Genesis 22:14 and The Promise of Prosperity

I continue my series on abused bible verses with one of my favorites. I say this because I used to attend a Pentecostal church that preached the so-called "prosperity gospel." This "gospel" is wrapped up in the false idea that God wants believers to have prosperity and health. I believe it is a false gospel and is based on blatent misinterpretations of Scripture that do not apply to Christians, but to ancient Jews that were under the Mosaic Law. I have addressed this a previous post.


So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." First, it is clear that "The LORD will provide" is a poor translation of the Hebrew. According to the English Standard Version, the proper translation should be the LORD "will see" or "will be seen." This forces us to ask the question, what will be seen? It is clear that according to the context that this chapter is a visual example of what the Father would do to His Son some 2,000 years after this event.


Here are some points to think about. First, Just as Isaac bore the wood that he was to be sacrificed on (Gen. 22:6). Similarly, John 19:17 states that Jesus bore the cross that He was to die on.


Second, in Gen. 22:5 Abraham prophesied to his servants that he and Isaac would return from the mountain. In Matt. 16:21 Jesus foretold that He would be raised from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4).


In Gen. 22:9, Issac willingly went to the alter of sacrifice. In Heb. 12:2, Jesus viewed the cross, His alter of sacrifice, with joy.


As the story concludes, Abraham calls the place where he was to sacrifice Isaac, "Yawhew Yireah" or "Yawhew Will Provide." Now as I have shown above, this is a bad translation based on the King James Version, but given that, the question that must be asked is what did Yahweh provide on that mountain? As I have stated, the story is a visual prophecy of Jesus death on the same mountain 2,000 years future from this event. The provision was the death of Jesus.


Sadly, Pentecostals and those who hold to the "prosperity gospel" have stripped this passage of its great soteriological (the doctrine of salvation) meaning and trivialized it into a verse that merely promises financial prosperity and good health. This is truly sad, because the gospel is not about simply about the here and now, but about "the eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4:17) that Paul promised Christians.


Further, this is a sad commentary on the carnal nature of many modern Pentecostals. When I attended a Pentecostal church (i was not just an attendee, but a member of leadership there), I asked my former pastor about the emphasis on the here and now as opposed to the future in his preaching, in the denomination they belonged to, and in Pentecostalism, in general. He responded that the promises of eternal life was "not enough" for people to become Christians. Rather he said that people "need something now" to motivate them to call on Christ. Sadly, this sort of teaching merely creates false converts that are "twice the children of hell" as those that never professed faith in Christ (Matt. 23:15).


These prosperity preachers are editing the the gospel in order to win attendees as opposed to disciples of Christ. They are removing the promises of trials and tribulations which were promised by Jesus to His disciples in Luke 14:25-33 and substituting the false gospel of wealth and health. It is indeed sad that too many Pentecostal preachers are doing this. It is my prayer that they repent of this false gospel, and return to preaching the true gospel, that is, repentance from sin and belief in Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 1:15).

Back With A Vengeance!

After an interruption caused by the crashing of my old laptop, I have finally been able to get a new laptop which will enable me to post with my usual frequency. I look forward to posting on the topics I have been thinking about for the past few months, and can't wait to post them. So look for a new post in the coming week.

Above all thank you for being patient with me. I do not foresee another problem like I had. I look forward to posting and fielding questions from you, the readers.

The Creative Days: Aeons or Twenty-Four Hours

Another problem with many who attempt to interpret the Bible is the the importation of modern ideas into a cultural and literary context that is not familiar to the Bible writers, for example, insisting that the Bible writers listened to a radio. One example is the attempt by many "old earth" creationists to transform the six creative days in Genesis 1:3-31 from six literal 24-hour days to extensive periods of time.

The problem with this view is that there is no historical or exegetical basis for this assertion. First, the concept of million and billion are of recent origin and were totally foreign to Moses (the author of Genesis).

Second, to the ancient Jewish people (i.e. Moses) numbers had to have a concrete association. In other words when a Jewish shepherd took a flock out to pasture the owner of the flock would gather pebbles and as each sheep passed the owner the owner would take a pebble form the pile and deposit it in a bag. When the shepherd returned with the flock at a later date the owner would count the sheep by removing the pebbles from the bag. If the shepherd was good then there word be more sheep than pebbles, and if there were less sheep than pebbles you can guess the result of that.

Third, Arabic numerals (1,2,3, etc.) were also unknown to Moses. In other words, Hebrew numerals were spelled out, much like on a check. These reasons are good enough to jettison the "old earth" creationist theory. We are not just interested in a historical refutation of this view, but are primarily interested on what the Bible says.

The Hebrew word translated "day" in English is "yom". What is interesting about this word is that when it is modified by a numeral, then it always refers to a literal 24-hour day. Now one of the verses that that "old earth" creationists use to attempt to prove their view that "yom" when modified by a numeral is not a literal 24-hour day is Hosea 6:2:

After two days he will revive us;
   on the third day he will raise us up,
   that we may live before him.

The first usage of "yom" is a dual absolute (literally "day day") and is not modified by a numeral. The second usage of "yom" is modifired by the number three. The question then arises as to whether or not this modification causes the passage to refer to a literal 24-hour day or a period of time longer than 24 hours? The answer can be found in the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture.

The Apostle Paul interpreted Hosea 6:2 in 1 Corinthians 15:4. In this Scripture, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul interprets Hosea 6:2 as three literal 24 hour days. Further, Jesus prophesied that after three days in the grave He would be raised up from it. As we can see the insertion of modern ideas into a text leads to bad ideas, and "old earth" creationism is a bad idea.

The Gap Theory - Genesis 1:1-2

Genesis 1:1-2 has been translated by the King James Version as follows:

 ¹In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 ²And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The problem with these verses is not readily identifiable by a surface examination of the text. The problem we are facing here is the artificial insertion of the period between verses one and two. This insertion has led to a number of theories that appear to ignore the actual Hebrew in the verses. Further, the period between verses one and two has been used by theistic evolutionists and "old earth" creationists as a basis for a "gap theory" or to shoehorn modern atheistic evolution into the text of the Bible. The problem is that the Hebrew does not appear to allow for the period or the insertion of billions of years into the God's creation process.

Dr. Robert Morey has translated these verses as follows:

When the Beginning began, out of nothing, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was devoid of life and a desert, and darkness covered the surface of the sea, and the Spirit of God was brooding over the surface of the water.

 What must be pointed out is that verse two is a series of three vav consecutives (rendered "and" in English). According to Dr. Morey's translation, the vav consecutives indicate that verses one and two are actually one sentence in the Hebrew. What the King James version translators did in artificially inserting the period between verses one and two is set their misinterpretation in stone for all subsequent English translations of the Bible. This is not the only verse in the King James Version that they did this to. I must point out, however, that whether verse one and verse two are translated into one or two sentences this does not affect the doctrine of creation.

This artificial division has led to the establishment of the "gap theory". This theory, proposed by well intentioned Christians who hope to shoehorn the geological record into the first two verses of Genesis by positing that there was a undetermined period of time between verse one of Genesis chapter one and verse two. This theory can still be found in the Scofield Reference Bible, the Dake's Annotated Bible and some other Bible study aids.The "gap theory" is also promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross of the Institute for Creation Research.

One of the problems created by the "gap theory" is the insertion of pre-Adamic humanoids. This attempt at synthesizing the assertions of atheistic evolutionists with the Biblical record does not work. Namely, because Genesis 2:7 does not say "the living creature became a man" but that "the man became a living creature."

In conclusion I wish to say that I do not believe that whether a believer is an "old earth" creationist or a "young earth" creationist is an essential over which Christians should break fellowship. I realize that there are many who may disagree with me on this point, and you are entitled to that view. With that said, I do wish to point out that the use of Genesis 1:1 & 2 as a foundation for an "old earth" view is playing fast and loose with the Scriptures. I believe that a serious exegesis of the Scriptures will necessitate a "young earth" view of this planet by a Christian that is serious about studying the Bible.

Resurrection Sunday 2011

Resurrection Sunday is not about what Jesus can do for you or your broken dreams, but it is about what Jesus did for you. Romans 4:24-25 says, "...us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." This is what Jesus' death and resurrection accomplished for Christians. There are a number of pastors out there that will not be teaching this tomorrow. Instead they will be teaching about a phony Jesus whose death and resurrection has only temporal benefits. They teach this sort of resurrection message because they are not interested in teaching the sheep, but attracting goats (Matthew 25:32). The reason is simple, too many pastors are concerned about having "mega-churches" and million dollar budgets. They fixate on "five-star" amenities, not to benefit the sheep, but to make the goats comfortable. The problem with this is that it is unscriptural. One of the marks of a healthy church is not the amenities, but the teaching.

Too many of these pastors that are fixated with numbers (attenders & finances) do not preach the Gospel. Instead they preach about how the problems (they don't preach about sin) in their lives are the fault of others who damaged them emotionally, or the fault of the white man. The Bible teaches, however, that the main problem with humanity is that it is radically fallen into sin. Paul, in Romans 3:9-20, clearly states the facts regarding humanity's internal malady and the symptoms that this malady manifests. Paul concludes this chapter by stating in verse 19, that all the sins he listed in the previous nine verses were manifestations of humanity's lawlessness which shuts their mouths, and for which they will be held accountable to God.

This message is not palatable to the unregenerate. They prefer to blame the evil they do on damaged emotions, poor environment, lack of education or something else. The problem with this blame shifting is that it makes no difference if a person has damaged emotions, a poor environment or is uneducated because we see example after example of people coming from good environments, with ample education, and with healthy emotions doing horrible things. The problem is not rotted in these issues, but instead rooted in the fact that humanity is radically fallen into sin.

Humanity's sinfulness is described in a number of Bible verses. Genesis 6:5 states that humanity's wickedness was great and that every intention of humanity's thoughts was only evil continually. You may say that this verse describes pre-Flood humanity, and does not apply to us after the Flood. I simply point you to Genesis 8:21 which says that the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the human heart, the seat of reason in Hebrew thought, "is deceitful above all things and desperately sick".

Humanity's sinfulness is so insidious that it even infects our good works. Isaiah 64:6 states that our righteousness is like filthy rags to God. The reason why God sees them as filthy is that humanity uses its good works to justify itself before God. In other words, because I have done A, B & C good works, then God will over look X, Y & Z sins. The problem is that God does not weigh our sin against our good works. God is a holy God and as such He cannot overlook sin. He must deal with it in a manner that reflects His holiness. Therefore, He gave laws in the Old Testament and repeated them in the New Testament and demanded that this law be kept in deed, word and thought. In other words, the law must be kept with 100% accuracy, 100% of the time. Anything less than that is sin. God must punish sin, and He will do so by assigning all those that sin to eternity apart from Him. This is God's justice. Everyone of us has sinned, and therefore everyone of us deserves eternity apart the God who created us and demands that we worship Him.

This is the bad news. It is the black velvet. It is where every presentation of the resurrection needs to begin. It is because of our sin that God in his omniscience predestined that He would send His Son to die the death we should have died after living the life we would not live. This is the ultimate manifestation of God's love, mercy and grace. This is the diamond that is placed on the black velvet background of our sinfulness. That blackness enhances the beauty of the diamond. It makes the diamond shine brighter as it reflects God's love, mercy & grace. Jesus' death of the Roman cross, while ugly and sinful, was the manner in which we could have our sin blotted out.

The redemption story does not end there. Three days after Jesus' death He resurrected from the dead. The resurrection according to Paul was for our justification. In other words, it is the resurrection of Jesus that makes us truly righteous before God. Jesus' resurrection is the seal of approval that God placed on Jesus' death.

OK, so what? What does all of this mean now? Simply, God has provided a way out of your sin, and the subsequent eternal damnation you justly deserve. All you need to do is repent and believe. Now you have heard the real message of Easter, repent and believe in the only person who claimed to be God and proved this claim by raising from the dead. Are you willing to repent and believe?

Bible Abuse - Introduction

I have been thinking about doing this series for quite a while, and had begun doing research and outlining. I wanted to start this after I finished the Resurrection series. My laptop crashed, however, and with it all my notes on the resurrection. Yes, I know I should have backed up the files, but I didn't. So why I go back and get my research for the Resurrection series I have decided to start this new series entitled Bible Abuse.

In this new series we will be looking at various Bible verses that the cults, non-Christians and Christians use in a manner that does violence to the Scriptures. What this series will do is teach you good principles of hermeneutics by showing you how bad hermeneutics is done. It is important to understand that most misinterpretations of the Bible can be remedied by "never reading a Bible verse." I got this principle from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. I will be pointing this out to you as we go through the various verses when it is applicable. There are, however, other problematic issues that so many people apply to their method of Bible hermeneutics that cause faulty interpretations to surface, and we will identify them as we progress.

Before I begin, I want to define what hermeneutics is. It is both the art and science of interpreting the Bible. Hermeneutics is also something that we do everyday with all the information we read and process, from newspaper reports, to op-ed and editorial articles, to biographical works, to fiction, to non-fiction, to legal documents, etc. The genre of the literature determines the manner in which we interpret the literature. In other words, we do not interpret a legal document in the same manner as we would a comic book. The same applies to the Bible which contains a number of different genres, such as, poetry, prose, historical narrative, biography, Jewish apocalyptic, etc. The Bible is not one book that is to be interpreted in one literal and wooden manner, but rather is a collection of 66 books that are composed in different literary styles.

Secondly, the Bible was written in languages (Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) that posses vocabulary and grammar that must be observed and followed in order to be understood. Examples of these grammatical rules are the ellipsis, and the way the writers of the New Testament would emphasize a word in the letter they were writing.

Thirdly, there have been errors in how various translating committees, especially with the King James Version, have rendered various Bible verses from the original languages into English. Because of the esteem that the KJV is held, these errors have not been corrected, though many of the modern English Bible translations have footnotes that indicate that there is a problem with the traditional rendering of a specific text.

Lastly, there has been an insertion of modern or cultural concepts into the hermeneutic style of many Biblical scholars and pastors that were completely foreign to the writers of the Old and New Testaments. An example of this is the attempt by old earth creationists to insert the concept of billions of years into the creative day.

One thing I wish to point out before I begin looking at specific Bible verses is that you, the reader, may get your interpretation of your favorite Bible verse or promise slain. Sometimes Christians, myself included, have faulty interpretations that need to be corrected. It is my prayer that you would be humble and reject faulty interpretation rather than erect an idol of your interpretation of a Bible verse. You are not alone in having faulty Bible interpretations. I have had many. Not just from my days as a Jehovah's Witness, but also from the various faulty interpretations I heard in the various churches I attended.

One last point, I do not think that I have all the answers, nor do I think that I have arrived and my knowledge of the Scriptures is complete. I have much to learn, and perhaps I have made an error in my own hermeneutics that you readers can see and correct me. I am not averse to being corrected. In fact, if I am corrected and I can verify that that I was wrong then I will change my position and post it prominently on this blog, as I have done in the past.

I also want to encourage you to post comments. I post all comments, even anonymous comments. There are one exception to the above rule, I will not post anything with profanity. Please feel free to criticize my posts, however, if you cannot express yourself without using profanity then your post is not worth reading or its author worthy of interaction.


I am looking forward to this new series, and I pray that it will be a benefit to you.

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Part Four

Opposing Theories to the Resurrection

In these next few posts I will be looking at some of the opposing theories critics and skeptics use to counter the claim that Jesus actually rose from the dead. In this post, however, we will be looking at whether or not the resurrection was legend. Are the claims of the resurrection legendary embellishments from later Christians? Were the writers of the Gospels actually writing history or a non-historical account of Jesus? Do the claims of resurrections that are found in other religions discredit the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? These are the questions we will be looking at in this post.

The Resurrection “Legend”

Is the resurrection story merely a legendary embellishment that was inserted to the story over time? The problem with this claim is that is discounts the fact that the resurrection account can be traced to the original disciples. While critics and skeptics can accuse the original disciples of lying or hallucinating, they cannot claim that the resurrection was a legend that developed after the time of the disciples. The reason is that the disciples made the claim to the resurrection.

Both Paul and James came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection apart from the testimony of the disciples.

While it is true that embellishments can occur over time with stories, the issue is whether or not embellishments occurred with the resurrection claim of Christianity? Without any supporting evidence of said embellishments this theory is merely an assertion.

Non-Historical Literary Genre

Did the writers of the Gospels write in a literary style to honor their teacher as opposed to actually writing an historical account of a literal resurrection? First, the empty tomb has attestation from outside the New Testament. Second, the skeptic Paul was hostile to Christianity and a Pharisee. As a Pharisee, Paul would have been familiar with Jewish fable, and he would not have been persuaded by what he would have rightly as a feeble attempt by Christians at Jewish Midrash, nor would he follow someone he considered a false Messiah (thereby placing his own soul in jeopardy). The same issues are true with James. According to Hegesippus (as quoted by Eusebius) James remained pious towards the Jewish Law even after becoming a Christian. It would then be extremely unlikely that he would convert over a mere story he would have considered fiction, change his worldview, follow a false Messiah who was cursed by God (since Jesus was crucified), and jeopardize his soul.

We concede that the fable genre existed, we also know that historical genre existed. Merely pointing out that mythical accounts exist does nothing to demonstrate that the Christian accounts are of the same genre. When one looks at the resurrection accounts it appears that the historical genre is the most likely genre that the authors wanted to write in. For example, in Acts 2:13 David is contrasted with Jesus. In this account David’s body decayed but Jesus’ did not.

It is clear from the responses of the early critics of the church (such as Celsus and the Jewish leaders) that the primitive church believed in the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event. The responses of these critics present arguments against the view of a literal and bodily resurrection. Why argue against a literal and bodily resurrection if such was not claimed?

Resurrections in Other Religions

The accounts of rising gods in other religions are vague and unclear. Scholars do not regard these stories as parallels since the details of the accounts are vague and not similar to Jesus’ resurrection. Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven. Baccus and Heracles and a few other sons rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus, having died violent deaths.

The first clear parallel is 100-plus years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. That a resurrection was reported in the earlier accounts of pagan deities is questionable. There is no clear death and resurrection of Marduk. In the earliest versions of Adonis no death or resurrection is reported. There is no clear account of Osirus rising from the dead. Further accounts rising gods in other religions lack evidence and can be easily accounted for by opposing theories. In contrast, there is no opposing theory that can explain away the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

In our next post we will look at another opposing theory, the “fraud” theory.