matthew 27:45–46 records that just prior to Christ’s death, while hanging on the cross, He asked the Father: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Yes, indeed, WHY?

WHY did God forsake Him? Before we answer that, we need to understand what sin does to us. Isaiah 59:1–2 explains that our sins, unrepented of, separate us from God. God will not hear our prayers if we live in sin. It can be compared with a wall between God and us.

Habakuk 1:13 adds that God cannot look on, or accept, wickedness. Good and evil are not compatible, and God, who is good, cannot and will not accept evil. So, God does not regard the prayers of an unrepentant sinner. Deuteronomy 23:12–14 explains the principle that God does not want to see something unclean in a person. If the uncleanness is not taken care of, He will turn away from us and forsake us. Finally, Psalm 5:5 points out that God will not allow a boastful evil person to stand before Him. God will not hear somebody who is proud about his or her sins and who is not willing to repent of them.

But why did God forsake Christ who never sinned, who was never boastful or unclean or wicked or evil?

We know already that Christ had become sin for us, that the curse of the law for our sins was upon Him when He was crucified. We also read that at the time of His crucifixion, just prior to His death, something remarkable happened. We are told that it became DARK over all the land from the sixth to the ninth hour. What is the significance of this period of darkness?

Darkness symbolizes sin, as many Scriptures reveal (Compare Romans 13:12; Ephesians 5:8–14). When Christ had all the sins of mankind placed upon Him, thereby having “become” sin, in that sense, He had to experience separation from God, the Father! God, the Father saw all of the sins of man placed on His Son and He could not look at them. His eyes were “purer than to behold” those sins. Remember, those sins included mass murders, rapes, terrible wars, tortures, sorceries, demonic idolatries, holocausts, martyrdom of the saints—all of the wicked, evil, rotten, despicable and deplorable abominations man has done, and continues to do—and all of these were placed on Christ!

Christ was WILLING to offer Himself as this sacrifice for us. And the Father was WILLING to have His Son go through this ordeal, knowing that He would have to withdraw from Him at the time of Christ’s death.

And what a sacrifice it was! Christ, who had been forsaken by everybody, had always found comfort in the fact that God, the Father, would never forsake Him (compare John 16:32). But at that moment in time, God, the Father, would HAVE TO FORSAKE HIM, not because of anything that Christ had done, but because of what WE had done and would still do.

Christ Died So We Could Be Reconciled to the Father

We have seen that Christ’s death and sacrifice were necessary to make it possible for us to obtain God’s forgiveness for our sins. What else did Christ’s death accomplish?

Christ died for us, so that we could gain personal access to God, the Father. We were cut off from God—separated from God—because of our sins. We could not get through to God in a personal way. But, when Christ died, something happened. Matthew 27:50–51 reports that the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom. This temple in Jerusalem symbolized the temple of God in heaven. The veil was torn from top to bottom, showing that God in heaven did it, not anyone on the earth. This event depicted the fact that from that point on, man’s prayers could reach God in His heavenly temple, because our sins, which previously separated us from God, had been forgiven. We now had personal access to God, as Revelation 8:3–4 describes. Compare, too, Hebrews 10:19–22: “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest [God’s throne in heaven] by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God [the Church], let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

The veil that prevented our prayers from reaching God, the Father, was torn by God Himself, showing that God accepted Christ’s sacrifice as sufficient payment for our sins! It also showed that our prayers could now come before God and that they would be accepted. We have this special access to God, the Father, as long as we are in a state of purity from sin, that is sinless, and as long as we are sincerely repentant if and when we do sin, so that He can “forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Christ died for us so that we could be reconciled to God the Father.

We read in Romans 5:10: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son…” Colossians 1:21–22 adds: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death…”

Christ reconciled us to God the Father. We became God’s friends. The animosity ceased. Reconciliation means, “to bring back to friendship after an estrangement.” But more is involved. In German, the word for “reconciliation” is “Versöhnung.” This word includes the word, “Sohn” [in English, “son”]. Reconciliation with God describes a process of becoming His literal sons and daughters. Without Christ’s death, we would still be God’s enemies and could never become His friends, let alone His sons and daughters.

Christ Died So We Could Be Set Free

Christ died so that we could be released. Matthew 20:28 tells us that Christ came to give His life as a “ransom” for many. To give something as a ransom for a person means to “secure the release of a person for a required price, as from captivity or detention.”

From what, exactly, did Christ release us?

Christ released us—set us free—from transgressions, sins, iniquity and our sinful nature. Hebrews 9:12 tells us that we have obtained “eternal redemption.” “Redemption” means, “to regain possession of by paying a price; to pay off, to set free.” We have been set free, eternally, from transgressions or sins (compare Hebrews 9:15). Titus 2:14 adds: “… who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” We have been freed from “every lawless deed.” Sin is not supposed to RULE over us anymore. Rather, we are now supposed to rule over sin.

In addition, Christ released us from Satan, the devil. We read in Colossians 1:13–14 that we are delivered from the power of darkness and that we have redemption through Christ’s blood, the forgiveness of sins. We have been set free or delivered from Satan through the forgiveness of our sins! Originally, Satan had power over us, because through our sins, we were his slaves and, at the same time, we were God’s enemies. But as we are told in Hebrews 2:14–15: “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power over death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

Christ released us from the devil and his power. The devil was a mankiller or murderer from the beginning. He deceived mankind to sin. Since death is the penalty of sin, Satan was ruling over them. We were not God’s children, but Satan’s. Notice John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…”

Mankind had become captured by the devil and was subsequently enslaved to his ways of rebellion, competition, hatred, murder, and deceitfulness. Christ came to release man from his spiritual captivity by paying the required ransom price. He set us free from sin and Satan. BUT, if we continue sinning, we come again under Satan’s rule, and unless we repent, Satan will have enslaved us again—he will have WON! Notice 2 Timothy 2:24–26: “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”

We have seen, then, that Christ died to release us from our sinful nature, from sin itself, and from the devil and his power. Christ bought us through His death! We became the property of Christ and God, the Father. The ransom price that Christ paid was His very own blood (compare Acts 20:28; 2 Peter 2:1, 18–20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Revelation 5:9). We were redeemed or purchased by God, to become His property. God gained possession of us! As God’s property, we are to follow and live the way we are told by our owner, God, the Father, and Jesus Christ. Romans 6:11, 13, 22, tells us: “Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord… present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God… But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”

We saw that Christ’s death redeemed us. Our redemption BEGAN with His death. But our ultimate redemption—being born again—is still in the future. We read in Ephesians 4:30: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom [better, which] you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Note, too, Ephesians 1:13–14: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who [better, which] is the guarantee [margin: down payment, earnest] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

What, then, is our ultimate redemption? From what are we to be set free ultimately?

Romans 8:23 explains: “Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption [better, sonship], the redemption of our body.” Our ultimate redemption is to be free from this mortal, temporary body of flesh and blood, and to obtain a glorious, immortal, eternal spiritual body. If we are alive at the return of Christ, we will be changed instantly to spirit, or, if we died before His return, we will be resurrected to immortality (compare 1 Corinthians 15:51–54).

Christ Died So We Could Become Justified

Finally, Christ died so that we could become justified. Romans 5:9 points out: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” But justification does not mean that we can now continue to live in sin. Rather, we read in the very next verse: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Christ’s life brings about our salvation, after His death justified us and reconciled us with God. But how?

Romans 8:3–4 explains: “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

The righteous requirements of God’s law will be fulfilled IN us. This is only possible when Christ lives IN us, through the Holy Spirit! This is how we can be saved and live through His life. Christ lives IN US His life of overcoming and conquering sin. He IS COMING again, in the flesh (2 John 7), to live His life in the flesh—OUR flesh. He lives in us through the Holy Spirit and we must follow the lead of the Holy Spirit as we go about our daily lives (compare Romans 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”). We must allow Christ to live His life in us.

We are not just or righteous because of our own selves. God alone is just and righteous. We have to look for, search, and try to attain God’s righteousness. God has to give us His righteousness as a gift (compare Romans 5:17). We have to replace whatever righteousness we may think we have on our own with God’s righteousness. That is something Job, who did not want to give up “his” righteousness, had to learn. Once we receive that gift of God’s righteousness, we have to allow the righteous Christ to live, and to continue to live, His life in us. Paul said about himself, in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in [better: of] the Son of God.”

We are asked to find out to what extent Christ lives His life in us (compare 2 Corinthians 13:5). We are asked to find out to what extent we are willing to let Christ in us overcome and conquer sin and our sinful nature.

It all starts with our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. Some have wondered whether we should use the expression, “We must accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.” The reason for their concern is that this expression is used by many Protestant churches to say that Christ accepts us as we are, without any need on our part to change. This concept of not needing to change is, of course, entirely false. The Bible teaches that we MUST CHANGE, and that Jesus Christ does not accept us “as we are.” Our booklet, “Baptism—a Requirement for Salvation?” explains in detail that we must repent BEFORE Christ will accept us, and, before we can even properly “accept” the sacrifice He made for us.

The mere fact that some misuse and misapply a certain Biblical term or concept is not reason enough for us to not use it. For instance, many preach a wrong gospel message (compare Galatians 1:6–9), or even a false “Jesus” (compare 2 Corinthians 11:4). This does not mean, however, that God’s Church should therefore refrain from using the terms “gospel” or “Jesus.”

In regard to the expression, “accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior,” the Church has used similar language for a long time (as it has used, of course, the terms “gospel” or “Jesus” for a very long time). As early as 1948, Mr. Armstrong wrote about “our acceptance of [Christ’s] death, burial and resurrection,” and our belief “on Jesus Christ as personal Savior.” (Compare the Worldwide Church of God’s old booklet on water baptism, copyrighted 1948, 1954, and 1972, pp. 11 and 15.)

These expressions are Biblical. We understand, of course, that believing on Christ (compare Acts 19:4; Romans 10:14; Philippians 1:29; 1 Timothy 1:16) includes obeying Him (compare Matthew 7:21–23; Luke 6:46; John 15:14). We must indeed accept Christ’s sacrifice and Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. At the same time, we must also accept God, the Father, as our personal Savior, as BOTH deserve that title. Remember, we read in John 3:16 that “God [the Father] so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

We are told in several Scriptures that Jesus Christ is our personal Savior. Isaiah 43:3 reads, quoting the “LORD” of the Old Testament, generally a reference to Jesus Christ: “For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, YOUR SAVIOR.” Also, we are told in Luke 1:47 that God the Father is our personal Savior. When Mary was told by the angel that she would give birth to Jesus, she stated, “And my spirit has rejoiced in God MY SAVIOR.”

Christ was recognized by the Samaritans as the “Savior of the World” (John 4:42). At the same time, God, the Father, is called “the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10).

In 2 Timothy 1:10, Christ is called “OUR Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” In Titus 1:4, Paul is wishing Titus “Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ OUR Savior.”

We Must Accept Jesus Christ

The Bible conveys the concept that we must ACCEPT Jesus Christ—and what He did and still does for us—as our personal Savior. That is, we must accept Christ as the One who died for us individually and personally, and who, thereby, made possible a way for us to escape death and obtain salvation. Christ died for you and me! The amazing and mind-boggling truth is that if you had been the only person on the face of the earth, and if you had only sinned once, Christ still would have had to die for you, to offer you salvation. His death is to be understood quite personally. Paul understood it that way. Although he explained that Christ died for all of us, he also emphasized the very personal sacrifice that Christ brought for him. He stated in Galatians 2:20 that Christ, the Son of God, “loved ME and gave Himself for ME.”

We read in Colossians 2:6 that “as you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” The Revised English Bible, as well as the Luther Bible and the Menge Bible, render this phrase in this way, “Since you have ACCEPTED Christ Jesus AS Lord, live in union with him.”

Before baptism, we must accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, the one who was willing, through His sacrifice, to pay on our behalf the death penalty for our sins (compare Romans 6:23). We must also accept Jesus Christ as the One who is now living His life in us. After all, as we saw already, we WILL BE SAVED BY CHRIST LIVING IN US. Romans 5:8–10 reads: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we SHALL BE SAVED from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son [by accepting Christ’s sacrifice, the process of our salvation began], much more, having been reconciled, we SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE.” Christ is willing to live His life in us, but we must follow and be submissive to His lead. Our ultimate salvation will come when we will be changed into Spirit beings.

We read that we “shall be saved” by Christ’s LIFE. Paul said in Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me…” Both God, the Father, and Jesus Christ live in a converted person, through the Holy Spirit. Christ told us in John 14:23, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make OUR home with him.” (To learn more about the Biblical teaching that BOTH the Father and the Son live in a converted person, please read our free booklet, “Is God a Trinity?”)

Christ, who was God, became man. He died for us. God the Father resurrected Him and restored Him to His former glory as a God being. He is ALIVE! He is the Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is our High Priest, intervening on our behalf before God, the Father. He helps us in time of need, having experienced how it is to live in the flesh. And most importantly, He is living His life in us now, through the Holy Spirit of God, to help us to become more and more perfect, so that we, too, can become glorified God beings in the Family and Kingdom of God.

Paul explains this process, and the awesome task and function of Jesus Christ, in Ephesians 5:25–27: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water [baptism] by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

In letting Christ live His life in us, the Church will have made herself ready when the time of ultimate redemption arrives (compare Revelation 19:7–8). The question is, Will you be ready?

Part 7

The Day of Christ’s Return

Christ promised that He would return to this earth—at the end of this age—to establish the Kingdom of God.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Christ three questions: “‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the SIGN of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’” Christ had just spoken about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (vv. 1–2). The disciples wanted to know more about the destruction of the temple, erroneously believing that that event would coincide with Christ’s return. As it turned out, the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., but Christ’s return would not occur for quite some time. Christ explained to them that numerous significant events would have to happen before He would return.

In Mark 13:4, the disciples are quoted as asking, “‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the SIGN when all these things will be fulfilled?’”

In the accounts of both Matthew and Mark, Christ pointed out that the preaching of the gospel in all the world to all nations must precede His coming and the end of the age. He said in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom WILL BE preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” He is quoted as saying in Mark 13:10, “And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.” The fact that the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God in all the world was given as a SIGN for Christ’s return, shows that this gospel had NOT been preached to the world for a long time. Of course, “a” gospel was preached—the gospel “about” Christ—but not the gospel OF Christ—the very same message that Christ brought. Christ was a messenger with a message from God the Father, and He brought and proclaimed the gospel or good news about the Kingdom of God (compare Mark 1:1, 14–15). The Church of God has the commission—the obligation and responsibility—to proclaim this very same gospel message today.

The Sign of Christ’s Return

As stated above, the disciples asked Christ for the “SIGN” of His coming. The Greek word for “SIGN” is “semeion.” It conveys the meaning of a “signal” (Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) or an “indication” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). It can also convey the meaning of “miracle” or “wonder”” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).

For instance, the unbelieving Jews at Christ’s time—called by Christ a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 16:4)—were only given the “SIGN” of Jonah to confirm that Christ was the Messiah. As Jonah became a “SIGN” to the Ninevites (Luke 11:30)—being three days and three nights in the belly of the whale—so Christ would become a “SIGN” to the Jews of His time—being three days and three nights (72 hours) in the grave (Matthew 12:39–40). Tragically, orthodox Christianity has rejected the ONLY sign that Christ gave to the Jews, proving His Messiahship. Many professing Christians falsely claim that Christ was only in the grave from Friday evening to Sunday morning, much less than the prophesied 72 hours. They have, thereby, rejected Jesus Christ—the only name through which man can be saved (Acts 4:12).

In addition, an angel gave the shepherds in the field a SIGN that Christ had been born, the sign of “a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).

These SIGNS were to prove to the people at the time of Christ that the Messiah was born, that Christ was the long-awaited Messiah. In the same way, the fact that the true gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD is being preached in all the world as a witness or testimony—for instance through the tools of the printing press and the Internet—is a SIGN today, to those with understanding (Daniel 12:10), that Christ’s return is imminent.

It is an undeniable fact that the true gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached to the world during the lifetime of Herbert W. Armstrong, the late human leader of the Church of God. Consider this quote from those who strongly opposed what was taught: “But for the modest size of his movement, Herbert W. Armstrong was a well-known figure in religious circles for most of half a century. It was hard to find anyone who had not seen an issue of The Plain Truth magazine or heard The World Tomorrow radio and television broadcasts” (Christianity Today, June 10, 2002, Vol. 46, No. 7, article titled, “From the Fringe to the Fold”).

It is likewise an undeniable fact that Mr. Armstrong died in 1986, and that Christ has not yet returned. This means, then, that God’s Church has the continuing obligation to preach the gospel in all the world as a witness. Christ made it very clear that the gospel would still be preached at the time of His return. He told His disciples in Matthew 28:19–20 that He would be with them “always, even to the END of the age,” while they were “making disciples of all the nations” (a logical consequence of the Church’s preaching the gospel in all the world, compare Romans 10:14–15). Christ also said that those who would be doing God’s Work of preaching His gospel would not have finished it, even in the cities of Israel, when He returns (Matthew 10:23).

Christ told His servants that they must not be unprofitable, but that they must be found DOING the Work of God when Christ returns (Matthew 24:46; James 1:25). If they were to refuse to preach the gospel, although possessing the means to do so, and if they were falsely believing and proclaiming the Work to be over, they would be held accountable by Christ. There are those today who have different ideas that don’t correspond with Scripture, thinking that they know better. If that is the case and they have an egotistical and self-centered attitude, they certainly WILL NOT BE counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass (Luke 21:36)!

In addition to the SIGN of seeing the true gospel being preached in all the world, Christ spoke about “great SIGNS from heaven” (Luke 21:11). This is a reference to the “heavenly signs” mentioned in Revelation 6:12–17, following the Great Tribulation and immediately preceding the Day of the Lord (which will begin one year before Christ’s return). The Great Tribulation, spoken of in many Biblical passages, describes national captivity of the modern houses of Israel and Judah (the Commonwealth nations and the USA, as well as the modern Jews) and a martyrdom of many of the saints (Revelation 6:9–11).

Christ mentioned that at that time, there would be “SIGNS in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (Luke 21:25–26). Notice the immediate context of these events: “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near” (vv. 27–28).

We see, then, that the “heavenly signs” are also an indication of the imminence of Christ’s return, as they signal the beginning of the Day of the Lord—God’s rule over man. Christ elaborated in Matthew 24:29–30: “Immediately after the [great] tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

If this SIGN is different from the “heavenly signs” mentioned earlier, then what is it? It might be referred to in Revelation 15:1: “Then I saw another SIGN in heaven, great and marvelous.” This sign points at the pouring out of the seven last plagues—after the Day of the Lord has begun—which complete the wrath of God. Some of these plagues will be poured out immediately FOLLOWING Christ’s return. However, the Bible does not say what exactly the “SIGN of the Son of Man” of Matthew 24:30 is. Some have suggested that it may refer to Christ Himself appearing in heaven. The Broadman Bible Commentary states, “The sign of the Son of man is of unknown meaning, although it is more directly related to Jesus than are the astronomical signs. The Greek genitive allows for the idea that the Son of man is himself the sign, i.e., “the sign, which is the Son of man.’”

If so, this would prove that Christ returns visibly, not in secret. On the other hand, this SIGN of the Son of Man could not be the one given in answer to the disciples’ question of what the SIGN of His return and the end of the age would be. Christ obviously did not say, “The sign of My return is My return.” Rather, He clearly gave as the sign of His immediate return the ongoing preaching of His true gospel in all the world, while additional recognizable global events would occur (including, for example, the rise of a political/military/economic/religious power bloc in Europe, as the tenth and last resurrection of the ancient Holy Roman Empire; a war in the Middle East; a military attack on the United States of America, Great Britain, and the state of Israel; and cosmic signs or disturbances).

Referring to that very time, Christ warned His disciples not to be deceived by false SIGNS or miracles and wonders. He said that during the time of the Great Tribulation, beginning perhaps just before that time, “false christs and false prophets will rise and show great SIGNS and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). One of their deceptions will include the false teaching that Christ has returned, waiting to meet His disciples “in the desert” (v. 26). In other words, they will preach a version of the well-known “secret rapture” theory, claiming that Christ will return twice—firstly, to take His disciples to Himself, and secondly, to restore God’s Kingdom on this earth. “False,” Christ said. “Don’t believe those false teachings,” He warned. Rather, “… as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, SO ALSO WILL THE COMING of the Son of Man be” (verse 27).

Christ warned that just prior to His return, “the man of sin” would be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This person is elsewhere identified as the “false prophet.” He will be alive at Christ’s return, and Christ will “consume [him] with the breath of His mouth” (v. 8). This man of sin—also called the “lawless one”—will be given Satan’s powers, “with all… SIGNS, and lying wonders” (v. 9). The book of Revelation tells us that this “false prophet” will deceive people with his signs. We read in Revelation 13:14: “And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those SIGNS which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast.” We are told, too, in Revelation 19:20 that “the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked SIGNS in his presence, by which he deceived…”

We see, then, that the power to work SIGNS or miracles is NOT necessarily proof that God is with that person. Some want desperately to receive power to work signs and miracles, like Simon Magus, who offered Peter money to receive the power to bestow the Holy Spirit on others through the laying on of his hands (Acts 8:18–19). Peter told him, though, that his “heart” was not “right in the sight of God” (verse 21), and that he needed to repent (verse 22). The historical record shows that he did not repent, but that he continued to perform his sorceries (verse 9), thereby deceiving many people. Christ warned that in the end time, just preceding His coming, “false prophets” or “preachers” (not just THE false prophet) would appear, deceiving “many” with false signs and wonders. If possible, Christ said, they would even deceive the “elect.”

Christ told us not to fall asleep or to give up. He said that only those who endure until the end shall be saved (Matthew 24:13). Rather than concentrating on signs and wonders, we must make sure that we will be READY when Christ returns, for He will come at an hour we do not expect (compare Matthew 24:44).

The fact that Jesus Christ will return to this earth is important. Equally important, and perhaps even more so, is the question of WHY Jesus Christ will return.

Why Jesus Christ Will Return

As was already mentioned, the return of Jesus Christ is one of the most fundamental and foundational teachings and doctrines in the Bible. It is perhaps THE most critical teaching in true Christianity insofar as our future is concerned. WITHOUT the return of Christ, you and I would have NO future.

Some have tried to spiritualize away the return of Christ, by saying that Christ already returned on the day of Pentecost when He poured out His Spirit on the early disciples. But this is NOT what the Bible teaches. Rather, according to the Word of our Savior, Christ will come back quite literally, in person. There are dozens, if not hundreds of passages, which make this truth abundantly clear. When reviewing some of those Scriptures, we will plainly see WHY Christ is going to come back to this earth.

Acts 1:9–11 informs us: “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.’”

Christ will come back in the same manner as the disciples saw Him go into heaven. He will not come secretly, and He will not come figuratively, that is, only through His Holy Spirit. He departed from the Mount of Olives, fully visible to man, and He will return, fully visible to man, to the Mount of Olives (compare Zechariah 14:4).

John 14:1–3 tells us one of the reasons why Christ will return. We read: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions [or, positions]; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.”

Christ is presently preparing mansions or dwellings or positions for us, and then He will return or come again, so that we will ALWAYS be with Him wherever He is going to be.

This shows the tremendous desire of Christ to have US close to Him. Notice John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

At the same time, Christ expects that WE have that same desire, to BE with Christ, as John 12:26 points out: “If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also.”

Christ wants us to have the same intimate relationship with Him that He has with the Father. We read in John 1:18 that He is “in the bosom of the Father.” And so, we are to be “in the bosom of Christ”; that is, we are to have a very close relationship with Christ. Christ’s return to this earth will make it possible for us to always be with Him.

A second reason for Christ’s return is stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

Here we see an additional aspect associated with Christ’s return—our resurrection and change to immortal or eternal life, so that we CAN always be with Christ.

To put it differently, Christ will return in order to resurrect or change us, to GIVE us eternal life! John 5:25 states: “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming… when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Those who are now dead will HEAR the voice of the returning Jesus Christ.

John 5:28–29 adds: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation [better, judgment].”

Those who have already died in Christ will be resurrected to eternal life. They will hear the voice of Christ calling them to come out of their graves. The others—those who died without having known and understood the true gospel message that Christ brought—will not hear Christ’s voice then. They will hear it later, as the book of Revelation, chapter 20, and other passages teach us.

1 Corinthians 15:51–52 reveals to us the same truth—that the dead in Christ will be raised to incorruptibility when they hear the voice of the returning Jesus Christ at the time of the last trumpet. Some who are in Christ, will still be alive when Christ returns. These will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, when the last trumpet sounds.

Matthew 24:31 tells us that the returning Christ will send out His angels, who come with Him, to gather together His elect from the four winds. The angels will bring all of His elect to Christ, to meet Him in the air, when He returns to this earth. Christ will return “as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west,” (verse 27) before He sets foot on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4). (This description points to the glory He will have when He returns. Recall that Jesus said in Luke 10:18 that He saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.)

A third reason for Christ’s return is revealed in Hebrews 9:27–28. We read: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”

Christ will appear for our salvation. He comes to bring us our salvation—to resurrect us or change us to immortality—to place us into the very Family of God as born-again members. Note 1 John 3:1–2: “Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”

We shall be like He is, a glorious God being! Colossians 3:4 explains: “When Christ who is our life appears, then you will also appear with Him in glory.” However, we will not be equal in authority to Christ—just as Christ is not equal in authority to the Father. We will be kings and priests under Christ.

A fourth reason why Christ will return to this earth is to give man FREEDOM! When all the terrible events described in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 take place, we are encouraged to think of our immediate future. Luke 21:27–28 states: “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.” At that time, our redemption or liberation or release is near. Philips translates this last verse as, “For you will soon be free.”

Mankind has spent the entirety of his existence wanting to be free, and even using war as an excuse to bring freedom. Yet freedom is globally elusive. So what is this “freedom” that Christ will bring us?

Christ will free us from death (compare 1 Corinthians 15:54–55). We will never die again. We cannot die again. Death will no longer be a reality for us when we are changed to spirit.

Christ will free us from sin, which leads to death (compare Romans 7:22–25). We will never sin again. As God beings, we cannot sin again (1 John 3:9). Sin will no longer be a reality for us when we are changed.

Christ will free us from the Satanic influences which, to a large extent, motivate and inspire us today to sin (compare Romans 16:20; 2 Timothy 2:26). When Christ returns, He will displace Satan’s rule over this world in which we live, and Satan will be bound for 1,000 years, unable to deceive anyone.

Christ will free us from war, by giving us peace (compare Psalm 2:1–9; 46:9; Isaiah 2:4; Isaiah 9:5–7). When Christ returns, this world will be in turmoil. Armies will be fighting each other to the extent that, if Christ were not to come back to stop this madness, no person would survive. Christ will come back in order to STOP WAR! He does NOT come back IN ORDER to start a war. Do we see the difference? Of course, when Christ comes back, He will initially fight against those who turn against Him. But His desire and motivation is to bring peace, not war.

Christ will free the modern houses of Israel and Judahfrom literal slavery (compare Isaiah 27:13). Christ comes back to make war cease on this planet; to reveal Himself as God to the nations of Israel; to bring them out of slavery and to lead them to the Promised Land (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:7–8); and to ultimately give them the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 37:11–14). This will happen when the great trumpet sounds. It will happen at the time of the first resurrection—which will include, of course, the resurrection of king David (compare Jeremiah 30:8–9).

One of the most important reasons why Christ will return to this earth can be found in Acts 3:19–23. Christ—the Prophet—will return to restore ALL THINGS. He will restore what had been taken away from this planet—the kingdom or government or rule of God over this earth. Satan took it away and replaced it with his rule of greed, pride, selfishness, competition, vainglory, hate and war. But Christ will return to replace Satan. He will set up the Kingdom or government of God on this earth.

The conversion of the Gentiles—in addition to the conversion of the houses of Israel and Judah—is another reason WHY Christ will return to this earth. When Christ returns and begins to rule—sitting on the throne of David—the Gentiles will begin to listen (compare Acts 15:16–17).

Another important reason why Christ will return to this earth is that He will give His elect rulership—with and under Him—on and over this earth, as it is clearly stated in Revelation 2:26–27; 3:21; and 20:4, 6. Christ will return in order to REWARD us in accordance with our works—how we did live in this life. If we did very well, we will receive higher rulership positions than if we did not do so well.

However, He will come, not only to reward the just, but also, to punish the unjust (compare Malachi 3:2, 5). We read in Jude 14–15 that God comes with His saints “to execute judgment.”

Will We Be Ready for His Return?

We have seen, in this booklet, who Jesus Christ was, and who and what He is and does today. It is critical that we understand and believe the great mystery of Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other, and there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We have seen that Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior, will return to establish the Kingdom of God on this earth.

We must make sure that we are preparing ourselves to be ready for Christ’s return. Christ utters this warning in Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”

Christ promised us that He would return. He tells us—those of us who are living in the last generation, in the “end times”: “Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book… And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me… He who testifies to these things, says, ‘Surely I am coming quickly’” (Revelation 22:7, 12, 20).

Let us answer Christ in the same way that John did in Revelation 22:20: “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

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

Introduction

Have you been born again? It’s a catchy phrase. It invokes thoughts of piety and gives the appearance of true Christianity. It claims to describe spiritual maturity—the release from sin and the receipt of salvation. It has become the litmus test for many professing Christians to determine whether one is “saved” or “lost”—whether one will “go to heaven” or “hell” after death.

Many professing Christians think they are already born again, and they readily share their convictions with others, presenting what would seem to be a convincing case for the need to be “born again” in this life. In reality, they miss one of the most important teachings of the Bible—what man’s ultimate potential is and how to attain it.

To quote from a Catholic article, “Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again… When a Catholic says that he has been ‘born again,’ he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being ‘born again.’ For an Evangelical, becoming ‘born again’ often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be ‘born again.’… But is the minister right?”

Good question. But more importantly, we need to ask, “Are either one of the two viewpoints correct?” According to Catholic teaching, “Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again… If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again.”

Are we born again when we “accept” Christ? Do we become born again at the moment of our baptism? In both cases, the answer is an emphatic “NO,” as we will see from the pages of the Bible. But, even if one were to become born again at the time of proper baptism, a baby cannot be “properly” baptized. Our free booklet, “Baptism—a Requirement for Salvation?” makes this truth abundantly clear and explains why the baptism of babies or little children is not acceptable in God’s sight.

What, then, is the correct Biblical understanding regarding the important question of being “born again”? We will explore God’s Word to gain a clear explanation, but first we must understand one important principle, or key, in order to rightly comprehend Biblical concepts. The clear and unambiguous Scriptures must be studied first before focusing on more difficult ones. In other words, let the Bible explain itself.

In John 3, Jesus Christ explained when man becomes born again to Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee and ruler of the Jews. Nicodemus visited Christ by night, apparently because he did not want to be seen talking to Jesus. He confessed, in verse 2, that he and the other Pharisees knew that Christ was “a teacher come from God,” and that God was with Him.

Nicodemus, as well as the other Pharisees and Sadducees, believed that the Messiah would come soon to free the Jews from Roman occupation and to restore the kingdom, or rulership, to Israel. They envisioned that the kingdom would be an earthly government. Christ went right to the crux of the matter. He explained that the kingdom was nothing like any human kingdom. Rather, the Kingdom of GOD would be ruling OVER man.

He also explained that no human being could be IN the Kingdom of God, and that in order to enter God’s Kingdom, one had to become a Spirit being—a member of the God Family. Christ also made it clear that just KNOWING Him would not be enough either. Knowledge requires action. When we KNOW that we need to change, we MUST then CHANGE. Only those who bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:8), and produce the fruit of the Spirit (compare Galatians 5:22–23), will enter the Kingdom of God. So, Jesus answered Nicodemus in John 3:3, 5–6, 8: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit… The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Anyone who can read these verses with an open mind and set aside any preconceived notions, ideas and interpretations, would have to admit that Christ could not possibly have spoken about a “born again” experience in this physical life. Notice it again: One who is born of the Spirit IS spirit. He is like the wind which cannot be seen but can be felt—like a powerful hurricane or tornado. Christ also said that unless one is born again, he could not see nor enter the Kingdom of God. In other words, as long as someone is flesh and blood—not spirit—he cannot see or enter God’s Kingdom.

Since most commentaries promote the wrong concept that we are already born again, they are compelled to “explain away” Christ’s clear statement that a born-again person must be spirit. Notice in the following examples how they try to misinterpret and twist Christ’s words in order to make them fit with their preconceived erroneous ideas:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, explains the term “is spirit” as “partakes of and possesses His spiritual nature.”

A similar statement can be found in Matthew Henry’s Commentary, page 1518: “… it is spirit, v. 6. Those that are regenerated are made spiritual. The dictates and interests of the rational and immortal soul have retrieved the dominion they ought to have over the flesh.” [The idea of an immortal soul is another wrong concept. Compare our free booklet, “Do You Have an Immortal Soul?”]

These commentaries, and many others, re-interpret Christ’s clear statement that in order to be “born again” we must BE spirit, as saying that we must be “spiritual.” Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People, even renders this phrase as, “whatever is born of the Spirit is spiritual.”

This is a blatantly false rendering. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible confirm that the correct translation is “spirit”—not “spiritual.” The Greek word for “spirit,” used twice in John 3:6, is “pneuma.” The Greek word for “spiritual” is “pneumatikos,” a word that is not used in John 3:6. The word “pneumatikos” is used, for example, in 1 Corinthians 12:1 in talking about “spiritual gifts.” However, the word “pneuma” NEVER means “spiritual.”

To translate the word “pneuma” as “spiritual” in John 3:6 is dishonest, especially since the word is translated in the first part of the phrase as “Spirit.” Nobody, to our knowledge, translates John 3:6 in this way: “Whatever is born of the Spiritual is spiritual.” Why then would one want to render the word “pneuma” as “spiritual” in the second part of the same phrase? Only to make it fit with pre-conceived wrong ideas.

Others render John 3:6 differently but still convey the wrong concept that we are already born again. Rather than translating, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” they say: “Flesh gives birth to flesh” (J.B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English); or “…it is the spirit that gives birth to spirit” (The New English Bible). These “interpretations” are not literal renditions. They actually obscure and change the intended original meaning.

The Englishman’s Greek New Testament, An Interlinear Literal Translation, gives the following literal rendering, word for word, of the original Greek: “That which has been born of the flesh flesh is; and that which has been born of the Spirit spirit is.”

The truthful conclusion is inescapable: Those who HAVE BEEN BORN of the Spirit ARE Spirit.

Paul clearly understood that we, as long as we are human beings, cannot enter the Kingdom of God, as he says in 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” Paul is saying that there is only one way for a Christian to inherit or enter God’s Kingdom. He explains it in verses 51–53: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

Paul is telling us in this passage that we must first be changed into spirit. Only then will we be able to see and enter the Kingdom of God (compare, again, 1 Corinthians 15:50). We read in verses 42–45: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam [Jesus Christ] became a life-giving spirit.”

Christ became a Spirit being. We, too, in the resurrection to eternal life, will become Spirit beings, and we “shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2; compare, too, Philippians 3:20–21). As Spirit beings, we will be able to see God, both God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son. As flesh and blood human beings, we cannot see God in His glorified state. (We read, in Exodus 33:18–23, that Moses wanted to see God’s glory. God responded, “You cannot see My face; for no MAN shall see Me, and live” (v. 20)).

As glorified beings we will be able to see God in His glory, “as He is,” as 1 John 3:2 says. This Scripture refers to the returning Jesus Christ “in the glory of His Father” (Mark 8:38). We will be able to see the glorified Christ, as He is, and we know from Titus 2:13 that Christ IS God. We will then be glorified beings ourselves (Romans 8:30). Further, when we, as glorified beings, see God, we actually see the Kingdom of God, as God IS the Kingdom—the governing, ruling Family of God. So then, it can be said that when we enter the Kingdom of God, we enter the Family of God, thus becoming members of the very Family of God. (For more information, please read our free booklets, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God,” and “God is a Family.”)

Christ told Nicodemus that we would become spirit, but not until we are born again. He explained that we would be invisible to the human eye, as God is invisible to the human eye. We would be like the wind that cannot be seen, although its power can be felt. Jesus Christ Himself became spirit when He was born again—when He was resurrected—not before.

Christ is called the only begotten Son of God. For instance, we read in John 1:14,18 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has seen God [the Father] at any time. The only begotten Son [margin: “God”], who is in the bosom of the Father, He [Christ] has declared Him [the Father].” References to Christ as the “only-begotten Son” can also be found in John 3:16, 18.

In the Greek, the word for “only begotten” is “monogenes.” It means, literally, “only-born” or “chief” (Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines it as “only-born, i.e. sole,” pointing out that the word “monos” in “monogenes” means “sole” or “single” and by implication, “only” or “alone.” These Scriptures do not tell us that Christ is the only one who had been or will be spiritually begotten of God—that is, who had been given God’s Holy Spirit. As we will see in this booklet, it is the potential of all of mankind to become spiritually begotten, and ultimately born, of God. Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit has been spiritually begotten of God, but no one, except Christ, has been born again—born of God—changed from human to Spirit.

When referring to Christ, the term, “only begotten Son,” shows that Christ was miraculously conceived by Mary through a miracle from God. Christ’s physical begettal and birth were unique. No other human being has ever been physically begotten by God the Father, through His Spirit, in a human mother’s womb. In that sense, Christ is, and always will be, the ONLY begotten Son of God. Further, Christ will always have the preeminence over all of God’s children. (Remember that the Greek word “monogenes” also means, “chief.” Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac as the “only-begotten” or “chief” son of Abraham. Although Abraham had another son, Ishmael, God viewed Isaac as Abraham’s “chief” son—the “only-begotten” son of Sarah.) Christ will always be the “chief” Son of God the Father, but we, too, have the potential to also become God’s sons and daughters, under Christ.

There have been others who have been spiritually begotten of God, but not in the same way that Christ was begotten of the Holy Spirit at conception. The Bible tells us that David was begotten of, and had received, God’s Spirit (Psalm 51:10–11). We also read that the Spirit of Christ was IN certain people of the Old Testament (1 Peter 1:11).

Though others have been begotten of the Holy Spirit before Christ, no one but Christ was resurrected to eternal life (compare Hebrews 11:39–40). That is to say that no one, except Christ, has been BORN AGAIN. Christ was the only begotten Son in the way that He was conceived by Mary as flesh and blood, and He is the ONLY BORN, or BORN AGAIN, Son through the resurrection from the dead. Romans 1:1–4 reads, in the Moffat rendering: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God (which he promised of old by his prophets in the holy scriptures) concerning his Son, who was BORN of David’s offspring by natural descent and installed as Son of God WITH POWER by the spirit of holiness [which is a Spirit of power, compared with a mighty wind] WHEN HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD…”

The New Jerusalem Bible also reads that Christ was “designated Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead.”

Paul is not saying here, however, that Christ BECAME the Son of God through the resurrection. Christ was already called the Son of God while still alive, and in fact, had been the Son of God before His birth as a human being (For proof, please read our free booklet, “God is a Family.”).

What Paul is saying is that Christ, the Son of God, once again, became a powerful SPIRIT BEING through the resurrection. At that time, the glory and the power He had before He became a human being were restored to Him.

Christ sustains the universe with His mighty word of power (Hebrews 1:1–3). He walked through closed doors after His resurrection (John 20:26). He made Himself invisible (Luke 24:31), and He manifested Himself in a different form (Mark 16:12). He has a glorified, spiritual body (Revelation 1:14–16; John 17:5), but He appeared as a human being (John 21:1–14). He went to God in heaven and returned to this earth within a very short time of less than a few hours (compare John 20:17 with Matthew 28:9).

When we are born again—born of spirit—we will have the same kind of power that Christ has, and we will also possess the same kind of glorified body that Christ has. We will be invisible to the human eye, as the wind is, but we will be able to manifest ourselves to humans, as a human being, not as a glorified Spirit being, just as Christ did after His resurrection. Though some have received God’s Spirit at this time, they do not yet have the same kind of power or glory that Christ has. They are not yet composed of spirit. Simply put, they are not yet born again.

Christ did not need to be baptized. He had the Holy Spirit while still in His mother’s womb. He, in fact, had been conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit. He was only baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15), giving us an example to do likewise. He was not born again when He was baptized. He did not even receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of His baptism, since He already had the Holy Spirit from His mother’s womb, “without measure” (John 3:34, Authorized Version). Rather, He became born again when He was resurrected to Spirit. It was at that time that He became the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29 tells us that we are to be “conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” We also read in Colossians 1:15, 18: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… And He is… the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.”

Christ was the first human who became born again as a Spirit being. The Greek word for “firstborn,” “prototokos,” designates the person who is born first. It can refer to the firstborn Son of the spiritual Family of God, and it can also refer to the firstborn son in a physical family. We read, for example, in Hebrews 11:28 that Moses kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood by faith, “lest he who destroyed the firstborn should touch them.” Christ was also, quite literally, Mary’s firstborn Son (Compare Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7. The Greek word, “prototokos,” used here does not mean “only” or “only begotten” son. That concept is conveyed by the Greek word “monogenes”; see discussion above). Since Christ was Mary’s firstborn Son, it goes without saying that Christ as a human being had younger brothers. In fact, He also had sisters (compare Matthew 13:53–58).

The same Greek word, “prototokos,” is also used in Revelation 1:5. The New King James Bible translates the entire passage quite accurately in this way: “… and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.” (The Authorized Version’s rendition, “first begotten of the dead,” is clearly wrong. The context here is the resurrection from the dead. The Ryrie Study Bible comments that “Christ was the first [man] to receive a resurrection [glorified] body which is immortal.”)

When we are Spirit beings, we will be ruling with and under Christ, as born-again members of the God Family in the Kingdom of God. Notice how this future time of our rule here on earth is referred to in Scripture. Christ told His disciples in Matthew 19:28 (Elberfelder Bible; Luther Bible; Menge Bible): “Assuredly, I say to you that at the new birth, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” E.V. Rieu, The Four Gospels, translates, “…when the world is born anew.” Gaus, The Unvarnished Gospels, states, “in the time of rebirth…”

All of these translations reflect the understanding that Christ equated the time of the “new birth” with the time of the future rule of His disciples in God’s Kingdom, after they had been resurrected. At that time, they would be born again, not before then. This understanding is also confirmed by the Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 241, where we read: “To be sure, the Pharisees did envision that in the day of the Messiah the entire world would be renewed, and they called this transformation a ‘rebirth’ (cf. paliggenesia in Matt. 19:28).”

In Matthew 24:8, Christ compared certain events just prior to His return with “the beginning of sorrows.” The Greek word for “sorrows” describes “labor.” The New International Version translates, “the beginning of birth pains.” The Revised Standard Version states, “the beginning of birth-pangs.” The New American Bible says, “the beginning of labor pains.” The New English Bible renders the phrase as, “…with all these things, the birth-pangs of the new age begin.”

The fact that Christ stated that His disciples would rule in the Kingdom of God, after His return, shows that the “rebirth” or “new birth” is going to occur after the resurrection of the just.

The Church of God is oftentimes compared with a nation—the holy nation of God (1 Peter 2:9). The sixty-sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah confirms, too, that true Christians will be born again—in the resurrection to eternal life—“in one day,” or, as Paul said, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15:52). Isaiah 66:8–9 states: “‘Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion [symbolic for the Church] was in labor, She gave birth to her children. Shall I bring to the time of birth, and not cause delivery?’ says the LORD. ‘Shall I who cause delivery shut up the womb?’ says your God.”

We will be born again at the time of our resurrection—not before then. All who believe and teach that they are already born again while still in this flesh, are mistaken.

Additional Scriptural proof that we are not yet born again is found in 1 John 3:9, where we read: “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed [the Holy Spirit] remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” Notice, too, 1 John 5:18, “We know that whoever is born of God does not sin.”

According to these passages, one who is born again CANNOT and DOES NOT sin. The only being that CANNOT sin is God. Even Jesus Christ, when He was here on earth as a human being, COULD HAVE sinned. He was in all points tempted as we are, though He did not sin (Hebrews 4:15). The fact that He was tempted shows that it was possible for Him to sin. It also shows that He was fully man, as God cannot be tempted to sin (James 1:13). When it comes to Christians, however, they DO sin from time to time, even after receiving the Holy Spirit.

We read in 1 John 1:7–10: “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son CLEANSES us from all sin. If we say that WE HAVE NO SIN, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”

Notice that John says two things here. He emphasizes that we DID sin in the past, and also, that we still DO sin now. He uses the past and the present tense. He is talking to Christians—those who have received the Holy Spirit. Yes, Christians DO sin from time to time! They CAN sin, which means that they CANNOT already be born again, because those who are born again CANNOT sin. God will bring many sons and daughters into His Family through a resurrection or change to immortality. THEN, they will be BORN AGAIN God beings, and as such, they will be UNABLE to sin.

Some who want to uphold their teaching that we are already born again translate 1 John 3:9 as, “cannot abide in the state of sin.” However, this is not what the Scripture says. Rather, the correct translation, word for word from the Greek, reads, “… he is not able to sin.” The Biblical truth is very plain: One who is born again is UNABLE to sin.

Using the process of human conception, gestation and birth as an analogy, we can gain a clearer understanding of the concept of being born again into SPIRIT. In this physical life, one is not born immediately at the time of conception. There is a time interval between conception and birth. A human baby must be conceived. A human baby must grow in the womb (the period of gestation). A human baby gains life of its own through birth.

The same principles apply to our spiritual birth. Although we will be born again at the time of our resurrection or our change to immortality, something else must happen first so that we CAN become born again. The Bible describes this prior event as spiritual conception or “begettal.” Simply put, before we can be born again, we must be begotten again—a spiritual begettal. This spiritual begettal takes place at the time of our baptism, after repentance, and after coming to an understanding of, and belief in, Christ’s sacrifice and the gospel of the Kingdom of God. At the time of baptism we then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands, as a down payment—a guarantee—(Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 5:5) of our ultimate new birth at our resurrection to spirit.

In applying the analogy of human birth to spiritual birth, the receipt of God’s Spirit at conversion is a type of spiritual begettal. With the receipt of God’s Spirit, we acquire God’s divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), but there is still another step in the process. Just as an embryo must grow and develop, we must also grow spiritually and develop the fruit of the Spirit—the actual character of God. God considers those who have received His Spirit as being His children (2 Corinthians 6:17–18). Finally, Spirit-begotten children become SEPARATE SPIRIT BEINGS upon being born again—at their resurrection and change to immortality.

Romans 8:11 tells us that “…if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit [which] dwells in you.” 1 Corinthians 6:14 adds, “And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.” In other words, God will resurrect us by His Spirit, which is a spirit of power (Acts 1:8; 2 Timothy 1:7).

To come to the point of being “born again” is a process. It starts with the moment we receive God’s Holy Spirit, in the same way that a human being begins to live in his mother’s womb at the time of conception. God baptizes us through His Holy Spirit into the Church, which is called “the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:26–27, 31). A human baby grows in his mother’s womb until he is ready to be born. Likewise, we are to grow in our Christian lives in the womb of the Church, increasing in the “grace and knowledge of Christ” (2 Peter 3:18; compare Ephesians 4:11–13), until we can become born again—Spirit beings.

A father begets a child, while the mother delivers it. After the father has initiated the process, there is an intervening time of about nine months before birth, or parturition, occurs. During this intervening time, the mother nourishes and protects the unborn child in her womb for the entire gestation period. The same is true for our spiritual begettal, growth and birth. During the spiritual “gestation” period, after our conversion, it is the duty and responsibility of the Church, of which Christ is the Head (Ephesians 5:23), to nourish and protect the begotten children of God. These spiritually begotten children of God, the Father, need nourishment from good spiritual food supplied by God, and they need to absorb the food so they can grow spiritually, striving to become perfect in this life. In this way, they can become born again children at the time of Christ’s return. As Christ became born again at the time of His resurrection, so shall we.

Notice Luke 20:35–36: “But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, BEING SONS OF THE RESURRECTION.”

We will be born-again children of God when we have been resurrected—not before then. Christ calls us the “sons of the resurrection” for a reason!

The process of “being born again” can also be compared to the process of salvation. When we obtain forgiveness for our past sins (Romans 3:25), we have been saved from those sins (Matthew 1:21), and from the death penalty for those sins (Romans 6:23). This does not mean, however, that we have, at that time, reached our ultimate salvation. Rather, when we sin and repent and obtain forgiveness, we are “being saved” (Acts 2:47; compare 1 John 1:9), looking forward to our final salvation when we will be changed into spirit beings. Only those who endure until the very end will ultimately be saved (Matthew 24:13; 10:22). Christ also said: “He who believes and is baptized WILL BE saved” (Mark 16:16). Baptism BEGINS our journey to salvation, but ultimate salvation doesn’t come until later. We read in Romans 5:10: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

As we explain in detail in our free booklet, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God,” our ultimate salvation is identical with entering the Kingdom of God and inheriting eternal life. In Mark 10:17–30, a rich young man asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (v. 17). Christ equated inheriting eternal life with entering the Kingdom of God (vv. 23–25). The disciples understood that He was talking about salvation (v. 26). Again, Christ emphasized that “entering the kingdom” and reaching salvation meant receiving “in the age to come, eternal life” (v. 30).

That is why we have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). We can start on our way to ultimate salvation, but we can still fail, by giving up. Paul warns us not to neglect “so great a salvation” that awaits us (Hebrews 2:3).

After we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit and have begun our journey to our final birth into the Kingdom of God, we can still become spiritually “aborted,” so to speak. Though we have been begotten, we have not yet been born. It is simply incorrect to say: that the Bible does not recognize such a possibility of “abortion”; that once we have been “begotten” we have already been “born”; or that the way to our final birth has been guaranteed and assured (compare Revelation 2:5; 2:21–23; 3:14–16). Rather, we must continue to “overcome,” be “faithful until death,” keep Christ’s “works until the end” and “hold fast” what we have been given (Revelation 2:10–11; 2:25–26). We must allow God to continue to lead and direct our lives, and we must stay obedient and submissive to Him (2 Peter 1:5–11; James 4:6–10).

Some who do understand that there is a spiritual growth process between “conception” and “birth,” nevertheless state that the Greek word designating the beginning stage of conception never refers exclusively to that stage. They understand that conception is included, but claim that it also always includes the actual final birth. Begettal can include birth, and it does in many cases (compare Matthew 1:1–16). However, this is not true in every case. Otherwise, it would negate the Biblical possibility of a “miscarriage” or an “abortion” of someone who, due to lack of spiritual growth in the “mother’s womb,” is not found worthy by God to enter His Kingdom (compare Hebrews 10:26–31, 36–38; Matthew 22:8).

As there is the possibility of a physical miscarriage or abortion, so there is the possibility of a spiritual miscarriage or abortion. To suffer a miscarriage is a tragedy, whether physically or spiritually. Every parent—expecting and anticipating with joy the birth of his child—hopes that his child will be born as a healthy baby. God, our Father, also hopes, and is confident, that we will be delivered into His Kingdom as healthy born-again Spirit beings (Philippians 1:6; Romans 8:31–32).

God, our Father, will never abort us, unless we force Him to do so, by refusing to grow and to obey Him. Tragically, in this world that is ruled by Satan the devil (John 14:30), parents sometimes decide to abort their child. They don’t realize that abortion is murder in God’s eyes, but it is—it DESTROYS human life. All human life belongs to God. Only God has the right to take human life. No human being has the right, unless directly ordered by God Himself (compare Genesis 22:1–2), to take the life of another human being.

Some have said that an embryo is not yet a human being. They are wrong. A human being comes into existence when the egg of a woman is fertilized by a male sperm. A brief overview of the development of human life in the womb of the mother clearly reveals that an embryo is a living human being.

By the time a human embryo is only 7 to 9 days old, several hundred cells have been formed, and contact with the uterus has been made. Blood cells begin at 17 days and a heart as early as 18 days. The baby’s eyes begin to form at 19 days. By the end of the 20th day, the foundation of the child’s brain, spinal cord and entire nervous system has been established. The heart begins to beat heavily on the 21st day. By the 24th day, it beats 65 times per minute. By that time, all of the embryo’s organ systems can already be seen and compared with the organs of an adult. At the end of the first month, the primary brain is present and the eyes, ears and nasal organs have started to form. By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child looks distinctly human. By the sixth week, the mouth and the face of the child are formed. The lines in the hands start to be engraved by eight weeks and remain a distinctive feature of the individual. The hands and the feet are fully developed by the eighth week. At that time, the child occasionally places his thumb into his mouth.

Earliest reflexes begin with the 42nd day. Brainwaves from the child’s brain have been noted at 43 days. After the eighth week, everything is present that will be found in the full term baby. Between the eighth and the twelfth week, the child can already feel pain and can suffer. A nine-week-old baby in its mother’s womb reacts with strong movements toward the slightest touch. Before the aborting doctor touches the nine-week-old victim with his instruments, the tiny baby moves strongly with its arms, trying to place its thumb into its mouth. The body moves strongly, and the heartbeat increases to 200 times per minute. The child RESISTS being killed.

Abortion violates God’s commandment against murder (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)! It is also painful for the innocent child.

In applying human abortion to the spiritual realm, however, spiritual abortion, unlike human abortion, is self-inflicted. When God aborts a spiritual child, it is because His child has rejected Him. It is the child who commits spiritual suicide, and it is equally painful for both the Father and the child. God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). He desires that all come to the understanding and knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Some, though, will resist, and God will not force anyone to accept His way of life. Those who want to commit spiritual suicide are free to do so (Matthew 22:13; 24:51; 25:30, 41, 46).

To more fully understand the process from spiritual conception to spiritual birth, let’s look again at Christ’s statements in John 3. He said that one must be born again—changed to Spirit—in order to be able to see the Kingdom of God. He said, too, that the person who is born of the Spirit IS spirit. He also said that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless he is first born of water and the Spirit (verse 5). In every case, the Greek word for “born” is “gennao.”

As we already mentioned, we cannot enter God’s Kingdom unless God’s Spirit dwells within us, and we cannot receive the Holy Spirit (except in very unusual and exceptional circumstances) unless we are first baptized. Baptism, then, is a prerequisite to being born into the Kingdom through a resurrection, or change to immortality.

Christ told Nicodemus that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). With proper water baptism, the laying on of hands and the prayer to God the Father, one will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. At that time, one is a spiritually begotten child of God. We read in Galatians 4:4–7, in the New International Version: “But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under [the penalty for violating God’s] law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit [which] calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave [of the basic principles of this world, v. 3], but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.” Note that we are heirs—not yet inheritors—but we WILL inherit the Kingdom of God in the future.

After the necessary growth, one can become a born again child of God at the time of the resurrection or change to immortality. So then, water baptism, in that sense, is necessary to become born again and “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4–7).

Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about this in “Mystery of the Ages,” page 186 (soft cover edition): “The Pharisees knew about water baptism. They had used it for years in converting gentile proselytes to Judaism. They knew of John the Baptist’s baptism—a baptism of repentance ‘for the remission of sins’ (Mark 1:4). Jesus’ meaning should have been PLAIN to Nicodemus—that water baptism was an initiatory rite preparatory to the start of being BORN of the Spirit. Jesus made it doubly PLAIN when he said, ‘That which is born of the flesh IS flesh.’ That which is born of humans IS mortal HUMAN—composed of flesh and blood—composed of MATTER from the ground. ‘That which is born of the Spirit IS SPIRIT’—no longer human but composed of SPIRIT, immortal! No longer composed of matter or flesh. Jesus explained even further. ‘Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.’ Then he compared one born again to INVISIBLE WIND—invisible to human eyes. ‘The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or wither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit’ (John 3:8, RSV).”

Many commentaries state that Christ did not talk to Nicodemus about a second birth, and that Christ’s words should be translated as “born from above,” rather than “born again.” The Greek words are “gennao anothen.” The Nelson Study Bible explains that the word “anothen” could be translated as “again” or “from above.” The Ryrie Study Bible points out that the word is correctly translated as “again” in Galatians 4:9, where we read, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?” In this passage, the word can only mean, “again.”

However, this distinction seems to be one of semantics, unless those commentaries want to say that we are already born “from above.” This is, of course, what many suggest. The Nelson Study Bible is no exception, but they are forced to admit that Nicodemus did not understand it that way at all. They say (emphasis added): “The birth that Jesus spoke of was either a new birth or a heavenly birth—or both. It seems that Jesus was speaking of a heavenly birth because He later used the analogy of the wind, coming from some unknown, heavenly source, to depict the spiritual birth. But Nicodemus clearly understood Jesus to be speaking of a second birth—being born again. Jesus explains this new or heavenly birth in [John] 3:6–8, contrasting being born of the flesh with being born of the Spirit.”

Even if one were to use the expression, “born from above,” the truth remains that we are not yet spirit, and the “second” birth—or the birth “from above”—requires that we ARE spirit. So, in either case, we have NOT yet been BORN “again” or “from above.”

The Nelson Study Bible does not agree with the Biblical teaching that we are not yet “born again,” and neither do many other commentaries. Listen to this convoluted reasoning: “The Greek word translated again can mean either ‘from above’ or ‘anew.’ The new birth… is the act by which God imparts spiritual life to one who trusts Christ. Without this spiritual birth, a person cannot perceive spiritual things… nor can he or she enter the kingdom of God” (Nelson Study Bible).

These statements lump together the entire process of begettal, growth and birth, as if all were one and the same. We did see, however, that one is not born again unless one IS spirit. The moment God imparts spiritual life through the gift of the Holy Spirit, is NOT the moment one becomes “born again.” Rather, it is just the BEGINNING of the process that leads to a new birth—the conversion from flesh to spirit.

The statement quoted above also misconstrues Christ’s words that one cannot SEE the kingdom of God unless first born again. The Nelson Study Bible attempts to say that Christ only meant that one needs to be born again in order to “perceive” spiritual things, not that we actually need to be able to SEE God—a “perception” of the powers of the Kingdom is all that Christ was allegedly referring to.

This interpretation of the words of Christ is incorrect and misleading. We discuss this issue at length on pages 14–19 of our free booklet, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.” To briefly summarize here: When Christ spoke in John 3:3 about “seeing” the Kingdom of God, the Greek word “eidon” is used. On the other hand, when a perception of spiritual things is conveyed, the underlying Greek word is NOT “eidon,” but “horao.” In John 3:3, Christ was not referring to the perception of spiritual things, but He was speaking about the ability to quite literally SEE [Greek: “eidon”] God the Father and Jesus Christ. [Another example, where “eidon” is used, is in reference to the transfiguration on the Mount. Some of Christ’s disciples SAW in a vision the glorified Christ coming in His Kingdom (Matthew 16:28), together with the glorified Moses and the glorified Elijah. Christ introduced this vision by stating that the disciples would be able to SEE the Kingdom of God with power, Luke 9:27, Mark 9:1. In each case, the Greek word for “see” is “eidon,” not “horao.”]

When Christ spoke to Nicodemus about being born of water and the Spirit, He brought into focus the growth process, which starts and ends at a certain point. Commentaries offer several possible explanations as to what they think Christ might have meant with this phrase. We present here some of their explanations:

(1)   It stands for the act of repentance, which John the Baptist’s baptism signified (Luke 3:3, 7–8).

(2)  It refers to water baptism as a requirement for salvation (Acts 2:38).

(3)  Water is to be understood as a symbol for the Holy Spirit (John 4:13–14; 7:38). Thus the phrase could be translated, “born of water, even the Spirit.”

(4)  Water is to be understood as a symbol of the word of God (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26).

Correctly understood, Christ explained in John 3 that we have to be baptized in order to receive God’s Holy Spirit, and that after a certain period of time, we will be born again, as Spirit beings, when Christ returns. Considering all of Christ’s statements to Nicodemus, it is clear that a new or second birth is described, which is from God through the Holy Spirit. This new birth is a process that starts with receiving the Holy Spirit and ends, after sufficient spiritual growth, with a change from flesh to spirit. Until this change has occurred, one is not born again (or from above), because one who is born of the Spirit IS spirit.

Some claim that the word “gennao” (translated as “born ” in John 3) can only mean “born.” As we will see, the word “gennao” can refer to an event that happens during this physical life. Based on this, many claim that we—flesh and blood human beings—are already born again in this life. As we saw from John 3, this concept is clearly false, as we are NOT yet born again. We are not yet spirit, but still flesh and blood human beings.

On the other hand, the Greek word “gennao” can refer to an event, a process that begins in this life at the time of proper baptism and that eventually culminates in our resurrection or change to immortality.

The Greek word “gennao” not only means “born,” it also means “begotten.” The word “gennao” is defined as “to procreate (prop. of the father, but by extens. of the mother); fig. to regenerate: —bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring” (The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Number 1080). Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines “gennao” as “to beget, bring forth.”

W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1965, writes regarding “gennao”: “… to beget, in the Passive Voice, to be born, is chiefly used of men begetting children…; more rarely of women begetting children.”

We find that in many cases, the word “gennao” has been rendered, or should be rendered, as “begotten.” The Greek word “gennao” can both mean “beget” or “born,” depending on the context, and it can even describe the process of the entire “pregnancy,” lasting from conception until delivery. Since it is up to the translators to decide when to use “begotten” or “born,” no translation has been found to be completely accurate.

We read in the first chapter of Matthew that Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit (v. 18). When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant, he wanted to leave her. An angel appeared to him in a dream, saying, “…do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins” (vv. 20–21).

As the margin of the New King James Bible correctly points out, the literal meaning of the Greek word translated, “conceived,” is, in this case, “begotten.” The Greek word is “gennao.” Jesus was already (physically) BEGOTTEN in Mary’s womb, but He was not yet born. This shows that the word “gennao” can mean “begotten,” and in this example, it can ONLY mean, “begotten.”

Due to incorrect or misleading translations, many have concluded that they are already born again. The fact that the word “gennao” can mean “begotten” and “born,” and that it also describes a process of growth from conception to birth, has been hidden from them.

Notice the following examples that point out the confusion in translations, and that show, when correctly understood, the growth process.

John 1:12–13

John 1:12–13 is rendered in the New King James Bible as follows: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were BORN [“gennao”], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

It is God who calls man to salvation, but not because of works, so that no man should glory in His sight (Ephesians 2:8–9). Those who believe in Christ and obey Him will receive eternal life (John 3:36, Revised Standard Version: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son [New Revised Standard Version: “whoever disobeys the Son”] shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”). Being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit BEGINS our spiritual travel toward the Kingdom of God. At that time, we have been begotten of God and His Holy Spirit. We have not yet been born. With this understanding, we know that the translation of John 1:12–13, as rendered by the New King James Bible, is false. The correct rendition is given, for example, by Dr. Menge and the Zürcher Bible, as follows: “…who were BEGOTTEN… of God.” Dr. Menge gives the rendering “born” in parenthesis, as an alternative, but as we have seen, “gennao” can only mean “begotten” in this passage.

1 John 2:29

Another example is 1 John 2:29. The New King James Bible writes, “If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born [“gennao”] of Him.”

John is speaking in the present tense. He is not talking about the future resurrection to eternal life. He is saying that everyone who practices righteousness is “born” of God. Since no one is already born again, except Christ, we know that the translation of the New King James Bible is wrong, and that the correct rendering is, “begotten.” Notice how the New American Bible translates this verse: “If you consider that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who acts in righteousness is BEGOTTEN by him.”

The Elberfelder Bible and Dr. Menge give both alternatives (“begotten” and “born”) as possible renderings. The Zürcher Bible translates this passage as, “…everyone who does righteousness is begotten of Him.” The Berkeley Version of the New Testament writes, “… is his offspring.”

1 John 4:7

A third example can be found in 1 John 4:7: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born [“gennao”] of God and knows God.”

Again, since John is speaking to the Christians of his time, the word “gennao” cannot be translated as “born” in this passage. True Christians love and know God, but they are not yet born again. Therefore, the rendering of the New American Bible in this case is quite correct, which states, “…everyone who loves is BEGOTTEN by God and knows God.” The Zürcher Bible concurs, while the Elberfelder Bible and Dr. Menge offer both alternatives.

1 John 5:1

A fourth example is found in 1 John 5:1. When reading the rendition of the Authorized Version or the New King James Bible, we see the difficulties that the translators had with this passage. The Greek word “gennao” appears three times in this passage, and, in this case, it should be consistently translated as “begotten.” However, the Authorized Version states, quite inconsistently: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born [“gennao”] of God: and every one that loveth him that begat [“gennao”] loveth him also that is begotten [“gennao”] of him.”

Most of the translations don’t even try to render the passage literally. The Revised Standard Version says, “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child.”

The Zürcher Bible translates quite consistently and accurately: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and everyone who loves him who begat him, loves him, too, who is begotten of him.”

The New American Bible reads, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is BEGOTTEN by God, and everyone who loves the father loves [also] the one BEGOTTEN by him.”

1 John 5:4

Let’s also take note of 1 John 5:4 as another example. The New King James Bible states, “For whatever is born [“gennao”] of God overcomes the world.” Since the present tense is used, the correct rendering must be “begotten.” A born-again Spirit being does not have to overcome the world anymore. Christ said that He overcame the world when He was here on earth as a human (compare Revelation 3:21). The New American Bible and the Zürcher Bible translate, consistently: “For whatever is BEGOTTEN of God overcomes the world.” Dr. Menge and the Elberfelder Bible give both alternatives (“begotten” and “born”). Henry Alford states, “…because all that is begotten of God…” The Twentieth Century New Testament writes, “Because all that has received new life from God conquers the world.” Knox renders it in this way, “Whatever takes its origin from God must needs triumph over the world.”

The translators of the Authorized Version and the New King James Bible clearly understood that the Greek word “gennao” CAN mean, “begotten.” Let’s look at a few Scriptures that were correctly translated in this regard.

1 Corinthians 4:15

The New King James Bible renders 1 Corinthians 4:15 in this way: “For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have BEGOTTEN [“gennao”] you through the gospel.”

Through the preaching of the gospel and subsequent baptism and the receipt of the Holy Spirit, these Christians had become BEGOTTEN children. They were not yet BORN AGAIN children. The Elberfelder Bible, the Zürcher Bible, and the Luther Bible all concur that the translation here should be “begotten.”

Philemon 10

In Philemon 10, Paul states, “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have BEGOTTEN [“gennao”] while in my chains…” Again, Onesimus became a begotten Christian, while Paul was in prison—he was not yet born again. J.B. Rotherham states, too, “… whom I have begotten in my bonds.”

Hebrews 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33

Another passage that is correctly translated by the Authorized Version and the New King James Bible is Hebrews 1:5: “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [“gennao”] You’? (NKJB).” Compare, too, Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 5:5.

Clearly, “begotten” is the correct rendering here, as it refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb. When the Father spoke these words, Christ was not yet born as a human being—let alone as a resurrected Spirit being. The New American Bible, Zürcher, Luther, Elberfelder, and Rotherham likewise say, “begotten,” while the New Jerusalem Bible reads, “…today I have fathered you.”

James 1:18

Another example is James 1:18. The Authorized Version translates, “Of His own will BEGAT [“gennao”] he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” We are not yet born again—only begotten.

What we can see from these different renderings is that the translators were very well aware of the fact that the word “gennao” can mean “begotten” and “born.” They knew that these two English words do not convey the same meaning. They also knew that the context dictates which rendering to choose. To put it bluntly, they knew—or at least, they should have known—that we are only begotten, not yet born again. Regardless, they decided—perhaps in order to follow the “dictates of their hearts,” or to satisfy preconceived notions and ideas—to use the erroneous translation “born” rather than “begotten” in many instances.

A classic example of this kind of ignorance, or possibly even deliberate confusion, is the blatant inconsistency in the New King James Bible’s translation of 1 Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 1:22–23. Let’s notice it (v. 3): “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has BEGOTTEN us AGAIN [Greek: “ana-gennao”] to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead… (vv. 22 & 23) Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been BORN AGAIN [Greek, “ana-gennao”], not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever…”

Which translation is correct in this context? “Begotten” or “born”? Obviously, since it is talking about the same event and timeframe, it has to be one or the other. The rendering of the New King James Bible is clearly false, in any case. Since Peter talks to Christians who were alive at his time, the correct rendering is, in both cases, “begotten.” They were “begotten again” to a living hope through the resurrected Christ who was now living His life within them, through the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:10; 8:3–4; Galatians 2:20). They had been begotten again of incorruptible seed—the Holy Spirit—and through the Word of God. Again, this passage is not talking about a time when they would be born again to immortality. We can see from this how translators, held captive by wrong concepts, got confused and chose inaccurate renditions (compare Isaiah 28:13). They did not have the knowledge of God that would have guided them to choose the correct alternative.

It is also interesting how some translators, apparently confused by the different meanings of “gennao” when judged by the context, have tried to “avoid the issue” altogether, and have instead given their “interpretation” of what they thought was being conveyed in a given passage. In the case of 1 Peter 1:23, the Twentieth Century New Testament renders it this way, “… your new Life has come, not from perishable, but imperishable seed.” Sometimes “human interpretations,” as stated in commentaries, may be quite accurate, but not always, and we should NEVER use human interpretation as a basis for doctrinal understanding.

We mentioned earlier that Christ has been called the firstborn from the dead. The Greek word for firstborn is “prototokos.” However, the word “prototokos” can ALSO refer to a first-begotten person—one who has not yet been born. As with the word, “gennao,” it all depends on the context. W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines “prototokos” as “first-begotten, firstborn,” and states that the Greek word is derived from “protos,” meaning “first,” and from “tikto,” meaning “to beget.”

In Hebrews 1:6, the Authorized Version states, “And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten [“prototokos”] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” The New King James Bible says here, “firstborn.” The Authorized Version’s rendering could not be correct in this case, as Christ was not the first “begotten.” As we saw earlier, others had been begotten of the Spirit before Christ’s appearance as a man.

 In addition, Vine explains that this passage seems to make reference to Christ’s Second Coming. He says: “Heb. 1:6, R.V., His Second Advent (the R.V. ‘when He again bringeth in’ puts ‘again’ in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His Birth, being implied).” This would show, too, that the correct rendering in this case of Hebrews 1:6 must be, “firstborn.”

Some claim the word “prototokos” only refers to rank. Although rank is included [a “firstborn” son would inherit a double portion of his father’s inheritance, compare Deuteronomy 21:17], the word clearly also refers to the timing of one’s begettal and birth, as we saw from all the Scriptures. The firstborn son had certain additional rights (compare Genesis 25:31, 33–34; 27:36), because he was born first.

In Hebrews 12:23, the word “prototokos” is used for Christians who died in the faith. Although both the Authorized Version and the New King James Bible give the rendering, “firstborn,” the correct meaning in this case is “first-begotten,” as no Christian has yet attained to the new birth—the resurrection from the dead. Hebrews 12:22–23 reads: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [“prototokos,”] who are REGISTERED IN HEAVEN, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect…”

The Christians who died in the faith, and whose spirits returned to God at the time of their death (Ecclesiastes 12:7), are registered in heaven (Luke 10:20). They have not been resurrected from the dead, so they are not yet firstborn—but they are first begotten—the firstfruits (compare James 1:18). They were called out of this world “first” (Ephesians 1:11–14) and they received the Holy Spirit, and it will be they who are going to be in the FIRST resurrection (Revelation 20:5; 1 Corinthians 15:23–24). Christ is the first of the firstfruits (Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20). He is, up until now, the ONLY firstborn, the only one who has been born again from the dead. Those called by God WILL BECOME firstborn as well. They will be in the first resurrection, born again first, when comparing them with the rest of the vast majority of mankind who will be called to salvation later (always excluding Jesus Christ, of course, who was the very FIRST of all the subsequent firstborn). (For more information regarding those who will be called later, please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”)

Sometimes, the Bible compares converted Christians with little children. Some claim that this proves that we are not “begotten” children of God, but that we are already “born again” children of God.

We understand, of course, that a baby in its mother’s womb is the unborn child of his or her parents. The fact that the Bible calls us children or “sons of God” (Romans 8:14) does not disprove the concept that we are not yet born children of God.

Some quote 1 Peter 2:1–2 to substantiate the concept that we are already “born again.” The passage reads, “Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.” Notice that Peter does not say that we are already born again. When we are born again, we are spirit, and we don’t need to grow anymore in overcoming malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy or evil speaking.

Peter is simply making a comparison. He says that AS newborn children grow, so WE must grow spiritually in this life, having been begotten of God’s Holy Spirit. Christ also said that we must become and behave AS little children, in order to inherit the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:3–4). With that analogy, He meant that we must have the humility of little children.

However, we are not to stay little children in spiritual understanding. Rather, Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:14 that “we should no longer be children [let alone newborn babes], tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may GROW UP in all things into Him who is the head—Christ.” Paul also says, in the previous verse (v. 13), that we all need to “come to… a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

Paul realized that sometimes Christians don’t show the progress in their spiritual growth that they should. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:1–3: “And, I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal…”

Notice, again, that this is a comparison. While Peter told the disciples to desire the “pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,” Paul chides them for being unable to go beyond receiving “milk,” because they were still carnal. Both instances use figurative speech to tell the disciples the same thing: “Get rid of carnality and grow in the spiritual character of God.” Notice the additional statement by Paul in Hebrews 5:12–14, again showing that, as teachers, we must go beyond just absorbing milk and that “solid food belongs to those who are of full age” (v. 14).

These comparisons and metaphors don’t show, as some believe, that we are already born again. Frankly, they have nothing to do with the “born again” question, except for the fact that they show the need to grow in Christ’s knowledge. Neither can one use those Scriptures to say that the Bible does not teach a “fetal analogy.” Rather, one has to look at all of the Scriptures in context.

For instance, Christ gave a parable in which He compared the decision of a person to follow Him, with a king who was considering whether to wage a war (Luke 14:31–32). His point was that we must count the cost before we make an important decision, in order to see whether we have enough to carry it out (verses 25–33). If one takes the analogy too far, one would have to conclude that Christ was endorsing our involvement in war, something that He was not conveying at all, as shown in many other Scriptures (compare, for instance, Matthew 26:52).

Some do claim, however, that the Bible nowhere says that our spiritual begettal, growth and birth can be compared with the physical begettal of a child, his growth in his mother’s womb, and his delivery from the mother. They claim that the human reproductive process does not picture the process of spiritual salvation—the Father’s act of bringing many sons and daughters into His glorious God Family (Hebrews 2:10). We have shown in this booklet that the “fetal analogy” is clearly taught in Scripture, and as we will discover now, there are even further astonishing parallels that clearly support the analogy.

To reiterate, each human being starts from a tiny ovum in the body of the mother. It is then fertilized by a life-giving sperm cell from the human father. Life can only begin when that sperm cell enters the ovum and impregnates it. Once the human ovum is fertilized, it becomes the begotten human life—the embryo. After several weeks, it is called a fetus, until it is born. This pictures, precisely, our spiritual begettal and birth.

We might compare our minds with the “egg” or “ovum.” We might also compare God’s Holy Spirit with the “sperm” of eternal life. At baptism, God begets our minds with the Holy Spirit. We can then begin to grow spiritually, developing the mind of Christ. Just as a physical embryo or fetus must mature before his birth, so we, too, as spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God, must mature and become more and more perfect before spiritual birth into God’s Family and Kingdom can take place. The analogy is unmistakable! But, we can draw even more startling lessons from this analogy!

Medical authorities tell us that ovulation usually occurs about the 14th day before the next monthly menstrual cycle, and that the egg must be fertilized by the male sperm during a 24-hour period. The fertilized egg then travels from the fallopian tube to the uterus where it implants itself. This travel begins on the 15th day of the first month and takes up to seven days to complete. Fifty days after fertilization, the embryo is called a fetus. By that time, it has developed a heartbeat, arms, legs and a blood-producing liver. By the seventh month of pregnancy, the ears have fully developed. By the 10th day of the seventh month, the blood of the fetus changes to allow oxygen to circulate independently of the mother. By the 15th day of the seventh month, the lungs of the fetus have developed sufficiently to allow it to survive in case of a premature birth.

God has instructed us to observe weekly and annual Holy Days. Our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” explains these days and their dates and meanings in much detail. To briefly summarize here, God’s first annual festival, Passover, occurs on the 14th day of the first month. It pictures Christ’s sacrifice for sins, individually repented of by those whom God calls in this life. Passover is followed by the Days of Unleavened Bread, a seven-day period, symbolizing the removal of sins from our lives. The Days of Unleavened Bread begin on the 15th day of the first month. Fifty days later, the annual Holy Day of Pentecost is observed. It pictures the giving of God’s Holy Spirit to the New Testament Church. The next Holy Day is the Feast of Trumpets, which is celebrated on the first day of the seventh month. It pictures Christ’s return to this earth and the resurrection of His disciples. The Day of Atonement is observed on the 10th day of the seventh month. It symbolizes the reconciliation between God and all of mankind through Christ’s sacrifice, as well as the removal of Satan. This day is followed by the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day, an eight-day period that commences on the 15th day of the seventh month. It pictures the salvation of all mankind, to be governed by the Family of God here on earth.

By now, you have undoubtedly caught the similar time elements involved between pregnancy and birth of a human child, and the annual Holy Days that picture the plan of God. Let’s review those time elements:

(1)   Physical life is begotten on or about the 14th day before the next menstrual cycle. Passover is celebrated on the 14th day of the first month of God’s holy calendar.

(2)  The physical journey of the fertilized egg begins on the 15th day of the first month and lasts for about seven days. The Days of Unleavened Bread begin on the 15th day of the first month of the Hebrew Calendar and last for seven days. If the physical journey of the fertilized egg is not completed successfully, there will be no birth. Likewise, if sin is not removed from our lives, neither will we be born again into God’s Kingdom.

(3)  After about fifty days, when the primitive skeletal system has been completely developed, the embryo (Greek for “to swell” or “to teem within”) is called a fetus (Latin for “young one” or “offspring”). It can now be recognized as a “human.” Pentecost is celebrated fifty days after the first Sunday that falls during the Days of Unleavened Bread. When the Church received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, it began to be recognized as being the body of spiritually begotten children by beginning to display God’s characteristics through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

(4)  By the seventh month, the ears of the fetus have been fully developed. The Feast of Trumpets is celebrated on the first day of the 7th month. It pictures Christ’s return at the last or seventh trumpet, and the resurrection to eternal life (1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 15:52). Christians who died in the faith will “hear” the 7th trumpet and the voice of Christ calling them out of their graves (John 5:28–29).

(5)  By the 10th day of the seventh month, the fetus can breathe on its own because its blood has changed. (Prior to this time, the baby could only receive his oxygen through the blood of his mother.) Atonement is observed on the 10th day of the seventh month. While, at Passover, we are reminded of Christ’s sacrifice for those who individually accept it, at Atonement, the whole world will collectively begin to accept Christ’s sacrifice. Satan will be removed and will no longer be able to deceive mankind as he does today. Christ’s shed blood was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, so that the world can begin to “breathe” on its own, freed from Satan, and begin to follow God. The whole world will then have the opportunity to receive God’s “breath” or “Spirit” (the Hebrew word, “ruach,” can mean “breath” and “Spirit”) when Satan’s spirit is removed.

(6)  By the 15th day of the seventh month; i.e., 7.5 months after fertilization, the lungs of the fetus have sufficiently developed to permit it to live outside the mother’s womb. The Feast of Tabernacles begins on the 15th day of the seventh month. It lasts for seven days. By that time, Christians, having been born again, will rule the world. They are no longer fed and nourished by the Church, their spiritual mother. Rather, they will have become members of the God Family.

(7)  A child has been born. But, the parents may still have additional children. With each new child, the entire cycle of human conception, pregnancy and birth starts all over again. This new cycle is pictured or foreshadowed by another, final annual Holy Day. After the seven days of Tabernacles, there is a separate one-day festival, called the Last Great Day. During that time, all who died having never heard of God the Father and Jesus Christ (through whose name ALONE we must be saved, Acts 4:12), will receive their first opportunity to accept God’s Way of Life. For them, too, birth into the Kingdom of God will be made possible.

Are all of these parallels just coincidental? Or, do they reveal God’s master plan in action? It is God who forms the inward parts of every human being (Psalm 139:13–14). God designed the timetable, and He also decreed when to keep His annual Holy Days.

God created man. God decreed that we should understand, by looking at the development of the physical embryo or fetus, the process of our spiritual birth into the Family of God. He told us in Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

Why did we write this booklet? Why did we bother explaining and emphasizing in detail the truth about the “born again” question? After all, we have referred to this issue in several of our previous publications, which have also been quoted throughout this booklet. Why does it even matter? Is it really that important to understand whether we are only begotten again or already born again? Isn’t all of this just a matter of semantics?

We must emphatically say that it DOES matter! It is absolutely VITAL and CRITICAL that you understand the truth on this matter!

The writer of this booklet and all of the reviewers on the editorial team once belonged to a different church organization. For the purpose of this booklet, it does not matter whether or not you, as the reader, are familiar with that organization. Even if you have never heard of that organization, the following should still be very revealing as to why it is important that we understand, and never deviate from the truth of the “born again” teaching. The organization referred to had taught the truth of the “born again” question for decades. A few years after its founder died, the new leadership began to introduce doctrinal changes. One of the very first changes had to do with the “born again” question. Articles that had been written in the past, proving from Scripture that we ARE NOT yet born again, were re-written, attempting to now show, from the same Scriptures, that we ARE already born again. The change was subtly introduced, and at that time, it did not seem to be a big deal for many. After all, it was just a change in terminology, was it not?

It might have seemed so, but, sadly, it was not.

It went much deeper. It opened the floodgate to future, more drastic changes. When the change on “born again” came, some noted that this would ultimately lead to a change regarding the nature of God and the potential of man. A few years later, those changes, anticipated by some, actually had taken place. How could anyone have foreseen this development?

Simply, because the correct “born again” understanding goes hand in hand with other important Biblical concepts and teachings. When we understand that Christians—those who have received the Holy Spirit—are “begotten” of the Father, we also understand that the Father is reproducing Himself through us. We understand that God is a Family, and that God wants to enlarge His Family through us. We also understand that Christ, the SON of God and the firstborn among many brethren, will marry His church at the time of His return (Revelation 19:7–9; Matthew 22:2; 25:10; Ephesians 5:31–32).

One important principle taught in the Bible is that a kind only reproduces according to its own kind (This is, by the way, one of the many proofs showing that the Evolution Theory is false. For further information on that question, please write for our free booklet, “Evolution—a Fairy Tale for Adults.”). The fact that a kind only reproduces after its kind shows that Christ will NOT marry a church that is physical. Christ is God—a Spirit being. Christ will only marry Spirit beings. We understand that we are not yet Spirit beings. We also understand, however, that we WILL BE Spirit beings at the time of our resurrection and change to immortality. THEN we WILL BE spirit. THEN we WILL BE born again. THEN Christ WILL marry us. And NOT BEFORE!

All of these Biblical concepts go together. After we are begotten of God’s Spirit, we have to grow in Christ’s knowledge. We have to become perfect (Matthew 5:48). The receipt of the Holy Spirit is just the BEGINNING of our journey toward perfection and ultimate entrance into the Kingdom of God.

We understand, too, that the Kingdom of God has not yet come. Christ has not yet established the Kingdom of God on earth. He will do so when He returns. At that time, we will be IN the Kingdom of God. Why? Because we WILL BE God—and God is a Kingdom—the Family of God RULING over creation.

We understand that the gospel message is the good news of the Kingdom of God. It is the message from the Father and Christ that Christ proclaimed. It is the same message that His Church MUST continue to proclaim until He returns, and even after His return. It is the good news that God will rule over all things, and that man CAN become God. Today, Satan is the ruler of this earth—not God. So, the gospel of the Kingdom of God is the gospel OF Christ, the message that Christ brought. It is also a message ABOUT the Kingdom of God. Since Christ’s death made it possible that man can become God, and since Christ will rule as King of kings and Lord of lords in this Kingdom, under God the Father, the gospel message also includes information about the Kingdom of God—the Family of God—and Christ Himself. However, the gospel message goes beyond the person of Christ. It’s a message brought by Christ—not a message limited to the personage of Christ. It is the message OF Christ and OF the Kingdom of God. It is not merely the gospel about Christ.

We understand that our ultimate salvation is still in the future—that we will be saved when we enter God’s Kingdom—at which time we will be God.

We understood all of this in our former association. Then, as we said, the floodgate of change came. It started with the “born again” teaching. Then another change came, followed by another. In time, it was no longer taught that the gospel was a message of Christ about and of the Kingdom of God. More and more, we heard the terminology of a gospel about Christ, or that Christ was the gospel. At the same time, we were taught that the Kingdom, although still future to an extent, had already arrived, that we were already in the Kingdom, and that Christ would only come to “inaugurate” the Kingdom.

We were also taught that we were already saved. All of these “new” teachings were “logical” extensions of the false understanding of “born again.” IF we were already “born again,” then we could see and enter the Kingdom. Therefore, so the reasoning went, since we “were already” born again, we “were already” in the Kingdom and already saved. Since we were already saved, we were gradually taught that we didn’t have to “grow” anymore in Christ’s knowledge as how to keep the law, since the law was allegedly no longer in force and effect. No more Ten Commandments, let alone any commanded observance of God’s annual Holy Days, as Christ supposedly did away with them all! Christ’s statement that we cannot see the Kingdom was incorrectly interpreted, as discussed before, in a way that He was merely talking about “perceiving” the powers of the Kingdom. Of course, these so-called new concepts also required a “re-definition” of what the Bible says about the Kingdom of God.

Then, we were told that it is incorrect to say that God IS a Family—rather, we should say that God HAS a family. With that “subtle” change, the truth of the nature of God began to become obscure. If God were not a Family, then God was not reproducing Himself, either. Again, we see the “logical” consequence of the “born again” change. This, then, led to the ultimate change regarding the nature of God. God was no longer perceived as consisting of two Beings (God the Father and God the Son), but as just ONE Being. Since God was no longer a Family, there was no longer a duality in the Godhead, either. Clear Scriptures proving the duality of the Godhead were re-interpreted, twisted, or simply ignored.

In fact, these ideas were not new. Paul and others warned that similar events and developments were already occurring in their time, and that they would continue to occur (compare Galatians 1:6–9; 2 Timothy 2:17–22; Jude 3–4; 2 Peter 2:1–3). Scripture reveals that another falling away from the truth would again happen in the end time. Paul said that the Day of Christ’s return “will not come unless the falling away comes first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). (If you want to do an in-depth study of some of the Biblical concepts raised in this booklet, in order to make sure that you are not deceived by wrong teachings, please request our literature that is listed at the end of this booklet.)

We were also taught that God, although one Person, represents Himself within a “threefold mode of being.” A “clever” argument was presented that a person can have three functions—that of a father, a husband, and a president. In other words, God was described as consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but these three “functions” were not Persons, but “hypostases.” This concept had been adopted from a Greek Orthodox idea that stemmed from pagan Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. It was then reasoned that Jesus Christ was a created being who did not exist prior to His human birth. So, we suddenly were introduced to God (one Person in three hypostases), and Christ (another—created—person), who was or somehow became a son, but separate and apart from the “Son”-hypostasis of the God-Person. We were even told that the Son was still in heaven (as one of the three hypostases), while Christ was here on earth, and that the Son remained alive when Christ, the physical person, died. With that idea, the supreme sacrifice of Christ had been denied and rejected.

To add further to the confusion and heresy, we were subsequently told, without any explanation, that God was a Trinity, the same concept taught by the Catholic Church and most Protestant churches—one Person in three Persons (no longer “hypostases,” as previously represented). Christ had now become part of the Trinity, although it remained unclear what He was before He became man, what He was when He was here on earth, and what He became after His resurrection. God, in any event, had become a closed Trinity. Since He was no longer a Family, man could not become a part of that Family. It was taught that God would “adopt” Christians, but Christians would never become God’s real sons and daughters. God was no longer reproducing Himself through man. It was taught that God was CREATING or building a somewhat figurative “family.” However, God was no longer adding to the very Family that He is and that He always has been. Christians were no longer understood as becoming members of the very God Family, with God being their true and real Father, and Christ being their true and real elder Brother.

So, obviously, it does matter! Without the “born again” change, the subsequent changes could not have occurred. It is, therefore, imperative that we not tamper with the correct understanding of “born again.” If we do, even in seemingly unimportant areas of “terminology” or “explanations,” we will change the proper understanding of what “born again” means, and we will thereby open a floodgate of change, again. In the end, we might very well find ourselves being totally void of all correct Biblical understanding. It happened before to those who apparently understood the truth at one time. Let us not think that it could not happen again. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says…” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

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

Sickness is something everyone has had to deal with at one time or another, and to varying degrees—some don’t seem to get sick very often, while others suffer from chronic illnesses.  Still others are subjected to terminal disease.

Have you ever wondered whether it is “natural” to be sick? Have you wondered if there is a correlation between sin and illness?  Is sickness the punishment that God brings on us because of sin?

What about healing? Do you know anyone who has actually been healed of an illness? Perhaps you yourself have experienced healing in your life. What do you think caused this healing? Was it a competent doctor or an appropriate medication? Are we to place our faith in doctors and medicines to heal our bodies? Did God have anything to do with this healing? Or does God even heal today?

If we have not been healed of a present illness, is it due to lack of faith? If so, what kind of faith would we be lacking? If faith in God is necessary, how do we acquire that faith, and even if we do place our faith in God to heal, is there anything we should do personally in order to have complete healing? Or, could there be other reasons that have delayed or prevented healing from taking place?

There are many concepts and deeply rooted beliefs when it comes to the subject of sickness and healing. Some feel that it is wrong to go to doctors. Some feel that, given enough faith, God will heal every sickness in this life and that going to doctors or taking medications always constitutes a lack of faith. Some feel that ONLY God can heal. Some feel that every sickness is the result of personal sin, thereby invoking direct punishment from God. Some feel that sickness is just a matter of time and chance, like the toss of a coin.

That’s what some people may “feel.” But human feelings and human reasoning cannot be the basis on which we make our determination. In this important booklet, we will be discussing these issues and answering these and other questions that might have caused undue concern and misunderstanding. We are not interested in human opinions or traditions; rather, we will base our discussion strictly on the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible. God clearly shows us in His Word what sickness is and how we are to deal with it.

Where is the concept of “sickness” mentioned for the first time in the Holy Scriptures? This may come as a surprise to many, but the first reference to the concept of sickness is found in the third chapter of the book of Genesis.

After Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God pronounced judgment on both of them, as well as on Satan, who had deceived Eve to disregard God’s command. God had told Adam and Eve NOT to eat from that tree. They disobeyed God and submitted to Satan when they ate of that tree. This means that Satan, as well as Adam and Eve, had SINNED.

Let us now focus on the judgment that God pronounced on Eve. Genesis 3:16 reports that God rendered a judgment that would affect not only Eve, but also her entire female offspring. We read: “To the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children…’”

Pain and Sorrow During Pregnancy and Childbirth

This pain and sorrow during pregnancy is in fact called “sickness” in the Bible. This “sickness” originated with, and was caused by, the sin of one woman, and it has affected all women since Eve. However, those women did not do anything, individually, that resulted in their pain and sorrow during pregnancy and childbirth.

Notice the following additional passages that deal with pregnancy and childbirth. Isaiah 26:17–18 states: “As a woman with child Is in pain and cries out in her pangs [or, sharp pains], When she draws near the time of her delivery, So we have been in Your sight, O Lord.”

In John 16:21, Jesus Christ confirmed the known fact that women in pregnancy and at childbirth suffer pain: “A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.”

Jeremiah 4:31 adds: “For I have heard a voice as of a woman in labor [childbirth], the anguish as of her who brings forth her first child…”

The Hebrew words for “woman in labor” literally mean, “woman in sickness.” The Authorized Version has here, “woman in travail.” In the Hebrew, the word for “labor” or “travail” is “chalah.” It should be translated as, “to be sick or weak.”

Let us note the following examples that prove this fact. 1 Samuel 19:14 states: “So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, ‘He is sick [Hebrew, “chalah”].’”

1 Samuel 30:13 points out: “Then David said to him, ‘To whom do you belong, and where are you from?’ And he said, ‘I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick [Hebrew, “chalah”].’”

Genesis 48:1 uses the word “chalah” in the same way: “Now it came to pass after these things that Joseph was told, ‘Indeed your father is sick [Hebrew, “chalah”]’; and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.”

In this context, let us read Isaiah 33:24, which contains a prophecy for the future: “And the inhabitant will not say, ‘I am sick [Hebrew, “chalah”]’; The people who dwell in it will be forgiven their iniquity.” We will discuss this Scripture in more detail later in this booklet. At this point, we conclude that the Hebrew word “chalah” means, literally, “sick.” We saw that this word is used for a woman in labor.

From this we learn important concepts relating to sickness: 1) sickness is not necessarily the result of individual sin, and 2) not every sickness is healed in this life.

First of all, pain, anguish and travail in pregnancy ARE the result of sin, but it was Eve’s sin. Eve’s female descendants have not brought this “sickness” on themselves because of individual sins committed by them.

Secondly, God has not removed or healed the pain and anguish of pregnancy and labor that is common to all pregnant women today.

Do we understand what this means?

The Bible calls pain and anguish during pregnancy “sickness.” This “sickness” affects all pregnant women when they bring forth children. But this “sickness” is NOT the result of individual sin of the pregnant woman, and this “sickness” is not “healed” in this life as long as the woman is able to bring forth offspring.

The Woman’s Menstruation

 Let us review another important condition that is described as or associated with “sickness” in the Bible. It is mentioned in Isaiah 30:22: “You will also defile the covering of your images of silver, And the ornament of your molded images of gold. You will throw them away as an unclean thing; You will say to them, ‘Get away!’”

The English words, “unclean thing,” are translated in the Authorized Version as  “menstruous cloth.” In the Hebrew, the word for “menstruous” is “daveh” and means “sick.” Literally, then, this cloth is called in Hebrew a “sick cloth.” The reference here is to the blood of the woman that covers the cloth during the time of her menstruation.

Leviticus 20:18 confirms the foregoing, describing the time of the woman’s menstruation as “sickness.” We read: “If a man lies with a woman during her sickness [Hebrew, “daveh”; the margin adds here, “or customary impurity”] and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed [literally, made bare] her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.”

Leviticus 15:32–33 adds the following: “This is the law for one who has a discharge, and for him who emits semen and is unclean thereby, and for her who is indisposed because of her customary impurity…”

The Authorized Version translates “indisposed” as “sick of her flowers.” In the Hebrew, the word for “indisposed” or “sick” is “daveh.”

That the Hebrew word “daveh” means, literally, “sick,” can also be seen from two passages in the book of Lamentations.

Lamentations 1:13 reads: “From above He has sent fire into my bones, And it overpowered them; He has spread a net for my feet And turned me back; He has made me desolate And faint all the day.”

The Hebrew word for “faint” is “daveh.” The Living Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible translate it correctly as “sick.” The Revised English Bible says, “He made me an example of desolation, racked with sickness all day long.”

Notice, too, Lamentations 5:16–17: “The crown has fallen from our head. Woe to us, for we have sinned! Because of this our heart is faint; Because of these things our eyes grow dim.”

The Hebrew word for ”faint” is again “daveh.” The Revised Standard Version and several other translations render the phrase as, “our heart is sick.”

The fact that the Bible associates the woman’s menstruation with sickness may become more plausible when considering the following quote from a German Encyclopedia, the “Grosse Brockhaus”: “Menstruation, also period: It is very rare that women are without pain at the beginning or during their menstruation… Pain in the spine or a general feeling of sickness are the most common side effects, that can still be called ‘normal.’”

What does the fact that the menstruation of a woman is associated with “sickness” (“daveh” in Hebrew) tell us about the concept of sickness and healing in general?

Every woman has menstrual periods. They are NOT the result of an individual sin that was committed by that particular woman. We also must acknowledge that God does not heal this “sickness,” at least not prior to the time of the woman’s menopause, which ends the woman’s periods and her ability to bear children.

We might feel a little bit puzzled by the fact that the Bible associates sickness with women having pain in pregnancy and child bearing, or women having periods, since it is considered a “normal” process. When we are faithful with the Biblical account, however, we must admit that the Bible is the Word of God, and that its teachings are not disputable (John 10:35).

Barren Women

This leads us to another interesting concept. Not every woman has the ability to bear children, even before the time she reaches menopause. (We might add here that even menopause could be, and often is, associated with “sickness.” The “Grosse Brockhaus” explains that many women suffer physical and psychological pain during menopause).

Let us notice several Biblical examples of women who were, at least temporarily, unable to bear children.

We read in Genesis 11:30 that “Sarai was barren; she had no child” (compare also Genesis 16:1–2). Sarai, Abram’s wife, was unable to bring forth offspring. She believed that God had restrained her from doing so (compare Genesis 16:2).

Two questions need to be asked and answered: Does the Bible refer to a woman’s inability to bear children as “sickness”? If so, does the Bible teach that this “sickness” is the result of individual sins of the barren woman?

We read in Genesis 20:17–18 that God had closed up all the wombs of the women of Abimlelech’s house because of SIN. We also read that God HEALED Abimelech, his wife and his female servants. We don’t know what sickness Abimelech was afflicted with, but we are told that the women were unable to bring forth children, and that this inability was associated with sickness in the Bible, because, as the Bible points out, the women were healed.

This “sickness”—the inability of the women to bring forth children—was not the result of the individual sins of the women. It might have been caused by Abimelech’s intent to take Sarah as his wife, even though he did it innocently, believing Abraham, who actually had lied to him by telling him that Sarah was his sister. So we see that the inability of the women to bring forth children may have been caused by Abraham’s sinful conduct, not by any of the sinful conduct on the part of the women who were barren.

A woman’s inability to bring forth children, as well as her misfortune in having a miscarriage, or for the baby to die prematurely, is at least to an extent associated with “sickness” in Biblical terminology. Besides what we just read in Genesis, this fact is also hinted at in Exodus 23:25–26, where we read: “So you shall serve the LORD your God, and He shall bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you. No one shall suffer miscarriage or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.” This shows that God CAN and DOES heal those “sicknesses,” or that He can and does prevent them from occurring.

We need to reiterate here that to be barren is not necessarily the result of individual sin, although it can be, of course. Sarai was originally barren until God intervened and healed her. We are told that Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, was also originally barren, but that God heard Isaac’s pleas and Rebekah was then able to conceive (Genesis 25:21). Further, Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, were both originally barren until God opened the womb of both women (Genesis 29:31 and 30:22).

Surely, Jacob, Rachel and Leah sinned (as Sarai had) when the women offered their maid servants to their husbands in order to bring forth offspring through them. But the Bible does not show that they had become barren BECAUSE of that sin.  To the contrary, they were ALREADY barren when they promoted the idea of producing offspring through their maids. Again, we see that their “sickness” of being barren was NOT necessarily the result of their individual sins. At least, the Bible does not tell us that it was.

Let us note a New Testament example in Luke 1:6–7. We are told here that Zacharias and Elizabeth, the future parents of John the Baptist, “were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years.”

We are specifically told that Elizabeth was righteous, walking blameless in all of God’s commandments, but she was barren. There is not even a hint here that Elizabeth’s “sickness”—her inability to bring forth offspring—was the result of individual sins on her part for which God had punished her by closing her womb.

In the context of sickness not always being the result of punishment for sin, let us turn to John 9:1–3. In this passage, Jesus and the disciples observed a man who was blind from birth. His disciples, apparently believing that his blindness had to be the result of his individual sin and the punishment for it, asked a pointed question: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.” He then proceeded to heal the blind man.

Christ made it clear that the blindness of the person was NOT the result of individual sin of either the blind person or his parents.This passage proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that teaching that every sickness is the result of individual sin of the sick person is patently wrong and unbiblical.

Lessons from David’s Life

For further proof, let us turn to 2 Samuel 12. Here, David had greatly sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba, and then arranged the murder of Bathsheba’s husband in battle. God was very displeased about David’s terrible conduct and told him that his son by Bathsheba—the resulting offspring of their adulterous relationship—would die (2 Samuel 12:13–14). Although David pleaded with God, asking for the life of the innocent child, God’s purpose in that matter was unalterable—the child first became ill, and then he died (2 Samuel 12:15, 18).

Clearly, the sickness and death of the child was NOT the result of the individual sin of the child. Sin was involved, but it was not the sin of the child that caused the child to become sick and to finally die.

Another mistake that David made was when he violated God’s law against murder and war, showing lack of faith in God by counting his army to ascertain how strong he would be in battle. Again, God was very displeased with David’s sinful conduct (compare 2 Samuel 24:10). “So the LORD sent a plague upon Israel,” and “seventy thousand men of the people died” (verse 15). David pleaded for the people, pointing out: “Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?” (verse 17).

The plague was not the immediate result of the individual sins of the people. Although the people were guilty of wrongdoing as we see in verse 1, it was David’s sin and his subsequent choice of a plague that caused the death of the people through the plague.

This is not to say that sickness can never be the result of individual sin. There ARE quite a few examples where individual sin IS the cause for sickness. At the same time, we must also realize that sickness is not necessarily the result of individual sin. We need to read and study the Scriptures to understand the lesson to be learned from the examples.

Blindness

To further prove the important point that sickness is not necessarily the punishment for individual sin, let us turn to Genesis 27:1: “Now it came to pass, when Isaac was old and his eyes were so dim that he could not see…” We learn from this Scripture that Isaac became blind. Notice, however, that it does not say that he became blind because he had sinned and God then inflicted him with blindness as a punishment. Rather, he became blind because he had gotten old. It is in the normal course of aging that the eyes of older people become weaker.

Sometimes, but not always, God intervenes and heals the eyes of a person or stops the process of deterioration of eyesight, as He did in Moses’ case: “Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished” (Deuteronomy 34:7). However, most people, including the righteous servants of God, have poorer eyesight in their old age and some have even turned blind.

We read, for example, that Eli, the priest, was blind in his old age (1 Samuel 3:2; 1 Samuel 4:15). It is true, of course, that Eli sinned when he failed to restrain his evil sons. But we don’t read that his blindness was a direct punishment for that sin.

We are also told in 1 Kings 14:4 that Ahijah the prophet was blind—not because of individual sin, but “by reason of his age.”

Herbert Armstrong, the late human leader of the Church of God in these last days, was almost blind when he died. He had to write in large letters in his later years until his eyesight got so bad that he could not even read those large letters any more. We have no reason to believe that his blindness was caused by anything else but his old age (he was 93 years old when he died).

The eyes of Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, were very weak. He also had to write in large letters so that he could still read them, as Galatians 6:11 tells us.

Again, this is not to say that blindness can never be the result of individual sin and the consequence of God’s direct punishment for sin. Remember that Saul, before he became Paul, was blinded by Jesus Christ because of his sinful ways. God allowed this to happen to Saul, to help him reflect on his need to repent and change (compare Acts 9:1–9, 17–18).

Further Lessons from the Life of Paul

Paul seems to have had another sickness that was not healed by God during his lifetime. We read in 2 Corinthians 12:7–10: “And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations [Paul had just described how God let him see, in a vision, the third heaven, or paradise, where God dwells], a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet [beat] me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times [he asked God three times in a very formal way that he be healed from that sickness] that it might depart from me. And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities [or weaknesses or sicknesses], that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

We see from this passage that Paul’s sickness—some think it was malaria—was NOT the result of an individual sin of Paul. We can also see that this particular sickness was caused by Satan, not God, but God did allow it. Further, God chose not to heal Paul from this sickness during his life. The reason God allowed this sickness was so that Paul would NOT sin and so that he could more fully appreciate and recognize what it meant to suffer, just as Christ suffered. Christ said, when he called Saul, that Saul had to experience what it meant to suffer for Christ’s name (Acts 9:16). Paul later commented that he bore in his body “the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Galatians 6:17).

Righteous Dorcas

In Acts 9:36 we are introduced to Tabitha, or Dorcas, a disciple “full of good works and charitable deeds which she did.” This righteous woman became sick and died (verse 37). It is obvious that she did not become sick due to sin and that God did not inflict her with sickness as a punishment. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that her sickness was NOT a punishment for sin when it reports that Peter came and resurrected her from the dead (verse 40).

Righteous Daniel

Another remarkable example proving that sickness is not necessarily the result of individual sin can be found in the 8th chapter of the book of Daniel. Beginning in verse 15, Daniel saw, in a very powerful and vivid vision, a mighty angel in his glory who was sent from God to give Daniel special spiritual revelation and insight. This angel was none other than Gabriel (verse 16). When Daniel saw this angel and heard his voice he “fainted and was sick for days” (verse 27). The appearance was too overwhelming for Daniel. As we should clearly be able to see, Daniel’s resulting sickness did not occur because he had sinned and it was not punishment that had been inflicted on him by God. Rather, Daniel received this testimony from God through the mouth of the angel Gabriel: “… you are greatly beloved” (Daniel 9:23; compare, too, Daniel 10:11, 19).

Righteous Israel

Turning to the 47th chapter of the book of Genesis, we find in verse 29 that the time “drew near that Israel must die.” We then read, in Genesis 48:1–2, 10, that Israel became sick and blind, and that he died. Nothing is said here that his sickness, as well as his blindness and his resulting death, were a punishment for individual sins committed by him. And we don’t read that God healed Israel from his sickness and kept him alive. Rather, the Bible teaches that it is appointed to man once to die (Hebrews 9:27).

Back in the 32nd chapter of the book of Genesis, we find another remarkable episode in Israel’s life. At the brink of his conversion, Israel, who was also called Jacob, wrestled with a Man, who, as other Scriptures reveal, was Jesus Christ. When Christ—the God of the Old Testament Who directly and specifically dealt with man—saw Jacob’s tenacity and perseverance, He “touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him” (verse 25). After God had blessed Jacob and departed from him, “he limped on his hip” (verse 31).

The Bible does not tell us whether this injury was ever healed. In any event, it was not the result of individual sins on Jacob’s part. Quite to the contrary, God blessed Jacob for his perseverance.

Death of Rachel

We also find that Rachel—Jacob’s beloved wife—died when she gave birth to her child Benjamin (Genesis 35:16–19). Nothing is said here that Rachel died because of individual sin. Further, we find that God did not heal her or keep her alive.

Righteous Elisha

It is interesting to read about the sickness and death of the prophet Elisha, one of the righteous and faithful servants of God. 2 Kings 13:14 tells us that “Elisha had become sick with the illness of which he would die.” Verse 20 adds that “Elisha died, and they buried him.” However, an event subsequent to his death proves that Elisha did not become sick and die because God punished him for sins that he had committed. Verse 21 informs us: “So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.”

Even though Elisha was dead, God brought about this miracle to show the people that Elisha had died in the faith and that he was resting securely within the hands of God. He had not died because God had forsaken and punished him for sin. Rather, God had chosen to let him die instead of healing him from his sickness.

Jesus Christ

We understand from the Bible that Jesus Christ never sinned. Still, we find that He knew about sickness, having experienced it as a human being. It is true, of course, that He carried our sicknesses so that we today can be healed from them, but we must still say that Christ became sick, even though He never sinned. This again shows that not every sickness is the result of individual sin. We read in Isaiah 53:3–4: “He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows [lit. pains] and acquainted with grief [lit. sickness; compare the margin of the New King James Bible]… Surely He has borne our griefs [lit. sicknesses] And carried our sorrows [lit. pains].” Also, we read in verse 10: “… Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.” The Revised Standard Version states in a footnote that the words, “He has put Him to grief,” literally mean, “He has made Him sick.”

As we already mentioned, this is not to say that sickness is never the result of individual sin or that God never heals sick people. Quite the contrary is true. The Bible teaches very clearly that God does heal people; that sickness can be the result of individual sins; and that when sins are involved, God forgives their sins at the time they repent, and He may also remove the consequence of their sins—their sickness—at that time or later.

What we need to fully realize is that these are not necessarily equivalent—that is, not every sick person has sinned and became sick as a consequence of his or her sin, and not every healed person has had to repent of individual sins that might have caused him or her to become sick.

Many who have embraced this wrong concept have brought upon themselves much unnecessary pain and misplaced guilt, thinking that God must have punished them for some horrible sins they must have committed, while trying to figure out what horrible sins these might have been. At the same time, some people who believe this wrong concept have become very judgmental toward sick people who were not healed, condemning them by assuming they must have sinned and that God must have refused to forgive them. Those judgmental people should have learned valuable lessons from the book of Job, where Job’s three friends wrongfully condemned Job.

We must be careful not to judge the sickness of others—not to place ourselves in a position that only God is allowed to be in—and to say that we KNOW why this person is sick and we KNOW why this person is not healed. It would have been easy for people with such a mindset to condemn Paul for not being healed, believing that God had punished him for terrible individual sins. They would have totally missed the point, as Paul was not punished with sickness because of sin; in fact, God allowed Paul’s sickness to afflict him, and to remain, in order to keep Paul from sinning.

Righteous Epaphroditus

Finally, let us note, in this same context, the example of the disciple Epaphroditus as described in Philippians 2:25–30. Paul reported that this loyal servant had become sick “almost unto death.” Again, he had not become sick because of punishment for personal individual sin. Rather, we read in verse 30: “[B]ecause for the work of Christ he came close to death, not regarding his life, to supply what was lacking in your service toward me.” He became sick when he tried to do God’s Work the best he could, not because God punished him for his sins. Paul tells us in verse 29 to “hold such men in esteem,” not to condemn them—even in our thoughts—because we are motivated by wrong ideas and beliefs.

While some believe and teach that every sickness is the result of personal and individual sin, others claim that we must never use medicines when we are sick. They postulate that the use of medicines is always a sign of lack of faith in God, since, as the argument goes, God brought the sickness upon the ill person and only God can remove it again.

Regardless of what men may believe and teach, what does the Bible tell us about using medicines? Does the Bible teach that it is sin to use them or that their use constitutes a lack of faith?

To begin our survey, let us notice Genesis 37:25 where it is mentioned that the Ishmaelites were trading with “balm.”  What is meant by the word “balm”? What is it and how is it used?

Exodus 30:34–35 gives us part of the answer. We are told in that Scripture that God instructed Moses to use “stacte” as one of the ingredients for incense, to be “holy for the Lord” (verse 37). The word for “stacte” describes a substance taken from the wood of the balsam or balm tree, according to the Hebrew Commentary Soncino. So balm was used for a holy purpose in connection with the holy anointing oil.

But that was not its only use. We read Jeremiah’s complaint in Jeremiah 8:22: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no recovery For the health of the daughter of my people?”

Jeremiah’s question is quite revealing. He knew that balm was used as a medicine to bring about comfort and recovery. He is using an analogy here, wondering why his people did not receive spiritual healing. The implication, however, is clear: Sick people can receive help through balm and a physician.

Continuing with our Biblical survey regarding medicines, we need to note Jeremiah 46:11, stating: “Go up to Gilead and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt; In vain you will use many medicines; You shall not be cured.”

First, we find that balm is indeed described in the Bible as a “medicine.” However, in this particular Scripture, Jeremiah is saying that the people cannot be cured by any medicines, including balm. Some have used this passage and similar passages like this and concluded that we should not take any medicines, such as balm, as they cannot bring about recovery, comfort or healing. The context of this passage, in light of other Scriptures that will be discussed in this booklet, does not allow for such a conclusion. Rather, God is merely saying that in THIS particular case, medicines like balm would not help because it was not God’s will that the people be (spiritually) cured, as they were not repentant. (Remember that Paul had asked God for physical healing three times, but in that particular case, God was not willing to heal Paul; therefore, he was not healed. If Paul had used medicines to obtain healing, he still would not have been healed, as it was against God’s will.) This does not mean, however, that medicines, like balm, should never be used.

For proof, notice Jeremiah 51:8–9: “Babylon has suddenly fallen and been destroyed. Wail for her! Take balm for her pain; Perhaps she may be healed. [Menge: “perhaps healing is still possible.”] We would have healed Babylon, But she is not healed [Revised English Bible: “We tried to heal Babylon, but she is past healing.”]. Forsake her, and let us go everyone to his own country; For her judgment reaches to heaven and is lifted up to the skies.”

This is of course a symbolic and figurative statement. If Babylon would have been willing to repent and forsake her sins, she could have been spiritually healed. But Babylon refused and nothing could be done to heal her. God uses this analogy to point out a physical principle. It pictures God’s servants as following God’s instruction and being willing to heal Babylon with balm, but Babylon refused to accept such medication in order to be healed. This would be indeed a strange statement if it were sinful to use medicine like balm, and if such medicine could not help in the healing process.

So we see that end-time Babylon (comprised mainly of Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Poland, and other European Catholic nations) is “beyond healing” or help. But not only her. God says the same about end-time Israel (the lost ten tribes of the ancient house of Israel who are mainly the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and certain other European nations) and Judah (mainly the state of Israel and the modern Jews). We find this strong and stern warning in Jeremiah 30:12–13: “For thus says the LORD: ‘Your affliction is incurable, Your wound is severe. There is no one to plead your cause, That you may be bound up; You have no healing medicines.’”

Since modern Israel and Judah are unable to use “healing medicines,” and since all of their “lovers” or political allies have “forgotten” them in their times of need (verse 14), God Himself will have to intervene and “restore health” to them and “heal” them of their “wounds” (verse 17).

Again, this is figurative language. God often uses physical concepts to convey the spiritual meaning. His use of the term, “healing medicines” is interesting. It is obvious that, in God’s eyes, “healing medicines” exist, and that it is not wrong to use them when they are available. In the case of modern Israel and Judah, the spiritual application of those “healing medicines” was not available.

We find an interesting prophecy in Ezekiel 47:12, describing the peaceful situation during the Millennium when Jesus Christ will rule on this earth. We read: “Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine.”

The margin adds that the word for “medicine” could also be translated as “healing.” The Hebrew word translated as “medicine” conveys the meaning of “healing” or “healing medicine.” The context of the Scripture shows that physical sickness and physical healing are both addressed (compare especially verses 8–11). In Revelation 22:2, something similar is described, but in that case, a spiritual world with some kind of spiritual healing or refreshment is addressed. Even Spirit beings can be “refreshed,” as Exodus 31:17 reveals.

But how is it there will be “medicines” for physical healing in the Millennium? Doesn’t this contradict Scriptures such as Isaiah 33:24 (mentioned earlier), telling us that God will heal everyone in the Millennium as their sins will be forgiven? There is no contradiction when we understand how God often chooses to heal today.

To continue with our survey regarding “medicines,” let us turn now to Proverbs 17:22. It reads: “A merry heart does good like medicine, But a broken spirit dries the bones.”

If we take God’s word for what it clearly says, there is no argument here against the use of medicine, per se.

The concept that we are to do nothing when we are sick and simply wait for God to do everything for us, is not supported in Scripture. Let us notice God’s words in Ezekiel 30:21: “Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and see, it has not been bandaged for healing, nor a splint put on to bind it, to make it strong enough to hold a sword.”

This passage, although it conveys a spiritual concept, uses a physical principle—when we are injured, we are to take action regarding our injury to obtain healing.

We find the same principle expressed in Isaiah 1:5–6, where God is addressing the modern tribes of the houses of Israel and Judah: “Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is no soundness in it, But wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been closed or bound up, Or soothed with ointment.”

We read earlier that modern Israel and Judah can’t be spiritually healed because they have rejected their God. However, God WILL heal these nations later, AFTER Christ’s return. God is saying here that normal medical procedures, including the closing of the wounds, the binding them up, or the soothing of the wounds with ointment, all to give comfort and to assist in the healing process, are futile and useless in the case of modern Israel and Judah because they are “beyond healing.” But again, the principle is clear: It is not wrong to do something when we are sick.

The Good Samaritan

This principle is also expressed in the famous parable of the “good Samaritan” who had mercy and compassion for a man who had fallen into the hands of robbers. The robbers had wounded him, leaving him half dead. Luke 10:34–35 states: “So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denari, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’”

The good Samaritan is doing something to the injured person. He is not just praying that God would heal him, without helping the half-dead person in the healing process.

King Hezekiah

We find another very convincing proof that God does not condemn us if we do something ourselves when we are sick. In the famous passage in the 38th chapter of the book of Isaiah, God used the prophet Isaiah to announce to a very sick King Hezekiah that he would die (verse 1). Hezekiah rendered a heartfelt prayer to God, pleading with Him for healing and recovery. God responded that He would add 15 years to his life (verses 2–5). God even gave him a sign to prove the accuracy of His promise (verses 7–8). We are then told, in verse 9, that Hezekiah “recovered from his sickness.”

But now notice what Isaiah did to help in the healing process. Verse 21 informs us: “Now Isaiah had said, ‘Let them take a lump of figs, and apply it as a poultice on the boil, AND HE SHALL RECOVER.” (Compare, too, the parallel Scripture in 2 Kings 20:7.)

God wanted to heal Hezekiah. He had promised him already that He would heal him. If God had not wanted to heal Hezekiah, he would not have been healed. Still, God expected Isaiah to do something for the king, to apply some kind of a “healing medicine” that would assist in the healing process. Isaiah, himself, understood that he was to do something. There is not even a shred of evidence in the Bible that his command to apply the lump of figs as a poultice to assist in the healing process, was against God’s will or constituted a lack of faith in God’s healing powers.

But, you might ask, could God have healed Hezekiah without the lump of figs? Of course He COULD HAVE! However, God had this incident recorded to teach us a lesson. The lesson is that WE need to be part of the process. We need to do what WE can do, assuming we know what we can do, then God will do the rest. Sometimes it takes some work on our part, through research or through talking with competent health advisors, to find out what we can do. It is interesting to note that James says faith without works is dead (compare James 2:17).

Timothy

The same principle is expressed in Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (or, as the margin has it, sicknesses). Paul did not say to Timothy to ONLY pray to God for healing of his frequent sicknesses while doing nothing himself. He advised him to drink a little wine to assist in the healing process and to strengthen his immune system. In regard to wine, the Kalifornische Staatszeitung published an article on March 5, 1998, discussing the health benefits of wine. The article stated: “We have always known it—wine is good for our health… Modest consumption of wine decreases the danger to die of a heart attack and of cancer.”

Laodiceans

In Revelation 3:18 we find another passage that uses physical principles to discuss a spiritual concept—the lukewarm attitude of the Laodiceans. Christ’s words regarding the physical principles are quite revealing. We read: “I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.”

If it were wrong to anoint our eyes with eye salve or to use other methods to help our eyes, Christ would hardly have used this analogy. Further, no one would conclude from this example that it is wrong for a naked person to put on clothes or for a poor person to accept gold, if it is lawfully and properly offered to him.

While some may concede that there might be certain “medicines” that can be used by sick people without constituting a lack of faith, they claim that we must never consult doctors, let alone receive treatment from them, as this would clearly mean that we place our trust in doctors, rather than in God. Yet, they don’t seem to have a problem with consulting those who profess to have knowledge regarding “health foods” herbs or other “natural” substances, and asking them for a “prescription” of numerous vitamins or vitamin supplements.

Then, there are those who would allow a doctor to conduct “repair surgery” but they would be strongly opposed against any operation going beyond such “repair surgery.” When those people are asked what they mean by “repair surgery,” the answers vary and are many times dependent on the “need” of the individual being asked. While they would perhaps agree that medical assistance regarding the healing of a fractured bone might be “repair surgery,” they would vehemently deny that “laser surgery” of an impaired eye would fall into that category, until they themselves are confronted with the question of whether or not to undergo such surgery themselves.

First of all, we need to categorically state that the Bible nowhere talks about the concept of “repair surgery.” This is strictly a term invented by man, for which there is no Scriptural basis. In addition, if consulting and accepting the help of doctors in going beyond “repair surgery” constitute lack of faith in God, why is it that “repair surgery” or the help of a “natural” consultant selling vitamins and supplements don’t constitute a lack of faith in God? Who draws the line between the two?

When looking strictly into the Bible for answers to our questions, we are reminded of Jeremiah 8:22 (mentioned before). This Scripture, as we saw, addresses the use of medicines and it also addresses the use of doctors or physicians. Jeremiah’s questions were: “Is there no balm in Gilead, Is there no physician there? Why then is there no recovery For the health of the daughter of my people?”

The Hebrew for “physician” is “rapha.” It literally means, “who heals.” It is the same word used in Exodus 15:26, where God says to the ancient nation of Israel: “I am the Lord who heals [in Hebrew: “rapha”] you.” This word is also used in the famous passage of Isaiah 53:5 in addressing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, where we are told: “By His stripes we are healed [in Hebrew: “rapha”].”

We also find that this word is used in Genesis 50:2. We read: “And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father. So the physicians embalmed Israel.”  Both times, the word “rapha” (meaning, “those who heal”) is used in the Hebrew, which is translated as “physicians.”

The same Hebrew word is used in Job 13:4, where Job chides his “friends” for hurting, rather than helping him in his trial. He exclaimed: “But you forgers of lies, You are all worthless physicians [in Hebrew “rapha,” that is, “those who heal”].” In this particular case, Job desired spiritual “healing” from his friends, but they were “worthless,” as they did not offer such healing.

We can deduce from those passages that physicians can “heal,” when we correctly understand what the Bible means by that terminology. We saw that the Bible describes “physicians” as those “who heal” but we need to analyze carefully in what way they “heal.”

In order to analyze how physicians “heal,” let us focus on the “healing process” of a sick person, as revealed in Scripture. We all know, from experience or observation, that a finger that has been cut with a knife heals in time, at least under normal circumstances. This shows that God has put into place certain “natural laws” that affect the human body and help to heal the sick or wounded person.

Also notice Exodus 21:18–19, where we find proof of the existence of such active laws of “healing” or recovery: “If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.”

The assailant was to provide for the injured party to be thoroughly healed. Again, this is  talking about taking some sort of action to help in the healing process. Note also that the Hebrew word for “healed” in this passage is “rapha.”

We can realize from these passages that God HAS provided for a healing process. God has created and set in motion physical laws that bring about healing. When a person is wounded with a knife, the wound will heal after a while. When a person becomes sick with a cold or flu, the person’s immune system will eventually overcome the cause of the illness and, under normal circumstances, the person will be healed. Of course, there is always a chance for complications, especially if the person has a suppressed immune system, but we are addressing normal circumstances here. God has created the human body in such a way that it will heal, to an extent and under normal circumstances, when it is sick or injured.

There are several Scriptures that address leprosy and its subsequent healing, in Leviticus 13:18, 37; 14:2–3: “If the body develops a boil in the skin, and it is healed… But if the scale appears to be at a standstill, and there is black hair grown up in it, the scale has healed. He is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean… This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest. And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper…” then the person had to go through some ritual cleansing, which is no longer in force and effect today. (For a thorough discussion regarding those Old Testament laws that are still in effect today, and those that are not, read our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”).

After the Israelites were circumcised, under Joshua, “they stayed in their places in the camp till they were healed” (Joshua 5:8). Circumcision was ordained by God in the Old Testament (it is no longer commanded for Christians in the New Testament), but the Bible still calls it a “sickness” or an “injury” that needs to be “healed.” It did heal “naturally,” without requiring God’s direct intervention, although some soothing “medication” might have been applied to the wound.

We see, in 2 Kings 8:29, that a wound is called, in Biblical terminology, “sickness.” We read: “Then King Joram went back to Jezreel to recover from the wounds which the Syrians had inflicted on him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.”

The Authorized Version translates “to recover from the wounds” as “to be healed of the wounds.”  This translation is correct, as the Hebrew word for “recover” or “heal” is “rapha.” We see that the Bible says that the king was “sick,” waiting to be healed from his wounds.

The fact that God has set in motion physical laws to bring about healing of certain sicknesses under normal circumstances does not mean, as we have seen already, that we cannot support such a  healing process with healing medications. The same must be said about physicians who understand God’s health laws and who can therefore properly assist with the healing process.

Is God Against Physicians?

When we carefully review the examples of Christ’s supernatural healing in the New Testament, we find that in many cases, physicians could not help.

We read in Luke 8:43–44: “Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.”

This example shows the great power and might of God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, that far exceeds anything humans can do. But this passage does not say that physicians cannot “heal” or be of help, per se, or that they must never be consulted. Rather, it points out that the physicians at that time did not know how to help the woman with her particular sickness. It is true, of course, that this passage contains a similar warning for us today. We do need to use great discretion in the choice of a physician we may want to consult. Unfortunately, many today have also “spent all their livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any.”  In many cases, they could not even receive appropriate advice as to what the cause or the nature of their sickness was.

Spiritual Healing of Depression

The same must be said about those who claim they can help or can heal a patient who may be having spiritual problems. Today’s “science of psychology” is operating from a fundamentally wrong foundation, and as such, very few, if any, will receive lasting help from such treatment.

A recent article in a German magazine pointed out that five to ten percent of all people in the Western World suffer depression. In Germany alone, 12,000 people commit suicide each year because of depression, and 250,000 people are hospitalized because of depression-related suicide attempts (Online Focus, February 15, 2004).

Clinical depression may well be, amongst other things, the end result of a development beginning with feelings of temporary frustration and self-pity. Rather than fighting and overcoming those feelings, affected people are often told by medical “experts” to concentrate on their own selves and to bolster and inflate their ego—their inner self—thus developing a better “self-esteem.” At the same time, they are told to place the blame for their condition on others, including parents, friends, relatives, or society as a whole. THAT, however, is the surest way NOT to overcome depression!

The feeling of self-pity, the “woe-is-me syndrome,” may even lead to suicide if not overcome in time. Judas committed suicide when he realized what he had done. Rather than truly repent in a godly way and rather than seek help from GOD to go on, he succumbed to his own grief and took his own life (see Matthew 27:3–5).

Paul, like Judas, had a lot to be sorry about. As Saul, he zealously persecuted the Church and caused true Christians to be killed. But, unlike Judas, he repented in a godly way. He never forgot what he had done nor did he blame others for his deeds. Rather, he looked to God for mercy and forgiveness and began to live a new life (compare Acts 26:9–18).

We ALL have sinned (see Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23). We ALL have done things in our lives that we are not proud of. We ALL could find fault in others, blaming them for what we have become, but such conduct is neither productive nor healthy. We are what we are, but we ALL must change, and that change must be continuous in order to become better persons. To do that, we must look to God for help and we must develop a love for others, the same kind of love God has for humanity.

Christ said that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). When we focus on others and how we can help them, we are less concerned about and occupied with ourselves—what WE are and what WE can get from others. It is in giving to others that we are “more blessed” and happier persons. Christ tells us that it is more rewarding, more profitable, more important, more productive and healthier to try to make others happy than it is to try to make ourselves happy. It may seem to be a contradiction, but if we concentrate on others and how we can help them, we WILL become happier persons ourselves. This is the godly way of overcoming depression. It includes forgiving others of what they might have done to us, recognizing that we have done wrong things to others as well (compare Ephesians 4:32 and Colossians 3:13). It includes an understanding that true love “covers all sins” (Proverbs 10:12).

God does not become depressed. He is a very happy Personage because HE IS LOVE (1 John 4:16). And love—true godly love—is outflowing. It shares and it is concerned about the welfare and benefit of others, seeking to make others happy. We need to leave the past behind us (compare Philippians 3:13) and begin a new life of hope and trust in God, realizing that God knows what He is doing.

Depressed or frustrated persons who practice these principles as a way of life will soon find that feelings of depression and frustration will leave him or her and they will see that there is hope for the future (Jeremiah 31:17). They will come to realize that we can, and must, love others as ourselves (Matthew 19:19). They will learn that having an interest for others can become a new way of life, including praying for enemies (Matthew 5:44), with the understanding that Christ died for all of mankind while WE were still His enemies (Romans 4:25; 5:1; Colossians 1:21). And, finally, they will experience true happiness and joy, putting feelings of frustration and hopelessness in the past.

Depression originates from Satan. We are told to resist Satan, and he—with his destructive feelings—will flee from us (James 4:7). We must submit to God and He will lift us up (James 4:7–10), which is to say that He will give us comfort, consolation, happiness and hope for the future. Christ showed us how to do it. When Satan tempted Him to sin, to give up the purpose for His First Coming, Christ told him: “Away with you, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). As a consequence, Satan had to leave. God’s angels then came to serve Christ (Matthew 4:11). Later, in the garden of Gethsemane, Christ prayed to God the Father for spiritual help and an angel came to strengthen Him (Luke 22:41–44). All the time, Christ had His great purpose in mind—that He had come to give His life for OTHERS so that OTHERS could live (compare John 10:10; 17:4; Matthew 16:21–23). God the Father and Jesus Christ loved us so much that They were willing to bring this supreme sacrifice for YOU and for me (John 3:16–17; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2). Christ never allowed Satan’s feelings of frustration, hopelessness and depression to find a place in His mind. Satan offered Him the kingdoms of this world, and he tried to bring Christ to the point where He would feel more important than was fitting (Compare Matthew 4:5–9). In effect, Satan was saying to Christ, “Prove to me that YOU are the Son of God! You don’t have to go through all these trials set before you. All you need to do is to worship me and all will be yours! Take the easy way out!”

But Christ rejected all of those feelings and temptations, which could have led to depression and frustration. Christ always upheld and maintained His love for God and man, thereby resisting the devil. He did not blame others for His situation, thus justifying “the easy way out.” He came to die for us because of His great love for us. He came to share His love with us so that we could overcome depression and become happier persons, ultimately entering into the very Kingdom of God, a kingdom of unspeakable happiness and joy (Matthew 25:21; Psalm 16:11). And so, the devil had to depart from Him. We must act the same.

This, however, is not the advice we would receive from most psychologists who claim that they can heal us from depression and frustration. God wants those who have the ability to “heal” physically and, more importantly, spiritually, to use that ability. But it must be used in the right way and it must be based on God’s premises and laws.

Ministers’ Part in the Healing Process

We read in Ezekiel 34:4 that ministers who were supposed to “heal” God’s sick flock, refused to do so: “The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them.”  Since His ministers failed to do so, God will do it Himself when He returns in the person of Jesus Christ: “‘I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down,’ says the Lord GOD. ‘I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment’” (Ezekiel 34:15–16).

We note, too, that Zechariah 11:16 prophesies that there will arise a very influential and powerful shepherd in the land “who will not care for those who are cut off, nor seek the young, nor heal those that are broken, nor feed those that still stand.”

God is displeased that His shepherds haven’t healed His flock. God WANTS the true shepherds to spiritually heal the sick and to bind up the broken. But since they haven’t, God will do it Himself, and only very few of the shepherds will be found worthy by actually doing the job they were given to do.

Something similar can be said, to an extent, when we look at the examples of Christ’s physical healing. It is correct, of course, that we always, when we are physically sick, must place our faith in God for our healing—but this does not mean that it is wrong to get help from physicians, and that seeking such help constitutes, by necessity, lack of faith in God’s power to heal. This is true in the spiritual realm as well. When we are in need of spiritual healing, we must understand that only God can provide such healing, but He does do so, many times, through His trusted and faithful ministers (James 5:14). We are not to place our faith in God’s faithful ministry, however, but we must place our faith in God. Still, God has established certain procedures, as we will see, that need to be applied and that involve His ministry, when it comes to physical, as well as spiritual healing. For instance, in order to receive the Holy Spirit, one must be baptized by one of God’s ministers. Our faith is not to be placed in the baptizing minister, but in God who gives us His Holy Spirit, after repentance, belief, baptism, and the laying on of hands (see our free booklet, “Baptism—a Requirement for Salvation?”).

The Sick Do Need Physicians

Contrary to what some people believe, Christ did not teach that sick people don’t need physicians.  In applying the physical concept of sickness and recovery to the spiritual realm, Christ stated in Matthew 9:12: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.”

Paul later referred to Luke, the author of the third gospel record, as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14). This means that Luke was known as a practicing physician at the time Paul wrote this. It was not believed that Luke was acting against the law of God when he did so. If Luke had stopped practicing medicine many years before Paul’s writing, he could not have been referred to as the “beloved physician.” Further, since Paul was addressing the Church in Colossae, it may well be that Luke was providing medical services to Church brethren as well, and that they, too, knew him as their “beloved physician.”

The Greek word for “physician” is “iatros” and has the same meaning as the Hebrew word, “rapha,” that is, “a healer.”  The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.F. Vine states that the word “iatros” is “akin to iaomai, to heal.” The Greek word “iaomai” is used many times in describing the healing of people through Christ (compare, Matthew 8:8, 13; Luke 5:17; 8:47). It also describes spiritual healing (compare John 12:40).

Does 2 Kings 1 Condemn Physicians?

Some who claim that consulting doctors or physicians is always wrong and constitutes a lack of faith in God have used 2 Kings 1 to try to prove their point. A careful analysis of that Scripture, however, shows that such a conclusion is not Biblically justified.

We read in 2 Kings 1:2–6: “Now Ahaziah fell through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria, and was injured; so he sent messengers and said to them, ‘Go, inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury.’ But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, ‘Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?”’ Now therefore, thus says the LORD: ‘You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.’ So Elijah departed. And when the messengers returned to him, he said to them, ‘Why have you come back?’ So they said to him, ‘A man came to meet us, and said to us, Go, return to the king who sent you, and say to him, Thus says the LORD: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.’”

In verse 16, God gives the king a third warning, through Elijah directly, but we don’t find that the king repented. We read in verse 17: “So Ahaziah died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken.”

Baal-Zebub, the “god of Ekron”—literally, the “Lord of Flies”—is later identified in the Bible as Satan the devil, the ruler of the demons (compare Matthew 12:24, spelled there as “Beelzebub.”). King Ahaziah died of his sickness because he asked Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, who was none other than Satan the devil, whether he would recover from his sickness. The context here is not necessarily healing at all but the foretelling of the future and the consulting of Satan and his demons (compare a similar passage describing the consultation of a witch in 1 Samuel 28:7). If one were to extend this Scripture to healing “methods,” one could list the superstitious belief in “holy water” from alleged “miraculous” places, or the trust in “witch doctors” that might be demonically influenced, or other alleged “healers” whose fraudulent public performances in so-called tent meetings and crusades, along with their demonic help, and this should be obvious to any objective Christian observer with a sound mind.

Does 2 Chronicles 16 Condemn Physicians?

Some have used the following Scripture as proof that it is wrong to consult doctors. We read in 2 Chronicles 16:12–13: “And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe; yet in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians. So Asa rested with his fathers; he died in the forty-first year of his reign.”

The problem was that Asa did NOT seek God. He placed his confidence and trust in physicians, leaving God out of the picture. We read that Asa, in his sickness, did NOT seek the Lord, but instead, he sought physicians—“those who heal.” Leaving God out of the picture is a terrible mistake to make! Although this Scripture does not say that it is wrong to consult physicians, the Scripture does say that it is wrong to place our trust in physicians instead of God. Physicians can only “heal,” that is, assist in the healing process, within the parameters of God’s health laws and God’s will. As mentioned, no medicine and no physician can help us if it is not God’s will that we should be healed. We are told that in everything we do, we must acknowledge God first (Philippians 4:6).

On the other hand, the passage in 2 Chronicles 16 does not say that Asa died BECAUSE he went to doctors. Clearly, he died because he did NOT SEEK GOD in his sickness. The problem was that he had apparently forgotten God’s role in his life. God was no longer first in his life. Christ said that we cannot follow Him unless we consider Him as most important in our lives. We cannot serve both God and mammon—material wealth. This is not to say, of course, that we cannot use money, as long as it does not become more important to us than God. The same is true for using medicines and physicians. It is not a sin to use them, as long as we don’t forget that whatever we do physically, it MUST be subject to God’s will.

We are not to do ANYTHING in our lives by leaving God out of the picture!(1 Thessalonians 5:18). If we think that doctors or medicines can “heal” or help us without asking God first that His will and His healing be done in our lives, then we have missed the point and misplaced our trust.

NO ONE or NO THING can help us if it is AGAINST God’s will. And if we come to realize that it is against God’s will to heal us immediately, we must analyze the situation and examine our lives to see why it is against God’s will—whether the sickness is perhaps a direct punishment from God for spiritual sin—and we must make amends in our lives in order to reap the benefit of God’s healing.

For a very powerful example of God’s direct intervention and infliction of a deadly sickness as punishment of sin, please note 2 Chronicles 21:12–20: “And a letter came to him [King Jehoram of Judah] from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus says the LORD God of your father David: Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, or in the ways of Asa king of Judah, but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot like the harlotry of the house of Ahab, and also have killed your brothers, those of your father’s household, who were better than yourself, behold, the LORD will strike your people with a serious affliction—your children, your wives, and all your possessions; and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out by reason of the sickness, day by day… After all this the LORD struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease. Then it happened in the course of time, after the end of two years, that his intestines came out because of his sickness; so he died in severe pain. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning for his fathers… He reigned in Jerusalem eight years and, to no one’s sorrow, departed.”

God pronounced the sickness and death of this evil king and He afflicted him, as punishment for his sins, with an INCURABLE DISEASE. God said that he would die of his sickness and that no human physician and no medicine could have changed the outcome. The only One who could have changed it would have been God, and God might have done that, IF the king had repented of his wicked deeds and had begun to humble himself before God. However, there is no indication at all that he was repentant.

On a larger scale, God proclaimed thousands of years ago that He would strike the modern houses of Israel and Judah with INCURABLE DISEASES for their individual and collective sins, unless they would repent. We are beginning to see those curses unfold in our modern nations—in front of our very eyes—and no vaccine or antibiotic or other medical intervention will be able to stop or heal those diseases. The reason is that God Himself is directly involved, and no human wisdom, knowledge or science can do anything against God’s will.

Let us notice God’s stirring prophecy for us today in Deuteronomy 28:27–28, 35: “The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, with tumors, with the scab, and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. The LORD will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of heart… The LORD will strike you in the knees and on the legs with severe boils which cannot be healed, and from the sole of your foot to the top of your head.”

But, although national punishment, sicknesses and disease epidemics have been prophesied by God, this does not have to include YOU. The Bible tells us that God’s faithful people may be spared from the terrible time to come (compare Luke 21:34–36).

In the context of sickness and healing, we must recognize another spiritual element that can be a great influence on the cause for sickness and/or freedom from it, which is, unfortunately, completely ignored and overlooked in our Western civilized world. Without an understanding of this element and the necessity to look to God for answers, no human help can bring about lasting “healing.” We are addressing here the fact that Satan and his demons can cause sickness, and that those sicknesses can only be healed by the removal of the influence of the demonic spirit.

For instance, we read in Luke 13:10–13: “Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up. But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, ‘Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.’ And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.” Here a demon caused the sickness of infirmity. Christ Himself reconfirmed that “Satan” had bound this woman for eighteen years (compare verse 16).

Apparently, in Paul’s case, as mentioned earlier, a demon or Satan himself caused his infirmity. It should be obvious that no physician and no medicine could help or “heal” such a person from a sickness caused by Satan. Only God could because God is more powerful than Satan and his demons.

The Bible tells us that God does heal! We are to rely on God for our healing, including especially supernatural healing, believing that God has the power and the might to supersede natural laws or accelerate their natural effects, if necessary, and to restrict and remove spiritual influences on our health and our bodies in general that stem from Satan and his demons.

However, when we turn to God for healing (which we should always do when we are sick), we are not to fold our hands in passive laziness without doing for ourselves what we are able to do.

Many Biblical examples show that when we are sick, God may expect, and even require us to do something to help ourselves get better. There is a very interesting and telling example in 2 Kings 5. We are told that Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a leper. He was advised that Elisha, prophet of Israel, might be able to heal him. Naaman traveled to Israel to meet with Elisha, but Elisha’s response to Naaman’s plea for healing was not quite what the commander had expected.

We read in 2 Kings 5:10–14: “And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.’ But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, ‘Indeed, I said to myself, He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy. Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’ So he turned and went away in rage. And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, ‘My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, Wash, and be clean?’  So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”

God healed Naaman through Elisha the prophet but God also required Naaman to do something in the process.  Though Naaman did not want to do it at first, he finally followed God’s instruction and was completely healed. Sometimes, God requires us to do more than just passively wait. God most certainly could have healed Naaman without the requirement that he wash himself in the river, but He chose not to, just as He chose to inspire Isaiah to use a lump of figs when He healed Hezekiah.

Healing Through Christ and the Early Apostles

It is interesting to study how Jesus Christ and His disciples healed people. The Biblical record shows us that the “methods” used by them varied, according to individual circumstances. Many times sick people were already healed when Jesus just “spoke a word” to them (compare Mark 2:10–12; Mark 3:5; Luke 7:2–3, 7, 10).  Sometimes healings occurred when people simply touched the “hem of His [Christ’s] garment” (compare Mark 6:56).

We find that when Christ’s disciples anointed a sick person with oil, the sick person was healed (compare Mark 6:12–13). In order to receive the benefit of God’s healing today, God’s ministers are instructed by God to anoint sick persons with oil (James 5:14).

We read that God healed sick people when only the shadow of Peter fell upon them (Acts 5:12–16).

We are told that people were healed when they touched the aprons or handkerchiefs from Paul’s body (Acts 19:12). Based on this Biblical example, God’s ministers use a variation of that “method” today—they may anoint a cloth with oil, pray over it, and send it to the sick person who lives too far away from a minister to make a personal visit.

Many times, Christ touched sick persons and healed them by simply taking them by the hand (Mark 1:31, 41–42; Mark 5:40–42).

It is also recorded that He placed His hands on sick people when He healed them (Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40). God’s ministers today lay their hands on the sick person’s head, then they anoint him or her with oil, setting him or her apart to receive God’s power of healing. Christ said in Mark 16:18 that sick people will recover when His ministers lay their hands on the sick. When they send a cloth, they place their hands on the anointed cloth while praying to God for healing for the sick person.

On another occasion, Christ put His fingers in the ears of a person who could neither hear nor speak, and He spat and touched His tongue (Mark 7:32–35). We are also told that He spit on the eyes of a blind person and put His hands on him twice until the blind person could see clearly (Mark 8:22–25).

On still another occasion, He made clay from the ground with His saliva, anointed the eyes of a blind person with that clay, and commanded him to wash himself in the pool of Siloam. (This reminds us of God’s command, through Elisha, that Naaman wash himself in the river Jordan.) After the person had done that, he was able to see (John 9:6–7, 10–11, 14–15).

We see from the previous examples that Christ did not always heal in exactly the same way. Sometimes, the person to be healed had to do something.

Our Responsibility

We can’t expect to be healed by God if we refuse to do what we CAN and ought to do for ourselves. For instance, somebody who is a diabetic and who needs insulin would act foolishly if he or she were to say: “I believe that God will heal me, so from this moment on I will stop taking insulin.” Rather, a diabetic should continuously look to God to heal this terrible sickness in this life, asking God to prevent long-term complications from affecting the diabetic. In the meantime he or she must do what is necessary to stay alive. Any doctor will tell you that a person who takes insulin because of juvenile diabetes, for instance, is only trying to simulate what the pancreas of a healthy person does naturally. Taking insulin does not constitute healing in any way. It does not regenerate the pancreas nor induce it to start producing insulin again. But taking insulin is necessary to sustain the life of that person and it would be dangerous not to take it.

Although it is not inherently wrong to take medications, nor does it show a lack of faith, we must be very careful in the choice of the medications. A recent study published in the Kalifornische Staatszeitung on March 14, 1998, revealed that one-third of all medications offered in Germany do not help at all, and, in many cases, the medications produced harmful side-effects. The Journal of the American Medical Association pointed out in July, 2000, that “doctors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, causing 250,000 deaths every year… from correctly prescribed drugs.”

Whether or not to use doctors or medicines also raises conscientious issues and ethical issues. How far one wants to go in regard to doctors, medications, and operations must be an individual choice. If someone believes that he or she should not have an operation or an organ transplant, or that he or she should not take a particular medication, then that is his or her decision. Additionally, when we become aware that cells to be transplanted have been obtained from aborted fetuses, then the issue of ethics is raised.

In regard to what we can do to stay healthy or to correct poor health, God does expect us to make healthy choices in life, both in what we eat and how we live. Wrong diet is a leading cause for many sicknesses. It is true that God promised in Deuteronomy 7:15 and in Exodus 15:25–26 that none of the sicknesses that plagued the Egyptians would befall the ancient and modern Israelites if they would live righteously and obey Him. We saw earlier, however, that He will bring terrible and incurable diseases on the modern houses of Israel and Judah because they are not obeying Him. This is mainly talking about spiritual disobedience, but it does include, to an extent, violations of physical health laws that God put in place for our good.

Some might think that in Psalm 103:2–3, God gives us an unconditional promise to heal all of our sicknesses, whether or not we do something about it ourselves. God states in Psalm 103:3 that He “forgives all your iniquities” and “heals all your diseases.” But this is NOT an unconditional promise.

God expects us to do some things in our physical lives to avoid getting sick, and also if we do get sick, He expects us to do what we CAN to help with our recovery. God is NOT going to do for you what you CAN do for yourself! This is true both in physical and in spiritual matters. God gave us intelligence for a reason!  He expects us to act and think as intelligent beings. If we know that our car is low on gas, we had better fill up the gas tank, rather than driving off, praying for a miracle that God will somehow “increase” the gas and bring us to our desired destination. We are to do what we reasonably can do to help ourselves.

We cannot expect that God will heal us every time we are sick if we continue to violate laws that God created to regulate our health and well-being. Some have drawn an analogy with spiritual sin and the penalty for spiritual sin; i.e. death, and have pointed out that the violation of God’s physical health laws could be compared with “physical sin,” which brings about the “physical penalty” of sickness. But this is strictly an analogy. Some have carried this analogy too far and have concluded that the Biblical use of the term “sin” would strictly apply and be limited to “physical” sin. Such conclusions are erroneous.

There are, however, certain “foods” that are not to be eaten because they are not made for human consumption. The most blatant example is pork, but it also includes other unclean animals, such as lobster, shellfish, and other seafood. A complete list of such “unclean” animals can be found in Leviticus 11:1–47 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21.

Some claim that these were ritual laws, and that they are no longer in effect today. Others state that these laws were only given to the Israelites to distinguish them from other nations but that they are not health laws that regulate what is good and what is bad for human health. All of these are false statements and are in violation of Scripture. Although the consumption of unclean meat is a physical matter and could be termed as “physical sin” that will eventually bring about the physical penalties of sickness, it also constitutes “spiritual” sin—or “sin” in Biblical terminology—as it violates God’s clear command prohibiting such consumption. For more information on the validity of these health laws, please read our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”

Many doctors know today that pork and other “foods” derived from unclean animals, such as lobster or clam, are not healthy. But instead of making this universally known, they wait until a person gets sick and then tell them to avoid eating pork or shellfish or such unclean food, sometimes labeling it simply as an allergy.

Addictive vices, such as smoking, excessive consumption of alcohol, or the use of illicit or recreational drugs, such as marijuana or hashish, are sure to bring on sickness. If a person who smokes develops cancer, that person cannot expect God to heal him or her if he or she is determined to continue smoking. The same can be said about one who consumes an excessive amount of alcohol and who has been diagnosed with liver or kidney problems.  Why should we expect God to honor our request for physical healing if we continue to abuse our bodies?

Some doctors or “health experts” have gone to the other extreme and prohibit foods that the Bible clearly reveals as being fit for human consumption. Some teach that we should not eat any meat, including fish or eggs, that we shouldn’t eat salt, or that we shouldn’t eat dairy products, such as milk, cheese or butter. They recommend that we strictly use margarine instead of butter, while others claim that the consumption of margarine is cancer-causing. Then there are some who prohibit the consumption of any alcohol, including the moderate use of beer or wine. Who can you believe?

God made sure to include principles of healthful living in the Bible. We can realize from reading His instructions that a little wine, a little salt, as well as clean meats, are appropriate for human consumption. The Bible also teaches that the moderate consumption of honey is healthy. The Kalifornische Staatszeitung wrote on April 23, 1998, that honey actually destroys and kills bacteria, and that it can help people with indigestion and diarrhea.

Some doctors may question these Biblical instructions, so we must be very careful in accepting research results from doctors. We should always try to determine their underlying philosophy or the nature of the companies for whom they work. One can hardly expect that a doctor working for the “Sugar Company” will publish findings stating that it may be harmful to eat a lot of sugar. There are other doctors who teach that we should eat muesli, rather than eggs or meat for breakfast. Surely, the consumption of muesli is healthy, but when we find out that some of those doctors believe in the theory of evolution and base their ideas of what constitutes appropriate and healthy food on the concept that apes and monkeys did not originally eat meat (which assumption is incorrect), and that humans, who allegedly evolved from apes, should eat no meat either, we can clearly see the erroneous basis for their conclusions.

The mere fact, then, that the Bible does not prohibit the use of doctors or medicines, per se, does not mean that we can use any and all medications or that we should go to just any doctor that we can find, regardless of his or her competency or philosophical background. One is always well-advised to check out the physicians and the medications very carefully, and in a major case, to obtain more than one medical opinion.

Responsibility of Parents

If, as a parent, your individual conviction prohibits you from consulting doctors or taking medications, then you are not to violate your conviction (compare Romans 14:23). But it is always good to evaluate your conviction based on the Bible, to make sure that it is not the product of human reasoning or pre-conceived notions. In addition, the law in most countries prescribes that, as a parent, you are to seek medical help for your sick child. If you fail to do so, the government might take your child away from you, or, if the child should die, you may face charges of involuntary manslaughter, or worse.

Additionally, faith is necessary in order to be healed. But what if your child does not have the required faith? God does not transfer your faith to that of the child. The Bible clearly states that God does not apply the righteousness of the parents to the children (Ezekiel 14:19–20). Romans 14:22 asks, “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God!”

This is not to say that parents are not to teach their children the necessity of having faith in God when they are sick. They are, in fact, supposed to encourage them to ask God for healing by asking the elders of the church to anoint them with oil and to pray over them. We are only addressing here those parents who, because of conscientious reasons, would refuse to consult and work with doctors and get medical help. Even though parents are to teach their children to place their faith in GOD for healing, they should not withhold medical help from them, if it is due (compare Proverbs 3:27).

God has revealed additional principles to us in the Bible that we need to follow if we want to live healthy and vigorous lives. These principles show the relationship between a healthy spiritual outlook and physical health, and vice-versa.

A famous German athlete and coach once said, “A sound spirit lives in a sound body.” This statement is not necessarily true at all, and, if used and applied the wrong way, can and does bring about much harm and misery. It is true, however, that an unsound or a sick spirit can make a body sick. We all know that stress can make us physically sick. Many doctors feel that certain allergies or skin problems are the result of stress, and that many sicknesses are psychosomatic. Tests have shown that the stomach of an angry person turns red and begins to shrink. It is therefore very important, even for our physical well-being, that we become spiritually healthy and see to it that we remain that way. Spiritual frustration and depression can and does affect our physical well-being. It may also reduce the effectiveness of our immune system. Likewise, the effects of a guilty conscience for unrepented sins can definitely affect our physical health.

Obey God’s Word

We read in Proverbs 3:7–8: “Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh, And strength to your bones.”

Proverbs 4:20–22 adds: “My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart; For they are life to those who find them, And health to all their flesh.”

Use and Misuse of the Tongue

The Bible teaches us that we can even afflict others with sickness if we are not careful, through the unrestrained use of our tongue. Conversely, we can help others, even contributing to their “healing” process by using kind and comforting words. Proverbs 12:18 points out: “There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword, But the tongue of the wise promotes health.”

Proverbs 15:4 adds: “A wholesome tongue (literally, a healing tongue) is a tree of life, But perverseness in it breaks the spirit.” A healing tongue can give encouragement and will actually help a person to feel better. On the other hand, a perverse tongue can make a person sick—psychologically and physically—since the psyche does have an effect on the body. When we end up in an angry shouting match with others, we might later feel physically sick as a result.

Proverbs 16:24 emphasizes the positive effect our tongue might have on others and on ourselves: “Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.”  Again, God tells us very clearly here that pleasant words can bring health or healing to a sick person.

From these scriptures, we can glean the following principles:

(1) Avoid using piercing words that may inflict wounds on others.

(2) Use comforting words that may help others to heal.

(3) Avoid those who speak perverse words, as they can make us physically sick.

Depression

We have already discussed the terrible sickness of depression and frustration. One possible cause of depression is worry—worry about the future, worry about the present, worry about the past. Such worry is unwise and can make us physically ill. Proverbs 12:25 warns: “Anxiety in the heart of man causes depression, But a good word makes it glad.” So we must be careful not to worry needlessly about things we can’t change. Most of our worries never even come to pass. There are actually some people who can’t be “happy” unless they can worry about something. This negative approach to life is unhealthy and in violation of Christ’s clear commands in Matthew 6:25–34.

The effect of a “heavy” or “broken” or “depressed” spirit on the body is also emphasized in Proverbs 17:22: “A merry heart does good like medicine [margin, “makes medicine even better”], But a broken spirit dries the bones.” Proverbs 18:14 elaborates: “The spirit of a man will sustain him in sickness, But who can bear a broken spirit?” This shows that a strong spirit can contribute to the healing process of a sick person, whereas a broken or depressed spirit might delay and even prevent healing.

Envy

God tells us through His Word that certain ungodly feelings and desires can make us physically sick. For instance, Proverbs 14:30 points out: “A sound heart is life to the body, But envy is rottenness to the bones.” Envy can make one sick. So we need to fight envy, which is against God’s law anyway, and replace it with the godly character trait of wanting and desiring the best for others.

So we see that God expects of us to do whatever we can do, and to avoid stressful situations or people that we can avoid, so that we don’t get sick, or so that our recovery can progress more smoothly.

Yes, God still heals today!  He is our Healer! We have shown that this does not mean that God will do everything for us while we sit back and do nothing in the process. We also saw that sickness is not necessarily the result of individual sin and that God may decide not to heal a sick person right away for a very good reason. That reason is not necessarily lack of faith on the part of the sick person.

When somebody is sick, it is NOT our job to condemn that person by saying: “He or she is sick BECAUSE they must have sinned; or, he or she is NOT being healed right now BECAUSE he or she is not repentant of his or her sin; or, he or she does not have enough faith to be healed.” Only GOD has the right to condemn. We are NOT the judge of others, including our spiritual brothers and sisters.

The Bible gives us very stern warnings in this regard. We read in James 4:11–12: “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?”

Romans 14:4 adds: “Who are you to judge another’s [that is, God’s] servant? To his own master [God] he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be able to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”

The individual reader must personally answer these questions as they apply to HIM- or HERSELF: “Am I sick because I have sinned, or because I have not repented, or because I don’t have enough faith?” We are NOT to look at our neighbor and think that we know what their problem is, thus judging them. Remember, not every sickness is the result of sin (though a particular sickness can be the consequence of sin), and God is NOT healing every sickness immediately in this life, even if one had “perfect” faith that He would do so.

It is with this background that we will review some additional Biblical passages that describe sickness as being the result of individual sin of the sick person.

Sickness of Mdiriam

We read in Numbers 12:1–2, 9–15 that Miriam and Aaron murmured against Moses by questioning his righteousness and condemning his conduct. Miriam was apparently the influential spokesperson, based on what we can learn from God’s reaction. God became angry with Miriam and caused her to become a leper. The record is clear that Miriam became sick with leprosy because of her sin. After Moses and Aaron pleaded for Miriam, and, undoubtedly because Miriam was repentant, God healed this sickness after a short while by removing the leprosy.

Sickness of David

In Psalm 31:9–10, David is very aware of his own sins that had caused him to become sick. We read: “Have mercy on me, O LORD, for I am in trouble; My eye wastes away with grief, Yes, my soul and my body! For my life is spent with grief, And my years with sighing; My strength fails because of my iniquity, And my bones waste away.”

David realized that he had become sick because of iniquity. It is not revealed exactly what that iniquity was, but it is clear from David’s words that he fell ill because of sins he had committed.

David gives us more details about the cause and the removal of his sickness in Psalm 32:1–5: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit. When I kept silent, my bones grew old Through my groaning all the day long. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin to You. And my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgression to the LORD.’ And you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah.”

As long as David tried to hide his sin, as long as he did not want to repent of it, he remained sick. We understand, of course, that David is speaking here of spiritual sin, not necessarily of physical violations of certain health laws. But once he repented of his sin or iniquity, God forgave them, and the implication here is that David’s sickness was removed as well since the spiritual cause for his physical sickness was removed!

Further details are revealed by David in Psalm 38:3–18: “There is no soundness in my flesh Because of Your anger, Nor any health in my bones Because of my sin. For my iniquities have gone over my head; Like a heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds are foul and festering Because of my foolishness. I am troubled, I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are full of inflammation, And there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and severely broken; I groan because of the turmoil of my heart… My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague… For in You, O LORD, I hope; You will hear, O Lord my God… For I will declare my iniquity; I will be in anguish over my sin.”

Again, David became sick with a plague because of personal iniquity. In this psalm, he confesses his iniquity, asking God to forgive him. We don’t know for sure what this plague was, and this psalm does not specifically say that he was healed from it, but again, the implication is there, considering why David became sick to begin with.

In Psalm 39:8–11, David, who became sick because of individual sin, adds some additional light on the reason why God inflicted him with sickness: “Deliver me from all my transgressions; Do not make me the reproach of the foolish. I was mute, I did not open my mouth, Because it was You who did it. Remove Your plague from me; I am consumed by the blow of Your hand. When with rebukes You correct man for iniquity, You make his beauty melt away like a moth; Surely every man is vapor. Selah.”

This psalm contains another example of sickness because of iniquity. But David is telling us, too, that God may bring sickness upon a sinning person to “correct” him for his iniquity. In doing so, God is trying to “wake up” the person so that he can see his sin and repent of it so that he can be healed from his sickness.

Sickness Used by God as Correction

We find a clear connection between sickness brought about as correction and punishment for individual sin, and forgiveness of sin and healing, in Psalm 107:17–21: “Fools, because of their transgression, And because of their iniquities, were afflicted. Their soul abhorred all manner of food, And they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, And He saved them out of their distresses. He sent His word and healed them, And delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!”

In this passage, a clear connection is being made between sickness as the result of individual sin, and healing as the result of repentance and forgiveness of sin. We already referred to a remarkable passage in Isaiah 33:24, which reads: “And the inhabitant will not say, ‘I am sick’; The people who dwell in it will be forgiven their iniquity.”

This is describing what will happen in the Millennium. It applies to individual and collective guilt. Note that the word “their” is in italics, which means that it is not found in the original Hebrew. The inspired text only says that iniquity will be forgiven. This applies, then, to the individual and/or collective guilt of sin. All of the collective consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve will be removed as much as the individual consequences of personal sin. Notice, too, that the word for “sick” here is the same word that is translated as “weak” in other places. But the intended meaning is clearly one of “sickness,” not just of “weariness.”

Christ Forgave Sins and Healed

As we saw, sickness may be the consequence of sin in general, and it may be, in certain circumstances, the consequence of individual personal sins of the sick person. For another example, let us notice Matthew 9:1–8: “So He got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own city. Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.’ And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, ‘This Man blasphemes!’ But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven you, or to say, Arise and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’—then He said to the paralytic, ‘Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’ And he arose and departed to his house. Now when the multitude saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.”

We need to note that Christ first forgave the paralytic his sins. At that moment, he was not physically healed yet from his sickness. It appears, however, that his sickness was in some way caused by, or related to, individual sins that he had committed earlier in his life. In order to prove that Christ had power to forgive sins, He healed the man and told him to get up. This is not to say, of course, that sins of sick people are only forgiven when they are also physically healed, and that the absence of healing is proof that their sins are not forgiven. First of all, not every sickness is the result of individual sin. Secondly, God may forgive sins, without immediately removing the physical penalty or consequence that a sin might have brought about. In this particular case, though, Christ did forgive the individual sin AND He removed the consequence or penalty of the sin—the sickness of the man.

Here Christ was forgiving individual spiritual sin. Some have argued that Christ was only forgiving some violations of physical health laws that had somehow brought about the injury and sickness of the person. This interpretation, which is based on a wrong understanding of the analogy of  “physical sin,” cannot be supported by Scripture. Christ spoke about sin being the transgression of the law (compare 1 John 3:4), God’s spiritual law (compare Romans 7:14). Christ was not merely speaking here about the forgiveness of physical violations of physical health laws, while ignoring forgiveness of spiritual sin.

Let us note another, even more powerful and clear example of the relationship between individual (spiritual) sin and the resulting penalty of sickness in John 5:1–9, 14: “After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, ‘Do you want to be made well?’ The sick man answered Him, ‘Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk.’ And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath… Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, ‘See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.’”

The clear implication is that the man had become sick because of  individual sin, and when Christ healed him, He forgave him his sins at the same time. He later warned him, though, not to continue sinning, as otherwise, a worse kind of sickness might come upon him. (Note, too, that Christ told the adulteress in John 8:11 to “sin no more”—He clearly was not talking here about “physical” sin or violations of physical health laws.) Just as sickness CAN be the result of sin, so righteousness CAN be a protection against sickness and plagues (compare Ezekiel 14:12–14). Remember though, this is not always the case. Sickness, or the lack of it, must not be looked upon as a measuring stick to determine whether someone is righteous or not. We have seen that even righteous people became sick.

We understand that Christ died for our sins and that we can have forgiveness of our sins by repenting, believing in God, and accepting the sacrifice of Christ as both necessary and sufficient payment for our sins. The sacrifice of Christ makes possible forgiveness of sins. It also restores a relationship between the Father and us, a relationship that has been alienated through our sins, essentially cutting us off from God. We understand that sin has penalties and consequences. When we sin—violating God’s law—we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7). Sins of theft or adultery, for instance, would likely destroy the happiness of our relationship with a friend or our mate.

As we saw, spiritual sin may bring about physical sickness. God’s forgiveness of our sins may include removal of the penalty for our sins. Even though we might not have personally sinned and brought the sickness upon ourselves, others might have sinned. For instance, those who pollute our environment because of greed are guilty of sinning against God when they create unhealthy air that ultimately leads to people getting sick. Also, those who might have sinned against their body through pre- or extramarital sex, the consumption of excessive alcohol, drugs or smoking, might have produced children with birth defects.

Remember the example of Adam and Eve who were driven out of the Garden of Eden by God after they sinned. God then prevented mankind from eating from the tree of life and living forever. Physical mankind would stay physical and would ultimately die. With a physical body, physical weaknesses would be acquired and passed on to future generations so that, in time, sicknesses would develop “quite naturally” based on the fact that man, cut off from God, would continue to live in a world inspired by Satan—a world deprived of the knowledge of God’s health laws, including healthy food.

Ultimately, then, physical sickness was introduced into the world through the original sin of Adam and Eve. Christ’s sacrifice, which can be applied to obtain forgiveness of spiritual sin, can also be applied, then, to obtain freedom from the consequences of sin, two of which are physical and mental sickness.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ clearly includes physical healing. To say that Christ’s sacrifice only deals with forgiveness of spiritual sin to bring about spiritual healing, overlooks and, in fact, negates the important aspect of Christ’s broken body. Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, but also He was beaten and tortured before He died. During the Passover evening, “Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’” (Matthew 26:26). In 1 Corinthians 11:24, the following is added: “… when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you.’” Just as the wine, which the disciples were to drink during the Passover service, represented Christ’s blood, “which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28), so the broken bread represented Christ’s body, which would be broken for us.

The fact that Christ’s body would be broken for us is of specific importance and meaning. We already touched upon the pivotal Scripture of Isaiah 53:3–5. Let us read the key statements, in context: “A Man of sorrows [margin, pains] and acquainted with grief [margin, sickness]… Surely, He has borne our griefs [margin, sicknesses], And carried our sorrows [margin, pains]… He was wounded [margin, pierced through] for our transgressions, He was bruised [margin, crushed] for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes [margin, blows that cut in] we are healed.”

This aspect of Christ’s sacrifice, that His body was brutally beaten and crushed, pierced through and viciously wounded, deals with our physical healing. This fact is confirmed in Matthew 8:16–17 where we read: “When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: ‘He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.’”

We find a remarkable forerunner or type of Christ’s sacrifice in the Old Testament, in Numbers 21:6–9. Because of sin, God sent fiery serpents to bite and kill the Israelites. The Israelites acknowledged their sins and repented, asking Moses to pray to God for removal of the penalty. God instructed Moses to make a bronze fiery serpent and to set it on a pole, and “it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live” (verse 8).

We see in this account that the sickness of the Israelites was a consequence of their personal, individual sins. But upon repentance, they would be healed and would not die. This episode foreshadowed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (compare John 3:14–15; 8:28). Today, when we look, in spirit, with deep and genuine repentance at Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, we can obtain forgiveness and healing. We don’t have to continue in sickness and fear of death, physically and, more importantly, spiritually.

The spiritual aspect of “healing” must not be overlooked. Christ suffered and died for us, so that we can have both physical and spiritual healing. In 1 Peter 2:21–25, the aspect of our spiritual healing is emphasized. We read: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in his mouth’; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”

There is clearly a connection between physical and spiritual healing. Colossians 1:21–22 tells us: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight.” Also, we read in Hebrews 10:10, that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

What, then, is the connection between physical and spiritual healing? As we saw, the broken bread symbolizes our physical healing from sickness. At the same time, we must also be spiritually reconciled with God, having obtained spiritual healing from God (Acts 28:25–27). Further, we need to be reconciled with our fellow man. As Paul explains, if we devour each other, especially in the church, the “body of Christ” (compare Colossians 1:18), we cannot expect to receive physical healing (1 Corinthians 10:16–17; Galatians 5:15). This is the reason why James tells us, in James 5:16, to “confess” our “trespasses to one another.”

Christ’s sacrifice—His broken body and His shed blood—did more for us than just heal us physically and preserve our physical lives. In referring to the bronze serpent in the wilderness as a type, Christ explained the ultimate purpose of His sacrifice on the cross. John 3:14–15 tells us: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Christ WANTS to give us eternal life. That is the ultimate goal! This means that if we are plagued with a sickness that is not being healed in this life, it may be necessary for us to suffer so that we can enter the kingdom of God. If this is the case, then we must accept this. Remember, Paul was not healed because God feared that he could become proud and haughty, and, in fact, may not make it into the kingdom.

At this point, we need to address in detail whether God gives us an absolute, unconditional promise to heal us of EVERY sickness in this life if we only repent of our sins, believe in the sacrifice of Christ, and have faith in God’s healing. Some claim that such an unconditional promise is contained in Psalm 103:1–3, which we have briefly mentioned earlier. In verses 2 and 3, David says to his soul not to forget all of God’s benefits, “Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases.” This passage does not contain an absolute promise, neither for forgiveness of sin, nor for physical healing; instead, it clearly does include conditions.

God does NOT forgive our sins or iniquities unconditionally. God does require that we fulfill certain conditions, such as showing fruits worthy of repentance, having faith in the sacrifice of Christ, and forgiving those who have wronged us. One absolute requirement for healing today is faith, but faith is not the only condition.

Some say that if we only have enough faith in God to heal, then we have an unconditional promise for healing in each and every case. But even this is not correct. If it were so, why was the apostle Paul not healed? Why were righteous prophets, like Elisha, not healed? Let’s look closer at what the Bible tells us.

Meaning of Psalm 103

When reading Psalm 103:3, very carefully, we discover that God does not use the common word for “sickness” here. He uses a different Hebrew word that is translated as “diseases.” The Hebrew word is “tachaluim.” It is only used five times in the entire Old Testament. One use is here in Psalm 103:3.

Let us notice the other four occurrences:

(1) One passage is found in 2 Chronicles 21:18–19, where God directly and specifically brought a disease upon King Jehoram, because the king was a sinful, unrepentant man (compare verses 4–6, 11–15).

(2) Another passage is Deuteronomy 29:21–22. We read that God would bring “sicknesses” over Israel, because of their sins and their unwillingness to repent (compare verses 23–27). The word for “sicknesses” in the Hebrew is “tachaluim.” So, we see again that these diseases were brought directly by God because of unrepented sin.

(3) Another use of the word can be found in Jeremiah 14:18 (“…And if I enter the city, Then behold, those sick from famine!…”). The word “sick” in the phrase “sick from famine” is again a translation of the Hebrew word “tachaluim.” God brought this sickness upon the people because they wickedly sinned against Him (compare verses 19–20).

(4) Finally, the word “tachaluim” can be found in Jeremiah 16:4 (“They shall die gruesome deaths…”). The word for “gruesome” in the phrase, “gruesome deaths,” is a translation of the Hebrew word, “tachaluim.” The death, accompanied by sickness, occurred because of unrepented sins (compare verses 10–12).

With that background, let us return to Psalm 103. We note that David praised God in verse 2 for the BENEFITS that HE, David—David’s soul—obtained and would be obtaining from God. David did not say specifically when he would obtain God’s benefits. He told his soul, that is, himself, that he should give thanks to God for those benefits. But did David obtain healing from God of EVERY sickness that he has had in his life? The answer is NO!

Notice, for example, 1 Kings 1:1: “Now King David was old, advanced in years, and they put covers on him, but he could not get warm.” This lack of blood circulation leading to coldness was not healed! But again, we don’t read that David became sick with this lack of blood circulation because he had sinned. Rather, he could not get warm anymore because of hisold age.

We saw that the word in Psalm 103, translated “disease,” had to do with a disease brought directly by God upon the person because of his or her unrepented sin. There was a direct correlation. Not every sickness is the result of personal sin, but the ones that are, will be removed by God upon repentance, if the sickness was brought upon the person by God for the express purpose of leading him or her to genuine repentance.

It is interesting that the Ryrie Study Bible defines “diseases” here with “spiritual afflictions, parallel with iniquities.” As God forgives all our iniquities upon repentance, so He removes, upon repentance, all our diseases from us that He brought upon us because of iniquity, to lead us to repentance. David did repent when he realized that he had done wrong, and so God removed from him those sicknesses that He had brought upon David to lead him to repentance. In other words, if the sole purpose for the disease, brought by God upon a person because of sin, was to bring the person to genuine repentance, and if the person repents, then God will remove the disease, as the purpose for the disease has been accomplished.

This passage does not apply to each and every sickness. Further, this passage does not even tell us WHEN God removes those diseases from us. God MAY just wait until the time of our resurrection to free us from those diseases; otherwise, our “repentance” might not be lasting and we might forfeit our entrance into the kingdom.

God may very well heal in this life, and quickly. Although God may heal people with little or no faith in Him, He generally only does so, if we believe that He can and will heal us. But without faith, there is no reason to think that God will heal us.

Christ healed a blind man, saying to him: “according to your faith let it be to you” (Matthew 9:29). He healed the demon-possessed daughter of a Gentile woman when He saw the woman’s faith. He said to her: “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire!” (Matthew 15:28). He healed a blind man, telling him: “Your faith has made you well” (Luke 18:42).

Sarah was healed and received a child, “because she judged Him faithful who had promised” (Hebrews 11:11).

Again, this does not mean that if we only have enough faith, we have an absolute unconditional promise that God will heal us immediately. More than faith may be involved. God may decide that it is best for us not to be healed right away. We need to always submit to the will of God, saying, as Christ did in the garden of Gethsemane: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will… O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done” (Matthew 26:39, 42). Christ did not doubt God’s power to intervene; likewise, we must never doubt God’s power to heal. Still, Christ was willing to submit to the Father’s will. Christ prayed to the Father, as it says in Mark 14:36: “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.”

Christ experienced what it was like to suffer in the flesh, so that He could become our merciful High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 4:14–16; 5:6–8). All of us need to be compassionate and merciful toward others. In going through trials and suffering, including [a prolonged] sickness, we develop empathy for others who are also afflicted with sickness (compare 2 Corinthians 1:3–7). This may be, at times, one of the reasons why God may decide not to heal us right away.

Without faith, however, we have absolutely no guarantee that God will heal us, even though He otherwise might have done it. Notice the following revealing examples: We read that Christ “did not do many works” in Nazareth “because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:58). We are even told in Mark 6:5–6 that He could not do mighty works there because of their unbelief.

If we do not have enough faith in God, then we are to pray and fast in order to GROW in faith. Christ said that given enough faith, “nothing will be impossible for you” (Matthew 17:20). At the same time, He explained to His disciples that they needed to pray and fast MORE in order to be given the kind of faith that was necessary to cast out a powerful demon (verse 21).

Faith is necessary for healing, but faith alone is not enough. Our way of life has a great deal to do with whether God may choose to heal us or not. We read in 1 John 3:22: “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.” (Compare, too, Matthew 21:22.)

If we please God, by keeping His commandments, then we CAN have confidence that God WILL heal us, in HIS time, and when it is BEST for us.

If we REALLY love God, then we will have developed such a close relationship with Him that we will understand and accept the fact that God may respond to our plea for healing with the words, “Not yet, My child.” God will make His Will known to us as He did to Christ in the garden, and to Paul, and we will accept it, knowing that God will never do anything that is bad for us. We will understand that “all things work together for good to those who love God” (Romans 8: 28). When Paul understood that God would not heal him from his sickness in this life, he said, “Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities… for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).

At the same time, we are not to give up. In Paul’s case, God revealed it very clearly to him, leaving no doubt that He would not heal him. But even Paul asked three times for healing before God made His will known to him. We must, therefore, in faith, continue to pray to God for healing when we are sick, never doubting that He can heal us and that He will do so (compare James 1:6–8), unless important reasons prevent Him from doing so. We must never have the frame of mind, “I will ask God for healing, but I’m not sure whether He will heal me, since He might not be able to, or want to.” Rather, we must be convinced that God WILL heal us, and we must ask Him in faith, while making sure that we do everything we can so that God is not prevented from healing us by our conduct (such as lack of faith, refusal to repent of sin, etc.).

This is the reason James says in chapter 5, verses 13–16: “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray… Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”

We are being told in James 5:16 that we are to “confess [our] trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that [we] may be healed.” The Greek word for “trespass,” paraptoma, is used in numerous additional passages, for instance in Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:1; 2:5; or 2 Corinthians 5:19. It is consistently and correctly translated in the New King James Bible as “trespasses” in those passages. We are told in Colossians 2:13 that God, upon our repentance, forgives us all of our “trespasses.” We are also told that if we forgive men their “trespasses,” our Father will forgive us our “trespasses” as well, but if we do not forgive men their “trespasses,” our Father will not forgive us our “trespasses,” either (Matthew 6:14–15; compare Matthew 18:35).

The “trespasses” which we need to confess to our brother or sister, in order to obtain his or her “forgiveness,” are those that we have committed against our brother or our sister. Mark 11:25–26 tells us: “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Unresolved problems between brethren might even prevent healing of physical sickness. James 5:16 tells us, “Confess your trespasses to one another [with the goal to “clear the air”], and pray for one another, THAT you may be healed.” After all, Christ told Peter to forgive his repenting brother “seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22). In Peter’s question, the brother had sinned against Peter and had come to him to express to him his sorrow—in other words, to “confess” to Peter his trespass or sin against Peter.

We also read in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Notice, too, Matthew 5:23–24, “Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”’

If we commit a sin or trespass against someone else, resulting in an offense and a problem within our relationship with that other person, we are to “confess” our sin or trespass to that person, asking him or her for forgiveness, with the goal of restoring our relationship. At the same time, we are NOT to “confess” or talk about our sin or trespass with others, unless a situation develops as described in Matthew 18:15–17. Notice, however, the very first step in the Matthew 18 process: “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him ALONE. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” At that moment, the process is supposed to end, and the sin or trespass against the brother is supposed to be forgiven, buried and gone. It is not to be “resurrected” by the parties, and it is most certainly not to be talked about to others.

At the same time, the Bible does not teach that we should “confess” or tell others (including a minister) sins that we might have committed against God. God can forgive and forget (Hebrews 8:12)—people, though, being human, have a long memory many times when it comes to the sins of others.

The Scripture in James 5:14–16 is a command for us, that if we are sick, we are to ask for God’s true ministers to anoint us with oil [a symbol of God’s Holy Spirit of power] and to pray over us. We have to pray with faith, and we have to repent of our sins, if our sickness is a result of sin. This shows that not every sickness is the result of sin, but sin CAN be the cause of it. Further, we have to repent of our trespasses towards others, and we have to forgive others the trespasses committed against us. Then, we are told, God will heal us if we are sick. He might do it immediately, or within a short while. But then again, He might not do it in this life. He will, however, do it without question at the time of our resurrection. We read that God will raise up the sick person. The word for “raise up” is the same Greek word used when God talks about the resurrection from the dead.

The connection is clear: IF we fulfill the conditions mentioned in James 5, we WILL be in the resurrection, having had our sins and trespasses forgiven and our sicknesses healed. If, on the other hand, we do NOT repent of our sins AND of our trespasses committed against our brothers and sisters, and if we do not forgive our brothers and sisters their trespasses, we will NOT be in the resurrection, nor will we receive physical healing from God.

In effect, God is saying: “I will raise you up, perhaps right now to honor your faith in Me, but for sure at the time of Christ’s return, IF you have faith in Me and IF you repent of your sins and IF you confess your trespasses to your brother and sister, against whom you have sinned, thereby bringing about reconciliation between the two of you.” We are not to confess sins against God to others, but if we have wronged another human being, we must go to that person and bring about reconciliation.

Some may wonder whether God has promised to heal only converted members of His church, and whether ministers of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates, the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada, and the Global Church of God in the United Kingdom, will only anoint sick members of their organizations. The answer is “No” in both cases. The Bible is very clear that God heals sick people who try to obey God and who have faith that He will heal them. He tells us in Exodus 15:26, “If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.”

We are also told how healing from sickness has been made possible. We are healed by the stripes of Jesus Christ who gave His life for us, and who was tortured and beaten so that we can obtain forgiveness of our sins and healing from our sicknesses and diseases (Psalm 103:1–3; Matthew 8:16–17; 1 Peter 2:21–25; Isaiah 53:5).

Generally, God tells us that when we are sick, we are to call for the elders of the Church of God—the body of Christ, a spiritual organism—to pray for us and to anoint us with oil (a symbol of the Holy Spirit) and to lay hands on us, so that we can be healed (James 5:14–15; Mark 16:18).

Many times, a ministerial visit may not be possible, as the sick person might live in a remote area. If this is the case, then elders are permitted to pray over a cloth, anointing it with a drop of oil as the symbol of the Holy Spirit and asking God to heal the sick person who will receive this cloth. This is based on numerous passages in the Bible, showing us that people were healed when they touched the garments of Christ (Mark 6:56) or the aprons or handkerchiefs from Paul’s body (Acts 19:12).

We understand, of course, that there is no magical importance attached to an anointed cloth. It cannot, and will not, heal anyone. Rather, it is through the stripes that Christ endured that we are healed.

When a person who is sick receives the anointed cloth, he is to place it on his head and pray to God (as the minister would have already done when anointing the cloth) that God would heal him or her from the sickness. Since our faith must be in God and not in any man or in the anointed cloth, the cloth should be destroyed immediately after it has been used.

As the Bible shows, the sick person does not have to be a baptized member of the Church of the Eternal God, one of its corporate affiliates, or the spiritual body of Christ (of which the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates are a part). It is necessary, however, that the sick person has faith in the sacrifice of Christ, believing that he or she will be healed by God because of what Christ did for us.

We find that Christ healed many people who were not converted. In fact, when Christ was here on earth, prior to His death and resurrection, the Bible does not reveal that ANYBODY—other than Christ and John the Baptist—had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. After the New Testament Church began in 31 A.D., as Acts 2 reports, God continued to use the apostles and elders to heal people who were not members of the body of Christ, some of whom were even demon-possessed (Acts 5:12–16; 8:5–8; 28:7–9). One incident that is recorded shows that a person was healed without asking for healing, so that the power of God the Father and Jesus Christ would be magnified (compare Acts 3:1–10, 12–16). It appears, however, that in that particular case, the sick person did have faith that God, through Christ, would heal him (compare verse 16). Paul later healed a man who had been a cripple from his mother’s womb, after Paul had observed him “intently,” seeing that “he had faith to be healed” (Acts 14:9).

Many times, healing may be one of the means for God to lead a person to total surrender to Him—or it might be a witness for others to turn to God (compare Acts 9:32–35). In particular, children of parents in the church, as well as unconverted mates, may experience healing, sometimes in unusual ways, so that their faith in God the Father and Jesus Christ may be strengthened. (Compare 1 Corinthians 7:14. Note that both the children and the unconverted mates are “sanctified” or “holy,” that is, they have access to God and can respond to God’s call. Also compare 1 Peter 3:1–2.)

If a sick person asks one of our ministers for anointing or an anointed cloth, believing that God will heal them, they will receive what they request. God commanded His servants to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God and to “heal the sick” (Matthew 10:8; Luke 9:2; 10:9).

If a sick person has the faith in God to be healed, they should take advantage of the tremendous benefit that God bestows on us to heal us from our sicknesses and diseases. Our sicknesses are important in God’s eyes. If we are suffering with a sickness, let us ask God for His intervention. After all, He is the God Who heals us!

Whatever trials or sicknesses we have to deal with in our lives, let us ALWAYS be subject to God’s Will, giving Him the honor, praise and thanks for whatever He does for us. God created us, and He knows what is best for us. When Job was plagued with sickness, he thanked God for it, knowing that God would not have allowed it unless there was a purpose. Job did not understand that purpose for a long time, and neither might we be able to see God’s purpose clearly during a particular illness, but God knows, and that should ultimately be sufficient for us.

Once everything in God’s plan for all of mankind has been accomplished, sickness and death will be a thing of the past. Let us always have this hope of a better future in mind when we go through trials and sicknesses, because the time will come when EVERYTHING will be different.

Revelation 21:3–4 prophesies about that future time: “And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”