There are generally 3 different interpretations of the prophecy found in Isaiah 53. The most dominant one which is the Christian interpretation of this passage of scripture outlined in the New Testament by the Apostles, is indeed attributed to Jesus Christ or Yeshua Ha-Moshiach, the Jewish Messiah. Perhaps the most famous part of the New Testament attributing this prophecy to Jesus is found in the book of Acts 8:26-40. The story about the Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in his chariot and reading from Isaiah 53 when Philip approaches him as commanded by the angel of God. Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he's reading. The eunuch replies, "How can I? Unless someone explains it to me. Who is the prophet talking about? Himself or someone else?" Then Philip starts with that very passage of scripture and tells him about the good news of Jesus. The eunuch then believes the gospel and asks Philip to baptise him.
The second interpretation is offered by the Jewish people who do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. They accuse Christians of taking Isaiah 53 out of context and understand this servant to be the nation of Israel. The strongest argument made for this interpretation is that the servant is explicitly identified as Jacob or Israel in Isaiah 41:8, Isaiah 44:1, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 44:21, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, and Isaiah 49:3. This interpretation however falls apart pretty quickly. First of all, the first servant of the LORD is actually Isaiah himself in Isaiah 20:3. The second servant of the LORD is Eliakim, son of Hilkiah in Isaiah 22:20. Then in Isaiah 37:35 David is called the servant of the LORD. So clearly there's more than one servant in Isaiah's scroll and it's not wise to assume that just because Jacob or the nation of Israel is called the servant of God more than anyone else, therefore anywhere we see the word "servant" without an explicit identity, we must assume it's Jacob or nation of Israel.
Another reason why the second interpretation falls apart is that Jacob or the nation of Israel is considered a sinful nation in need of redemption whereas the servant of the LORD in Isaiah 53 is righteous and is likened to a lamb that is led to the slaughter for sin offering. Isaiah 42:18-25 calls Israel a deaf and blind servant who pays no attention, who's sinned against the LORD and has been handed over by the LORD to become loot. In contrast, there is another servant in the same chapter in whom the LORD delights, and puts His Spirit on; who will bring justice to the nations. In Isaiah 42:6, God says that He's going to give this servant away as a covenant for the people and a light to the gentiles. Isaiah 42:3-4 says this servant will remain faithful and will not falter, until he brings forth justice on earth. Sounds very Messianic if you think about it! Similar to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, who is righteous and has no deceit in his mouth and dies not for his own sins, but for the sins of others.
The third interpretation offered by Rabbinic Judaism to solve this problem is that the servant is not the whole nation of Israel, but a righteous remnant within the nation of Israel such as the prophets. This interpretation fails as well for a number of reasons. Firstly, the servant is referred to in a singular fashion and if it's figurative language, then it must be the whole nation of Israel and cannot be a selection of it; but if it can be a remnant within Israel, then why can't it be the Messiah? Isn't the Messiah going be a the best representative of Israel? Also, all those references to Jacob or Israel to justify this interpretation is no longer binding because they are referring to the whole nation of Israel, not a righteous remnant within Israel. Secondly, Isaiah himself needs atonement for his sins in Isaiah 6:6, Isaiah 42:19 calls even the messengers sent to Israel deaf and Isaiah 43:27 says those God has sent to teach Israel have rebelled against Him!
In contrast to all of this, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is going to be highly exalted, which is a word used for the LORD Himself in Isaiah 6:1. The Hebrew word used in both is וְנִשָּׂ֛א [wə-niś-śā] which is best translated to extolled, highly exalted or lifted up. Furthermore, Isaiah 53:6 and 53:12 talk about how this servant makes intercession for sinners through his brutal death. Interestingly enough, Isaiah 59:16 tells us that God looked and couldn't find anyone to make intercession and so His own arm achieved salvation for Him. The Hebrew word used for intercession in these verses comes from פְגִּֽיעַ [p̄-gî-a‘] which is best translated as intercession. And fascinateingly enough, Isaiah 53 starts with: "To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?!" Isaiah 52:10 says: "The LORD will lay bare His holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God." Let's not forget that salvation in Hebrew is Yeshua or basically the name of Jesus in Hebrew!
One of the most mind-blowing passages in the Torah is perhaps Genesis 32:22-32, where Jacob is left alone and a man wrestles with him till daybreak. It's written that when the man saw that he could not overpower him(Jacob), he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched. He then says to Jacob, "Let me go for it is daybreak." to which Jacob replies, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man blesses him and changes his name from Jacob to Israel, which in Hebrew means He who wrestles with God. Jacob calls the place Peniel which in Hebrew means the face of God. He says, for I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared.
Now I understand that there are some who would argue that the man who wrestles with Jacob here is not God, but rather an angel of God who is called Elohim, translated as God, just as Moses is called Elohim in Exodus 4:16. However, from what I know, the mainstream understanding in the Christian worldview is that this man is indeed God, but since God's Unity is complex in Christianiy and understood by the doctrine of Trinity, this man is believed to have been the pre-incaration of Jesus Christ or the second person of Trinity, aka The Son of God, the image of the invisible God. In this article, I do not want to argue for that or present the reasonings behind it. My purpose in this article is to open up the spiritual meaning behind this portion of the Torah. I believe anything written about the physical Israel has a deeper spiritual meaning behind it, and this story is not exempt, so let's get to it already!
This wrestle in my view represents a spiritual struggle which happens in the mind of literally every single one of us as we grow up. It's not a win-lose game, though it may appear to be, if we only look at it from an earthly perspective. In other words, if Jacob wins, it doesn't make God a loser. God wanted to bless Jacob. Jacob wanted to be blessed too, so why are they fighting, you might ask? The reason lies behind the fact that Jacob's view of blessing is different from God's. Jacob is thinking of material things just like we all do when we think of blessings, whereas God wants to bless us with eternal life, not merely with materials in a world that is doomed to destruction. As a result, the struggle is between God's will and man's will.
When God asks Jacob to let him go, Jacob says no. I will not let you go unless you bless me. This is a response that God is waiting to hear from us. The irony here is that God can easily leave if He chooses to without our permission. But He would never let go unless we let Him. He sometimes even intices us to ask Him to leave us alone, in order to make sure that we're serious about wanting His blessings. When Jacob says he will not let God go unless He blesses him, he's literally saying that he is willing to stay there and die unless God blesses him. That means Jacob is finally ready to give everything in this world up for this blessing. That's the climax of the story. That's when both Jacob and God win. It's a win-win situation, not a win-lose situation!
In the same way, I believe God wrestles with every one of us. Once we're ready to give everything up unless God blesses us will be the climax of our story. It will be the moment we prevail but God wins too and we both rejoice in this victory. What if we lose? Well, that certainly won't be a win for God. It will either be a lose for God as well or a neutral. Because as God says in Ezekiel 33:11, He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. So while in earthly and physical perspectives, a wrestle is a win-lose match, our wrestle with God is either a win-win or a lose-lose and it's all because of the different wills at work. Our will which is focused on the flesh vs. God's will which is focused on the spirit.
When Jesus was asked for a sign in Matthew 12:38, He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given to it, except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Even though Jesus here is merely talking to the unbelievers of His time, while He's walking the earth, it's safe to argue that what He said is true even today. In other words, the only sign that will be given to unbelievers is the resurrection. It is indeed a historical fact, and no alternative conspiracy theory exists today that can make sense of the historical data we have. Historians like Gary Habermas have made beautiful cases in favour of Christianity, using only the minimum amount of data we have which is even acceptable among most non-Christian scholars and historians. What's the connection with physical healing you might ask? The connection is that I don't believe that physical healing is a sign for unbelievers, but rather "bread" for God's children!
In Matthew 15:26, Jesus refers to His healing ministry as "the children's bread". Contrary to popular belief that Jesus literally healed everyone He came across, Mark 6:5 tells us that He could not do any miracles in His hometown, except lay His hands on a few sick people and heal them. The very next verse tells us why He could not: He was amazed at their lack of faith! In other words, physical healing is not a sign for unbelievers, but is rather bread for God's own children who already believe. Not only that, In passages like John 6:35, Jesus Christ claims to be the bread of life. In John 6:50, He says, "But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die." And in the very next verse He says, "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world!"
Luke 22:19 says that Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." The next verse also tells us about the blood of Jesus and how the wine in the Lord's supper represents it. Isaiah 53:5, the famous prophecy about Jesus, tells us that by His stripes, we are healed: "But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on Him, and by His stripes/wounds we are healed." Many try to argue that this healing is merely a spiritual healing. While this healing is indeed spiritual at least in one sense, there is nothing about it that says it's only spiritual. If we are healed by the stripes/wounds of His body, and His body is the bread of life, and Christ's healing ministry is our bread, and not a sign for unbelievers, then I think we should be able to do the rest of the Maths! To further prove this, it's noteworthy to refer to Matthew 8:17 where the author quotes from Isaiah 53:4 as the bedrock for Christ's healing ministry, being fulfilled in the previous verse which is not only about driving out demons, but also about healing the sick.
In John 10:10, Jesus says, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." Are we really going to argue that having life to the full does not include physical healing of the body? What about the contrary in this very verse which is the thief? Does the thief only comes to steal, kill and destroy us spiritually? Or also physically? The early church also had a similar problem with discerning the body of Christ, while taking communion. As a result, they were taking communion in an "unworthy manner"; some were even getting drunk on the wine and eating all the food, not leaving any behind for the poor so Paul has a go at the Corinthians in the 11th chapter of his first letter to them. But surprisingly, this passage is actually often used to get Christians to avoid taking communion, unless they're not living in "wilful disobedience." Now I don't know about you, but when I hear something like that, if I'm 100% honest with myself, I hear this: "Don't take communion, unless you're living a perfect life."
At first, I tried to live a perfect life and obey all of Christ's teachings including extreme ones preached in the sermon of the mount in Matthew 5 which are often watered down, such as the one where the Lord commands us to turn the other cheek, and avoid resisting evil. I failed terribly and as a result, I would not feel welcome in any church, neither would I feel okay to take communion. But then I realised that none of these Christians are living up to these standards and so either their interpretation of what Paul is saying to the Corinthians is wrong and hypocritical, or we're all heading to hell! That's when I had to dig deeper and I can't be happier what this digging eventually led me to discover in the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 11:27 says, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Now we know that in context, this "unworthy manner" is referring to those who are eating all the food and getting drunk on the wine, leaving nothing for the poor. But Paul seems to think that there's something deeper going on here. As a result, in the next verse he says, "Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ, eat and drink judgement on themselves." Now I don't know about you, but I think Paul is simply telling us that if we participate in the Lord's supper, without actually knowing what we're doing, we'll be eating and drinking judgement on ourselves! What's interesting is that Paul here refers to discerning the body of Christ, rather than His body and blood or His blood.
Some might argue that discerning the body of Christ refers to the leaders discerning the members of the church, and should not be taken literally. However, the word "body" is used two more times in the same context and in both places it exclusively and irrefutably refers to the literal body of Christ. It makes no sense for Paul to use the same word again, and cause this type of confusion. Furthermore, according to apostle Paul, the examining of ourselves, and the judgement in its absence, are spoken at individuals rather than only addressing the leaders of the church. In verse 30 he says, "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep(died)."
Therefore, it's a single reason that is causing the judgement, and so cannot be a result of works or lack thereof, because then it would be plural. Not only that, in the next verse Paul tells us that this judgement is God's discipline so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. Critics might argue that this discipline is for the sanctification process of those who are already saved, but how are we saved exactly, or put it another way, how do we escape the final condemnation? Is it by faith that we are saved, or is it by works? I think the Gospel is very clear that it's by faith that we are saved, and not by works lest anyone should boast! If you still doubt whether you're saved by faith alone or not, then you need to examine yourself and discern the body of Christ!
You may have heard that as Christians, we are no longer under the law. But what does this actually mean? You're going to get a different answer, depending on which Christian you ask this question from. And they might as well all refer to certain passages in the Bible to support their answer. But who's right in the midst of all of this confusion? Surely, we should be able to highlight certain facts revealed in the scriptures that none of the false views would be able to make sense of? I agree and that's exactly why I'm writing this post - I'm going to highlight these facts and if you can find someone who disagrees with my view, yet can make sense of these facts revealed to us in the scriptures, do let me know!
First, I want to examine what the scriptures mean by "being under." The mainstream understanding of this phrase is seeking justification before God. Some argue that while we're not under the law, meaning while we're not seeking justification before God by obeying the law, we're still obligated to keep the law. In Galatians 5:3, it is written that some gentile believers are about to get circumcised after coming to Christ. Paul writes to them that if they allow themselves to be circumcised, they will be obligated to keep the whole law, and that they have been alienated from Christ. Of course, it's noteworthy to mention that Paul is not saying that those who are circumcised, as in mostly the Jews, are obligated to keep the whole law and can't come to Christ. In Galatians 5:6, he says that in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value! His audience in Galatians 5:3 are those who are still seeking justification before God, by keeping the law, even after coming to Christ.
Therefore, being under the law is generally understood as seeking justification before God, by keeping the law. Almost all Christians, even Catholics agree that justification before God by keeping the law alone is impossible, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—Romans 3:23. The disagreements however come from what the law is, and how much of it applies to Christians, and how much disobedience is allowed under the new covenant, before one can "lose" their salvation in Christ. Some argue that the law refers to the whole law of Moses depicted in Leviticus and Deuteronomy including the moral laws. Others argue that the law only refers to the dietary and ceremonial laws in the Tanakh, and not the moral laws; so the moral laws according to this view are still bounding.
But what does the scripture says? While there is evidence in the New Testament, that almost all dietary and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament were simply shadows that were pointing to Christ, I argue that what the scripture means by the law, is indeed the whole law including the moral laws. This is evidenced in Romans 7 where Paul talks about the law of coveting, which is a moral law and part of the ten commandments. In Romans 7:8, he says that sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. So it doesn't matter what thousands of theologians might say, what Paul means by the law, is indeed the whole law including the moral laws, even the ones in the ten commandments.
This is further evidenced in the scriptures such as in 1 Corinthians 6:12 which says, "“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything." or Galatians 5:13 which says, "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love." So it really doesn't matter what different theologians might say. The truth is that the freedom we have in Christ, is real. Does this mean that we as Christians who truly believe in this freedom, are lawless and promote sin or wish to sin even more so that grace may increase? By no means! I'm addressing this strawman the same way Paul addresses it in Romans 6:1-2. Paul says we are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Does this mean that as Christians, we're perfect and no longer sin? Not really.
As Christians, we are a new Creation and have a new identity, if indeed the Spirit of Christ lives in us. Romans 8:9 says that we are not in the realm of the flesh, but in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in us. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. Galatians 3:29 says that if we are in Christ, then we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. This is while Galatians 3:16 says that Abraham's seed is only one person who is Christ! So, our new identity is in Christ and when God looks at us, He sees Christ, if indeed we belong to Christ. This however, does not mean that we're perfect and no longer sin. We still have the same flesh that we used to have, before coming to Christ. Galatians 5:17 says, "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want."
So we still have the flesh and we can and may still sin, but our sin does not define or change our new identity which is in Christ. We also have the Spirit of God in us and as Romans 7:14-25 says, sin grieves us because our inner being agrees with the law of God, but we find another law at work in our flesh. In Romans 7:20 Paul says, "If I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." In other words, when I sin in my flesh, it does not define or change my new identity which is in Christ. In Romans 7:24-25 he says, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Notice that our body or flesh is indeed subject to death because of sin.
Now the laws of God in the Old Testament can indeed be broken down into different categories such as the dietary laws, the ceremonial laws, the sacrificial laws, and the moral laws. In the New Testament, we read that only the moral laws are universal and a matter of conscience, whereas the other laws were simply shadows pointing to the Cross. Having said that however, with regards to certain dietary laws, we also read in Romans 14:23 that everything that does not come from faith is sin! And Christians in general are advised to avoid food sacrificed to idols—Acts 15:29. But we also read in 1 Corinthians 8 that there is nothing inherently sinful in even food sacrificed to idols, because we know that there is only One God and we can even eat such food! But in 1 Corinthians 10:28-29 we read that if an unbeliever wants to make it a matter of conscience, then we ought not to eat the food, lest they get the wrong message. But as Paul says we do this for the sake of the unbeliever's conscience, and not ours!
What is the importance of the law then? Romans 3:19 says, "We know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Furthermore, Romans 7:9-13 says, "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognised as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So we can conclude from these passages that the law is holy, good and righteous. Its purpose is to show us our faults, but while it shows us our faults, it also causes us to sin even more. This happens because the law stirs up our curiosity and causes us to break the commandments. But now that sin is recognised, we're able to believe in Christ and be set free, not only from the condemnation that comes from breaking the commandments, but also from the bondage of law that stirs up our curiosity and causes us to break the commandments. If we belong to Christ, the Spirit of Christ lives in us and we are no longer under the law, but under Christ's law. Or as Paul puts it in Romans 3:27, the new law requires faith and not works.
What about our works? Do our works count for anything at all? Of course they do! While under Christ's law, salvation or eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works, as we read in scriptures such as Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Galatians 2:16, that does not mean that works are totally irrelevant. The first relevance of our works is perhaps a worldly thing but it's really a divine setup, that even atheists understand. Take Romans 13:4 for example, "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Now this of course is not always 100% accurate as with corrupt and evil governments or authorities, sometimes the righteous are persecuted and punished, but generally speaking, crimes such as theft, murder, rape, etc are punishable throughout the world. And if something like adultery or prostitution for example is not punished in a society like our modern Western societies, there is still social and personal consequences for them. Not only that, true happiness is only found if we live a decent life in peace and respect our fellow brothers and sisters in Adam.
Having said that, many of the passages in the Bible that warn believers of judgement are mainly talking about judgement in this world and not in the afterlife. There are certain passages that do talk about the judgement of even believers in the afterlife, but this judgement is merely for rewarding the faithful servants of Christ. As 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 puts it, those whose works are burned up in the fire, will still be saved, even though only as one escaping through the flames! To recap, salvation or eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works; while inheriting the Kingdom of God, or reigning with Christ in the age to come is based on good works, built on the only foundation, which is Jesus Christ. This understanding of the scriptures, not only makes perfect sense of salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works, but also makes perfect sense of the importance of our works and perseverance as well as the passages that talk about the judgement of believers.
As 2 Timothy 11-13 puts it, "If we died with him, we will also live with him." This refers to believing in Jesus for eternal life which is symbolically celebrated through immersive baptism. "If we endure, we will also reign with him." This refers to the importance of works, and perseverance and how enduring is required to reign with him. "If we disown him, he will also disown us." This refers to rejecting the Gospel, which leads to the second death. "If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." This is once saved, always saved; after we put 100% of our faith in Jesus and receive the sealing of the Holy Spirit and become God's possession, even if we are faithless or in other words, disobedient, he remains faithful because he cannot disown himself!
The first passage in the New Testament that talks about divorce and remarriage is in Matthew 5:31-32. It's during the sermon on the mount where Jesus says, "31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." In Matthew 19:3-12 this topic is brought up again, and this time by some Pharisees. Let's have a look at this passage as well.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The most natural reading of this passage tells us that there is at least one exception for divorce and remarriage in the eyes of Jesus that does not lead to adultery. But before we examine this exception, it's noteworthy that this question is brought up by Pharisees who are asking whether it's lawful or not to divorce your wife for any and every reason. Jesus doesn't dispute their understanding of the Law of Moses, unlike what some people suggest. He simply tells them that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives because their hearts were hard. Notice that Jesus doesn't mention the "for any and every reason" part here, because it would be unnecessary and redundant. It doesn't mean that he's not addressing the same question or that he disagrees with their understanding of the Mosaic Law. So it's clear that the Law of Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for any and every reason. This Law comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 since this passage is the only passage in the Torah which talks about the certificate of divorce. Let's have a look at this passage as well.
24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Notice that verse 4 says that her first husband is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled! In other words, remarriage to your first wife after she has had sexual intercourse with another man is not permitted under the Law of Moses. Now would this law apply in case of adultery during marriage? I think it would and the reason the Mosaic Law does not mention this is simply because an adulterer or an adulteress was stoned to death! Jesus is also warning his followers against adultery in his statement about divorce and remarriage. In other words, adultery is the most natural exception that one could possibly think of, when reading this passage, simply because there is no point for Jesus to warn his followers against committing adultery after divorce, if they've already committed adultery during marriage. This should give us an insight into examining the exception, which is translated as "sexual immorality" in most translations that we have today.
Some argue that the exception is only mentioned in the gospel of Matthew and not in Luke or Mark and therefore, there should be more to the exception than meets the eye. But this is not really a good ground to argue from. Take the same account in the gospel of Mark for instance. The question from the Pharisees in the gospel of Mark doesn't include "for any and every reason". Whether this question is asked by different Pharisees or whether it's the same account and the author in Mark is simplifying things, it not only makes sense why Mark doesn't include the exception but also means that the exception must be something natural or inherent as I explained the case with adultery before divorce which would nullify the marriage anyway.
Critics argue that the word used for the exception in Greek is "porneia" which means fornication, and that the Greek word for adultery used in the same verse is "moicheia" and therefore, the exception cannot be adultery otherwise Jesus would have used the same word. But "porneia" or fornication, which is generally translated as sexual immorality, which is the word from which we get the word "pornography" from, simply means sexual intercourse with someone you're not married to and as a result, it naturally includes not only adultery but also homosexuality since marriage is defined in Genesis 2:24 as the union between one man and one woman. Paul uses the same word, "porneia", in 1 Corinthians 5:1 to refer to someone in the church who's having sex with his father's wife! Paul refers to this act as "porneia" or fornication, not adultery, even though the woman in this context is committing adultery. The reason Paul refers to this as fornication is because it's more than adultery! It's also incest!
These same critics also argue that "porneia" or fornication refers to sex before marriage and the exception is referring to a divorce that takes place during engagement, and not after marriage. This view not only fails to make sense of how Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians 5:1 in reference to an adultery as well as incest, but also fails to make sense of the most natural reading of this passage as I explained above. These critics point out to Joseph wanting to divorce Mary in Matthew 1:19 to support their case. However, the relationship that Jesus is addressing doesn't allude to an engagement even in a Jewish context or tradition. Because even in the Jewish context or tradition, a man would not leave his father and mother and join his wife and become one with her as Genesis 2:24 states, after engagement but rather after marriage or the wedding ceremony. So "porneia" or fornication or sexual immorality in my view, is simply sexual activity outside of the marriage bed, and so not only includes adultery, but also incest, homosexuality, polygamy, and even consuming pornography because lusting after people you're not married to, is adultery in the heart, as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:27-30.
Another passage that these critics like to use to support their argument is 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 where Paul seems to repeat what Jesus has said, without including the exception clause. He says, "10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." But Paul doesn't say that this is the case "for any and every reason." In fact, two chapters before, he's already said this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11: "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."
In other words, Paul has already made it clear for believers that they're not to even eat with anyone who claims to be a believer, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Notice that the word "sexually immoral" here is again the same Greek word that Jesus uses in his exception clause for divorce and remarriage, and also notice that Paul does not mention adulterer in his list because he thinks that the word "porneia", which means fornication or sexual immorality, already includes adultery as well. Paul says that this is not about dissociating yourselves from the unbelievers, because then you'd have to leave the world, meaning almost everyone in the world is guilty of these sins. But he then says that if someone claims to be a brother or sister in Christ, yet commits these sins, then you must not associate with them. Am I saying that Paul contradicts Jesus by adding even more exceptions? Not really. I'm only saying that just because Paul does not mention the exception clause in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and just because neither Mark nor Luke mention the exception clause either, it doesn't mean that they're addressing divorce "for any and every reason," unlike Matthew 19:3 where the question from Pharisees explicitly mentions the words "for any and every reason."
Not only that, Paul also gives his own command or permission(I, not the Lord) for remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16 in case an unbelieving husband or wife of a believer leaves. He first says that the believer should remain in the marriage and pray that God saves their spouse. But he then says that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer is not bound anymore. He uses the same word here that he uses in Romans 7:2 to refer to how a believer is no longer bound to their spouse after their spouse dies, meaning they can remarry. In Romans 7:3 he says, "So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."
Another argument for divorce and remarriage leading to adultery under any circumstance is that our marriage is supposed to represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as in the metaphorical marriage of Christ with His Church. And since Christ forgives His Church for even adultery in a metaphorical sense, so should we forgive one another for even adultery. This is not a direct argument from scriptures but I personally have nothing against forgiveness and reconciliation. It's a beautiful thing and if anyone who's been cheated on has the grace should totally at least try it. The other party however may not even ask for forgiveness or seek reconciliation and may divorce and remarry, in which case I think the believer is no longer bound and the first marriage is annulled, and in case of a divorce in the second marriage, going back to the first marriage would be an abomination to the Lord, as we read in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Also, in the old covenant, adultery in a metaphorical sense, was breaking the first commandment. Thou shall not have any other god before me. It was a serious sin and punishable by death. In the new covenant, since we're not under the law, but under grace, and since the law of grace requires faith, and not works, as scripture says in Romans 3:27-28, while all of our sins are forgivable, there remains one sin that is unforgivable in a sense which is the sin of unbelief. Or in other words, lack of faith. It's the very means by which we are saved. We need to put 100% of our faith in Jesus alone for our salvation. If we mix this percentage and put even 1% of our faith in ourselves or in another god or in anything other than Jesus, are we still saved? I don't think so. This could be seen as committing adultery in a metaphorical sense under the new covenant, which leads to Jesus saying "I never knew you," on the day of judgement, as depicted in Matthew 7:21. This is a very important topic normally known as the faith vs. works dichotomy which I have already written about before.
To recap, let me be clear that God hates divorce and so do I. And in fact, as a single, and never-married bloke, I always tell God that I would rather remain single and die single, than end up in a broken marriage. Because I know that a broken marriage is devastating even though I have not personally experienced it myself. A divorce and then remarriage would be even more devastating unless you don't really love the person you marry. But legalism is not the answer here; if it were, or as apostle Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" If you're in a marriage and you're considering divorce, or if you've divorced already and you're considering remarriage, let me advise you to take a step back and pray about it and do everything you can to restore your marriage. Remember what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says as well because you cannot restore your marriage if you divorce and marry someone else.
The reason I say this is because often times, critics like to blame people like me for divorces and remarriages. I don't think this is fair because I'm doing my best to stay true to the scriptures. Even if my understanding of this topic is wrong and divorce followed by remarriage is adultery for any reason, I would still like to point you to God's grace and ask you to rest in the fact that your salvation is not based on your works, but based on God's grace alone, through your faith alone, apart from the works of the law. So regardless of what the scriptures teach on this topic, if you have gone through a divorce and remarriage already, you can be rest assured that the blood of Jesus covers everything! If you're not sure about the blood of Jesus covering all of your sins both past and future, I would like to advise you to study the faith vs. works dichotomy first, because that topic is a much more important topic and it concerns your salvation regardless of your holiness. As Paul says in Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
I've always known that one day as a passionate anti-Calvinist Christian, I'll learn enough to feel confident to exegete Romans 9 verse by verse. Romans 9 in my view is by far the most twisted passage by many Protestants who often identify as Calvinist, but not all of them. Some of them steer clear from this label and call themselves Biblicist or simply Christian, even though what they believe and teach is ultimately what John Calvin believed and taught. In short, Calvinists believe that God picks Jacob, but not Esau, Isaac, but not Ishmael, you, but not your neighbour, etc, etc, for salvation before you're even born or have done anything good or bad. They believe this mostly based on their understanding of Romans 9 and specifically based on verse10-13 where Paul says:
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Romans 9 is the bread and butter passage for Calvinists. It's where they go when everything else seems to fail, especially when they're confronted with anti-Calvinists who do not believe that true believers can "lose" their salvation. In other words, believers like me who are said to adhere to the P of TULIP in some form, which stands for the perseverance of the saints. This view I believe is very Biblical and as apostle John said in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." or as Hebrews 10:39 says, "But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved." Having said that, let's jump straight to Romans 9 to see what Paul is trying to tell us.
1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Paul starts this chapter by expressing his anguish and hurt feelings towards his own people, aka the people of Israel. There is nothing to dispute in the first paragraph up to verse 5 other than an interesting verse in which Paul wishes that he himself was cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his people. This type of sacrifice that Paul wishes to show towards his people does not seem to sit very well with the type of god that Calvinists believe in. If one was honest, they would have to conclude that Paul has more love towards the lost than the god of Calvinists who admittedly is indeed inspiring the very scriptures that are being written by Paul. This I believe is a tremendous conundrum for Calvinists who do not believe that God desires literally all men to be saved. In the traditional view however, the impossibility of the fulfilment of this desire due to man's freedom of choice and will does not create such a conundrum.
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
I believe verse 6 is very important here because it sets out the picture of what Paul is trying to explain in this chapter. Paul says that God's word hasn't failed and he goes on to explain why or how. The first question we should ask is why would someone think that God's word has failed in the first place? Paul seems to think that the rejection of Christ by Israel might make someone think that God's word has failed, which is why he expresses his anguish over the matter right before verse 6. He goes on by saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Now we need to ask what the first and second Israel here refer to? I think everyone would agree that the first Israel refers to Jacob while the second Israel refers to the spiritual Israel. Or could the second Israel refer to the seed of Abraham, in other words Christ? Paul makes a very beautiful case about this seed in Galatians 3 and goes on about how it's a singular word and not plural and therefore, it refers to one person, who is Christ . Back to Romans 9, Paul goes on by saying that not everyone who's a child of Jacob is considered to be the seed or offspring of Abraham. This understanding of what Paul is saying here is very important, because Calvinists think that Paul is talking about individual salvations, and then goes on by saying that Isaac or Jacob were chosen to be saved before they were even born or had done anything good or bad, while Ishmael or Esau were doomed from the womb! But that is not even remotely close to what Paul seems to have in his mind. Paul is clearly talking about whether God's promise, or God's word, or Abraham's seed or in other words, Christ, has failed or not. Therefore, he goes on by saying that Abraham's seed was said to be reckoned through Isaac, and not through any of the other children that Abraham had.
8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
In verse 8, Paul switches around to explain the relationship between believers and this singular seed and how they get to become part of this single seed. He talks about this in Galatians 3:29, by saying that if you belong to Christ, who he claims to be Abraham's single seed in Galatians 3:16, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. In other words, although Abraham's seed is one person, who is Christ, others can become part of this seed by believing in Him and going from being in Adam or belonging to Adam, to being in Christ or belonging to Christ. Therefore, becoming a child of God has nothing to do with who your grand daddy is! This is the major point that Paul is making here. He goes back to the promise again by referring to how God prophesied to Sarah that she's going to have a son.
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Paul goes on by saying that this promise continued on as it had to until the actual seed who is Christ would later come into the world. This time he refers to the election of Jacob over Esau. He says that this election had nothing to do with either Jacob or Esau, and it was decided before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad. In other words, God's promise or word does not depend on whether His chosen people are good or bad, otherwise it might fail! He then refers to a verse from Malachi which is about God taking the side of Jacob, or the Israelis, over Esau or the Edomites, almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau are born, in a war in which Edom, or the Edomites are attacking Jacob, or Israel. It's noteworthy that in those days nations were commonly referred to by their patriarchal head. Based on the context of this passage in the Tanakh, this election is about nations and not individuals ie. Jacob, or the nation of Israel vs. Esau, or the nation of Edom.
In Genesis 25:23, God Himself says to Rebekkah that two nations are in her womb and that the older will serve the younger which is what Paul is quoting here. It's also about election for service and not election for salvation. In other words, since Christ or Abraham's seed is going to come into the world through Jacob, or the nation of Israel, God is going to love and protect this nation even against Esau, or the nation of Edom, or the Edomites, who are basically their brothers! And that's essentially what's going on in the context of Malachi where God takes the side of Israel and defends Israel against the attack from their brothers, the Edomites. Therefore, this has nothing to do with individual salvations, but rather everything to do with how God's promise or word hasn't failed. It's also noteworthy to mention that the word "hate" here should not be taken literally, because it's idiomatic. To choose someone or something over someone or something else, idiomatically leads to loving the former and hating the latter. By choosing Jacob over Esau, who would become the nation of Israel through which the Messiah would later come into the world, God has idiomatically loved Jacob and hated Esau. This however does not in any way mean that Esau was doomed from the womb. Another thing that is worthy to mention is that this verse is written almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born and after God loves and protects Jacob(Israel) against Esau(Edom), their brothers! God literally loves Jacob, and hates Esau for attacking Israel as expressed in Malachi. Therefore, the original "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." which is in Malachi 1, revealed almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born, when Israel is being attacked by the Edomites, is indeed a literal hate which is conditional, in the sense that God has to protect Israel for the sake of His promise or word, even against their brothers, the Edomites, while it's unconditional, in the sense that God would do the same for Esau or Edom if He had chosen them to carry the lineage of Christ, instead of Israel.
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
The important question we should ask here is who is the objector in Paul's mind? Is it an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God for choosing to save Jacob and damn Esau, before they're even born or have done anything good or bad? Or is it an Israeli who's been cut off and is objecting to God for showing mercy to Gentiles while rejecting His chosen nation, Israel? Or could it be a third party observer here who takes issue with God's unconditional election of Jacob or the nation of Israel over Esau or the nation of Edom, to carry the lineage of Christ, and therefore gives them special privileges or provides them with extended mercy and grace, such as taking their side when there is a war between them and their brothers, the Edomites? I believe it's most likely the third case, however it could also be the second case; either way Paul says not at all, and goes on by quoting from Exodus 33:19 saying that as it is written, God will have mercy and compassion on whoever He wants!
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
The first word "it" in verse 16 here is key. We need to ask ourselves what does "it" in this verse refer to? Does it refer to the salvation of individuals such as Jacob over Esau? Or does it refer to God's promise or word not failing? This is why I previously said that verse 6 in this chapter is very important. Anyone who's been following can tell that "it" in verse 16 refers to God's promise or word not failing, because it does not depend on human desire or effort but on God's mercy! This is where Calvinists error again and treat "it" in verse 16 as if it refers to individual salvations such as the salvation of Jacob over Esau. But that is not the case and this is why Paul immediately goes to Pharaoh's example of how he was hardened by God in his rebellion in order for God to accomplish a greater purpose through him. Calvinists often think that the phrase "I raised you up" somehow means like a parent raising up their child, but that is not what it means here. In fact, many translations translate this verse as "I spared you". NLT says, "But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth." Furthermore, no single Jewish commentary that I've read so far interprets Exodus 9:16 the way Calvinists understand it. Paul concludes by saying that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy and He hardens whoever He wants to harden, and that is how His promise or word cannot fail. I believe that even Calvinists would agree that the hardening of Pharaoh or anyone else in the scriptures has always been what is known as "judicial hardening." In other words, God never hardens someone unless they harden themselves first.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Another hypothetical objector here! We need to ask ourselves again whether he's an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God blaming them for perhaps not believing in Calvinism, even though they can't resist His will, or is it referring to the Pharaohs of the time who have been hardened by God in their rebellion, just like Pharaoh in his rebellion, in order to accomplish a greater purpose, which in this case would be the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of the world? I think anyone who's been following should be able to tell by now that it's definitely the latter. In other words, just as God hardened Pharaoh in his rebellion to accomplish the first Passover which was just a shadow, He has now hardened Israel and even some Gentiles such as Pilate, in their rebellion, in order to accomplish the real Passover. It's also noteworthy to refer to Jeremiah 18 where the concept of God being the Potter and us being His clay is first introduced long before Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Paul responds to the objector by asking him who he thinks he is to question God, aka the Potter? The reason Jeremiah 18 is important to remember here is because unlike what Calvinists teach, the clay in Jeremiah 18 actually gets to choose what kind of a pot, the Potter makes with them! Make sure you read this passage for yourself if you haven't already. And if Calvinists do believe in judicial hardening, they too would agree that God never hardens people unless they harden themselves first. Not only that, Paul himself uses a similar language in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, and as we can see there as well, the pots have a choice! In verse 20-21 he says, "In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work." Therefore, the objector in Romans 9:19 is not an anti-Calvinist.
22 What if God, although choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Here Paul is hypothesising about everything he's been saying so far. He says what if God has been patient and has spared the Pharaohs of our time who are prepared in advance, for destruction? In other words, people who God has given up on their salvation because of the hardness of their hearts, yet has spared and hardened them in their rebellion, a concept known as judicial hardening, for accomplishing a greater purpose through them. What if He did this to make Himself known to the objects of His mercy whom He has prepared in advance for glory? Not only people like us from the Jews, but also people like you guys from the Gentiles? Now Calvinists might say, "Hang on a minute, did you just say prepared in advance? Isn't that predestination before the foundation of the world? Isn't that what we believe? You can't say that!" The answer is no. Preparing in advance for glory or destruction does not have to mean predestining individuals before they're even born or have done anything good or bad. That is a non-sequitur which is natural to think if you're a Calvinist or hold to deterministic presuppositions. I would argue that given the concept and doctrine of judicial hardening, the preparing of objects for destruction must take place at a time when the objects are not only born and alive, but also hardened by themselves through their own choosing. This makes sense of passages like Jeremiah 18 as well as 2 Timothy 2:20-21 in both of which the pots are made by the potter through their own choosing!
25 As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” 27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out His sentence on earth with speed and finality.” 29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.”
Paul then quotes from a few passages in the Tanakh to support his claims. I don't think any of these passages are at dispute and in fact, Calvinists often stop reading when they get to verse 25 which I always find amusing, because right after these passages, Paul summarises what he's been saying by his favourite, "What then shall we say?" statement, and his conclusion here which is actually about soteriology, is far from John Calvin's theology, which further proves the point of how wrong Calvinists are in understanding Romans 9. According to Paul's conclusion, the reason that Gentiles are believing the gospel while Israel is rejecting it, is not because God has predestined them to, but rather because of the whole faith vs. works dichotomy which Paul has been tapping into in the previous chapters of his letter to the Romans. He concludes that the people of Israel have stumbled over the stumbling stone as prophesied by Isaiah, because they have been pursuing the Law not by faith, but as if it were by works.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”
Isaac Bashevis Singer once said, "we must believe in free will; we have no choice." I think it's very self-evident that free will is required to make sense of our thoughts in a meaningful way. If we didn't have free will, then we wouldn't be in charge of our thoughts and so our efforts to discern the truth would ultimately be meaningless and any effort would assume that we're in control of our thoughts! It never ceases to amaze me that those who do not believe in free will, continue to argue for things and expect others to understand their arguments and change their minds, as if they do believe in free will!
What does free will even mean? Some theists might ask, "do you think your will can trump the will of God?" or "Did you choose to be born? Did you choose your parents?" and the list of similar questions goes on. I think it's clear that these people are confusing free will with omnipotence. Free will does not mean that the one who possesses it can get everything they will or desire. So the answer to these questions are simple. No I do not believe that my will can trump the will of God. After all, it is God who has created us and He did not have to give us any type of freedom, but I believe that He has given us certain freedoms and I think that believing otherwise, reduces rationality to absurdity. Neither did I choose to be born, nor did I choose my parents. After all, how could I do such things before I even existed?! It's a logically absurd question to ask.
Now if you have never looked into this topic, you may be surprised to find out that there is actually two types of free will! Sounds a bit silly and I agree! I believe in reality, there's only one type of free will and the other type is nothing but a bunch of mumbo jumbo and empty philosophy. This type of free will which in my view, is no free will at all, is called compatibilism. It's a view that says free will and determinism are compatible or in other words, free will has nothing to do with the causality of the universe or the origin of everything that exists. Adherents to this view argue that regardless of how we've come to exist, we're free to choose, because what we choose is ultimately what we desire and no one is forcing us to choose what we choose.
One major problem with compatibilism is that it begs the question and does not comment on the possibility of free will being simply nothing more than illusion. The other problem is that separating free will from the causality of the universe or the origin of everything that exists, is impossible. What if the origin of everything that exists is a powerful and evil being who has not chosen to give us any type of freedom and any type of freedom that we seem to experience is nothing more than an illusion? And what if the origin of everything that exists did not have any freedom itself, and was similar to a piece of wood? How can we claim to have freedom in this case? Wouldn't everything be completely out of our control in this case and wouldn't the freedom we experience be anything more than an illusion? I would say so because there is no room for any type of freedom under these metaphysics.
Furthermore, some critics argue that they would choose different things, under different circumstances. However, counter-factual statements such as if I was born in Saudi Arabia, I would be a Sunni Muslim, or if I was born in Iran, I would be a Shia Muslim, or if I was born in America, I would be a Christian, do not hold any water, simply because there is no evidence to prove any of it. When these critics are confronted with contrary evidence, they then argue that the exact circumstances of these individuals must have been different and their analogies are more general. But again there is no evidence to prove any of this. In fact, there is contrary evidence to suggest that our circumstances ultimately do not tamper with our beliefs. We can see this in twins who are born, and raised in the same country, city, family and have attended the same school, and have been around the same people and yet have ended up with having different beliefs.
The other type of free will, which is actually free will, is also known as libertarian or contra-causal free will. According to this philosophy, a decision is only free if it's not causally determined and the thinking agents can will to believe X or will not to believe X. It acknowledges that we can respond to reason or reasons regardless of our circumstances or upbringing or the world that we found ourselves in, per say. Of course this type of free will, not only requires a powerful and intelligent Creator to be the origin of everything that exists, but also requires this Creator to be good and trustworthy. You may ask why? Well, think about it like this. Criminals tend to hide their crimes and tend not to leave any evidence behind, so they may not get caught. In the same way, we would expect an evil god to not want to get caught. If criminals had the power to blind everyone, especially the cops, to their crimes, they would totally do so. Wouldn't an evil god also blind his creatures to his crimes? And what better way to blind his creatures than stripping their freedom of thought away while still giving them the illusion that they're free, such that they would still worship him or feel bad if they don't worship him. It's kind of a no-brainer.
So we must believe in free will. We have no choice! But this also takes us to another axiom in flawless reasoning. We must also believe that there is a good and trustworthy Creator, because we cannot possibly have "libertarian/contra-causal" free will, without the existence of such a Creator. And this is not just about believing that such a Creator exists, but also trusting Him with everything. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment in the law, He replied: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your soul. This is the first and greatest commandment." —Matthew 22:37-38.
This commandment is actually a necessary axiom for flawless reasoning. Any type of reasoning that does not start with this axiom is ultimately doomed to fail somewhere along the way! So I would like to complete the title of this article by saying that we MUST not only believe that God exists, but we MUST also trust Him - we have no choice! Any other route of reasoning is bound to reduce rationality to absurdity.
I've heard multiple times from Muslims that according to their religion, if they don't believe in what God has revealed previously, especially scriptures that are named explicitly in the Quran, such as the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel, they are not Muslim. The Quran itself commands Muslims to believe in the previous scriptures—Quran 29:46, and Allah even commands Muhammad that if he doubts, he should go to the previous scriptures so that his doubts can be erased—Quran 10:94. However, when I ask Muslims whether they believe in the Judeo-Christian scriptures today, the majority of them will say no because they've been corrupted. This of course raises the next question.
How can we believe in something that doesn't exist anymore?
If Muslims are right and the Judeo-Christian scriptures, especially those that are named by Allah in the Quran, such as the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel are corrupted and the original ones don't exist anymore, and that Muslims are commanded to believe in the original ones, how is that even going to be possible? In other words, how can someone claim to believe in something that doesn't exist anymore? How could Muhammad himself who was the founder of Islam obey Allah's command in Quran 10:94, if the Judeo-Christian scriptures didn't exist anymore? Now, even if such commands didn't exist in the Quran, another valid question can be raised.
Does God preserve His words?
If God doesn't preserve His words, then no religion that appeals to words written centuries ago can be true including Islam. If however God does preserve His words, then we should start with what has come first and work our way up. If Muslims can indeed come up with an interpretation of the Judeo-Christian scriptures that would agree with standard Islamic theology, I would be all ears and I'm sure I won't be alone. But I honestly won't be holding my breath; there are good reasons why the cheap "it's been corrupted" accusation is thrown at us. It's simply because there can't possibly exist an interpretation of the Judeo-Christian scriptures that would agree with standard Islamic theology or even any interpretation of the Quran.
Now let me address three common objections:
1. God never promised to preserve His words before the Quran.
This is an even cheaper assertion than the cheap "it's been corrupted" accusation. First of all, how can a Muslim possibly know whether God has promised to preserve His words before the Quran or not? If what God has said previously is corrupted, then it follows that a Muslim can't possibly know such a thing without a blind leap of faith. Secondly, what if I quote passages from the Judeo-Christian scriptures such as Isaiah 40:8 and Matthew 24:35 to show that God did indeed promise to preserve His words long before the Quran came to exist? Will Muslims believe these verses in the Judeo-Christian scriptures?! If this isn't a viciously circular argument, I don't know what is!
2. The Quran is special and it hasn't changed unlike the Bible.
This is simply an assertion with no real evidence to back it up and it doesn't really prove anything even if it was true. Once asked how the Muslim knows that the Quran hasn't changed, the answer is that all the manuscripts are identical all the way down to the letter and dots unlike the Bible. Even though this claim is totally false and can be easily falsified by pointing the Muslim to the textual variants between the different manuscripts such as the Warsh manuscripts vs. the Hafs manuscripts, it doesn't prove anything. Even if all the existing manuscripts of the Quran today were exactly identical, the conclusion that the Quran hasn't changed is nothing more than an assertion. What if someone burned all the copies of the original Quran and replaced them with a new Quran? There is in fact evidence in the hadith that at the time of Uthman which was only two generations after Muhammad, there existed different versions of the Quran and Uthman issued a decree to burn all the different manuscripts and force everyone to only copy from his own manuscripts. This is according to the Islamic sources by the way; it's not something made up by anti-Islamists or anti-Muslims. You can read this story on https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9.
3. Quran was memorized first and then written down.
So what? That can be said and in fact is said about Christianity as well. The Gospel was first preached and then written down. In fact the simplicity of the Gospel makes memorizing it super-simple, unlike the complexity of the Quran. Oral tradition exists in all religions, however historians and skeptics prefer written evidence because they don't trust human memories, perhaps rightly so. As a result, the sooner there is written evidence about a particular faith after it's preached, the better. And the Christian message recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is believed by historians to have been written within a decade or even less than a decade after the crucifixion. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 clearly lays out the Gospel and shows that what Christians preach today is the same message that the earliest Christians were preaching. Not only that, there are also more copies of the New Testament than any other ancient texts including the Quran. One way to know whether an ancient text has changed or not or what and how much of it has changed is to cross reference all the different manuscripts and so the more manuscripts, the better. We don't have that many manuscripts when it comes to the Quran, thanks to Uthman for burning most of them!
To top it all off, I see a lot of Muslims take a few verses from the Bible out of context and misuse them in order to preach Islam in the West and those who are ignorant and don't know the Judeo-Christian scriptures well enough, can end up buying into the message of Islam. The truth is that anyone can do that with any book to preach any message. In fact, I can do that with the Quran in a much better and consistent way. Because I know for a fact that there are easy and rational answers and explanations for the verses that Muslims take out of the Bible. Some of them are so embarrassing that should make an intelligent Muslim question the sanity and honesty of these preachers. But I've never seen a rational response to any of the questions that are raised in the following video. If indeed cherry picking from a book or set of books and insisting on our own interpretation is the way to pin down the truth, then all non-Muslims have every right to reject the Quran based on the following video alone, without any shadow of doubt, regardless of how Muslims would respond to it. Because remember, we don't care about how Muslims read and interpret the Quran. As long as we can convince ourselves that Quran is self-contradictory and therefore not the Word of God, we're good!
One of the questions that new believers might have is whether they should be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as Jesus states in Matthew 28:19 or whether they should be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, as the apostles do in Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5. I think in addressing this, the first question that we should be asking ourselves is if there is a difference and if there is, does that mean that the apostles disobeyed the commandment of Jesus in Matthew 28:19? I'm going to argue that this is a false dichotomy and therefore, the accusation that the apostles didn't follow through the commandment of Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:19 will be falsified by the end of this article. In Matthew 28:19, we read that after the resurrection Jesus says to the apostles, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in THEName of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The reason I capitalized "THE Name" in this verse is to emphasize the fact that Jesus is claiming that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all share the same name! I'm not the first person to catch this by the way. In fact, Matthew 28:19 is one of the most favorite verses that is used by Trinitarians to point out that the three persons in the Godhead share the same name and therefore, they must be united in essence!
The next question that arises is what is this name and why didn't Jesus explicitly mention this name? The answer to this question is quite simple to be honest. The reason Jesus didn't explicitly mention the name is because names can be claimed by other people which would ruin the commandment in a sense. So what Jesus did instead was make an implicit statement which would not only demonstrate the Triune nature of God, but also give us some sort of freedom in terms of baptism as long as we make it clear to the disciples we make, who Jesus of Nazareth really is. Now, it is almost undeniable that God has many different names in the Jewish Bible(Tanakh), however it is also almost undeniable that the most unique name that is used to refer to God in the Tanakh is YHWH, or Yahweh and some would even translate it into Jehovah. There are also other Hebrew terms used to refer to God in the Tanakh such as Elohim and Adonai which are believed to be more common compared to YHWH and are therefore translated into God and Lord in English. Most English translations that we have today translate Yahweh into LORD(all capital) rather than God or Lord in order to distinguish between the unique name of God in the Tanakh as opposed to more common ones such as Elohim and Adonai.
Interestingly enough, the unique name of God in the Jewish Bible(Tanakh), YHWH, or Yahweh is quoted in the New Testament multiple times and is applied to Jesus Christ. For example, Mark 1:3 quotes from Isaiah 40:3 and claims that prophet Isaiah has prophesied the coming of Yahweh even though the author is clearly referring to the coming of Jesus! Another example which is one of my favorites in the New Testament is where Jesus Himself in Matthew 21:16-17 clearly claims to be Yahweh! We read that children are praising Jesus as the Jewish Messiah(Son of David) in the temple; a place where only Yahweh is to be praised! Teachers of the Law become indignant and ask Jesus, "DO YOU HEAR WHAT THESE CHILDREN ARE SAYING?" Jesus not only doesn't rebuke the children at the temple, but rather responds by asking a rhetorical question that includes quoting from Psalm 8:2 which talks about Yahweh receiving praise from the mouths of infants and children! Having said that, it might be noteworthy to say that we know from Matthew 22:42 or Luke 20:41 that "Son of David" was a title that people at that time used to refer to Jesus because they believed that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. A title that Jesus took issue with by questioning them after quoting from Psalm 110:1 and asking them why David refers to the Messiah as his Lord rather than his Son! A question that leaves the people speechless afterwards according to Matthew 22:46.
So I think there is enough evidence in the New Testament for us to conclude that Jesus is clearly claiming to be YHWH, or Yahweh! However, since God is introduced more intimately to mankind through incarnation in the person of Jesus, born of virgin Mary, it seems very clear that the name Jesus takes precedence over the name Yahweh! There is clear evidence for this in Philippians 2:9. In fact, the very next verses claim that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is while we read in the Tanakh, in Isaiah 45:23, that every knee will bow before Yahweh and every tongue will swear by Yahweh! Further evidence is found in Acts 4:10-12 where Peter claims that there is no name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved, other than the name of Jesus Christ! This is again while we read in the Tanakh, that Yahweh is the only Savior! Is there then any question why we read in Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 that the apostles were baptizing the believers in the name of Jesus Christ?
Now I understand that most people are simply baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit rather than the Name of Jesus Christ or Yahweh. I personally don't have any issues with that because let's not forget that anyone can be named Jesus or even Yahweh which is most definitely why Jesus Christ didn't explicitly mention any names in the commandment that He gave to His followers in Matthew 28:19. Having said that, from context in the book of Acts, we know that the name of the Lord Jesus or the name of Jesus Christ refers to the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. In Acts 19:13 we read for example, that some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. The author says that these Jews would say, "In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." In other words, they would make it clear to the demons which Jesus they're referring to! I think we need to do the same today, because many false prophets have gone into the world and have deceived many. I believe as long as we're clear that we're referring to the Jesus spoken of in the New Testament rather than the Jesus spoken of in the Quran for example, we're good. To recap, I would say that what's in our hearts matters more than our words; as apostle Paul wrote in Romans 10:10, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."
How can we know anything about God? The answer to this question depends on the person you ask it from, but the most cliché answer is often quotations or references from ancient books like the Bible, Quran, etc. But how do we know what those books claim about God are true? Now you get into endless arguments, back and forth which surprisingly seems not to change anyone's mind, as at the end of the day, the Muslim remains a Muslim and the Christian remains a Christian and so on and so forth. Now of course you'll have a few converts here and there, but generally speaking, people seem to stick to the religion of their parents which should ring a bell because it's a massive red flag to those who are seriously and desperately seeking the truth. The question should be raised that why is that really the case? Is it really because most people can't think critically? Or is it because most people hate to acknowledge the truth? Or is the truth really that difficult to discern? Maybe it's a combination of these or could there be another reason? Could it be that all these religions are false? A conclusion that is the main driver behind new atheism? But of course that's not what I think and I reckon that this conclusion is more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I've written an article on refuting atheism which you can read HERE. So what is it? Why is it that most people stick to the religion of their parents and how can we truly know for sure beyond any doubt that we have put our faith in the right god, religion and/or theology? I'll tell you how I can, but you need to bear with me a bit.
As you may know, I was raised a Muslim and I am now a Christian. I could sit back and argue with you all day long. Give you reasons one after another as to why the ultimate truth is found in Christianity and so on and on. But can I convince you, the same way that I've been convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that I've got the truth? No. Why? Because that is not how I know what I know beyond a shadow of any doubt. You see, arguments played a significant role in helping me think outside of the box I was raised to think in but they didn't convince me beyond any doubt that the ultimate truth is found in Christianity or that Jesus is indeed the Son of the living God. I was raised and programmed to believe that there is no god but Allah, and that Christians are blaspheming Allah because they claim that Allah has a son but far be it from Allah to have a son. I was programmed to believe that all previous religious texts are corrupted while the Quran has been perfectly and miraculously preserved down to the letter and that is the most miraculous thing in the world today, and so anyone who does not believe in Islam, is not being honest with the evidence that proves Islam and causes it to shine above all the other world religions. This in a nutshell is the box I was raised in.
I eventually broke out of this box and started to think outside of this box known as standard Islamic theology. I became a deist for a while but I knew deep down that if there is a god, then there must be some kind of historical evidence, some type of prophet, messenger, etc otherwise this god that I believe in is most likely just a figment of my imagination! I even came close to becoming an atheist by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You see, even though I broke out of the box I was raised in but I was still thinking in a box; another box which was way bigger than the previous one. I was still trying to reason to God all by myself, not knowing that because I've been fallible in the past, it's very likely that I'm going to make mistakes again and I wasn't really getting anywhere. I can't really tell you when this simple truth hit me but when it did, I realized that I can't really know the truth beyond any shadow of doubt unless I receive a direct revelation or confirmation from God myself. I didn't want to trust anyone anymore and neither did I trust myself because I too had been wrong in the past. But at that moment I did wholeheartedly believe and trust in God. I knew there is a Creator. I knew this world I'm experiencing can't be an accident; so I fell on my face and called out to this Creator as sincere and as genuine as I could with all my heart, mind and soul and He spoke to me and showed me the truth.
I can tell you that when God speaks to you, He will make sure that you hear Him right and correctly. But you have to give Him the opportunity to do that. You can't do that by putting Him into a box. You can't do that by limiting Him either. If you're stuck in a religion like Islam which says Muhammad was the last Messenger of God and that God doesn't speak to people anymore, then you're limitting God and you're putting Him into a box. You can't blame God at the day of judgement, because you alone are responsible for remaining in this deception. You can't blame God because you didn't let God correct you. If you're stuck in a religion that teaches that God randomly guides some people and misguides others and you happen to be one of the lucky people God has decided to guide, then you're not only putting God into a box but also putting yourself into a box. You're not allowing God to guide you; you're only deluding yourself and you deserve to remain deluded. You deserve it because you're putting the Almighty God, the Creator of this magnificent world, the Creator of your very senses and cognitive faculties into a box.
So that is why most people stick to the religion of their parents. It's because they either put the Creator of their very senses and cognitive faculties into a box or they put themselves into a box or they do both! Instead of going to God for answers, they're trying to reason to this God as if they're not going to be fallible in the process of their reasoning at all. Instead of calling out to God and trusting Him with all their heart, mind, and soul, and in most cases instead of letting go of dogmatic beliefs that they have inherited from their culture, parents or society, they choose to fight for their zeal; zeal that is not based on knowledge but rather on blind faith. Yes if you yourself do not have direct revelation or confirmation from the Creator of this world, then your beliefs are indeed based on blind faith in others. That is exactly what the Devil wants people to do and unfortunately most people either do it or are programmed to do it. If you're one of those people and if I have been able to ring a bell in your ears, then please take action NOW and ask God, and expect answers. I promise you that God will speak to you and you will hear His voice.
In a previous article, I went through the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I explained how it relates to justification by grace alone through faith alone apart from works. One of the most common questions tha rises after this parable, which really doesn't need much deciphering, is that why should we work then? Or why should we obey God? The answer is quite simple to be honest. The short answer is that because working is good and obeying God is also a good thing, because God only wants what's best for us and everyone else. That's why He deserves all the glory! Because He is the best and wants the best for everyone! Another reason is that God blesses and rewards us based on our works, both in this life and in the afterlife. The gift of eternal life is only one of the many gifts God has in store for human beings. There is so much more to life than simply escaping death and getting to live forever!
In the parable of the ten minas in the gospel of Luke, we read about a man of noble birth who goes to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he calls ten of his servants and gives them ten minas and tells them to put this money to work until he comes back. But his subjects hate him and send a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ He is made king, however, and returns home. Then he sends for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they have gained with it. Two of the servants who have put the master's money to work and have earned ten and five more minas respectively are rewarded by the master.
Then we see something very interesting happen here, which is often ignored by most readers; it's the way the master treats the rest of his servants. We see the master get angry at the third servant who has not worked with the money and as a result has not earned anything. The master tells him off that he should have at least put the money on deposit, so that when the master returned, he could now collect it with interest! Then the master orders that even the one mina that this servant has should be taken away from him and should be given to the one who has ten minas. Catching the other servants by surprise, he tells them that whoever has earned something, more will be given to them and to those who have earned nothing, even what they have will be taken away from them. He goes on and says, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me!"
What most readers miss here and assume that this parable proves that eternal life is not by grace alone through faith alone, is that the servant who has not worked with the master's money at all, is not put to death! It is clear that the death sentence in this passage refers to the second death or the destruction of both body and soul, as Jesus warned the unbelievers in Matthew 10:28. So as we can see, even in this parable, eternal life is purely by grace alone, through faith alone. However, this parable is also clear that works play a crucial role in heavenly rewards. No wonder why Jesus told his followers not to store up for themselves treasures on earth where moths and vermin destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but instead he encouraged them to store up for themselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. That's in Matthew 6:19-20.
Critics of this theology and interpretation of this parable refer to Matthew 25:14-30, specifically verse 30. They claim that this is the same parable that is being told by Matthew, and then they fixate on verse 30 which says, "And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." They argue that the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is something that Matthew uses to refer to the second death. But a careful examination of the book of Matthew shows that this is just an eisegesis or reading something into the passage. The phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used six times in the book of Matthew. In Matthew 13:42 for example, it comes right after "being thrown into the blazing furnace" whereas in Matthew 25:30, it comes after "being thrown into the darkness."
Therefore, it is not exactly the same phrase and we need more proof-text to conclude whether or not this phrase alone refers to the second death. The proof-text from the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19:11-27 that I just went through above, provides enough evidence for us to conclude that the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" does not refer to the second death alone, but also to miss out on heavenly rewards and the privilege to reign with Christ or to be glorified with Christ. To recap, while the two parables appear to be the same, it's clear that the one in Luke 19:11-27 contains more details and distinguishes between the treatments of those who did not want the master to be king over them vs. those who did not work with the master's money.
In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, we read about a similar judgement from apostle Paul. He says, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames." As we can see here, those whose works are judged to be unworthy will suffer loss, but yet they will be saved. I believe that another passage that supports this interpretation of this parable is 2 Timothy 2:11-12. In these verses we see a clear distinction between living with Christ as opposed to reigning with Christ. One requires faith alone, while the other requires faith plus endurance/works. It ends by telling us that if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot disown Himself.
