Friday, September 03, 2010 19:42

Oneness Pentecostalism

September 27th, 2009

Oneness Pentecostalism

By Jason Barker

Founder: Frank Ewart
Founding Date: 1913
Structure: Numerous denominations and independent churches.
Official Publications: Harvestime radio program, The New Birth, The Oneness of God.
Unique Terms: Apostolic, Jesus Only, Jesus Name baptism, prophecy wheel, emphasis on Acts 2:38.
Groups: United Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic World Christian Federation, Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World.

History

The founding date of the Oneness Pentecostal movement can be traced to a specific event: a revival meeting in Los Angeles on April 15, 1913. The culmination of the meeting occurred when Canadian revivalist R.E. McAlister baptized converts not according to the Trinitarian formula of the historic Christian Church, but in the name of Jesus only.1 While many at the meeting were shocked by this action, the burgeoning evangelist Frank Ewart spent many hours with McAlister following the service and was converted to the practice. According to many Oneness Pentecostals, McAlister taught Ewart that baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as stated in Acts 2:38,2 was the fulfillment of the Trinitarian creed in Matthew 28:19.3 The passage from Matthew is fulfilled because Jesus, the Son, is simply the ultimate expression of the monotheistic God (rather than the Son being a distinct Person within the Trinitarian Godhead).

The next significant date in the development of the movement occurred exactly two years later, on April 15, 1915, when Ewart gave his first sermon on Acts 2:38. David Reed believes that, despite the claims of Oneness Pentecostals that Ewart preached the message given to him by McCalister, Ewart did not actually develop his modalistic theology until after this sermon.4 Nonetheless, the approximate date for the development of Ewart’s teaching regarding the necessity of baptism in the name of Jesus only can be traced to this period.

Also on this date, Ewart rebaptized supporter Glenn A. Cook according to the Jesus only formula; Cook then rebaptized Ewart.5 This was the beginning of the rebaptism of thousands of Pentecostals. The Oneness movement quickly spread through Pentecostal churches, particularly the Assemblies of God. The AG debated the issue of baptism in Jesus’ name at their 1915 general assembly, and in 1916 defeated the movement in their denomination by requiring adherence to Trinitarian theology in the Statement of Fundamental Truths.6 156 ministers subsequently left the AG to form an independent Oneness denomination. In January, 1918, the General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, a denomination affiliated with the original Pentecostal revival on Azusa Street in Los Angeles.7

A particularly significant event in the history of the Oneness Pentecostal movement occurred in 1945, when the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ to form the United Pentecostal Church International. Beginning with 617 churches in 1946, the UPCI currently has 25,283 churches with a membership of over 2.6 million.8
Numerous individuals who are accepted within mainstream Evangelicalism are affiliated with Oneness Pentecostalism. The Christian musical trio Phillips, Craig, and Dean are all ministers in the UPCI. T.D. Jakes has roots in the Oneness Pentecostal movement,9 and his doctrinal statement currently proclaims his belief in three “dimensions” or “manifestations” of the one God;10 not surprisingly, doctrine is one of the two areas with which people typically express disagreement with Jakes.11 Also, the popular worship choruses “Holy Ground” and “In the Presence of Jehovah” were written by UPC songwriter Geron Davis.12

In contrast to this popularity, Steve Winter, an allegedly defrocked Oneness Pentecostal pastor,13 is a particularly unpopular representative of Oneness Pentecostalism. He refers to both mainstream Christians and other Oneness Pentecostals on the Internet as “false Christian scum,” and runs a web site from which he charges Christians with adhering to “sub canine morals.”14 The extremity of his behavior motivated Oneness apologist Mark Bassett to tell him, “You imbecile.YOU [have] habitually and regularly been involved in the disemination [sic] of inflamatory [sic] and defamatory material. matter [sic] of fact, this IS your universal reputation, in spite of the fact that you cranked a “Rev” in front of your name by personal whim.”15

Doctrine

Trinity

One of the two most distinguishing beliefs and practices within Oneness Pentecostalism (along with Jesus Only baptism – see below) is modalism. Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, believing instead that the monotheistic God simply “manifests” Himself in the offices or roles of the members of the Trinity. For example, one statement of Oneness beliefs claims:

God is absolutely one, with no distinction of persons. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:8; 45:5-6, 21-23; 46:9 Romans 3:30; Galatians 3:20; James 2:19). In order to save sinful humanity, God provided a sinless Man as a sacrifice of atonement – Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In begetting the Son and in relating to humanity, God is the Father. In working to transform and empower human lives, God is the Holy Spirit. Thus, for our salvation, God has revealed Himself as Father (in parental relationship to humanity), in His Son (in human flesh), and as the Holy Spirit (in spiritual action). (Malachi 2:10; Luke 1:35; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 1 Timothy 2:5).16

David K. Bernard, one of the most significant Oneness apologists, elaborates: “The term ‘God the Father’ is biblical and refers to God Himself.[The Bible] also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father. The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.”17

In other words, the Godhead does not consist of three distinct Persons with one substance. Instead, the single Person performs various roles to which He assigns the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When the monotheistic God acts as the Creator, He is performing as the Father. When He provided the atoning sacrifice to enable humans to be saved, He was performing as the Son. Finally, when He works to transform redeemed humans, He is performing as the Holy Spirit.

Theophilus of Antioch, a second-century Christian, is widely recognized (according to available evidence) as the first individual to use the word “Trinity” in explaining the biblical teachings about God.18 The lack of earlier documentary evidence for the word “Trinity” leads many Oneness Pentecostals to assume that “power hungry bishops” in the early conciliar period devised the doctrine in order to accommodate Greco-Roman traditions.19 They allege that the doctrine was developed further at the Council of Nicaea to accommodate the combined theological and political aspirations of Emperor Constantine.20

This belief system displays three misunderstandings: a misunderstanding of the bases for conciliar proclamations, a misunderstanding of the origins of modalism, and a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding the Trinity. Properly understanding all three points is vital for accurate Christian theology.

Conciliar Proclamations: Many Christians inaccurately believe that the seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Church were occasions on which new doctrine was developed. Instead, the councils clarified the consensus fidelium (consensus of the faithful, or the “mind of the Church”), and defended it from heretical attacks. For example, the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) did not “decide” that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father. Similarly, the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) did not “decide” that the Holy Spirit is also God. Instead, these councils, in reaction to heresies afflicting the Church at the time, clarified the biblical teachings for the faithful by creating pronouncements that would teach the biblical doctrines in ways that could be easily understood by the Church. Thus, the Nicene Creed was written at the Council of Nicaea in order to clearly promote the core doctrines of Christianity (including the belief that Jesus Christ is a distinct Person who is of one substance with the Father).

Modalism: The doctrine of the Godhead taught by Oneness Pentecostals, rather than having its roots in the Bible, can instead be traced to the heresy of modalism taught in the third century by Sabellius (although it was first taught in 190 by Theodotus of Byzantium). Sabellius taught that the monotheistic God (called a monad) progressively revealed Himself through the offices of the Trinity. Significantly, Sabellius was excommunicated from the Church for his aberrant teachings. The Oneness Pentecostal teaching that God “manifested” Himself through the offices of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comes directly from Sabellius, who even used the term “manifesting” to define his doctrine.21

Biblical Teaching of the Trinity: A Oneness teacher wrote, “To say that God is three persons and find substantiation for it in the Scripture is a work in futility. There is literally nothing in the Bible that supports God being three persons.”22 On the contrary, however, the passages at the end of this Profile clearly show that the concept of the Trinity can be found in the Bible.  Oneness Pentecostals are correct in pointing out that the God of the Bible is monotheistic. Nonetheless, because the Bible also teaches that there is a Person called God the Father, a Person called God the Son, and a Person called God the Holy Spirit, it is clear that the Bible teaches that within the nature of the one God there exist three separate and distinct Persons.

Jesus Only Baptism

As stated in the “History” section of this Profile, the Oneness Pentecostal movement started when R.E. McAlister baptized respondents at a revival in the name of Jesus only. Modern Oneness Pentecostals continue the practice because they believe, as did McAlister, that Acts 2:38 was the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.  David K. Bernard states, “[Matthew 28:19] teaches the titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost identify one name and therefore one being. The church correctly carried out the instructions Jesus gave in Mt.28:19 when the apostles used the name of Jesus in water baptism.”23 The UPCI elaborates: “The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God’s relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, caving name describe here, which is Jesus.”24 In other words, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus alone, and in doing so perfectly carried out the instructions of the Lord.
Furthermore, Oneness Pentecostals claim that Christians must be baptized according to the “Jesus Only” formula in order to be saved.25 The “Jesus Only” understanding and practice of baptism is thus tremendously significant to the spiritual state of Oneness Pentecostals.

The “Jesus Only” formula reflects an egregious decontextualization of Scripture. For example, examining Matthew 28:18 clearly refutes the Oneness understanding of Matthew 28:19. Jesus claims in verse 18 that all power was given to him by the Father; this claim would be meaningless, and would perhaps even be an indication of schizophrenia, if the Father and Son were actually the same person. Thus, just as he claimed in verse 18 the authority given to him, in verse 19 he commands the apostles to go forth and to baptize upon that authority (i.e., the command of Jesus).26 Such an understanding is confirmed by Acts 10:48, which similarly expresses the authority by which baptism is performed.

The Oneness understanding that salvation depends upon Jesus’ Name baptism is similarly refuted by Scripture. Oneness Pentecostals use Acts 4:12 as evidence that salvation comes through this baptismal formula.27 If salvation comes only through being baptized by the sacred name of God, and if the Son is simply a manifestation of God the Father, then baptism would therefore need to be performed in the name of Elohim or Yahweh (provided in the Old Testament). Since even Oneness Pentecostals would dispute this understanding, the necessity of baptism in the name of Jesus only is easily refuted using their own logic.

Tongues

Many Oneness Pentecostals believe that Christians must receive the gift of tongues, or glossolalia, in order to be saved. It should be pointed out that such Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that the gift of tongues in itself will save individuals; however, any individual who has received the Holy Spirit, and thus will be saved, will also receive and exhibit the gift of tongues. David K. Bernard explains,

Tongues in and of themselves do not save. Nevertheless, the relationship between the Spirit baptism and tongues is similar to that of faith and works. We are saved by faith, not works, yet works always accompany genuine faith. Likewise, tongues cannot save us, yet the Spirit baptism produces tongues as the initial sign.A Spirit baptism without tongues is a nonbiblical concept; the Bible does not discuss this possibility. We should always expect speaking in tongues when someone receives the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

It is not the purpose of this Profile to argue for or against glossolalia. Nonetheless, it is necessary to point out that the Oneness belief in the gift of tongues as a necessary evidence of having the Holy Spirit (as opposed to the gift as an evidence of the fullness of the Spirit, as some Pentecostals believe) is unbiblical. Even Bernard admits that many of the biblical accounts of conversions do not describe receiving the gift of tongues. Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals are erroneously attempting to argue that something that occasionally occurred should therefore always occur; it is impossible to argue this point when the Bible does not make such a claim.

Biblical Response

1. There is one God.28 Within the Godhead there are three distinct Persons: God the Father,29 God the Son,30 and God the Holy Spirit.31
2. The Son cannot be simply a temporary manifestation of the Father, because the all things were created through the Son32 and He is eternal.33
3. A relationship with the true God of the Bible is necessary for salvation.34


1 David Reed, “Oneness Pentecostal Origins,” [Online]. URL http://eli.elilabs.com/~mbasset/oporigin.txt.
2 “Be baptized everyone of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remissions of your
sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
3 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
4 Reed, [Online]. URL http://eli.elilabs.com/~mbasset/oporigin.txt. Reed spells Frank Ewart’s last name “Uert.” This variance exists in several other texts as well.
5 Mike Oppenheimer, “The Modern Beginnings of Oneness,” [Online]. URL http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes21.htm.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 About the United Pentecostal Church International, [Online]. URL http://www.upci.org/main/about.
9 J. Lee Grady, “The Other Pentecostals,” Charisma, June (1997), p. 68.
10 Doctrinal Statement for T.D. Jakes/Potter’s House Ministries, [Online]. URL http://www.tdjakes.org/ministry/doctrine.html.
11 Questions for T.D. Jakes, [Online]. URL http://www.tdjakes.org/ministry/faq/tdjakes.html.
12 Grady, p. 68.
13 Steve Adams, The Steve Winter FAQ, [Online]. URL http://www.mcs.net/~sadams/winfaq.html.
14 See http://www.prime.org.
15 Mark Bassett, “Re: The false christian [sic] scum, Richard “the harlot” Harlos,” [Online]. URL http://x26.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=463693601&CONTEXT=928772598.353501326&hitnum=75.
16 The United Pentecostal Church International, [Online]. URL http://www.prairienet.org/community/religion/fire/meet.html.
17 David K. Bernard, J.D., The Oneness of God, [Online]. URL http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch6.htm.
18 See the letter of Theophilus to Autolycus in Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: n.p., 1884), Book 2, Chapter 18.
19 Timothy Crews, Spiritual Roots, 2nd edition (n.p.: n.p., n.d.), p. 10.
20 Ibid., p. 11.
21 Gene Frost, The ‘Oneness’ Doctrine of Pentecostalism (Nelson, B.C.: MacGregor Ministries, 1974), pp. 21-22.
22 Thomas Weisser, Three Persons from the Bible? or Babylon (n.p.: n.p., 1983), p. 2.
23 Bernard, [Online]. URL http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch6.htm.
24 Why We Baptize in Jesus’ Name, [Online]. URL http://www.upci.org/tracts/baptize.htm.
25 The Apostles’ Doctrine, [Online]. URL http://www.upci.org/tracts/doctrine.htm.
26 See Mark McNeil, An Evaluation of the Oneness Pentecostal Movement (n.p.: n.p., n.d.), p. 8.
27 “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
28 Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; 32:39; Isaiah 43:10-11; James 2:19.
29 2 Peter 1:17.
30 John 1:1; 20:28.
31 Acts 5:4.
32 Hebrews 1:3.
33 Hebrews 1:8, 10.
34 Matthew 7:21; Luke 23:42.

The Error Of Replacement Theology

September 27th, 2009

Perhaps you have heard of the term Replacement Theology. However, if you look it up in a dictionary of Church history, you will not find it listed as a systematic study. Rather, it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.

What Is Replacement Theology?

Replacement Theology was introduced to the Church shortly after Gentile leadership took over from Jewish leadership. What are its premises?

1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.

2. The Jewish people are now no longer a “chosen people.” In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans.

3. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group.

4. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term “Israel,” as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.

5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.


How Do Replacement Theologians Argue Their Case? They Say:

1. To be a son of Abraham is to have faith in Jesus Christ. For them, Galatians 3:29 shows that sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: “And if you be Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Rebuttal: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.

2. The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham was only a “starter.” The real Promised Land is the whole world. They use Romans 4:13 to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”

Rebuttal: Where does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural progeny, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church.

3. The nation of Israel was only the seed of the future Church, which would arise and incorporate people of all nations (Mal. 1:11): “For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, My Name shall be great among the nations, and in every place, incense shall be offered to My Name, and a pure offering for My Name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts.”

Rebuttal: This is great, and shows that the Jewish people and Israel fulfilled one of their callings to be “a light to the nations,” so that God’s Word has gone around the world. It does not suggest God’s dealing with Israel was negated because His Name spread around the world.

4. Jesus taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges, and be replaced by another people (Matt. 21:43): “Therefore I am saying to you, ‘The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it.’”

Rebuttal: In this passage, Jesus was talking about the priests and Pharisees, who failed as leaders of the people. This passage is not talking about the Jewish people or nation of Israel. See Teaching Letter #770008, “Did God Break His Covenant With the Jews?”

5. A true Jew is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he is racially Gentile or Jewish (Rom. 2:28-29): “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

Rebuttal: This argument does not support the notion that the Church replaced Israel. Rather, it simply reinforces what had been said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures [the Old Testament], and it certainly qualifies the spiritual qualifications for Jews or anyone who professes to be a follower of the God of Israel.

6. Paul shows that the Church is really the same “olive tree” as was Israel, and the Church is now the tree. Therefore, to distinguish between Israel and the Church is, strictly speaking, false. Indeed, people of Jewish origin need to be grafted back into the Church (Rom 11:17-23).

Rebuttal: This claim is the most outrageous because this passage clearly shows that we Gentiles are the “wild olive branches,” who get our life from being grafted into the olive tree. The tree represents the covenants, promises and hopes of Israel (Eph. 2:12), rooted in the Messiah and fed by the sap, which represents the Holy Spirit, giving life to the Jews (the “natural branches”) and Gentile alike. We Gentiles are told to remember that the olive tree holds us up and NOT to be arrogant or boast against the “natural branches” because they can be grafted in again. The olive tree is NOT the Church. We are simply grafted into God’s plan that preceded us for over 2,000 years.

7. All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, unless they were historically fulfilled before the coming of Jesus Christ, are now the property of the Christian Church. These promises should not be interpreted literally or carnally, but spiritually and symbolically, so that references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion and the Temple, when they are prophetic, really refer to the Church (II Cor. 1:20). “For all the promises of God in Him (Jesus) are Yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” Therefore, they teach that the New Testament needs to be taught figuratively, not literally.

Rebuttal: Later, in this Teaching Letter, we will look at the fact that the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church’s relationship to Israel and her covenants as being “grafted in” (Rom. 11:17), “brought near” (Eph. 2:13), “Abraham’s offspring (by faith)” (Rom. 4:16), and “partakers” (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).

How Did The Position Of The Early Church Fathers Affect The Church?

Let us look at a brief history of the first four centuries of Christianity, which established a “legacy of hatred” towards the Jewish people, which was against the clear teaching of the New Testament.

(For a complete history of Christian anti-Semitism, send the equivalent of US $1 to your nearest BFP National Office and ask for a copy of the Israel Teaching Letter (#779806), “Where Was Love and Mercy,” or download a copy from our Bridges for Peace website, found under the Israel Teaching Letters button at http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/. This teaching is also a chapter of my book, Lessons From the Land of the Bible with 13 other great teachings including “Lessons from the Olive Tree,” which can be ordered from your nearest BFP national office.)

In the first century AD, the church was well-connected to its Jewish roots, and Jesus did not intend for it to be any other way. After all, Jesus is Jewish and the basis of His teaching is consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew 5:17-18 He states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Before the First Jewish Revolt in AD 66, Christianity was basically a sect of Judaism, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Separation between Judaism and Christianity began as a result of religious and social differences. According to David Rausch in his book, A Legacy of Hatred, there were several contributing factors: 1) the Roman intrusion into Judea, and the widespread acceptance of Christianity by the Gentiles, complicated the history of Jewish Christianity; 2) the Roman wars against the Jews not only destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, but also resulted in Jerusalem’s relinquishing her position as a center of Christian faith in the Roman world; and, 3) the rapid acceptance of Christianity among the Gentiles led to an early conflict between the Church and Synagogue. Paul’s missionary journeys brought the Christian faith to the Gentile world, and as their numbers grew, so did their influence, which ultimately disconnected Christianity from its Jewish roots.

Many Gentile Christians interpreted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as a sign that God had abandoned Judaism, and that He had provided the Gentiles freedom to develop their own Christian theology in a setting free from Jerusalem’s influence. Could it be He was showing us that Temple worship was no longer necessary as His Holy Spirit now resides in us (I Cor. 6:19), not in the Holy of Holies? After the Second Jewish Revolt (AD 133-135) put down by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, theological and political power moved from Jewish Christian leaders to centers of Gentile Christian leadership such as Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. It is important to understand this change, because it influenced the early Church Fathers to make anti-Jewish statements as Christianity began to disconnect itself from its Jewish roots.

As the Church spread far and wide within the Roman Empire, and its membership grew increasingly non-Jewish, Greek and Roman thought began to creep in and completely change the orientation of Biblical interpretation through a Greek mindset, rather than a Jewish or Hebraic mindset. This would later result in many heresies, some of which the Church is still practicing today.

Once Christianity and Judaism began to take separate paths, the chasm became wider and wider. Judaism was considered a legal religion under Roman law, while Christianity, a new religion, was illegal. As Christianity grew, the Romans tried to suppress it. In an attempt to alleviate this persecution, Christian apologists tried in vain to convince Rome that Christianity was an extension of Judaism. However, Rome was not convinced. The resulting persecutions and frustration of the Christians bred an animosity towards the Jewish community, which was free to worship without persecution. Later, when the Church became the religion of the state, it would pass laws against the Jews in retribution.

The antagonism of the early Christians towards the Jews was reflected in the writings of the early Church Fathers. For example, Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) in speaking to a Jew said: “The Scriptures are not yours, but ours.” Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. AD 177) declared: “Jews are disinherited from the grace of God.” Tertullian (AD 160-230), in his treatise, “Against the Jews,” announced that God had rejected the Jews in favor of the Christians.

In the early 4th century, Eusebius wrote that the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not the Jews, and the curses were for the Jews. He argued that the Church was the continuation of the Old Testament and thus superseded Judaism. The young Church declared itself to be the true Israel, or “Israel according to the Spirit,” heir to the divine promises. They found it essential to discredit the “Israel according to the flesh” to prove that God had cast away His people and transferred His love to the Christians.

At the beginning of the 4th century, a monumental event occurred for the Church, which placed “the Church Triumphant” over “Vanquished Israel.” In AD 306, Constantine became the first Christian Roman Emperor. At first, he had a rather pluralistic view and accorded Jews the same religious rights as Christians. However, in AD 321, he made Christianity the official religion of the Empire to the exclusion of all other religions. This signaled the end of the persecution of Christians, but the beginning of discrimination and persecution of the Jewish people.

Already at the Church Council in Elvira (Spain) in AD 305, declarations were made to keep Jews and Christians apart, including ordering Christians not to share meals with Jews, not to marry Jews, not to use Jews to bless their fields, and not to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

Imperial Rome, in AD 313, issued the Edict of Milan, which granted favor to Christianity, while outlawing synagogues. Then, in AD 315, another edict allowed the burning of Jews if they were convicted of breaking the laws. As Christianity was becoming the religion of the state, further laws were passed against the Jews:

* The ancient privileges granted to the Jews were withdrawn.

* Rabbinical jurisdiction was abolished or severely curtailed.

* Proselytism to Judaism was prohibited and made punishable by death.

* Jews were excluded from holding high office or a military career.

These and other restrictions were confirmed over and over again by various Church Councils for the next 1,000 years.

In AD 321, Constantine decreed all business should cease on “the honored day of the sun.” By substituting Sunday for Saturday as the day for Christian worship/rest, he further advanced the split. This Jewish Shabbat/Christian Sunday controversy also came up at the first real ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325), which concluded Sunday to be the Christian day of rest, although it was debated for long after that. Overnight, Christianity was given the power of the Imperial State, and the emperors began to translate the concepts and claims of the Christian theologians against the Jews and Judaism into practice. Instead of the Church taking this opportunity to spread its Gospel message in love, it truly became the Church Triumphant, ready to vanquish its foes.

After 321, the writings of the Church Fathers changed in character. No longer was it on the defensive and apologetic, but aggressive, directing its venom at everyone “outside of the flock,” in particular the Jewish people who could be found in almost every community and nation. During this period, we find more examples of anti-Jewish bias in Church literature written by church leaders:

* Hilary of Poitiers (AD 291-371) wrote: “Jews are a perverse people accursed by God forever.”

* Gregory of Nyssa (died AD 394), Bishop of Cappadocia: “the Jews are a brood of vipers, haters of goodness…”

* St. Jerome (AD 347-407) describes the Jews as “… serpents, wearing the image of Judas, their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys.”

At the end of the 4th century, the Bishop of Antioch, John Chrysostom (Golden Tongued), the great orator, wrote a series of eight sermons against the Jews. He had seen Christians talking with Jewish people, taking oaths in front of the Ark, and some were keeping the Jewish feasts. He wanted this to stop. In an effort to bring his people back to what he called, “the true faith,” the Jews became the whipping boy for his sermon series. To quote him, “the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it is also a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. No Jew adores God… Jews are inveterate murderers, possessed by the devil, their debauchery and drunkenness gives them the manners of the pig. They kill and maim one another…” One can easily see that a Judeo-Christian who wanted to hold on to his heritage, or a Gentile Christian who wanted to learn more about the parent faith of Christianity, would have found it extremely difficult under this pressure. Chrysostom further sought to separate Christianity totally from Judaism. He wrote in his 4th Discourse, “I have said enough against those who say they are on our side, but are eager to follow the Jewish rites… it is against the Jews that I wish to draw up my battle… Jews are abandoned by God and for the crime of deicide, there is no expiation possible.”

Chrysostom was known for his fiery preaching against what he saw as threats to his flock, including wealth, entertainment, privilege and outward adornment. However, his preaching against the Jewish community, which he believed had a negative influence on Christians, is inexcusable and blatantly anti-Semitic in its content. Another unfortunate contribution Chrysostom made to Christian anti-Semitism was to hold the whole Jewish people culpable for the killing of Christ.

In the fifth century, the burning question was: If the Jews and Judaism were cursed by God, then how can you explain their existence?

Augustine tackled this issue in his “Sermon Against the Jews.” He asserted that even though the Jews deserved the most severe punishment for having put Jesus to death, they have been kept alive by Divine Providence to serve, together with their Scriptures, as witnesses to the truth of Christianity. Their existence was further justified by the service they rendered to the Christian truth, in attesting through their humiliation, the triumph of the Church over the Synagogue. They were to be a “Witness people” – slaves and servants who should be humbled.

The monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire thus regarded the Jews as serfs of the chamber (servi camerae), and utilized them as slave librarians to maintain Hebrew writings. They also utilized the services of Jews in another enterprise – usury, or money-lending. The loaning of money was necessary to a growing economy. However, usury was considered to endanger the eternal salvation of the Christian, and was thus forbidden. So, the church endorsed the practice of lending by Jews, for according to their reasoning, their Jewish souls were lost in any case. Much later, the Jewish people were utilized by the Western countries as trade agents in commerce, and thus we see how the Jewish people found their way into the fields of banking and commerce.

So, by the Middle Ages, the ideological arsenal of Christian anti-Semitism was completely established. This was further manifested in a variety of precedent-setting events within the Church, such as Patriarch Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, expelling the Jews and giving their property to a Christian mob. From a social standpoint, the deterioration of the Jewish position in society was only beginning its decline. During this early period, the virulent judeo- phobia was primarily limited to the clergy who were always trying to keep their flocks away from the Jews. However, later, the rank and file, growing middle class would be the main source of anti-Semitic activity.

The result of these anti-Jewish teachings continued onwards throughout Church history, manifesting itself in such events and actions as the Crusades, the accusation of communion host desecration and blood libel by the Jews, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks to ostracize them, the Inquisition, the displacement of whole Jewish communities by exile or separate ghettoes, the destruction of synagogues and Jewish books, physical persecution and execution, the Pogroms. Ultimately, the seeds of destruction grew to epic proportions, culminating in the Holocaust, which occurred in “Christian” Europe.

Had the Church understood the clear message of being grafted into the Olive Tree from the beginning, then the sad legacy of anti-Semitic hatred from the Church may have been avoided. The error of Replacement Theology is like a cancer in the Church that has not only caused it to violate God’s Word concerning the Jewish people and Israel, but it made us into instruments of hate, not love in God’s Name.

Is the New Testament anti-Semitic? Was it Intended That the Church Treat the Jewish People with Contempt?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

While the New Testament has been used by Gentile anti-Semites, even within the Church, the writers of the New Testament were Jewish, and therefore their arguments, even critical ones, were from the vantage point of being an intra-communal debate, not inter-communal accusation. Even where the criticism is harsh, it is directed towards a particular group or sect of Jews because of their practices, which needed correcting. For example, even though Yeshua spoke harshly to the Pharisees, He nevertheless said of them, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt: 23:2-3). He was distressed that they were “missing the mark” in their self-righteousness, which is something all of us need to be careful of doing.

The clear teaching of the New Testament is that the Church was and is to love and honour the Jewish people. In Ephesians 2:11-18, we are told that “by the blood of Messiah,” we Gentiles are “made near” to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, promises and hopes given to Israel. In Romans 11:11-12, 25, we are told that “blindness in part” has come to the Jews so that the message would be forced out into the nations. Nevertheless, we are told that a time would come when “all Israel would be saved” (v. 26), because the gifts and callings of God towards Israel and the Jewish people were given without repentance (v. 29). God’s relationship with Israel and the Jewish people is everlasting.

We Gentile Christians are told that the Jews are “beloved for the sake of the Patriarchs” (Rom. 11:28). They are a chosen people who fulfilled their calling and brought the Gospel to the world. They were chosen to:

1. Be obedient to God’s Word and demonstrate to the world as “a light to the nations.”

2. Hear God’s Word and record it – the Bible.

3. Be the human channel for the Messiah.

The Jewish people have fulfilled their role. The promise to the world through Abraham was that, “in you will all the nations on the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). They were to be a light unto the nations and, while they made mistakes as we all do, they did demonstrate the power of God on earth, they did hear God’s Word and record it so that we have the Bible, and they were the human channel for the Messiah, who was born, ministered, died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and will return to Jerusalem, Israel, in a day yet to come.

God made an everlasting covenant between the land of Israel and the Jewish people that must be fulfilled and completed or His Word, the Bible, will be proven a lie, which it is not. God will never forget or annul His ancient people. If God will not fulfil His promises to Israel, what guarantee do we have that He will fulfil His promises to the Church? (See Jeremiah 31:35-37).

Are Jews, Jews, and is Israel, Israel in the New Testament? Do They Still Have a Covenant with God?

ABSOLUTELY. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THIS.

1. The Jews are Israelites, not Gentiles (Rom. 9:4).

2. To Israel still belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises (Rom. 9:4).

3. The gifts and calling of God for Israel are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).

4. There are 77 references to Israel in the NT and none of them refer to the Church. Try replacing the words, “the Church,” where Israel is mentioned and the passage is rendered unreadable and silly, e.g., Rom. 10:1, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” If you put “the Church” where Israel is mentioned, then it is redundant. The Church is the body of saved believers, so how could Paul’s prayer be for the Church to be saved?

5. Psalm 105 has a seven-fold affirmation of God’s promises of Canaan to Abraham. This is an everlasting promise, as was Genesis 12:1-3.

6. Jeremiah 31:35-37 speaks of the everlasting nature of God’s promises to and for Israel, the Jewish people, which is as sure as the sun that shines by day and the moon and stars that glow in the night.

7. The end-time prophecies, which speak of the return of the House of Jacob to their land (Israel) and its restoration, have overwhelmingly been fulfilled in Israel and the Jewish people in the past 120 years. (See, Isa. 11:11-12; Eze. 37:1-14; Eze. 36; Eze. 35:1, Isa. 43:5,6; Jer. 16:14-16; Isa. 60:9-11; Isa. 49:22-23, etc.).

8. The Gospel and Yeshua came “to the Jews first, then the Greek” (Rom. 2:9,10; Matt:10:5-7;15:24). There is a distinction in roles between the two. Galatians 3:28 says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is speaking of everyone’s standing before God as equals, because we are all sinners saved by God’s grace and the atoning work on the Cross. Nevertheless, our roles here on earth are definitely distinct; e.g., men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, etc. all have distinct roles to play. Likewise, Jews and Gentiles have distinct roles to play.

What is the Role of the Church?

1. “On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). The Church is built on the testimony and understanding of Peter, who is Jewish. Ephesians 2:11-14 indicates that Israel and the Jews (we) were chosen, but Gentiles (you) were also included.

2. The Church is related to Israel and partakers of the covenants, promises, and hopes, but we have not been called to usurp them. Our relationship is as “grafted in” (Rom. 11:17); “brought near” (Eph 2:13); “Abraham’s offspring” (by faith) (Rom. 4:16); “heirs” to Abraham’s promise as adopted sons (Gal. 3:29) and “partakers” (Rom 15:27).

3. To the world, the Church is called to preach the Gospel to all nations and make disciples (Matt. 28:19-20); to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength; and to love our neighbour as ourselves (Mk. 12:30-31).

4. To the Jewish people, we are called to show God’s love “for the sake of the Patriarchs” (Rom. 11:28), for without them we would not have had God’s Word or our Saviour who was a Jew from Israel. We are to show God’s mercy (Rom. 11:31). We are to give our material gifts to help them (Rom. 15:27). We are to pray for them and for Israel (Ps. 122:6). We are to be watchman on the walls to protect them (Isa. 62:6,7). We are to help with the aliyah (immigration) to Israel and the building up of Zion (Isa. 60:9-11; Jer. 16:14-16; Isa. 49:22-23).

5. According to Romans 11, we are two distinct groups, both grafted into the same tree, which are the covenants and promises given to Israel; grounded in the same root, the Messiah; drinking of the same sap, God’s Holy Spirit. We do not hold up the tree, but the tree us, and we are forbidden from boasting against or being arrogant to God’s covenant people the Jews (Rom. 11:17-18).

What Happens When the Church Replaces Israel?

1. The Church becomes arrogant and self-centred.

2. It boasts against the Jews and Israel.

3. It devalues the role of Israel or has no role for Israel at all.

4. These attitudes result in anti-Semitism in word and deed.

5. Without a place for Israel and the Jewish people today, you cannot explain the Bible prophecies, especially the very specific ones being fulfilled in Israel today.

6. Many New Testament passages do not make sense when the Jewish people are replaced by the Church.

7. You can lose the significance of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, for today. Many Christians boast of being a New Testament (NT) Christian or a NT Church as in the Book of Acts. However, the Bible of the early Church was not the New Testament, which did not get codified until the 4th century, but rather the Hebrew Scriptures.

8. You can lose the Hebraic/Judaic contextualization of the New Testament, which teaches us more about Yeshua and how to become better disciples.

9. The Church loses out on the opportunity to participate in God’s plan and prophecy for the Church, Israel and the world today.

What Happens When the Church Relates to Israel?

1. The Church takes its proper role in God’s redemptive plan for the world, appreciating God’s ongoing covenant relationship and love for Israel and the Jewish people.

2. We can see the consistency of God’s redemptive plan from Genesis to Revelation as an ongoing complementary process, not as disconnected snapshots.

3. We show love and honour for God’s covenant people, not contempt.

4. We value the Old and New Testaments as equally inspired and significant for the Church today.

5. Bible prophecy makes sense for today and offers opportunities for involvement in God’s plan for Israel.

6. We become better disciples of Yeshua as we are able to appreciate the Hebraic/Judaic roots that fill in the definitions, concepts, words and events in the New Testament that are otherwise obscured. Why? Many were not explained by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, because they did not feel the need to fill in all the details that were already explained in the Old Testament.

Had the Church understood this very clear message from the beginning, then the sad legacy of anti-Semitic hatred from the Church may have been avoided. The error of Replacement Theology is like a cancer in the Church that has not only caused it to violate God’s Word concerning the Jewish people and Israel, but it made us into instruments of hate, not love in God’s Name. Yet, it is not too late to change our ways and rightly relate to the Jewish people and Israel today. Through Bridges for Peace you can read, study and learn more, and also give to demonstrate God’s exhortation to us to bless His Covenant People, whom He still loves. Not only do we need to learn and do for ourselves, but we need to teach others so as to counteract the historical error that has been fostered in the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

Thank God, He is a God of mercy, redemption and second chances.

Written By Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.

A Prewrath Pastor’s Story

September 27th, 2009

I am typical with regard to end time beliefs. I began as a pre-tribber simply because the literature for that position was widely published and available when I was learning about end time scenarios. Under the influence of the writings of Lindsey, Walvoord, Chafer, LaHaye, Heibert, Weust, Jensen, et al, I accepted the standard line for Christ’s return as pre-trib. It was the easy position to believe since the supposed outcome is rapture prior to the 7-year tribulation period. However, when studying the pre-trib position, I was never satisfied with the order of or explanation of events in light of the plain teaching of Scripture.

In 1983 I was called into full-time ministry. After completing undergraduate work at Columbia Bible College, I entered my first ministry in 1986 as a dedicated pre-tribber. I committed to expository preaching at the inception of my ministry. In the process of my teaching and preaching I was isolated with the Bible and all my pre-trib commentaries. In 1989 the crisis moment came. While exegeting 2 Thess 2:1-4, I realized the Bible described two conditions that had to exist before the return of Christ. Further, I realized those two conditions made pre-trib rapturism untenable. None of the pre-trib commentators dealt honestly with what I plainly saw in the Bible. The crisis was this: God seemed to ask me, “Which one is correct? The Bible or the commentators?” From that day I was looking for a better explanation for the return of Christ and attendant events.

While I was going through my dilemma, I was a subscriber to the pre-trib ministry and magazine “Israel, My Glory.” At the time the ministry was under the leadership of Marv Rosenthal. I am sure most pre-wrathers know his story. Since I was on his mailing list, I received an invitation for a copy of his new book, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. I received the book on June 30, 1990 and read it immediately. Upon completion of his book, I remarked to my wife that someone had finally put together a sensible Scriptural scenario about Christ’s Second Coming. Since that reading I deserted the pre-trib position due to the plain truth of the pre-wrath position. What the pre-trib position could not explain became abundantly clear through the pre-wrath interpretation.. In 1992 I also read Robert Van Kampen’s book, “The Sign.” The study of his book served to solidify my place as a pre-wrath adherent.

As a pastor I advised my congregation of my new position about the timing of the rapture. They heard me openly, and although the church was historically pre-trib, they allowed me to remain and teach the new position without controversy. Since the inception of the pre-wrath position, I have held to this approach concerning the return of Christ. It is the only position which takes into account all portions of Scripture without having to resort to what I call “theological tap dancing.” Pre-wrath is an honest appeal to Scripture for understanding of the plain sense of the Bible with regard to end time events.

In His Service,

John Hall
Pastor
CROSS Roads Church

When did the bible get divided into chapters and verses? Who made these changes?

September 5th, 2009

Q.When did the Bible get divided into chapters and verses? Who made these changes?

(Submitted by: E. D.)

A. The Bible was not originally inspired with divisions by chapter and verse. The ancient manuscripts didn’t have them. One man, Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, started to do this from 1244 to 1248 A.D. He did this while creating a concordance of the Latin Vulgate, in order to help people look up verses of the Bible. But the typical modern chapter divisions were apparently devised by Stephen Langton, who was an Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He started to do this around 1227 A.D. The Wycliffe English Bible did use them, as it was circulated in 1382.

As for the verses, one Jewish teacher, Mordecai Nathan, divided the Hebrew Old Testament into chapters in 1445. Later he and a scholar named Athias divided the Old Testament into verses in 1448. The system we see commonly today was put into place by Robert Estienne, or Stephanus who used the numbered verse system when printing the Bible in 1555 or 1551. Since the time of the Geneva Bible version (an English version published in Paris, 1560), which preceded the famous King James Version, nearly all Bible versions have used this same numbering system.

Most of the time, the numbering system works well for helping people look up Bible citations. Sometimes, however, the verses aren’t well divided and this can mislead readers. An interesting case appears in Revelation 20:5:

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Actually, the resurrection that occurs at the end of the millennium is obviously the second resurrection, while the first (general) resurrection occurs when Jesus returns, at the beginning of the millennium (see verses 6, 11-13). If this same verse division was kept, it would be good to put parenthesis around this last sentence in this verse, in order to offset it from the rest of the verse:

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. (This is the first resurrection.)

Another interesting case occurs in Genesis 2:1-3, which is the description of how the Sabbath day was created. Since these three verses continue the rhythmic pattern of Genesis 1’s description of the first six days, chapter 2 of Genesis should have started AFTER these three verses. If this were done the end of chapter one of Genesis and the beginning of chapter two would look like this:

Genesis 1:31: “ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 1:32 (instead of being the first verse of chapter two): “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 1:33: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Genesis 1:34: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis 2:1 (instead of being the forth verse of chapter two): “These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

So be aware that the chapter and verse system was not inspired by God, and can be a distraction in some cases, or cause readers to separate thoughts or ideas that weren’t originally separate when the inspired writers wrote Scripture.

Answer Given By: Eric Snow

The Old Testament was originally divided into fifty-four sections by the Jews. One section was read in the synagogue every Sabbath day (Acts 13:15). These sections were subdivided by the Masoretes into 669 “orders.” The divisions or sections found in the Greek and Latin manuscripts are different from those of the Hebrew books, they are of unequal and arbitrary length, and very different from the chapters in our modern printed Bibles.

The books of the New Testament were divided at an early period into certain portions, which would appear under various names. There were originally two kinds of sections called “titles” and “chapters.” The “titles” were portions of the Gospels, with summaries placed at the top or bottom of the page. The “chapters” were divisions, with numeral notations, chiefly adapted to the Gospel harmony of Ammonius. Other sectional divisions are occasionally seen in manuscripts, which appear to have varied at different times and in different churches.

The numerical division of the Old and New Testament is ascribed to a number of individuals. Some scholars believe that the chapter divisions should be attributed to the students of Cardinal Hugo of Saint Cher in 1240 AD. Cardinal Hugo was organizing a concordance of the Bible and utilized the help of his eager students to reference the verses in the Bible in a way to locate individual words quickly. Others believe that Stephen Langton, archbishop of Cantebury (1228 AD) is responsible for the chapter divisions.

It should be noted that before the invention of printing the Bible had already passed from Latin manuscripts to many other languages and after the invention of printing many of the earlier established divisions became accepted. Chapters in early printed Bibles were subdivided into seven portions, marked in the margin by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, reference being made by the chapter number and the letter under which the passage occurred. This subdivision continued long after the present verses were added, but by the seventeenth Century was modified.

The present verses differ in origin for the Old Testament and the New Testament. The earliest printed Hebrew Bibles marked each fifth verse only with a Hebrew numeral. Arabic numerals were first added for the intervening verses by Joseph Athias in 1661 A.D. The first portion of the Bible printed with the Masoretic verses numbered was published in 1509 A.D. In 1528 A.D. a new Latin version of the whole Bible with the Masoretic verses marked and numbered was published. The verses in this Bible were three or four times as long as the verses in our present Bibles.

The present New Testament verses were introduced by Robert Stephens first in his Greco-Latin Testament published in 1551 A.D., and then later Stephens published the Latin Vulgate of 1555, the first whole Bible divided into the present verses. Legend has it that Robert Stephens numbered the verses of the Bible while on horseback on a trip. His son testifies that his father did indeed number the verses of the Bible while on a trip from Paris to Lyons, but that the work was done while resting at the inns along the road.

Since this division of the Scriptures was done by man unaided by inspiration there are notable instances in which the context caused by a division into verses and chapters is destroyed. The careful Bible student will always read verses and even paragraphs before and after a statement to insure that the complete thought of a context is considered.

(Sources: Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Cyclopaedia by McClintock and Strong, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, How We Got The Bible by Neil Lightfoot, Theological Dictionary by Rahner and Vorgrimler, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New Dictionary of Theology by Ferguson, Write and J.I. Packer, Dictionary of Biblical Literacy by Cecil Murphey, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church by J.D. Douglas)

Jewishness And The Trinity (Triune God-Head)

August 22nd, 2009

Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:

Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a Trinitarian conception of God, but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God…. The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, and uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.

Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists and whether or not it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-Unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg’s article tends to reflect that thinking.

He went on to say, “…under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” It is perhaps best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: the Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew Scripture usage, then to the Hebrew Scriptures we should turn.

GOD IS A PLURALITY

The Name Elohim
It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is also used in Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2, “…Let us go after other gods (Elohim)…” While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-Unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead since it is the word that is used for the one true God as well as for the many false gods.

Plural Verbs Used With Elohim
Virtually all Hebrew scholars do recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. Nevertheless, they wish to deny that it allows for any plurality in the godhead whatsoever. Their line of reasoning usually goes like this: When Elohim is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by the plural verb. Rabbi Greenberg states it as follows:

But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is “bara,” which means “he created”- singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God.

The point made, of course, is generally true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet it is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander [Literally: They caused me to wander] from my father’s house…

Genesis 35:7: …because there God (Elohim) appeared to him… [Literally: They appeared to him.]

II Samuel 7:23: …God (Elohim) went… [Literally: They went.]

Psalm 58:11: Surely He is God (Elohim) who judges… [Literally: They judge.]

The Name Eloah
If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim, Eloah, exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could easily have been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it.

Plural Pronouns
Another case in point regarding Hebrew grammar is that often when God speaks of Himself, He clearly uses the plural pronoun:

Genesis 1:26: Then God (Elohim) said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…”

He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the strength of this passage and comments as follows:

Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to the verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians [who believe in the Tri-unity of God].” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.”1

It is obvious that the Midrash Rabbah is simply trying to get around the problem and fails to answer adequately why God refers to Himself in the plural.
The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen in the following:

Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us…”

Genesis 11:7: “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language…”

Isaiah 6:8: Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”

This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

Plural Descriptions of God
Another point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: Remember now your Creator… [Literally: Creators.]

Psalm 149:2: Let Israel rejoice in their Maker… [Literally: Makers.]

Joshua 24:19: …holy God… [Literally: holy Gods.]

Isaiah 54:5: For your Maker is your husband… [Literally: Makers, Husbands.]

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema

Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel’s great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On the one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is the Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not always mean an absolute “one” but often a compound “one.” For instance, in Genesis 1:5 the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24 a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one (echad) flesh.” In Ezra 2:63 we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though, of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). Thus, use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of yachid and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use yachid in reference to God.

GOD IS AT LEAST TWO

Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities
As if to make the case for plurality even stronger, there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:6-7:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your god, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

A second example is Hosea 1:7:

“Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen.”

The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God: [YHVH]. One example is Genesis 19:24:

Then the LORD [YHVH] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD [YHVH] out of the heavens.

Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth. A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

For thus says the LORD [YHVH] of hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD [YHVH] of hosts has sent Me.

Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task. The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:

Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.4

GOD IS THREE

How Many Persons are There?
If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question arises, how many personalities exist in the Godhead? We have already seen the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going through the Hebrew Scriptures we find that three, and only three, distinct personalities are ever considered divine.

1. First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH. This usage is so frequent that there is no need to devote space to it.

2. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. In almost every passage where he is found he is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis16:7 he is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but in 16:13 as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11 he is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given.5 A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

3. A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to simply as the Ruach Ha-Kodesh. There are a number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2; 6:3; Job 33:4; Psalm 51:11; 139:7; Isaiah 11:2; 63:10, 14. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because he has all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion, and will) and is considered divine.

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Spirit of God.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage
In the Hebrew Scriptures you will also find all three personalities of the Godhead referred to in single passages. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.

Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-Unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse seven, the Angel of YHVH in verse nine, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to Himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Conclusion
The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-Unity of God is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus), or Messianic Jews, cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Yeshua is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when the LORD said:

“Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him and obey his voice; do not provoke him, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in him. But if you indeed obey his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off” (Exodus 23:20-23).

New Testament Light
In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called the Father while the second person is called the Son. The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “…What is His name, and what is His son’s name, If you know?” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. Throughout the New Testament he is related to the work of the second person, in keeping with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. We see, then, that there is a continuous body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament relating to the Tri-Unity of God.

1. Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26 (New York: NOP Press, n.d.)
2. Genesis 22:2, 12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21; 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10.
3. “Personal Name of God of Israel,” written in Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH. Pronunciation of name has been avoided since at least 3rd c. B.C.E.; initial substitute was “Adonai” (“the Lord”), itself later replaced by “ha-Shem” (“the Name”). The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of “Adonai.” Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica, 593.
4. Zohar, Vol. III, 288; Vol. II, 43, Hebrew editions. (see also Soncino Press edition, Vol. III, 134.)
5. In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse two and he is both YHVH and God in verse four. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11, 12, 20 and 21, but is YHVH Himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God Himself in verse 22.

Written By; Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

The US Dollar collapse starts now! – Peter Schiff

August 19th, 2009

Alert – 10 May 2009

The US Dollar Breaks Down
Last week the US dollar dropped 2.7% against both the euro and the Swiss franc. The dollar fell 2.4% against the basket of currencies comprising the US Dollar Index.

The dollar has been in a bear market rally since last July. Last weeks decline is further evidence that this bear market rally has ended, which is clear from the following chart.

YouTube Preview Image

Anti-Semitism of the “Church Fathers”

July 28th, 2009

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (98-117A.D.) – Epistle to the Magnesians

For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.

“Epistle of Barnabas” Chapter 4vs 6-7 (between 130A.D. and 138 A.D.)

Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it.

Justin Martyr – Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.

The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.

We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) – One of the “greatest” of church fathers; known as “The Golden Mouthed.” A missionary preacher famous for his sermons and addresses.

The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition.”…”I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.

From “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism” by Malcolm Hay

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14

How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Peter the Venerable – known as “the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity”

Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.

From “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism” by Malcolm Hay

Martin Luther – 1543

On The Jews and Their Lies

What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.

First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…

Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home…If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination…

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews…

Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods…

Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils…next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

Translated by Martin H. Bertram, “On The Jews and Their Lies, Luther’s Works, Volume 47″; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Martin Luther – 1543

Of The Unknowable Name and The Generations of Christ

But your [God’s] judgment is right, justus es Dominie. Yes, so shall Jews, but no one else be punished, who held your word and miracles in contempt and ridiculed, insulted and damned it for such a long time without interruption, so that they will not fall, like other humans, heathens and all the others, into sin and death, not up in Hell, nor in the middle of Hell but in the pit of Hell, as one cannot fall deeper…

Even if they were punished in the most gruesome manner that the streets ran with their blood, that their dead would be counted, not in the hundred thousands, but in the millions, as happened under Vespasian in Jerusalem and for evil under Hadrian, still they must insist on being right even if after these 1,500 years they were in misery another 1,500 years, still God must be a liar and they must be correct. In sum, they are the devil’s children, damned to Hell…

The Jews too got what they deserved. They had been called and elected to be God’s mouth as Jeremiah says…Open your mouth wide and I will fill it; they however, kept tightly closed their muzzles, eyes, ears, nose, whole heart and all senses, so he polluted and squirted them so full that it oozes from them in all places and devil’s filth comes from them.

Yes, that tastes good to them, into their hearts, they smack their lips like swine. That is how they want it. Call more: ‘Crucify him, crucify him.’ Scream more: ‘His blood come upon us and our children.’ (Matthew 27:25) I mean it came and found you…

Perhaps, one of the merciful Saints among us Christians may think I am behaving too crude and disdainfully against the poor, miserable Jews in that I deal with them so sarcastically and insulting. But, good God, I am much too mild in insulting such devils…

John Calvin

A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew

Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.

Excerpt from “Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio,” by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.

Did we really land men on the moon?

July 26th, 2009

Do your own research and come to your own conclusions, but there is strong evidence to suggest that they did not.

You Decide!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Hip Hop and the Occult! Confessions from an Inside

July 26th, 2009
YouTube Preview Image

D.U.M.B DEEP UNDERGROUND MILITARY BASE for PLANET X, WORMWOOD, 2012

July 19th, 2009

WHAT ARE THE ELITE DOING?

PREPARING THEIR ARK FOR THE COMING

DISASTERS?

YouTube Preview Image