Friday, June 5, 2026

VEGETARIAN DIET-- THE ORIGINAL ONE?

PAUL TAKES TIME IN HIS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF VEGETARIAN EATING AS OPPOSED TO EATING A DIET THAT CONTAINS MEAT.

SOME TEACH GOD ORIGINALLY WANTED MANKIND TO BE VEGETARIANS, AND STATE THE NO MEAT EATING DIET IS THE SUPREME DIET.

Vegetarianism - God's ideal diet?

What did the Lord teach to Adam and Eve?

                                                    by

                                             Keith Hunt



     There  are  those  who  are  vegetarians  because  they see
that our animals  are  polluted  from  man  made  "shots"  of 
this  or  that substance.  They  are  well aware that most
commercial meats are not anywhere  as  wholesome  as  they  used
to be 50 years ago and more.
     These  people  decide  to  become vegetarians from a modern
"health" viewpoint,  and if they can not obtain natural "organic"
meats they will eat no meat. I admit I am one of them, and eat
very very little meat unless I can obtain "organic" meat.
     But  there  are  thousands of "religious" vegetarians who
are non meat  eaters  BECAUSE they think the word of God teaches
that it was the Lord's original plan for mankind to eat only
fruits, seeds, grains, and nuts.
     No better illustration of this teaching and belief can be
found than in the adult Sabbath school lessons of Jan/Feb/March
l993, published by the Seventh Day Adventist Church:

DIVINE DIET(GEN.1:29;3:18).

     "What  did God originally intend for us to eat? Gen.1:29.
What did He add after the fall? Gen.3:18. Before  they  sinned,
Adam and  Eve ate fruits, seeds, grains, and nuts.......When  did
God finally give His consent for people to eat meat, and why?
Gen.9:1-3. What restrictions did God place on eating meat?
Gen.7:2. Think  about it: Why does it make sense now more than
ever to return to God's original diet......"

     The  scripture  that  religious  vegetarians  use  to 
support their argument that God's original plan was to have
humans eat only no meat foods, is Genesis 1:29.
     We shall see that when you take the WHOLE written word of
God, when  you  do as Jesus said we should do, and that is "Man
shall not live  by  bread  alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth  of  God"(Mat.4:4)  - when that is
followed we shall see that Gen.1:29 is NOT teaching that God
originally intended mankind to be vegetarians.
     Is  ALL  vegetation  good  for  food?  Of  course it is not!
Some vegetation if eaten  will KILL YOU! Even some of the seed
bearing vegetation is harmful to you. So Gen.1:29 is NOT an all
encompassing simple formula as to what God intended our first
parents to eat. God would have had to spend some in-depth time
with them concerning diet and  what  they  should  and  should 
not eat to remain healthy and strong.  We need to remember that
the first chapters of Genesis only hit  the  high  spots  - much
more than what is recorded for us must have transpired.  Are  we 
to assume that after God blessed and sanctified the 7th day
Sabbath, He never instructed Adam and Eve on how to keep that day
holy? Are we to believe that after God created sex He never gave
our first parents any instructions on sexuality?
     What about husband and wife relations, are we to understand
that God gave no lessons of instruction on this topic to Adam and
Eve before they fell into sin?

     The  Bible gives us no time frame from the 7th day of
creation to the serpent leading Eve into sin - it could have been
a number of weeks, months or even years. In any event, knowing
God to be the loving, kind and merciful person that He is, it
would be very improbable that He did not give much more detailed
instructions on many important subjects that Adam and Eve would
need as they began the beginning of their lives.

     I have written very extensively on the law of Gen.1:29
concerning eating foods bearing seeds. In a nut shell (pun
intended) the main teaching that God is giving us in Gen.1:29 is
NOT that we should, or that He originally wanted us to be
vegetarians, but that the vegetation we should eat should be seed
bearing and green. In other words or as an example, what this
verse in Genesis is teaching is that things like mushrooms or
moss were not created to be food for the health and wellbeing of
mankind. There is a teaching of "limitations" of what vegetation
is to be eaten in this verse. This limitation teaching is the
theme and main point of what God said to Adam and Eve in 
Gen.1:29,30 and NOT that they were only to eat vegetation.

     Now  ask  yourself  this  question, if it was the Lord's
original "state of the art" plan for mankind to be vegetarians,
then would you not suppose those Christians who were following
God's original design to be the stronger - the more spiritually
stronger - the less spiritually  weaker? Of course you would I
think, for they would be the ones going back to the way it
supposedly was before sin entered the world.  You  would think
the Bible would hold up such people as the "strong in the faith."
Well hold on to that for a while, and if you believe the
vegetarian only eater is the more stronger in the faith, then 
you  are  in for a big surprise, right out of the very
Word of God.
     Before I give you that eye opening verse that will "blow
your mind" (if you've never read it before), first, I want you to
understand a very important point of Bible STUDY. God has caused
His word to be written down as a jig-saw-puzzle. He has 
deliberately and methodically done this so people will be led
astray and deceived - blinded from His truths. Until God removes 
that blindness through the power of the Holy Spirit, not only
can no one come to Christ to be saved from sin, but they can not
understand God's word. Oh, they may understand little portions of
it, but their errors will outnumber by far the truths they have.
You need to look up and read carefully these scriptures that
prove what I have just said is true: Rev.12:9; Acts 4:8-12; John
6:44,65; Mark 13:11,12; Mat.13:10-16.

     Even  those  who have been called and chosen by the Father
are to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2
Tim.2:15). 
     It was Jesus who said "Thy (the Father's) word is
truth"(John 17:17). He was referring to God's inspired word as
found in the Holy Bible. This only is truth, not some writings of
a man or woman.
     I want you to turn to Isaiah the 28th chapter. Notice what
Isaiah says in verse 9, "Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom
shall he make to understand DOCTRINE?" A very good question
indeed, then he gives the answer,  "them that are weaned with
milk, and drawn from the breast."                                
                      
     But in what way does being "weaned from the milk" mean? 
Isaiah was inspired to tell us in the next verse, "For precept
must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; line
upon line; here a little and there a little."
     God  has  put His word down like a jig-saw-puzzle - you must
hunt and search for all the pieces of any particular area or
topic before you can know and understand the truth of any
doctrine.
     Just as Jesus spoke in parables to the vast population NOT
so they would better understand but so they would NOT UNDERSTAND,
so they would not "get it" but be left in darkness and sin. So,
God has written His word a little here and a little there, a line
here and a line there, in order that those who will not study to
show themselves approved, rightly dividing(putting together) the
word of truth, searching it out and fitting it together like a
jig-saw-puzzle, will, "....go and fall backward, and be broken,
and snared, and taken"(Isaiah 28:13).

     So let's put what we have just discovered into practice.
Sometimes God has given us a line of truth in Genesis within the
context of a certain topic and another line of truth on the same
subject in another book of the Bible far away from Genesis. And
this is the case here on this question as to the original diet
God intended Adam and Eve to follow. We find more to this puzzle
way over in the book of......TIMOTHY! Yes, way over in the New
Testament.
     Turn to the first book of Timothy and chapter 4. Paul was
inspired to foretell about the latter days and a time when some
would "depart  from the faith" in verse one. They would become so
hardened in their false beliefs that were doctrines of demons,
that their minds would be branded and just about impossible to
change to acknowledge the truth. I hope dear reader your mind is
not seared to the point where you can not admit your errors and
rejoice in the truth.
     We  see  in  verses 3-5 that Paul mentions TWO wrong
doctrines in particular. One is "forbidding to marry" and we
certainly have that doctrine around us today. One large Christian
church still teaches its priests to remain single, and there are
others who teach people not to marry when they are within God's
law to do so.
     But  now on to the second false doctrine that Paul talks
about in some detail.  Paul is telling us that some would depart
from the faith in the latter days and teach that we should
abstain from "meats" or food, of what kind? - creatures is the
answer(verse 4).
     The word used here for "creature" is the same as James 1:18.
We humans of flesh and blood are "creatures" in that sense of the
word. So are cows, sheep, goats, and pigs and horses for that
matter, as well as all birds and fish.                           
            
     Is Paul in these verses telling us that we are now allowed
to eat anything that moves, creeps, wiggles or crawls?  Some say
he is and that God's laws concerning clean and unclean meats is
no longer in effect today.
     As we carefully  examine the words Paul uses we can see that
is NOT what Paul was teaching.  The meats that Paul was saying
some would tell you to abstain from, were to be received with
thanksgiving OF  THEM  which believe and know the truth.  Again,
let me ask, what is truth?  I gave you the answer earlier - God's
word is truth said Jesus. And we are to live by every word of it
He told us (Mat.4:4). God's word in Lev.11 and Duet.14 gives us
the laws of the clean and unclean creatures. Nothing in the New
Testament teaches that New Covenant Christians are set free from
the physical laws of health that were set down by the Lord under
the Old Covenant, and even before that covenant came. But all of
that proof must be given in another study on CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
MEATS.
     Notice verse 4 and 5. Every creature is good and nothing to
be refused  FOR, verse five says, "For it is SANCTIFIED by the
WORD OF GOD and prayer."  Those creatures that are to be received
with thankfulness by those who know the truth, are FIRST of all,
sanctified by God's word - set apart by God's word. God's word
sets them apart for you  -  tells you which kind of creatures are
given to you for food to eat. It is not prayer that is first, you
can not just pray over any slimy unclean creature and ask God to
bless it to your bodies health when He has never sanctified it by
His word for you to eat.
     Those who know the truth, those who know what meats are set
apart as fit to eat in God's word, can receive it with a thankful
heart.
     These  sanctified creatures are to be received and not
refused as some in the latter days would teach.
     Remember when Paul was writing this there was no large scale
meat pollution of clean animals like there is today. Yet even
with our polluted planet it is possible to obtain organic natural
meats that only acid rain has contaminated, then acid rain has
contaminated many organic vegetables also.
     This prophecy of Paul's should make would be "vegetarianism
is God's original design"  preachers SHAKE in their boots!  Paul
said that in the last days a departing from the faith would
include a doctrine from demons that would teach people to abstain
from meats/creatures which God created to be received - as given
in Lev.11 and Duet.14.
     And that brings me to that word in verse three - CREATED!
The Greek phrase reads "which God created for reception." 
     When were these clean, sanctified by God's word, creatures 
made  clean? Sometime after the fall of man, or after Noah's
flood?  No, they were CREATED clean, from the very beginning when
God made them during those 7 creative days.
     Genesis 7 tells you that Noah took seven pairs of CLEAN
animals into the ark and only two of a kind from the unclean. The
animals were clean and unclean before the flood. Paul was
inspired to tell us they were made this way WHEN they were
created.
     Paul tells us they were created to be received by those who
would know the truth. Did Adam and Eve know the truth? Sure they
did! God walked and talked with them - instructed them in the way
they ought to go. He had Adam give names to the animals, surely
at that time God instructed him about which were created clean
and which were created unclean - which were fit for him to eat
and which were not.

PAUL AND THE ROME CHURCH CONTROVERSY 

     Even  during the apostolic church age this argument of
eating or NOT eating meat arose in a least one of the churches of
God. And who did the Lord inspire to judge the matter, why the
man who undoubtedly was the Churches most scholastic minister -
the man who was highly educated and a past expert in Pharisaical
teachings - the man Paul.  
     This  man was a student of the Old Testament and Jewish
teachings and traditions. More important, he claimed he was
personally taught by  Christ  -  see  Galatians  1:11,12.
Certainly he had many of the gifts of the Spirit and was not
afraid to use the scriptures to prove his point.                 
                          
     He  was  not slow to use the first few chapter of Genesis to
bear evidence to his stand. I would like you to note how he
backed up instruction to Timothy about women teaching in the 
church (l Tim.2:11-14).  He  used  the  book  of  Genesis  to 
prove his point concerning  physical  circumcision and faith to
the Romans and Jews, in his book of Galatians.
     Paul was very well versed in the scriptures.                
      
     There  arose among the members of the church at Rome the
issue of eating all things (within the laws of God) and eating
herbs only.
     In other  words the issue of vegetarianism as opposed to
those who were not vegetarians. Here was the grand opportunity
for Paul to wax eloquent and put the record straight not only for
those at Rome but for the whole New Testament church from that
time on.               
     Surely if any man knew the truth of Gen.1:29 it would have
been Paul. If he had been fully taught by Christ and the Holy
Spirit that Gen.1:29 taught God's original ideal for mankind was
vegetarianism, he now had the opportunity to proclaim that truth
to the Church in straight forward language. He could have easily
said as Jesus often did, "from the beginning" it was not so or it
was so. He could have easily quoted Gen.1:29 as he did with other
Genesis verses, to prove the faith of the herb only eaters was
the correct one from an "original" point of view. He could easily
have upheld as "stronger in the faith" those who taught
vegetarianism as God's original ideal as found in Gen.1:29.      
                                        
     But he did NO SUCH THING! It would seem from what he did say
the verse in question in Genesis DID NOT ENTER HIS MIND for one 
second. He did not allude to it, quote from it, give it as an
example, or even come close to it in any way.                    
 
     Now look at what he DID say. You will find it in Romans
14:1-2.   
     "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations.  For one believes that he may eat all
things: another who is weak, eateth herbs."                      
                  
     Notice carefully, Paul is not talking about someone who is 
PHYSICALLY weak in body or health, but one who is weak "in THE
FAITH." 
     Now who would you say could be "weak in the faith"?  A
person who understands God's basic 10 commandments, who knows the
7th day Sabbath should be kept holy, who has repented and
accepted Jesus as their Savior, who has been baptized in water -
could he/she be still looked upon as weak in the faith, not
knowing too much else about the  Bible, still having lots to read
and learn about God's way of life?
     Yes  I  think they could be described as "a babe in Christ"
- "weak in the faith". Many coming into the Church of God at Rome
were from a pagan society, they knew very little about what God's
word said on many aspects of living. They were still looking into
the word to see how they would change their thinking, acting, and
customs. Few would have come from the background that Paul was
raised in, even many of the converted Jews had much to learn
about the REAL truths of God's word, most of them had followed
the traditions of the Pharisees or some other Jewish sect. There
would be many in the church who would be as Paul said, "weak in
the faith."

     Some understood that God's word sanctioned the eating of
MEAT - "may eat all things." In passing, there are those
who say this is "doing away with" the clean and unclean food laws
of the Old Testament, but does Paul mean by the use of the phrase
"may eat all things" that a person can now eat the plant DEADLY
NIGHT SHADE, or POISON mushrooms? Of course not! The "all things"
that Paul is referring to is ALL THINGS WITHIN the LAWS of God.
     Paul said, "another who is weak" and we have seen he was
referring to weak in KNOWLEDGE, weak in the UNDERSTANDING of the
faith, those, some at least, believed you should ONLY eat herbs
and vegetables.

     These are the two verses that should "blow you away" as I
told you earlier that I would give you. There is just no way
around it, the truth of the matter is pretty plain to see if you
are willing to see it. In Paul's mind (and he was as spiritually
strong in knowledge as any one, being directly taught of Jesus -
Galatians 1) those who believed that it was God's original
intention, or that it was spiritually more faithful, to be a
vegetarian, were WEAK IN THE FAITH! They just did not understand,
they had, at least on this point of the faith, some growing in
strength yet to attain.

     Paul did make it very clear in the following verses that the
meat eater and the vegetarian were to accept each other as full
members of the body of Christ. They were not to condemn each
other. They were both at liberty under God, to either eat meat or
not eat meat. Both were fully received by God as His child.
     There is no law of God that says you MUST eat meat. God has
given the clean and unclean food laws to show which creatures He
created to be good food for humans, but He never said a person
MUST eat meat as a way of life. It is interesting in passing that
the PASSOVER and those participating in it were to eat LAMB! So
all circumcised men and all women were to eat lamb at least once
a year under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant this was
replaced by BREAD and the fruit of the VINE. So, from the death
of Christ forward no person has to eat ANY meat, at any time, if
they do not want to.

     Eating meat or not eating meat is a PHYSICAL thing.
Spiritually it has NO influence on God at all. It is NOTHING to
Him. He allows His children to eat or not eat meat. God shows no
more favor to the one or the other.
     This eating meat or not eating meat is strictly PHYSICAL
unless the vegetarian WANTS TO MAKE IT A MATTER OF FAITH, wants
to make it into a spiritual issue, then if they do, Paul was
inspired to write that from THE FAITH point of view, the
vegetarian was "weak in the faith" - there was no scriptural
ground for their belief that it was God's original design for
mankind to be herb eaters only. To take it one step further, by
saying such a stand was equivalent to being "weak in the faith"
would indicate that the opposite, understanding God gave clean
animals to be eaten by Adam and Eve from the beginning, was to be
"strong in the faith."

WHAT ABOUT THE EXAMPLE OF DANIEL?

     Many religious vegetarians who want to take their stand on
the platform of "the faith," will try to use the example of
Daniel as found in the book of Daniel, chapter 1 and verses 1-20.
     
     The Seventh Day Adventist study lessons before cited were
true to the context when they wrote:

     "Daniel's test case was not so much over the benefits of
vegetarianism as it was over his loyalty to God."

     Notice verse 8 of Daniel chapter one. He was determined in
his heart "not to DEFILE himself with the portion of the king's
meat, nor with the wine which he drank...." 

     This section of Scripture does not tell us what the king was
eating or drinking but whatever it was it would have DEFILED
Daniel. As this young man knew the health and food laws of God he
was not going to defile himself by breaking those laws.
Obviously, if he had eaten the king's food he would have
compromised his faith.  
     Nothing in this section of God's word shows vegetarianism to
be spiritually superior or to be God's original ideal diet for
mankind.

THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS

     It is recorded that Jesus was sinless, that He came to this
earth and set us the PERFECT example of how to live - mentally,
spiritually, and physically. His life in word and deed is the
ultimate in perfection. He said that He did only what His Father
in heaven wanted Him to do and to speak.
     Jesus often had confrontations with the religious leaders of
His time. Many of those encounters involved PHYSICAL things,
customs and rites, such as eating with unwashed hands. Sometimes
Jesus would answer by taking them back to BEFORE Moses and to
God's original law and ideal.
     The laws of clean and unclean meats had been a part of daily
life among the Jews. Here was Jesus magnifying the laws of God,
restoring them to their correct understanding and application,
talking about the way things should be in the lives of His
followers, setting the example in word and deed. If He knew that
it was Scripturally correct from Gen. 1:29 that God's original
ideal for mankind and especially His children, was to stop eating
meat and become vegetarians, you would think that somewhere, at
some time, during those three and a half years of public
ministry, He would have corrected the situation, at least for His
followers of that time and those to come afterwards. BUT HE NEVER
UTTERED A WORD ON THE SUBJECT!!

     Even after His resurrection, and His return to the Father in
heaven and the coming of the Holy Spirit to reveal all the truth
and to bring all things to remembrance that He spoke, was anyone
(that was used to write the New Testament) inspired to affirm
that God's original ideal was to have all people as vegetarians.
Not one word about this in the New Testament - complete SILENCE!
And when something is said about the issue of eating or not
eating meat, the person who believes as a matter of FAITH, is
regarded by the inspired Paul as "weak in the faith."

     Jesus set us an example. Did Jesus eat meat? He observed the
Passover all of His life - so He ate LAMB at least once every
year. The Bible is full of examples of the men and women of God
eating meat, eggs, fish, butter, and milk!

     Yes, in today's polluted societies, we need to be careful
about the eating of meats, fish, milk, and the like, but then we
need also to be careful about our choices of flour, rice, and
sweets, for they can be terribly polluted also and/or robbed of
all their natural goodness through refining processes.
     I have seen far too many none meat eaters, who think they
are returning to God's original ideal in diet, eating, as a way
of life, white flour products, white rice, white sugar, too many
refined sweet products, and drinking soda pops by the carton.

     God's design for us was to follow His food laws as laid out
in His word. 

     I will publish other articles under this food law heading as
time permits.

                             ................

Written January 1993

FOOT NOTE:

     Some would say that in God giving man dominion over all the
earth He was given the power over all creatures to rule and
subdue them, so the horse would serve man, the donkey and the
mule, the ox, even the elephant etc. He could train them and
build circuses BUT they would not be for food, not even the
"clean" animals, the argument would go.
     This falls in the light of God giving man dominion over the
FISH of the seas! If a man was to be a vegetarian why would God
hive him rulership and dominion over that which was in the sea?
The sea and that in it would be of no concern for mankind if God
had told him to be a vegetarian and he was only to eat nuts,
grains, seeds, and plants.
     Man has never used the large sea creatures as cargo carriers
of merchandise, so why at the beginning of man's creation was he
told by the creator that he could have dominion over the fish of
the sea, if he was not to eat of those fish? Surely nobody thinks
this means that God was telling mankind he could catch fish to
put in a glass tank and watch them swim around during the evening
time while relaxing in his tent or hut because they would have no
TV to view.
     Surely no one believes this was the Lord's instruction for
man to catch fish, for Adam and Eve to catch fish, and put them
in a big pond so Cain and Abel could watch them swim around.
     I suggest that by God telling Adam and Eve RIGHT FROM THE
BEGINNING that they had dominion over the fish in the seas, He
was telling them that the fish of the sea were for FOOD. As I
have said in the body of this article, God would have spent a
number of hours and lessons of instruction to inform Adam and Eve
about His food laws - the clean and unclean animals, birds, fish
and creeping things, that He had created to be good food for
mankind to eat. He would have spent some time with them
instructing them about what green see-bearing plants were good
for food, as some of them if eaten can make you sick, or even
kill you within a very short time.
     
     Verse 28 and 29 of Genesis chapter one, are GENERAL
statements only. They tell us God gave to the first man and woman
creatures of the sea, land and air, the plants and vegetation of
the earth that was green and seed bearing, for food. These verses
are GENERAL STATEMENTS and not all encompassing instructions as
to what God told Adam and Eve about His food laws. In the same
way Genesis 2:24,25 are not all encompassing verses about
marriage and sex. The lord would have given them any number of
lessons and instruction on both marriage and sex, as well as
childbirth and delivery.

PAUL WRITES 1 CORINTHIANS #1

                                

                                   New Testament Bible
Story

Chapter Sixty-one:

Paul writes 1 Corinthians - Part one

                             
From the NKJV PersonalStudy Edition - 
Nelson publishers, 1990, 1995

First Corinthians is Paul's instruction to his most problematic
church. The abiding principles in this letter are helpful in
solving problems of churches in every age. Paul's great hymn of
love (ch.13) and his lengthy treatise on the Resurrection 
(ch.15) are two of the best known passages in this book.

AUTHOR AND DATE 

The apostle Paul is almost universally recognized as the author.
He identifies himself both at the opening of the epistle (1:1)
and in his closing signature, "The salutation with my own hand -
Paul's" (16:21). The early church accepted the letter as Pauline,
confirming its authenticity.
The epistle was probably written about A.D.55 during Paul's third
missionary journey. In 16:8 he remarks, "I will tarry in Ephesus
until Pentecost." Since he was planning his departure, he
probably wrote 1 Corinthians during the last of his three years
in Ephesus (Acts 20:31).

BACKGROUND 

Paul had established the gospel in Corinth during his second
missionary journey (Acts 18:1-17). Arriving there, he lodged with
Aquila and Priscilla and began preaching to both Jews and
Gentiles. Many were converted, including Justus and Crispus. Paul
remained for about eighteen months, ministering fervently in
spite of great opposition. Apollos continued the work at Corinth
after Paul left (see Acts 18:24-19:1).
The Corinth which Paul knew had been founded as a Roman colony
during the century before Christ. It was strategically located in
the Roman province of Achaia on a narrow strip of land between
the Aegean Sea and the Adriatic, with two adjoining ports.
Corinth's location made it a center of the trade routes passing
from east to west.
Prosperity brought luxury and immorality. "To live like a
Corinthian" meant to live in gross immorality. Many pagan temples
located in Corinth encouraged this licentious way of life
by keeping prostitute priestesses.
Some of Paul's converts may have been Gentiles attracted to
Judaism. They were interested in monotheism but unwilling to be
circumcised. Others evidently came directly from a pagan
background. He warns them against idolatry (10:14-22) and reminds
them that they once lived in gross immorality (6:9-11) so typical
of their city. The Corinthian church was very diverse, including
men and women, rich and poor.

PURPOSE 

First Corinthians addresses serious doctrinal and ethical
problems that had arisen after Paul had founded the church on his
second missionary journey. (1) The Corinthian Christians
developed conflicting loyalties to different human teachers. (2)
They believed that spectacular grits were the sign of true
spirituality. (3) Some thought it did not matter what one did
with his body, because the spirit was the important thing. (4)
Perhaps they thought it was unspiritual to believe in a
resurrection..... (5) Others believed that Christians must
abstain from sex even in marriage. These beliefs led the
Corinthians into pride, lack of concern for each other,
immorality, and the danger of falling back into idolatry.

CONTENTS 

In 1:1-4:21 Paul deals with the report from Chloe's household
that there were divisions in the church. He wants them to
understand that salvation is not based on human wisdom or
personalities, but on Christ crucified and the work of God,
building His church. In 5:1-6:20 Paul addresses questions of
immorality at Corinth. It was shame for them to allow a person
living in gross immorality to continue in the church (5:1-13).
They disgraced the name of Christ by taking their fellow
Christians to court (6:1-11).
Their bodies belonged to the Lord and were not to be used for
sexual immorality (6:12-20). 
In 7:1-16:12 Paul answers the questions raised in their letter to
him. He instructs them on Christian marriage and sexual practice
(7:1-40). They might eat meat that had been offered to idols, but
they should do nothing that gave even the appearance of idol
warship (8:1-11:1). Church worship should be conducted decently
and with consideration for others (11:2-34). Spiritual gifts
should be used for the building up of others (12:1-31) in true
Christian love (13:1-13). Prophecy is better than tongues because
it edifies (14:1-40). Because Christ has risen (15:1-11), we too
will rise (15:12-34) with anew spiritual body (15:35-58). As is
typical of his letters, Paul concludes with final instructions a
greetings (16:13-24).

OUTLINE OF 1 CORINTHIANS
          
I. Introduction 1:1-9 
          
A. Salutation 1:1-3 
B. Thanksgiving 1:4-9 
          
2. Divisions in the church 1:10-4:21 

A. Divisive parties 1:10-17 
B. The power of the gospel 1:18-2:5
C. Divine revelation 2:6-16
D. Carnal Christians 3:1-23
E. The faithful preacher 4:1-21

3. Moral failure in the church 5:1-6:20
     
A. Refusal to discipline an offender 5:1-13  
1. The problem 5:1,2.    
2. The solution 5:3-8    
3. Separation from immoral people 5:9-13
B. Lawsuits among Christians 6:1-11 
C. Misuse of the body 6:12-20  

4. Marriage in the church 7:1-40 

A. Marriage and sexuality 7:1-7
B. Marriage and celibacy 7:8,8
C. Marriage and divorce 7:10-16
D. Spiritual contentment 7:25-40
E. Marriage for virgins and widows 7:25-40   

5. Christian liberty 8:1-11:1 

A. Principles of spiritual liberty 8:1-13
1. Knowledge and love 8:1-6
2. Conscience and liberty 8:7-13

B. The example of Paul 9:1-17
C. The example of the Israelites 10:1-13
D. The christian and idol feasts 10:14-22
E. Applying christian liberty 10:23-11:1

6. Public worship 11:2-34

A. Women in public worship 11:2-16
B. Conduct during the Lord's Supper 11:17-34

7. Spiritual gifts 12:1-14:40

A. Spiritual gifts differ 12:1-11
B. Spiritual gifts produce unity 12:12-31
C. Love is better than spiritual gifts 13:1-13
D. Prophecy superior to speaking in tongues 14:1-40

8. The resurrection 15:1-58

A. Christ's resurrection and ours 15:1-34
1. The resurrection of Jesus 15:1-11
2. The resurrection of believers 15:12-34

B. The resurrection of the body 15:35-58

9. Conclusion 16:24

A. The nature of Christian giving 16:1-4
B. Paul's future plans 16:5-12
C. Concluding instructions and greetings 16:13-24

End of Quotes


PERTINENT COMMENTS

CHAPTER ONE.

     Paul gives thanks to God for the brethren at Corinth and
their abundance of spiritual gifts. He then goes on to say they
have stepped over the line in "party spirit" and developing
"religious cell units" around certain "favorite" apostles they
had formed themselves around and made their captain. He asked
them if Christ is divided, or was any of their favorite apostles
crucified for them. No, it was Christ, and He is not divided was
Paul's intimated reply. He tells them he is thankful that he was
not sent to baptize people but to preach the Gospel. 
     And then he says the Gospel is to the "wise of this world"
as foolishness, but its simple message, the power of God to those
who are called. And this thought of "calling" triggers the
comment that it is not the mighty and the wise of the world who
are called, not many of those "educated" and of high positions in
the world's systems are called, but it is the relatively "weak"
of the world that God is mainly calling. And so in the end the
weak figuratively, will be used to bring down the mighty to
humble repentance and salvation one day. 
     In God's plan of salvation for the world, and the way He is
bringing it to pass, no one will be able to glory in themselves,
but everyone will have to glory in the Lord.

CHAPTER TWO

     Paul reminds them that when he preached among them it was
not as a polished "university" PhD of speech and debate, but he
preached only the simple message of Jesus Christ and Him
crucified for the sins of the world. He preached to them the
Messiah as personal Savior. Paul said he did not use "enticing"
words, or we may say today, he did not use fancy, complicated
high-and-mighty and politically correct jargon, that only lawyers
can understand. Paul preached Christ and Him crucified to them,
but that does not mean Paul did not preach other things at other
times to other people. We see this truth brought out in the last
words of the book of Acts, where he taught also the Kingdom of
God.
     What Paul preached to them was the wisdom of God, in a
mystery to the world, not understandable to the unconverted,
unrepentant minds of the vast majority of people. Yet, this
hidden mystery was revealed to them by the Spirit. It is only the
Spirit of God that can understand God much like the mind of man
is only able to understand the mind of man, no animal can
understand man. So the mind of God was passed on to them
through the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit leads to teach and
understand God's mind, which only those who have the Spirit of
God can comprehend. No man can instruct God, yet Paul finished
with wonderful words that Christians "have the mind of Christ."

CHAPTER THREE

     After stating what he just told them, Paul must put it all
in perspective with the present facts of what he has been told is
going on in their congregation. There was strife, envy,
divisions, and so to Paul this was evidence that they were yet
"babes in Christ" - not even "spiritual teens" but still little
"babes." He was pulling no punches here, yes, at times Paul could
get very blunt, telling it like it was, laying the cards on the
table. He goes back to commenting on how they had stepped over
the line of "friendship" and "I enjoy his way of teaching" to
making teachers like Apollos and himself, into little or we
should say big, idols, like swooning over a Hollywood star. Each
group within the church had their 'Hollywood idol" we might say.
     Paul tells them that all apostles and ministers of God are
laborers together with God, really the Lord's servants and
everyone, all Christians, are the building of God. The foundation
of the building is Christ Jesus. We might say that one does the
laying of the cement, another puts up the wooden frame, another
after that comes along and does the decorating work, but it is
all built on the bedrock of Jesus Christ, and God is the overall
foeman guiding it all, providing all the materials and tools.
     But Paul says those who work on the construction of the
house do need to take care how they construct and do their work.
It needs to be done correctly so it will stand the test of
judgement, for we must all appear before Christ to give account
of what we did with what we were given to do.

CHAPTER FOUR

     Paul continues his thought. Stewards are to be faithful, but
will have to give account in the end. Paul says he will have to
give account to God. And so they should not try judging. They
were judging apostles by taking "sides" with this one or that
one, as making "idols" of them, and so in essence saying this one
was "good" and this one "not good" in the work of God. Paul said
this kind of judging was not good or proper at all.
     Then they were making merchandise of each other, puffed up
against one another. Each little sect within the congregation
with their man-made "Hollywood idol apostle" was acting vainly
towards the other little sects with their "Hollywood idol
apostle" - saying and acting like all others outside their little
group were "the pits."
     He tells them with tongue in cheek, that while they were
wise and lofty, the apostles were low and made a spectacle to the
world. He tells them they were often close to death,  often
hungry, and thirsty, not well dressed, often physically
mistreated, and had no certain "put down roots" home.
     He wrote these things not to shame them but to give them a
"loving warning." And the bottom line he told them is that Christ
may have ten thousand instructors doing His work, but only ONE is
our Father, for all Christians are begotten to the Father through
the Gospel.
     Paul says he is sending Timothy to them to back up all that
he has written and is writing as he pens this epistle to them.
And to those who are "puffed up" in attitude because they think
he will not personally come to them...well they had better
watch-out, for if the Lord will, he tells them he will come to
them. But in coming he will come with the "power" of the Kingdom
of God, and as we know Paul did have much power of miracles at
times. 
     So he finishes that thought with asking them what way they
wanted him to come  - with a rod, like a task master, or with the
spirit of meekness.
     He was no doubt hoping they would repent of their errors and
so then desire him to come with softness and meekness.

     Oh, yes, Paul could get very thorny and abrasive when the
situation called for it. But as we shall see from other parts of
his epistles, he could also be very kind, very gentle, and most
loving and encouraging, and so thankful to people for their
service in the Lord's work, and service to the brethren. Many
think Paul was "against women" but nothing could be further from
the truth, as we shall see in future chapters.

CHAPTER FIVE

     There was sexual misconduct in one specific instance of note
in Corinth, which we read about in the first verses of chapter
five. A man was having sex with his father's wife. The
congregation as a whole was looking the other way, taking no note
of it, or certainly not doing anything about it. They were just
letting the fellow do this sin, while everyone knew about it, it
was open knowledge what he was doing. Paul said though he was not
with them in person, he had already judged this matter, and so he
was pointing out to them that they needed to judge it also. 
     We see here immediately that in some situations God's people
are to "judge" some matters. The key is having "righteous
judgement" as Jesus said His disciples needed to have. Paul
instructed them that when they all came together there should
only be one way to judge this gross sin, and that was to
disfellowship, or put out of their fellowship the man who was
obviously un-repentant of this sexual sin. Their glorying as
thinking it was very gracious of them to look the other way
concerning this man's sin, was NOT good, and the man if put out
of their fellowshipping, may come to repentance as he is
"given back to the world" in a figure of speech. At any rate it
was clear to Paul that allowing such sin would lead to other sins
just as bad, in their congregation, until the whole group of
them, like a piece of bread dough, would be infested with the
leaven of wickedness.

     Verses 7 and 8 are important teachings of the Passover and
feast of Unleavened Bread. The Corinthians were to put out this
leaven of gross sins and wickedness that they were allowing, and
be spiritually unleavened as they were physically unleavened.
Yes, this very letter that Paul was going to send them was
written during the feast of Unleavened Bread.
     The comments by Conneybeare and Howson in their famous old
work called "The Life and Epistles of Paul" gives us the true
insight of these verses.

Quote:

     "The date of this Epistle can be fixed with more precision
     than that of any other. It gives us the means of
     ascertaining, not merely the year, but even (with great
     probability) the month and week, in which it was
     written.....He wrote during 'the days of unleavened
     bread' ....1 Cor. 5:7...and intended to remain at Ephesus
     till Pentecost (16:8, cf, 15:32).....
     In spite of the opinion of some eminent modern commentators,
     which is countenanced by Chrysostom, we must adhere to the
     interpretation which considers these words as written at the
     Paschal season, and suggested by it. The words 'leaven' -
     'lump' - 'Paschal Lamb' - and 'feast' all agree most
     naturally with this view. It has been objected, that
     St.Paul would not address the Corinthians as engaged in a
     feast which he, at Ephesus, was celebrating; because it
     would be over before his letter could reach them. Any one
     who has ever written a birthday letter to a friend in India,
     will see the weakness of this objection. It has also been
     urged that he would not address a mixed church of Jews and
     Gentiles as engaged in the celebration of a Jewish feast.
     Those who urge this objection must have forgotten that
     St.Paul addresses the Galatians (undoubtedly a mixed church)
     as if they had all been formerly idolaters (Gal.4:8); and
     addresses the Romans, sometimes as if they were all Jews
     (Rom.7:1), sometimes as if they were Gentiles (Rom.11:18). 
     If we are to take 'as you are unleavened' in a metaphorical
     sense, it is scarcely consistent with the previous 'cast out
     the old leaven;' for the passage would then amount to
     saying, 'Be free from leaven (metaphorically) as you are
     free from leaven (metaphorically;' whereas, 'Be free from
     leaven (metaphorically) as you are free from leaven
     (physically).'
     There seems no difficulty in supposing that the Gentile
     Christians joined with the Jewish Christians in celebrating
     the Paschal feast after the Jewish manner, at least to the
     extent of abstaining from leaven in the love-feast. And we
     see that St. Paul still observed the 'days of unleavened
     bread' at this period of his life, from Acts 20:6....."

End quote

     Very sensible and logical words and thoughts from those two
old Bible scholars.

     Verse 8, Paul tells them to CONTINUE observing (the Greek is
in the "present" tense - action continued) the "feast" or as the
margin says, "holy day" with the putting out of the leaven of
malice and wickedness, and continue it with the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth.

     In verse 9 we see the truth that Paul did write more
epistles than what we have preserved in the New Testament. God
has preserved for us what is necessary for this Christian age. 

     Paul instructs them that they are not to fellowship with
gross open sin, and gives a list of what some of those sins might
be. This is the context of that type of sin talked about in the
first verses of this chapter. Such out in the open sins cannot be
allowed to operate in the church without the church taking some
action on those openly practicing such sins. Paul is writing to
tell them that the action to be taken is to disfellowship such
sinners, from their congregation, and not to have "social
buddy-buddy" friendship with them until they have repented, and
then of course spiritual and social ties can again be practiced. 
     He explains that this type of judging cannot apply to those
in the world, the unconverted outside the Church of God, for then
they would have to live as hermits. Sometimes in your secular
work you have to work with and maybe sit and eat meals with
someone who is known by all as sexually immoral as a way of life.
He says we judge and must judge at times, those in our Christian
community and congregation, but God will judge those outside in
the unconverted none-Christian world.

CHAPTER SIX

     Now Paul's mind in talking about "judging" goes to another
problem the Corinthians had, and that was the situation that some
brethren were taking other brethren to the courts of this world,
for one reason or another. He tells then quite frankly that that
situation should NEVER be done or practiced inside of the Church
of God. He reminds them that the saints are one day to rule and
judge the world. All the prophets and all the Scriptures foretold
this age when God's children will rule and judge the nations of
the earth under the Messiah. Jesus you will remember told his
twelve disciples that they would in the Kingdom of God, sit on
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
     So, Paul argues, if we are to judge the world one day, then
we should be able, within the church, to judge certain matters
between brethren, and not take each other to secular law courts.
     It was to Paul an outright shame that they were acting like
there was not one single person in their congregation spiritually
wise and mature enough to judge these secular matters, that were
arising between themselves. It was a shame to Paul that those
people that Christians often and basically looked upon as really
"least wise" and "least esteemed" in spirituality, the
unconverted, were ending up as judging secular matters between
brethren.
     It simply was not to be done, taking brethren to secular
courts of law. Paul was quite emphatic on the matter.

     He finishes this chapter by laying the cards on the table,
pulling no punches, with certain sins, and especially the sexual
immoral sins. A good modern Bible translation will make it all
very plain. 
     The sexual immoral sins effect the very physical body, and
Paul tells them that the physical body of the Christian is the
very Temple of God. It is to be taken care of in physical ways,
and immoral sexual sins are not the way to take care of the
temple where the Holy Spirit dwells. He reminds them that they as
a whole person, body as well as mind, had been bought by God. We
know from many of Scriptures that God bought us by the death of
His Son Jesus Christ.
     And so we really do not belong to ourselves to practice
immoral sins.

CHAPTER SEVEN

     The Corinthians had written to Paul concerning some matters
that they needed guidance on. And here he answers them with,
sometimes the very written word of God on the matter, and
sometimes with his own wisdom and guidance, yet he would classify
his guidance as being from God, as he was inspired by the Holy
Spirit (see 1 Cor.14:37). And the Lord had Paul's council written
down and part of the New Testament inspired words of God, so
Paul's advise was inspired Scripture.
     We need to "context" much of chapter seven within the 26th
verse. Very important to context a lot of what Paul said here
with verse 26th. It was a time of "distress" in some way for the
church at Corinth, we are not told what this was in any specific
way.
     He tells them that sexual intercourse should be continued on
a regular basis, and only not,  in times of fasting and prayer
(verses 1-6).
     He implies that he was at this time of his life a single
man, not married, and that "for this present distress" (v.26) the
unmarried and widows should remain unmarried, but if they were
deeply in love, they could marry, so they would not "burn up"
(mentally and emotionally) with love and sexual desire for the
one loved (verses 7-9).
     To the married (couples - both being members of the church)
he writes that it is God's command to remain married, and no
divorce should be thought as okay under "the present distress"
(v.26). If they did separate they should remember they were still
married to each other, and should come together again (verses
10-11).
     Paul gives his judgment (but it is as chap.14:37) on one
mate being converted and the other not. If the unconverted
desired the marriage to hold, then the converted should not seek
divorce, but if the unconverted left and divorced the Christian,
then the Christian was not bond to the marriage, and could
re-marry (verses 12-17).
     Paul addresses the various "callings" or "secular positions"
one may be living or working in, when called by God to His way of
life and to salvation (verses 18-24). Here is a key verse
concerning "physical circumcision" - verse 19. It is in the
Gospel age...NOTHING!  We have already seen all this issue in
previous chapters. Physical circumcision was not necessary to be
saved. So if you were circumcised when called of God, okay, don't
try to become uncircumcised (and in deed there were methods
invented to un-do it, to stretch the skin once more to cover the
head of the penis), and if uncircumcised when called of God,
don't think of becoming circumcised.
     There are many situations in life that a person could be
living in as to secular vocation, i.e. a servant, or butler, is
one used by Paul. Paul's teaching would be that when called by
God you are to obey the commands of God (v.19, they were still
the important thing) and do your job. If you could be freed from
your secular job, because in the long run it would be better for
you and for your employer, who now has this "odd Christian
fellow" working for them, with odd and strange customs to
observe, the employer might well think, then GO FREE, Paul said.
     Take the example of being a "butler." You are called of God,
to serve Him and obey His commandments. Now you tell your
employer that you cannot work as doing butler duties on the
weekly Sabbath. He may agree to let you have the Sabbath hours
off. All is then well and fine. Your occupation is one that does
not violate any of God's other laws. You may want to continue in
that occupation as you serve God. On the other hand, your
employer may not be willing to let you have the Sabbath hours
off, it just would not "work" for him, he has too many business
deals and too much entertaining to do on the weekly Sabbath, so he
"lets you go free" or he "fires you" - then Paul instructs,
that's okay also, you are free from that occupation, but you are
still God's servant. If you can stay in an occupation that is not
against God's way of life (working as a printer for a
"pornographic" magazine would be against God's commandments to
start with, and a new Christian would have to leave anyway), say
as a "servant" and you can serve God, then you are God's servant
within that occupation, you are a "freeman" spiritually
speaking. Then on the other hand, if being called to God's way
you are set free from your occupation, then you are still
Christ's servant.
     The bottom line again with Paul was "You are bought with a
price; be you NOT the servants of men." God must come first, His
commandments come first (verse 19). Yet if you can "work it out"
(and the occupation is not against God's laws) with your
employer, so you can serve God, then stay in your occupation
(verses 18-24).

     Of course all this has nothing to do with "you must stay in
your occupation" after being called by God. Any Christian can at
any time move to work in another occupation, or move to a better
secular job, for better pay, or whatever other legitimate reasons
there are to consider in changing jobs, or changing employers, or
moving to another part of the country.

     Paul gives his judgments at that "present distress" for
virgins in verses 25-26. He saw it better to stay single, but if
deeply in love, it was not wrong to marry. Yet for that present
distress, in an over all way, he thought is better not to marry
if you were not married, but to stay single (verses 27-28).

     He puts in perspective the life of the married and life of
the un-married, as under the time of "present distress." It would
be easy in a physical way to just have to care for yourself, just
having to think about yourself. When times are difficult, the
stress can be even more stressful if you have to think about more
persons than just yourself. As being married you have other
responsibilities to think about other than focussing on just
God's will and way, under a time of stress and difficulties,
which can distracts us. Being single under those times, we have
less to distract us from attending to God's work.
     But he finishes again by saying even under times of
difficulty and distress, if anyone believes it is not right for
the one they love, or for their daughter (or I suppose son - God
is no respecter of person) to not marry, when they really should
be marrying, they could marry. It was not a sin to marry. But
"for the present distress" they were overall better off to wait
until a later time (verses 36-38).

     As for widows (verses 39-40) they could re-marry, but ONLY
"in the Lord" - to a Christian man. Yet once more, under "the
present distress" Paul taught is would be better for them not to
marry.

     So we can see the importance of CONTEXT. Verse 26 is the
context of many of these directives that Paul is giving. We know
that the whole Bible teaches that marriage was created by God,
and that in the main God says, "it is not good that man should be
alone." But there are times in life when the external situation
of a Christian group of people may be such that those not married
should put off marriage until later. Yet, as Paul said, if people
do marry under that hardship circumstance, they have not sinned.

                 ..........................

TO BE CONTINUED

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

ROMANS 14 AND COLOSSIANS 2:16-- CONTRADICTION BY PAUL???

 

SABBATH contradictions of Paul?

Did he TAKE AWAY, and ESTABLISH, in one breath?

                THE APOSTLE PAUL - AUTHOR OF CONTRADICTIONS

                        ON THE WEEKLY SABBATH DAY?




THE  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THE  SATURDAY  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  OFTEN 
TAKE  THE  FORM  OF  USING  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTLE 
PAUL. ONE  ARGUMENT  WILL  USE  THIS  PASSAGE  OF  PAUL,  WHILE 
ANOTHER ARGUMENT  WILL  USE  ANOTHER  PASSAGE  OF  PAUL.  IT 
WOULD  SEEM  THE  AUTHORS  DO  NOT  SEE  THAT  THEY  USE  PAUL 
TO  CONTRADICT  HIMSELF.  AND  IF  PAUL  DID  CONTRADICT 
HIMSELF,  OR  DID  HAVE  TWO  OR  THREE  VARYING  OPINIONS  ON 
WHO  SHOULD  OBSERVE OR  NOT  OBSERVE  A WEEKLY  SABBATH  DAY, 
AND  THAT  THE  DAY  WAS  DONE  AWAY  WITH  IN  ONE WRITING, YET 
UPHELD  AS  SOME  DAY  IN  ANOTHER  WRITING, THEN  TRULY,  PAUL 
HAD  A  MIXED  UP  THEOLOGY,  OR  THEOLOGY  FOR SOME  PEOPLE 
OVER  THERE,  AND  ANOTHER  THEOLOGY  ON  THE  SABBATH  FOR 
ANOTHER  PEOPLE  OVER  HERE.


WE  SEE  THIS  CONTRADICTION  BROUGHT  OUT  IN  TWO  PASSAGES:
(1) COLOSSIANS 2:16  AND  ROMANS  14.


COLOSSIANS 2:16  HAS  OFTEN  BEEN  GIVEN  AS  PROOF  THAT  PAUL 
TAUGHT  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  WAS  "DONE  AWAY"  AND  NO  PERSON 
SHOULD  BE  JUDGED  ABOUT  OBSERVING  A  SABBATH .... WELL  THE 
OLD  SABBATH  OF  THE  7TH  DAY - SATURDAY,  IS  REALLY  WHAT  THEY
WANT  TO  ARGUE  AGAINST.

MANY  PEOPLE  USE  THIS  PASSAGE  TO  SAY  PAUL  HERE  TAUGHT 
THE WEEKLY  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WAS  JUST  A  SHADOW  AND  WHEN 
CHRIST  CAME  THE  SHADOW  WAS  GONE,  ALONG  WITH  THAT  OLD 
SABBATH  COMMAND  GIVEN  ONLY  TO  ISRAEL. PAUL  IT  SEEMS  IS 
TEACHING  THERE  SHOULD  BE  NO  JUDGING  CONCERNING  HAVING 
RESPECT  FOR  SABBATHS.

THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS "RUDIMENTS  OF  THE  WORLD"  IN  THE
CONTEXT.

IT  WOULD  SEEM  ON  THE  SURFACE  THE  SABBATH  IS  BY  PAUL 
BEING  RELEGATED, TO  PERISHING  WITH  OTHER  THINGS  GOING  THE 
SAME  WAY  OF  DECAY....AND  THAT  ARGUMENT  CERTAINLY  INCLUDED  THE 
7TH  DAY  SABBATH. 

SO,  AS  MOST  CATHOLICS  AND  PROTESTANT  THEOLOGIANS  TEACH, 
COLOSSIANS  2:16  IS  A  VERSE  PAUL  USED  TO  "DO  AWAY  WITH" 
THE  OLD  7TH  DAY  SABBATH.

YET  IN  ADDRESSING  THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME  (CHAPTER 14)  PAUL 
SAYS  "ONE  MAN  ESTEEMS  ONE  DAY  ABOVE  ANOTHER:  ANOTHER 
ESTEEMS  EVERY  DAY  ALIKE.  LET  EVERY  MAN  BE  FULLY 
PERSUADED  IN  HIS  OWN  MIND.  HE  THAT  REGARDS  THE  DAY, 
REGARDS  IT  UNTO  THE  LORD;  AND  HE  THAT  REGARDS  NOT  THE 
DAY,  TO  THE  LORD  HE  DOES  NOT  REGARD  IT....." (VERSES 5-
6).


WE  HAVE  ANSWERED  THE  SEEMING  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THESE  TWO 
PASSAGES  BY  PAUL  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  ON  THIS  WEBSITE.  ALL 
I  WANT  TO  POINT  OUT  HERE  IS:  WHY  DOES  PAUL  NOT  USE 
SIMILAR,  IF  NOT  EXACTLY  THE  SAME  WORDS  AS  WE  HAVE  SEEN 
USED  IN  COLOSSIANS  2:16?
IF  COLOSSIANS  IS  DOGMATICALLY  TEACHING  THAT  "DAYS"  - 
ESPECIALLY  DAYS  OF  THE  OLD  COVENANT  -  ARE  "DONE  AWAY 
WITH"  THEN  WHY  DOES  PAUL  ALLOW  THE  CHRISTIANS  AT  ROME 
TO DECIDE  PERSONALLY  WHICH  DAYS  TO  REGARD  OR  ESTEEM  OR 
OBSERVE?  SURELY  IN  PAUL  ALLOWING  THIS  FREEDOM,  HE  MUST 
HAVE  KNOWN  SOMEONE  WOULD  THEN  CHOOSE  TO  ESTEEM  AND 
OBSERVE  THE  SABBATHS  AND  NEW  MONTH  DAYS  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT.

SO  THE  CONTRADICTORY  TEACHING  OF  MANY  IS  THAT  PAUL  GIVES 
CONTRADICTORY  ALLOWANCES.  TO  THE  ONE  SET  OF  CHRISTIANS 
PAUL  IS  MADE  OUT  TO  SAY  "DAYS"  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
ARE  WEAK  SHADOWS  THAT  ARE  ABOLISHED  IN  CHRIST.  WHILE  TO 
ANOTHER  SET  OF  CHRISTIANS,  PAUL  SAYS  THEY  CAN  PERSONALLY 
ESTEEM  AND  REGARD  "DAYS"  AS  THEY  PERSONALLY  CHOOSE.  SOME 
WOULD  THEN  HAVE  CHOSEN  THE  SABBATHS  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT,  AND  PAUL  GIVES  NO  SUCH  WORDS  TO  THEM  AS, "BUT 
DO  NOT  CHOOSE  OLD  TESTAMENT  SABBATH  DAYS  AS  THEY  ARE 
SHADOWS  OF  WEAK  ELEMENTS,  WHICH  ARE  DONE  AWAY  IN 
CHRIST."

PAUL  DOES  NOT  GIVE  ANY  SUCH  QUALIFYING  REMARKS  TO  THE 
CHRISTIANS  AT  ROME,  HE  SIMPLY  GIVES  THEM  THE  CHOICE  AS 
TO  THE  DAYS  TO  ESTEEM,  WHILE  SUPPOSEDLY  (AS  MANY  TEACH) 
HE  WAS  FORBIDDING  THE  CHRISTIANS  AT  COLOSSAE  TO  OBSERVE 
THE  SPECIAL  DAYS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  SUPPOSEDLY  EVEN 
CALLING  THEM  "RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD"  AND  "THE  COMMANDMENTS 
AND  DOCTRINES  OF  MEN"  (THE  CONTEXT  OF  COL. 2:16).

PAUL  IS  THEN  TAKING  AWAY  WITH  ONE  HAND  FROM  THE  CHURCH 
AT  COLOSSAE  WHILE  GIVING  BACK  WITH  THE  OTHER  HAND  TO 
THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME.

STRANGE  THEOLOGY  INDEED  IF  THIS  IS  WHAT  PAUL  IS  DOING.


THEN,  WE  CAN  ADD  A  THIRD  CONFUSION  FROM  PAUL  (I  SPEAK 
WITH  TONGUE  IN  CHEEK)  AS  FOUND  IN  HIS  ADDRESS  TO  THE 
HEBREWS  IN  HEBREWS  4:9.  PAUL (SOME  THINK  IT  WAS  SOMEONE 
OTHER  THAN  PAUL  WHO  WROTE  HEBREWS  -  IT  DOES  NOT  MATTER 
TO  THE  THEOLOGY  STANCE  HERE) TALKS  ABOUT  THE  7TH  DAY  IN 
THE  PREVIOUS  VERSES  AND  THEN  SAYS:  "THERE  REMAINS 
THEREFORE  KEEPING  OF  SABBATH  (SEE  KJV  MARGIN)  TO  THE 
PEOPLE  OF  GOD" (VERSE 9).


DO  YOU  SEE  WHY  PETER  HAD  TO  WRITE  THAT  SOME  THINGS 
PAUL  WROTE  WERE  HARD  TO  UNDERSTAND,  THAT  SOME  WHO  WERE 
UNLEARNED  AND  UNSTABLE  TWISTED  TO  THEIR  OWN  DESTRUCTION
(SEE  2  PETER  3:15-16).   


YOU  NEED  TO  FIND  THE  STUDIES  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  THAT  WILL
EXPLAIN  THESE  PASSAGES  OF  PAUL  CORRECTLY.  PAUL  NEVER 
CONTRADICTED  HIMSELF.  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  DOES  NOT  CONTRADICT 
ITSELF.  YOU  NEED  TO  HUNGER  AND  THIRST  AFTER 
RIGHTEOUSNESS,  AND  AS  JESUS  PROMISED,  YOU  SHALL  BE 
FILLED!!

                         ........................


Keith Hunt, June  2009

SONG OF SONGS-- GOD;S INSTRUCTION ON SEX #9

 

Solomon on Sex #9

The Dance of the Mahanaim - Being Creative

We continue with Dillow's book "Solomon on Sex."


THE DANCE OF THE MAHANAIM


(Reflection #13, Song 6:138-8:4)


CONTEXT

     In the previous reflection, the Chorus has called Shulamith
back, psychologically, to her home in the palace. They say:

6:13 CHORUS: 

     Come back, come back, O Shulamite;
     Come back, come back, that we may, gaze at you.

     This serves as a transition to the next scene. The point of
transition is in the word "gaze." The chorus, an imaginary
literary device, obviously will not do the gazing on Shulamith.
But the idea of "gazing" is picked up in the next scene as
Solomon gazes on the beauties of his wife as she dances before
him (they are alone in the palace).
     The logical connection with the preceding scenes seems to be
this. Shulamith awakens after a painful dream only to find
Solomon is not at her side. The dream has set her desires in
motion to make love with her husband (5:8). Solomon appears and
assures her of his love regardless of her performance (6:4-30).
Then Solomon returns to the palace, and Shulamith goes down into
the garden to be alone with her thoughts. Her longings for her
country home are interrupted by the urgent plea of the chorus to
come back, psychologically speaking, to life at the palace. Her
thoughts are suddenly drawn once again to her lover, the desire
she had to be in his arms (5:8) is rekindled, and she seeks him
out in the following passage to make love. Solomon had approached
her desiring to make love many times and at the wrong times, and
she had refused him. Now she picks up on her intent of 5:6-8 to
search out her husband and initiate lovemaking with him
(6:13b-7:9).

     Thus, even though much of the problem is Solomon's fault,
she assumes responsibility for her own behavior. In 5:10-6:3 she
changes her attitude, and in 6:13b-8:4 changes her actions.

COMMENTARY

     Solomon and Shulamith are alone in the palace. Shulamith
desires to make love with her husband and aggressively takes the
initiative. As part of their loveplay, and as her way of arousing
her husband's sexual interest, she dances before him. She
obviously has no problems with inhibitions.

6:136 SHULAMITH (to the Chorus):

     Why should you gaze at the Shulamite 
     As at the dance of the two companies?

     As Shulamith dances before her lover, she is being very coy
and saying, "Why would the chorus want to gaze on me?" The answer
is obvious, Solomon thinks she is beautiful and loves to look at
her. She is replying to the quotation of the imaginary chorus of
6:13a. This statement provides a literary and logical transition
from one point in the Song to another. The following verses
clearly indicate this to be a very close, intimate scene
involving Shulamith and Solomon and the conversation of love,
alone! (7:6,10)

     What is the "dance of two companies?" The phrase "two
companies" is a translation of the Hebrew word, "mahanaim."
Mahanaim was a town from which David fled as a fugitive from
Absolom (2 Sam.17:24). It was a small town situated north of the
Jabbok, not far from the Jordan Valley. The allusion here seems
to be the appearance of the angelic host at this site to Jacob on
his return home to the promised land. It is not clear why Solomon
refers to Mahanaim. Perhaps, the dance of the Mahanaim contains
something as magnificent and transporting as an angels dance.
Perhaps he viewed Shulamith as an "angel" dancing before him.
Dancing like this may seem strange to Western tastes, but in the
East in the Old Testament conception, joy and dancing were
inseparable (Eccles.3:4) - joy not only as the happy feeling of
youthful life, but also spiritual and holy joy (Ps.87:7).
Zockler argues convincingly that the descriptive phrases to
follow are from Solomon's lips.

     7:1 How beautiful are your feet in sandals O prince's
     daughter

Solomon comments on the gracefulness of her dancing.

     The curves of your hips are like jewels. 
     The work of the hands of an artist

     Both Lehrman and Delitzsch agree the curves of the hips
refer to their swaying motion as she dances before Solomon. The
phrase "curves of hips" is translated by Delitzsch, "the
vibration of the thighs." These movements are of a circular
motion, and probably refer to the windings of the upper part of
the body by means of the thigh joint.
     Thus, Shulamith is dancing before her husband as part of
their loveplay. The reference to the top part of her thighs, her
navel, her belly, and her breasts indicates she had little or no
clothing on.

     7:2a Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks
     mixed wine

     The word "navel" is assuredly an incorrect translation,
probably reflecting the translator's modesty. While the Hebrew
word could take that meaning, it is generally translated today as
"vulva," according to Brown, Driver, & Briggs. In other words,
Solomon views his wife's "garden" as she dances nude before him,
and she/him, and he says it looks to him like a "round goblet"
The Hebrew for "round goblet" should be rendered "a bowl in the
shape of a half moon." The allusion to the female genitals is
obvious; furthermore, this interpretation is necessary in view of
the sequential progression upward of his description of his wife,
similar to the sequence in 4:1-8.

(10) hair - tresses 7:5
( 9) head - crowns you like carmel 7:5 
( 8) nose - like a tower of Lebanon 7:4 
( 7) eyes - pools in Heshbon 7:4
( 6) neck - tower of ivory 7:4 (
( 5) breasts - two fawns 7:3
( 4) belly - heap of wheat 7:2
( 3) "garden" - navel - bowl in shape of a half moon 7:2 
( 2) upper part of thighs - roundings of hips 7:2
( 1) feet - 7:1

     For "navel" to mean "belly button" would violate the obvious
sequence of the passage.
     Solomon says his wife's garden never lacks mixed wine. Wine
is used throughout the book (see 1:2, 2:4, 5:1) and in Eastern
erotic poems as a symbol of sexual pleasure. It would appear that
Solomon is suggesting that her "garden" is a never lacking source
of sexual pleasure for him. It is probable that the "mixed wine"
refers to a mixing of his sexual pleasure with hers - of wine and
milk (5:1); of myrrh and balsam.

7:26 SOLOMON: 

     Your belly is like a heap of wheat 
     Fenced about with lilies.

     In Syria, the perfect skin was considered to be that which
could be compared in color to the yellowish-white of wheat after
it had been threshed and winnowed. Her navel and stomach are
described as being composed of wine and wheat. These symbols
suggest the common associations of a meal. Thus, the joining of
these two images implies that her "navel" and stomach constitute
a feast. It indicates a desire to kiss these areas as he later
expresses a desire to kiss her breasts.

7:3 SOLOMON: 

     Your two breasts are like two fawn, 
     Twins of a gazelle (see 4:5).
     Your neck is like a tower of ivory

Her neck is smooth, white, and long.

     Your eyes like the pools of Heshbon.

     This was a city noted for its soft and beautiful pools. The
symbolism indicates peace in her eyes.

     By the gate of Bath-rabbim.

The gates of a city were the chief places of assembly.

     Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon 
     Which faces toward Damascus.

     A tower facing Damascus was for the protection of the
nation. "In alike manner her stately look perhaps reflected the
strong character which was her protection" says one author.

7:5 SOLOMON: 

     Your head crowns you like Carmel 
     And the flowing locks of your head are like purple threads.
     The king is captivated by your tresses

     As majestic Mt.Carmel crowned the fertile plains of
Palestine, so her beautiful face sits exquisitely atop her lovely
figure. Since purple was the royal color, he must see her hair as
"queenly." While chains could not hold this mighty king,
Shulamith's lovely tresses have bound him to her.

7:6 SOLOMON: 

     How beautiful and delightful you are, 
     My love, with all your charms.
7:7  Your stature is like a palm tree
     And your breasts are like its clusters.

     She has a stately stature. To look upon the clusters of the
date palm causes the beholder to want to taste them. This simile
of subjective response, then, suggests Solomon's desire to kiss
her breasts.
     The palm tree serves as a very beautiful description of
Solomon's beloved. It sways in the wind with inexpressible
gracefulness but seldom breaks. The trunk was tall, slender, and
flexible? Palm branches were traditionally a source of rejoicing
(Lev.23:4; Neh.8:15; Rev.7:9). The tree typified grace, elegance,
and uprightness.

7:8 SOLOMON: 

     I said "I will climb the palm tree 
     I will take hold of its fruit stalks." 
     Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine.

     To "climb the palm tree" had a special meaning. In the
Ancient Near East the artificial fertilization of the female palm
tree flowers by the male palm tree flowers has been practiced
from earliest times. The male and female flowers are born on
separate trees in clusters among the leaves. In order to
fertilize the female tree, one must climb the male tree and get
some of its flowers. One then ascends the female tree and ties
among its flowers a bunch of the pollen-bearing male flowers.
     Thus, to climb the palm tree is to fertilize it. Solomon 's
using some contemporary language of the vineyard to say he
intends to make love to Shulamith right away!
     Solomon says he will caress her fruit stalks - her breasts.
Now he changes images from date palms to gape clusters for
breasts, which seems more appropriate. Grapes swell and become
increasingly round and elastic as they ripen, similar to the
female breasts when sexually aroused.

     7:9 SOLOMON: 

     And the fragrance of your breath like apples, 
     And your mouth like the best wine.

     Her mouth is "like the best wine." In other words, it is a
great source of pleasure. Her kisses are "sweeter than wine."

7:9 SHULAMITH: 

     It goes down smoothly for my beloved 
     Flowing gently through the lips of those who fall asleep

     To what does "it" refer? Obviously, it goes back to the
"wine," or high sexual pleasure. She says her love is totally and
completely satisfying to him - "It goes down smoothly." She is
fully confident of her lovemaking skill and knows she can satisfy
her man. As wine causes the body to relax and drift into sleep,
so their love has left them sweetly exhausted, and they fall
asleep in one another's arms.

7:10 SHULAMITH: 

     I am my beloved's
     And his desire is for me.

     She thrills at the fact that Solomon desires her physically.
This refrain has been slightly but profoundly changed from its
three previous usages.

2:16      My beloved is mine and I am his
6:3       I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine, 
7:10      I am my beloved's and his desire is for me.

     This could possibly suggest a deepened sense of security in
Solomon's love. When she first mentions the refrain it is during
their courtship, and her possession of Solomon is primary, while
his possession of her is secondary. The second time she reverses
the order, making his possession of her primary, indicating a
greater degree of security in him. Now, after this love scene
where she has totally satisfied her man, she not only places his
possession of her in the forefront, but she strengthens it by
saying that his desire is toward her. She is so focused on him
that she omits her possession of him. She is revelling in her
"woman power" - her ability to satisfy her man physically. The
word translated "desire" is the same word used in Gen.3:16 where
it is said the woman's desire would be toward her husband.
     They have just consummated sexual union. As they lie there
together, Shulamith broaches a subject that has long been on her
heart, she desires to visit the countryside and now claims the
"vacation for two" Solomon promised her on the honeymoon night
(4:8).

7:11 SHULAMITH: 

          Come, my beloved, let's go out into the country, 
          Let us spend the night in the villages
7:12      Let us rise early and go to the vineyards; 
          Let us see whether the vine has budded 
          And its blossoms have opened
          And whether the pomegranates have bloomed
          There I will give you my love.
7:13      The mandrakes have given forth fragrance 
          And over our doors are all choice fruits, 
          Both new and old
          Which I have saved up for you my beloved.

     In these verses, Shulamith invites Solomon for an escape
into the forests of the Lebanon mountains to the north. There,
she says, they will make love outdoors! I think any married
couple would do well to follow her advice in planning a few
getaways every year where they can renew their physical love and
evaluate their marriage and goals in life. My wife and I try to
do this at least twice a year. I wish we could do it once a
month!
     Note, wives, Shulamith suggests this adventure away from the
palace. There are places to make love other than the bedroom.
Shulamith is suggesting they make love in the open air of the
countryside. With a little careful research you can probably find
a private spot for you and your mate to enjoy a Sunday afternoon
making love out under the sky. Be sure your research is thorough,
however, or your picnic for two might suddenly be interrupted by
a troop of Boy Scouts tromping through the woods!
     Notice she longs to see "whether the vine has budded and its
blossoms have opened" (7:12). It is apparently spring. They had
courted and were married in the midspring (2:10-14). perhaps this
indicates the passage of one year since their marriage. "The
mandrakes have given forth fragrance. . . ." The mandrake was
considered an aphrodisiac in the ancient world. To say they give
forth fragrance is a poetic way of saying the springtime
atmosphere of the countryside is conducive to making love.
     When she says ". . . Over our doors are all choice fruits,
Both new and old, Which I have saved up for you my beloved," she
is promising both new and old things in their countryside
lovemaking. The "doors" refer to the fact that they are outside,
and their "doors" are the branches in the trees and the open air.
Fruit is a reference to sexual pleasure in general here. Thus,
she has saved up some sexual pleasure they are accustomed to, and
with the coming of the new fruit of a fresh spring she has some
new sexual pleasures she plans to offer him. She is creative! She
is skilfully building his sense of anticipation by appealing to
his sexual imagination.

8:1 SHULAMITH: 

     Oh that you were like a brother to me 
     Who nursed at my mother's breasts
     If I found you outdoors, I would kiss you; 
     No one would despise me either.

     She expresses her desire to be free to unashamedly kiss her
husband in public as well as in private. It is all right to kiss
your brother unashamedly in public because no one will think of
sexual connotations - "no one would despise me either." However,
to kiss your husband like that is deemed socially inappropriate.
Times haven't changed.

8:2 SHULAMITH: 

     I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother,
     who used to instruct me;
     I would give you spiced wine to drink from the juice of my
     pomegranates.

     If you were my brother, she says, we could live at my home
in the country. I would feed you from the juice of my
pomegranates (from the vineyard of my sexual pleasures), and sit
under your instruction as I used to sit under my mother's.

8:3 SHULAMITH: 

     Let his left hand be under my head, 
     And his right hand embrace me.

     She is now referring to what she said in 7:12,13. They are
going to make love in the country. The momentary daydream of her
desire that Solomon be like a brother is broken, and she longs
for the opportunity to make love with him in the countryside. She
imagines his left hand under her head as she lies on her back in
some country meadow, and his right hand "embracing" or "fondling"
her breasts and "garden."
     For the third time in the book now, Shulamith repeats the
warning not to allow sexual passion to develop until God has
brought the right man (i.e., the one He wants you to marry) into
your life.

8:4 SHULAMITH: 

     I want you to swear, O Daughters of Jerusalem, 
     Do not arouse or awaken love,
     Until it pleases.

     For the third time she addresses the imaginary chorus with
this warning. Let us review the warnings.

First warning, 2:7: If you want to have the maximum sexual joy
and fulfilment in marriage, do not allow sexual arousal to occur
with anyone but the one God intends for you.

Second warning: If you want to be free to evaluate objectively
and to consider the cost of marriage to this particular person,
do not allow yourself to become sexually stimulated, or your
objectivity may be lost, and there are great issues at stake,
3:5.

Third warning: This one in 8:4 seems to stress the importance of
premarital chastity in view of the sexual adjustments to be made
"after you've said 'I do.'" - To involve yourself sexually before
marriage can hinder your ability to resolve sex problems after
marriage. We now know this is not simply theoretical. Any
marriage counsellor can give numerous illustrations of the
effects of premarital sexual involvement on postmarital sexual
adjustment.
     For example, it often results in premature ejaculation
difficulties for the men. The guilt some wives feel over their
premarital sexual involvement can so scar their emotions that
they continue to think of sex as wrong even in marriage and
freeze up sexually. One woman complains of the fact that every
time she makes love with her husband, she carries mental images
of the other men she had relationships with before she was
married. These images generate continued guilt. No, Shulamith's
waning is very relevant to the twentieth century. The new
morality is just the old immorality that has plagued the lives of
many and destroyed numerous marriages over the centuries.
     Fortunately, the believer in Christ can experience
forgiveness of sin through the cross. Every sin you will ever
commit has been paid for if you trust Christ as Savior. What a
freedom! "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are
in Christ Jesus" (Rom.8:1). If God can forgive murder, He can
forgive premarital sex. Claim that forgiveness now (1 John 1:9)!

COMMENT

     This beautiful love scene and the ensuing conversation
suggest several pertinent applications to marriage today.

The Dance of the Mahanaim

     As mentioned in the commentary, Shulamith obviously was not
very inhibited. To dance like this, provocatively displaying
one's body, might seem a little unusual for Western tastes. We
must remember, however, that the Bible is a Near Eastern book,
and such behavior would not seem at all inappropriate in that
cultural context. Furthermore, the fact that Shulamith displayed
this kind of freedom doesn't imply that this is a norm for all
Western wives. She was being creatively aggressive to please her
man within the confines of her own personality and culture. The
Bible does not want any woman to try to be something that is
totally at variance with her personality. However, it could be
that God would have an inhibited wife change her personality a
little and strive to be what her husband needs!

     The first thing that would inhibit any wife from this kind
of foreplay in the bedroom is concern about her figure. If she
thinks she is overweight, she will be very inhibited when it
comes to this kind of bedroom behavior. She thinks her husband is
only looking at the bulge around the middle. A wise woman once
counselled, "Stand nude in front of a mirror and take a good look
at yourself. Don't just look at the front; your husband sees the
back too. Turn sideways and get a glimpse of what you look like
to him." If you think there are some improvements needed, make
them!
     Many marriage counsellors consider inhibitions the number
one cause of frigidity in women. Nothing so dramatically surfaces
this issue as the contemplation of doing the dance of the
Mahanaim for your husband. Perhaps because of our society's
perversion of sex, many wives tend to react to the other extreme.
In view of so much perverted exploitation of the human female
body, it is natural to think that since the world displays it, a
wife should conceal it. But certainly inhibition, whatever the
causes, can generate considerable sexual tension in a marriage.
Overcoming it is a very difficult thing. It might be helpful to
consider that many of our ideas concerning modesty and "virtue"
are really not related to the Bible at all. In their book, "The
Freedom of Sexual Love" - Joseph and Lois Bird speak directly to
this concern. "Nudity between husband and wife has nothing,
repeat, nothing, to do with the virtue of modesty. In the
intimacy of marriage, undressing for each other should be as
natural and unself-conscious as a shared laugh or a mutual
prayer. ."
     Shulamith recognizes men are more aroused initially by sight
- by a physical approach. Women often approach their husbands in
a way they like to be approached - with romance, gentleness, etc.
While that is certainly appropriate, it is sometimes a kind of
selfish indifference to the husband. On the other hand, husbands
sometimes approach their wives in the way they, the husbands,
like to be approached. Men tend to be more physical and direct.
Wives often say their husbands move too quickly to genital
stimulation. The reason they do is that they are selfishly
approaching their wives the way that appeals to them, not really
thinking of their needs for tenderness and romance. Notice that
Solomon always approaches his wife sexually with romance,
atmosphere, and tenderness (Song 4:1-8). Shulamith, on the other
hand, aggressively approaches her husband in a more physical way
- with a dance (Song 7:1-9). Both are concerned with meeting
their mate's needs and not insisting on sex on their own terms!
While such a dance would be inappropriate for many marriage rela-
tionships, if you and your husband have the kind of freedom and
lack of inhibition described here (and there is nothing
necessarily wrong if you don't), you might try some of these
suggestions. Near Eastern Dancers often wore provocative
negligees while dancing. Shulamith did and she also wore sandals
(7:1,2). Thus, sandals and sexy negligees are part of a biblical
description of foreplay!

The intimate afterwards

     Tim LaHaye has pointed out a basic difference in the male
and female sex drive cycles. He diagrams it this way: 

(the diagram is not reproduced, but the diagram for the man is a
straighter up curve and a straight drop down after climax. The
diagram for the woman is a much longer curve up and a longer out-
stretched curve down - Keith Hunt)

     The difference in cycle is beautifully brought put in the
Song. After they consummate their love, they fall asleep in one
another's arms after engaging in loving conversation (7:9-13).
Many husbands fail to express this post-orgasm intimacy and
expression of love. This is because, as the diagram indicates,
once the man has experienced orgasm, there is an almost immediate
return to normal relaxation and even exhaustion. At this point
many husbands roll over and go to sleep! However, it's not over
for her. As the diagram indicates, there is a gradual tapering
off of her sexual feelings back to normal relaxation. If you are
not sensitive to thus, your wife can begin to feel taken for
granted. "All he wants me for is sex," she may think. Or "The
only time he gives me attention is when he wants sex!" If you
roll over and fall asleep as soon as you're satisfied, what other
conclusions can she draw? 

     Paul taught that sexual intercourse was to picture Christ
and the church (Eph.5:31-32). This is an astounding parallel and
certainly ought to have forestalled the common notion that
Christianity is against sex. What is the essence of the parallel?
Death! Paul said the husband was to love his wife as Christ loved
the church and gave Himself for her. The believer is told that in
denying himself and losing his life, he will paradoxically find
it (Mark 8:35). Mutual death to self is the key to total oneness
spiritually and physically.
     To what does the wife need to die in the physical realm? She
needs to die to inhibition. Inhibition is sometimes a subtle form
of rebellion. Paul says the wife no longer has authority over her
own body and the husband no longer authority over his. Once you
are married, you own your mate's body (1 Cor. 7:4). Thus,
inhibition is insisting on an authority that you no longer have
and thus is sin. (Sin in the physical realm of sin I would say -
Keith Hunt).
     The husband, on the other hand, needs to die to the feelings
of embarrassment or awkwardness in expressing tenderness and
romance. Both must die for the intimacy of the total oneness of
sexual love to be experienced. You both die to anything that
would obstruct your mates pleasure.

Something old and something new

     Shulamith is a creative lover. Instead of sitting around
resenting Solomon for his preoccupation with his job and his late
night approach, she assumes responsibility for her behavior and
changes the relationship. First of all she is more aggressive
toward him sexually, as illustrated by the dance of the Mahanaim.
Then she reveals she has planned a vocation in the Lebanon
mountains where they will walk, enjoy the springtime, and make
love outdoors. Furthermore, she builds his anticipation of the
time together by enticingly suggesting she has something old and
something new to offer him. She has planned some new sexual
"fruit" or surprises for them to enjoy (7:13).
     
     There are THREE basic keys to fully satisfying your man
sexually.

Be more aggressive

     I really think most men long for their wives to be more
aggressive sexually. A man wants to know you long for him just as
he longs for you. In a survey of 500 men, 39 percent said their
biggest dissatisfaction in then sexual relationships with their
wives was that their wives were not aggressive enough. Recent
books have recommended you call your husband at work and tell him
you "crave his body," or that you will meet him at the door when
he comes home wearing only high heels and jewelry! (If you are
shy you can wear lots of jewelry.)
     Many people react to this sort of thing and say, "That's
just not me!" Then don't do !L Do what IS you. Ask God to show
you what you can do, and be willing to put your inhibitions
aside. Just remember to approach him according to the way God
designed him, through the eye gate as Shulamith did. If your
husband does not want you to be more aggressive, then don't be.
The goal is to be what your man wants. Know your husband and what
he wants, and if what he wants is the dance of the Mahanaim, get
on your dancing sandals!

Be totally available

     The Scripture plainly says, "The wife's body does not belong
to her alone but also to her husband" (1 Cor.7:4). One doctor was
telling a wife that she should be totally available to her
husband, and the wife got a look of horror on her face. "If I was
totally available to him, we'd never get out of bed!" she said.
The doctor assured the distraught patient she and her husband
wouldn't have intercourse nearly as often as she expected. He
told her, "Someone who bangs on the door forty times when it
stays locked only knocks once if you open right away."
     Most wives who haven't reached sexual harmony with their
husbands find them making some kind of advance nearly every
night. These women are afraid they will be asked to participate
more often than they can bear if they let down the barriers. But
actually, a man who has intercourse as often as he wants finds
that in a week or two the pressure of his physical urge is
relieved, and the psychological pressure to overcome resistance
no longer applies, so his sexual pace tapers off.
     One man explained to me that his wife is available to him in
"spurts." After she has read a book about what a wife should be,
or heard someone speak on it, or when they have a fight about
sex, she has a good attitude for a few days; soon, however, she
returns to her old habits of rejection.

     He said when she is responsive, "I take advantage of it
because I know it won't last long. And because I do, my wife
thinks all I ever think about is sex."

     You know, when you are on a diet, all you can think about is
food. When you can have food anytime you want, you're not nearly
so interested. It's the same with sex. When a man or woman knows
they will be rejected, they will very likely be consumed with
what they can't have. When a man knows his wife is totally
available, his desire will gradually decrease. It may take some
time, but gradually as he sees you lovingly and eagerly available
to be loved by him, the frequency of your lovemaking will come to
a level more acceptable to you.
     One woman had a husband who approached her very often,
several times a day, including the middle of the night. They had
fights; she told him he was oversexed. Finally, he said he had
had it and would approach her no more. She called my wife and
said, "Linda, I've heard you say publically and privately your
goal in life is to be, a godly woman. Well, let me tell you, my
goal in life it to make my husband scream for mercy!"
     The poor man didn't know what had hit him. She told my wife
she knew she was succeeding when she approached him sexually
while he was watching television and he said, "Please! Let me
finish this program." She found she had to prove her total
availability to him by being aggressive.
     This woman furthermore found her husband was truly
satisfied. Sex to a man isn't only physical. When she was warm,
responsive, and aggressive to her husband, he felt he was loved
and not just endured! His psychological needs of acceptance, of
wanting to be needed, and of wanting total involvement from his
wife had been met. As a result his obsession for sex began to
diminish. He still was very active sexually, but their
relationship was much improved because of her changed attitude.

     People do have different amounts of sexual desire. If you
are married to a man with a high sex drive, ask God to make your
desire equal to his. Perhaps your husband has a low sex drive.
It's possible that it is physiological, but it could also be
psychological. I know of one case where it was directly related
to the fact that the woman was trying to lead the family, and
therefore he just wasn't interested in her.
     Let's look a little more at the psychological aspects of
availability. A man once told me about his wife, "Even when she
satisfies me physically, I come away with a need. I feel she
hasn't really given or really enjoyed but just put up with me. I
need a sexual release again quickly because I'm longing for that
total oneness and release that comes when both partners
completely give of themselves. I know if I was satisfied
physically, emotionally, and spiritually that I wouldn't walk
around thinking about sex, wanting it and aching inside."

     On the other hand, let's look at it from the woman's point
of view. Perhaps she is busily making  presents. The children are
finally in bed, and for the first time that day she has a chance
to do something she wants and needs to do. While she is totally
engrossed, in walks her husband with that special gleam in his
eye. At this point she has a choice. She can say, "Oh honey, not
tonight," or she can decide and choose to love this man God has
given her. Even if her initial response is "Oh, no," she can
change that immediately to "Oh, yes!"
     And once she is in his arms, she has more choices to make.
I'm convinced that much of a woman's sexual response is in her
brain. If he is kissing her and she is still thinking about the
gifts, she can decide to think about loving him and ask God to
give her a desire for him. If she will think and dwell on how
nice his body feels and what a privilege it is to love him, the
thoughts of the presents she was making will fade away.

Be creative

     A wise woman once said, "You can become a Rembrandt in your
sexual art, or you can stay at the paint-by-number stage." The
woman who would never think of serving her husband the same
frozen television dinner every evening sometimes serves him the
same frozen sexual response every night. Sex, like supper, loses
much of its flavor when it becomes predictable. It is biblical
for a wife to be a skilful lover to her husband. Solomon said of
Shulamith's love skill, "How beautiful is your love, my sister,
my bride! How much better is your love than. wine. . . " He said
she was more skilled than any mistress the empire (Song 6:8). The
young man of Prov.5:19 is told to be drunk with his wife's sexual
skill!
     What is skill? It's a lot more than technique! It is
primarily an attitude of total availability, that is 90 percent
of "skill." If a woman has this attitude, she and her husband
together can figure out all the "skills" they need without having
to read any books. To be "creative" is to bring into existence
something that hasn't been there before. Here it applies to
bringing into existence a vital and invigorating sexual life. It
involves taking the initiative. And finally, it does involve some
imaginative new ideas, but they are not nearly as important as
the fundamental attitudes we have been talking about in the
preceding chapters of this book. 

     Where does that leave you? O.K., so I'm supposed to be
creative. But what do I do? In chapter 6 we made some suggestions
to the men, but for a woman's point of view may I refer you to my
wife's excellent book (I'm not at all prejudiced!), "Creative
Counterpart" (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1977) in which she devotes an
entire chapter to the subject of the "Creative Lover."

(That book may not now be available. I do not have a copy of it.
But I'm sure there are some other fine books on the present
market in Bible Book stores, that will expound the same truths
and instructions - Keith Hunt)

The conclusion of our tittle song is upon us. We have left our
lovers strolling along a country road as they come to Shulamith's
home in the Lebanon mountains. As they emerge from the forests
where they have shared their love, Shulamith for the third time
warns against the premature arousal of sexual passion (8:4). Her
warning that it not be awakened until you are committed to your
future husband becomes the introductory theme of the book's
conclusion. The poet in his final song will direct our attention
to the nature of the love Solomon and Shulamith share and how it
can be developed.

                            ...................

The final chapter before an instructional APPENDIX is called "A
Vacation in the Countr

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

WILL JESUS CHRIST RETURN IN TWO PARTS WITH YEARS IN-BETWEEN?

 

Christ's Coming in TWO parts?


FUNDAMENTAL PROTESTANT RAPTURE TEACHINGS

RETURN OF CHRIST IN TWO PARTS?

I ANSWER:

TWO OF THE MOST POPULAR AND WELL-KNOWN PROTESTANT PROPHETS - TIM
LAHAYE AND ED HINDSON, HAVE GIVEN A LENGTHY EXPLANATION TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN TEACHING EMBRACED BY THEIR FOLLOWERS, ON
THE "RAPTURE."

WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT "RAPTURE" TO THEM MEANS "RESURRECTION"
BUT HOW THEY PUT THIS RESURRECTION TRUTH OF THE BIBLE TOGETHER
WITH CHRIST'S COMING ..... WELL THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER
ALTOGETHER.

THIS IS A SOMEWHAT LONG STUDY, BUT I NEED TO ANSWER THESE
FUNDAMENTAL GUYS SO YOU THE READER CAN SEE THE FOLLY OF AND THE
DECEPTIVE WAY THEY THINK AND CANNOT PUT SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE,
TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

WE START WITH LAHAYE AND HINDSON - Keith Hunt
......


THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH is one of the most compelling and
exciting prophetic events in the Bible. It is clearly taught in 1
Thessalonians 4:15-18 (NKJV), where the apostle Paul provides us
with these details:

     This we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are
     alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no
     means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself
     will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an
     archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in
     Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain
     shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet
     the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the
     Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

This passage of Scripture delineates five stages to the rapture:

(Remember now "rapture" is here understood as "resurrection" -
which is true - Keith Hunt)

(1) The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout and
with the sound of a trumpet, (2) the dead in Christ will
rise first, (3) we who are alive and remain on the earth will be
"caught up" (Greek, "harpazo") together with them in the clouds,
(4) we will meet the Lord, and (5) we shall always be with Him.

(So far so good - the 5 points are indeed what 1 Thes.4:15-18
cover - Keith Hunt)

The apostle Paul also unveiled what he called a mystery
pertaining to the rapture. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, He
explained that some Christians would not sleep (die), but their
bodies would be instantly transformed.

     Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we
     shall all be changed-in a moment, in the twinkling of an
     eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and
     the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
     changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
     this mortal must put on immortality.

(Correct so far. The resurrection to eternal life takes place at
the LAST trumpet! Notice it, mark it "last trumpet." So there is
then more than one trumpet sound. The book of Revelation gives us
7 trumpers  - Keith Hunt)

This is what will happen when the rapture rakes place: Without
warning, the bodies of all believers who have died since the day
of Pentecost will suddenly be transformed into new, living,
immortal, resurrected bodies. Even those whose bodies have long
since decayed or whose ashes have been scattered out over the
oceans will receive a new body. This new body will be joined
together with the person's spirit, which Jesus will bring with
Him. Then the bodies of those who have likewise accepted Christ
as their Savior and are alive at that moment will also be
instantly translated into new immortal bodies. Together, all
believers will be instantaneously transported into the heavens to
meet the Lord. Those who are alive and have rejected the
salvation of Jesus Christ will remain behind on earth and will
witness a miraculous event of astonishing proportions - the
sudden mass disappearance of millions upon millions of people
from the face of the earth.

(Now we start into their truth and error. First, it is not only
those since Pentecost who will be in this resurrection. It will
be ALL true saints or children of God since Adam. Many verses in
the entire Bible prove EVERY child of God since Adam will be
resurrected at the last trumpet. The Bible nowhere speaks of some
OTHER resurrection at some OTHER time for those children in God,
before the NT Pentecost. You search the Scriptures and see if you
can find any such mention of another resurrection for saints from
Adam to Pentecost. I'll give you one thousand dollars if you can
find it. 
The idea that the unsaved will witness the disappearance of
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS from the earth, is another deceptive
falsehood of the fundamental prophets. Their idea on this
contradicts the plain teachings of Jesus, who said His "flock"
would be the "little flock" (the Greek means "very little flock"
- it's a double diminutive in the Greek); He also said His
followers would be the "salt of the earth" - salt among the meal
is very little, sprinkled here and there. According to Jesus
in Matthew 24 it is the MANY who are deceived, in fact before
He comes again He said deception would be so great that IF it
possible even the elect would be deceived - Keith Hunt)

THE BLESSED HOPE

The rapture is often referred to as "the blessed hope" (Titus
2:13) because it provides assurance to believers who are
concerned about the coming Tribulation, and it offers comfort to
those who long to be reunited with their departed loved ones who
share a faith in Christ.

(Yes the resurrection is a "blessed hope" but now you try to find
where this blessed hope of the resurrection is tied in with the
coming "tribulation" - see if you can find "resurrection" and
"tribulation" put together as resurrection from "the tribulation"
is our hope. Just another slight of hand talk as if it is a fact
that resurrection offers hope for those concerned about the
coming tribulation. True the resurrection does offer comfort to
be with other dead true saints of God, but again a slight of hand
talk to sooth and dull your mind, as the truth is many of your
loved ones may not have been true Christians at all, and will not
be in this resurrection at the last trumpet sound. The slight of
hand is the idea that the majority of "Christians" are true
Christians, when in fact true Christians are the salt of the
earth, and not the millions as they want you to believe - Keith Hunt)

The more than 300 biblical references to the second coming of
Christ clearly show that His return has two distinct phases. The
contrasting elements cannot be merged into a single event (see
the article titled "Second Coming of Christ"). 

(Notice the DOGMATIC claim about the 300 references to the second
coming of Christ. They are very dogmatic that Jesus' return is in
TWO PHASES, and cannot be merged into a single event. Now these
two men are so "looked up to" in the fundamental Protestant
world that most of their readers will say, "It has to be so, for
these men are such giants of the Scriptures, such great leaders
in the Christian fundamental world, they must be correct." And so
tens or hundreds of thousands will accept their word as "gospel"
as we say. AND do not think for one moment these two guys (Lahaye
and Hindson) do not know this. They know their readers look to
them with "awe" and "are spell-bound" with what they say and
write. Those guys know their readers will accept what words come
from them, with no questioning. Hence right at the beginning they
have tranquilized their readers - they have them hooked as we say
- Keith Hunt)

In the first phase, He will come suddenly to rapture His church
in the air and take all believers to His Father's house in
fulfilment of His promise in John 14:1-3. There, they will
appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:8-10).

(Now they move on after tranquilizing their readers, with more
clever brain-washing, and throw in a few Scriptures. They tell
their readers Jesus will come and take His believers to heaven
and throw in John 14:1-3. Now turn to that passage, open up your
Bible. See if you can find the word "heaven" in those 3 verses.
Nope it ain't there! Heaven, going back to heaven, is not
mentioned at all. All that Jesus says is He will come and receive
His followers, and where He is in receiving them, "where I am" He
says "there you may be also." Put that with 1 Thes. 4:13-17 [that
Lahaye and Hindson have already given you] and the Bible
interprets the Bible - the saints of God meet, receive Christ in
the AIR, in the CLOUDS, and shall ever be with Him. But 1
Thes.4:13-17 does NOT tell you WHERE Christ will be after He has
received the saints in the clouds, in the air. You must let OTHER
verses of Scripture tell you that; letting the Bible interpret
itself. 
Now concerning 2 Cor.5:8-10. Again see if you can find the word
"heaven" or "Father's throne" or "in heaven" - nope it ain't
there! Now you can find "present with the Lord." So the question
you should be asking is "WHEN are we present with the Lord?" Even
Lahaye and Hindson have given you that answer, as they gave you 1
Thes. 4:13-18 and 1 Cor.15:50-53 - at the LAST trumpet sound,
when Jesus comes to receive the saints in the AIR, in the
CLOUDS. 
SO, again with slight of hand, knowing their readers will lap up
their words as "gospel" they take John 14:1-3 and 2 Cor.5:8-10
and TELL YOU it is all IN HEAVEN in the Father's house. I've show
you in other studies that the Father's house is the Kingdom of
God, which Jesus will bring with Him on His return, to set up the
Kingdom of God on earth for the first 1,000 years. There is
nothing in John 14:1-3 and 2 Cor.5:8-10 that says the saints GO
BACK TO HEAVEN WHERE THE FATHER IS, after Jesus has received the
saints in the CLOUDS, in the AIR of this earth. And to PROVE they
do not, you let the Bible interpret the Bible. So you go to
Zechariah 14 and there you CLEARLY see that in the day the
Messiah Jesus returns, His feet stand on the Mount of Olives, and
Jesus is Lord of all; the Kingdom of God has come to earth, as
mentioned in dozens of passages in the Bible. 
OH the simplicity of the Bible when you let the Bible interpret
itself - Keith Hunt)

While the believers are in heaven, those left behind on the earth
will experience the trials of the seven-year Tribulation period.

(And once more Lahaye and Hindson just tell you what will then
happen. They know they have their readers already under their
spell. They know their readers are mainly Bible illiterates,
people who never check up, never question, never search the
Scriptures. They know their readers have already been brain-
washed to accept millions [as they think] will escape the great
tribulation, which is for 7 years - another brain-washing
teaching that the fundamental prophets have seared into the minds
of their followers. Lahaye and Hindson already know the idea of
escaping via an invisible coming of Christ. The 7 year great
tribulation, has already been accepted by hundreds of thousands
of fundamental Christians, so they just tell the people what the
people want to hear, what they have been brian-washed into
accepting from these [and others] "great" and "awesome" teachers
of fundamental Christianity. So they know it's easy to just say
words, for they are speaking to "no-searchers of the Scriptures"
to people who will not prove all things and hold to that which is
good - Keith Hunt)

In the second phase of Jesus' second coming (the glorious
appearing), He will return to earth in great power and glory to
set up His millennial kingdom. 

(And so we go again. Lahaye and Hindson, just continue with what
they know the many they write to have accepted already, what many
of their "minister friends" have taught for decades, what has
been brain-washed into the minds of all their followers. They
continue with the SECOND PHASE of the coming of Christ. After
Jesus has gone back to heaven with the saints, for 7 years, He
will come in phase two, in "glorious appearing" to set up the
Kingdom of God on earth for the millennium or 1,000 years - Keith
Hunt)

The entire second coming has been compared to a two-act play (the
rapture and the glorious appearing) with a seven-year
intermission (the Tribulation). 

(Yep....indeed, so many fundamental prophets have taught this
"two-act play" - taught it for decades, drubbed it into their
hearers, their followers, branded it in their minds so deeply,
their sheep just do not question it. Their sheep are asleep, and
the fundamental prophets know it. They themselves are blinded, so
the blind follow the blind. The blind continue to teach this idea
of two phases of Christ's return with a 7 year tribulation
in-between, and the blind followers keep following the blind
teachers. So the blind teachers says words as if it is fact, and
their blind followers believe the words as it is fact. So the
circle continues - Keith Hunt)

The apostle Paul distinguishes between these two phases in Titus
2:13, where he refers to the rapture as the "blessed hope" and
the return of Christ to the earth as "the glorious appearing."

(Whattttt.... to put the phrase "blessed hope" and "glorious
appearing" - to interpret for you that this one verse is
teaching a "two phase" return of Christ, with one phase as a
"secret rapture" and another phase as a visible "glorious
appearing" with 7 years tribulation between the two phases, IS 
PUTTING INTO THIS VERSE THINGS THAT ARE JUST NOT THERE PERIOD. No
word "tribulation" is there. No word "phase" is there. No word
"two" is there. No word "seven" or "years" or "heaven" is there.
The hope and appearance can just as easily be Paul speaking about
the SAME event - it is "the hope" and it is "the glorious
appearing." The hope is the resurrection for the saints as 1 Cor.
15 shows. The glorious appearing is Jesus coming in glory.
Putting 1 Cor.15 with 1 Thes.4:13-18 - letting the Bible
interpret the Bible. Putting 1 Cor. 15 with 1 Thes.4:13-18 WITH
Zechariah 14, YOU HAVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! Then add
Revelation 11:15-18 and add also Matthew 24:29-31 and you have
more of the truth of the matter. I mean a child can put those
verses together and add them up to ONE COMING of Christ [not a
two-phased coming] that is BOTH a great hope and a great
appearing. 
But again Lahaye and Hindson are writing to people who have been
brain-washed for decades, who have accepted a two-phased coming
of Christ, secret and glorious, with 7 years between them. Lahaye
and Hindson are writing to themselves [and other minister
friends] who are so brain-washed by this secret and open two-
phased return of Jesus that to them Titus 2:13 is speaking about
two phases with 7 years between the phases. They read into this
verse exactly what they want to read into it, so the circle is
unbroken - round and round it goes - Keith Hunt) 

WHAT DOES RAPTURE MEAN?

The English word rapture comes from the Latin word "raptus,"
which in Latin Bibles translates the Greek word "harpazo," used
14 times in the New Testament. The basic idea of the word is "to
suddenly remove or snatch away." It is used by the New Testament
writers in reference to stealing or plundering (Matthew 11:12;
12:29; 13:19; John 10:12,28-29) and removing (John 6:15; Acts
8:39; 23:10; Jude 23).
The New Testament employs a third use, which focuses on being
caught up to heaven. It describes Paul's "third heaven"
experience (2 Corinthians 12:2,4) and Christ's ascension to
heaven (Revelation 12:5). Obviously, "harpazo" is the perfect
word to describe God suddenly taking up the church from earth to
heaven at the first part of Christ's second coming.

(Now they start to add some technical stuff; oh this will really
sound good and "scholarly" to their readers; the readers will
really stand in "awe" now. The Greek word means what it means and
can be used in various contexts. No argument. I agree. And anyone
with any common sense that reads about the resurrection of the
saints, knows it will be sudden; in the twinkle of an eye Paul
says those living to see Jesus return will be changed from mortal
to immortality, at the LAST trump - 1 Cor.15. But Lahaye and Hindson 
go on to say, "Obviously 'harpazo' is the perfect word to describe God
SUDDENLY TAKING UP THE CHURCH FROM EARTH TO HEAVEN AT THE FIRST
PART OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING."
Did you notice it? Did you get it? Along with the technical word 
[which I have no argument with] they do more word adding from
themselves: "taking up the church from earth to heaven at the
first part of Christ's coming." Go to a Bible lexicon, go to
Strong's Concordance, and see if when looking up this word
"harpazo" you can find "taking up the church from earth to heaven
at the first part of Christ's second coming." Give you 10,000
dollars if you can. Lahaye and Hindson have added their decades
long teaching of a "secret invisible" return with a "first part"
of Christ's second coming.
To the brain-washed follower of the fundamental prophets
teaching, all this sounds real good, for the guys have added some
"technical" stuff to their teaching..... wow stand in awe again!
Of course the resurrection will be sudden and unexpected by the
un-Christian world, and by the false Christians who will be at
the time following the false prophet of the book of Revelation -
Keith Hunt)

WILL THE RAPTURE BE PRETRIBULATIONAL?

The Church Is Not on Earth in Revelation 4-18
The common New Testament term for church (Greek, ekklesia) is
used 19 times in Revelation 1-3, which deals with the historical
church of the first century. However, Revelation uses church once
more - at the very end (22:16), where John returns to addressing
the first-century church. Most interesting is the fact that
nowhere during the Tribulation period is the term church used in
reference to believers on earth.

(This technical argument I have proven to be totally false and
again a made up fancy of the fundamental prophets who want to
hold to a two-phased second coming of Christ, a secret rapture
and a glorious appearing, with 7 years between them. I've
answered this argument in other studies on the "Secret Rapture"
teaching on this website. I refer the reader to those other
studies - Keith Hunt)

John's shift from his detailed instructions for the church to his
absolute silence about the church for many chapters is remarkable
and totally unexpected if in fact the church continued into the
Tribulation. If the church were to experience the Tribulation
(the seventieth week of Daniel 9), then surely the most detailed
study of Tribulation events would include instructions for the
church. But it doesn't. The only explanation for this frequent
mention of the church in Revelation 1-3 and total absence of the
church on earth until Revelation 22:16 is a pretribulation
rapture, which will relocate the church from earth to heaven
prior to the Tribulation.

(Again I refer the reader to my other studies in which I prove
Lahaye and Hindson [with their other minister friends] to be in
total error on the point they now bring up. And in those other
studies I prove there will be NO PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE of the
saints to heaven while the earth goes under a 7 year great
tribulation period - Keith Hunt)

A POSTtribulational Rapture Is Inconsequential

If God miraculously preserves the church through the Tribulation,
why have a rapture? If it is to avoid the wrath of God at
Armageddon (at the end of the Tribulation), then why would God
not continue to protect the saints on earth (as is postulated by
posttribulationism) just as He protected Israel (see Exodus 8:22;
9:4,26; 10:23; 11:7) from His wrath poured out upon Pharaoh and
Egypt? Further, if the purpose of the rapture is for living
saints to avoid Armageddon, why also resurrect the saints (who
are already immune) at the same time?

(There is NO teaching in the Bible of some "rapture" of the
church to avoid "the day of the Lord" or some other mighty
events, before Jesus comes in power and visible glory. The
rapture or resurrection comes AFTER God has preserved some of His
saints during the tribulation and day of the Lord. The rapture or
resurrection comes at the LAST trumpet sound, at the time Jesus
comes ONCE only, visible and glorious, to resurrect the dead
saints and to change the living saints to immortality; to receive
them all in the clouds, in the air of this earth, and in that day
(Zech. 14) to set foot on the Mount of Olives, and to establish
the Kingdom of God on earth. See my many other studies on this
subject on this website, under "prophecy" - Keith Hunt)

If the rapture took place in connection with our Lord's
posttribulational glorious appearing, the subsequent separation
of the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
would be redundant. Separation would have taken place in the very
act of translation.

(Lahaye and Hindson have a mind that reads right over words of
the Bible. So it is often with false prophets and false teachers
of the Bible. Open your Bible. Turn to Matthew 25. Start reading
from verse 31. Did you notice the last words? If not look again -
what does it say? It says, "THEN [after His coming in glory, with
the holy angels - see Matt. 24:30,31] SHALL HE SIT UPON THE
THRONE OF HIS GLORY!!!"
Now go to Luke 1:31-33. Jesus is to receive the THRONE OF DAVID
and a Kingdom that shall last forever - no end. Jesus has NOT YET
been given the throne of David. Jesus has not yet returned to
establish a Kingdom that will have no end. Neither of these
things did Jesus receive in His physical life on earth. When He
returns in GLORY, He will sit upon the throne of David. THEN -
THEN, the sheep will be divided from the goats - THEN - DURING
THE 1,000 YEAR AGE, when Jesus rules the nations of earth for
1,000 years will the sheep be divided from the goats.
OH the folly, and the stupid reading that some fundamental prophets
have in reading the Bible - Keith Hunt) 

If all Tribulation-era believers are raptured and glorified after
the Tribulation and just prior to the inauguration of the
millennial kingdom, who then will be left to populate and
propagate the kingdom? 

(This is another case where Lahaye and Hindson minds are all
mixed up and up-side-down and in-side-out. The people left after
the saints are resurrected and made immortal at the coming of
Christ in glory, after the great tribulation and day of the Lord,
will be the physical people of the earth, whom Jesus and the
saints will rule and bring salvation to. They will be the ones
where the dividing of the sheep from the goats will take place,
all during that 1,000 year age - Keith Hunt)

The Scriptures indicate that God will judge the living
unbelievers at the end of the Tribulation and remove them from
the earth (see Matthew 13:41-42; 25:41). 

(The context of the above verses given and many other passages of
the entire Bible, show that the dividing of sheep from goats,
takes place over 1,000 years, and then the goats or chaff are put
in the furnace of fire - the second death - see Revelation 20.
There is judgment on the nations of the earth at the coming of
Christ, but passage after passage in the books of the holy
prophets of the Bible, CLEARLY teach, NOT ALL SINNERS, not ALL
unbelievers will be removed from the earth at Christ's coming.
This is not just an "indication" this is absolute dogmatic truth
that all the prophetic books of the Bible teach - Keith Hunt)

Yet they also teach that children will be born to believers
during the millennium and that these children will be capable of
sin (see Isaiah 65:20; Revelation 20:7-10). This would not be
possible if all the believers on earth were glorified through a
posttribulational rapture.

(Again, Lahaye and Hindson have things mixed up, and little
understanding of Bible prophecy. At the return of Christ all past
and living saints will be in that first resurrection to
immortality. But physical people will STILL be on earth [as I
prove in many studies on this website] - they, most of them, in
time will be converted, they will become believers. They will still
be physical. They will marry and have children. Physical
believers will continue to reproduce and have children. And yes
sin can still be done, if a person chooses to sin. God will never
make humans into robots - free moral will, will still be in each
physical human during that 1,000 year age. All this is fully
expounded upon in my many studies on the age to come  - Keith
Hunt)

A posttribulational rapture and the church's supposed immediate
return to earth leaves no time for the "bema" - the judgment seat
of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10). For these
reasons, a posttribulational rapture makes no logical sense. A
pretribulational rapture, by contrast, does not leave us with
these insurmountable difficulties.

(There are no difficulties as Lahaye and Hindson would like you
to believe. The judgment seat of Christ is when the saints stand
before Christ on the sea of glass, when He returns, when the
resurrection takes place, after the great tribulation and day of
the Lord, after the 6 trumpets blow, and when the last and 7th
trumpet blows. Seven trumpets only are given in the book of
Revelation - the 7th is the resurrection to immortality for the
dead and living saints of God. They meet Christ in the air, in the
clouds, on the sea of glass. The judgment day for them has
arrived. They are before Christ and receive their rewards
according to their works. The "judgment seat of Christ" or
"Judgment Day" is also NOT understood by Lahaye and Hindson and
Catholicism and Protestantism. You need to study my study "The
Truth about Judgment Day" on this website - Keith Hunt)
 
The Tribulation Is Not Impending

All through the New Testament epistles, God gave many
instructions to the church, including warnings, but never once
are believers warned to prepare for entering and enduring the
Tribulation (Daniel's seventieth week).

(Whatttt.... I get blown-away by the silly ideas and the obvious
silly reading of the Bible by these fundamental prophets. They
just have to read Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; as a child [I
used to read those chapters over and over again as a child] but
child reading is far from them. I knew as a child that Jesus in
the Gospels, gave warnings to be prepared for persecutions to
come on Christians, then, today, and tomorrow. It is all over the
New Testament. We are to endure trials, persecutions; we are to
fight the good fight; we are to remain faithful to the end; we
are to put on the whole armor of God to withstand the wiles of
the Devil; we are to be willing to die for the truth; we are to
stand up and be counted; we are to remember as Jesus said, "They
who kill you will think they do God service." The truth about
Daniel's 70th week is also on this website in detail. It is NOT
what the fundamental prophets teach - Keith Hunt)

The New Testament warns vigorously about coming error and false
prophets (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1;1 John 4:1-3; Jude 4) and
against ungodly living (Ephesians 4:25-5:7; 1 Thessalonians
4:3-8; Hebrews 12:1). The New Testament even admonishes believers
to endure in the midst of present tribulation (i Thessalonians
2:13-14; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; and all of 1 Peter). However, the
New Testament is absolutely silent about the church preparing for
the Tribulation as described in Revelation 6-18.

(They think it is silent but it is not, for the NT it is just an
expected thing in life, life at the end time. Revelation 12 - the
story of the true Church of God. Like other ages in history,
there comes persecution, along with it comes death for some
Christians, and others are spared. It has been this way from the
beginning of human time. It is this way today. Some Christians in
some countries face death for being Christians, some do die, some
do not. Tomorrow will be the same - some will have to die for the
faith once delivered to the saints, some will be spared, they
will live on. So it has always been - see Hebrews 11. So it shall
be to the end of this age. Revelation 12 and the true Church of
God - some will die for the faith during the last years of this
age, some will escape to the wilderness and live on right to the
coming of Christ, those are the ones whom Paul says will be
changed in a twinkle of an eye at Jesus' coming, from mortal to
immortal - Keith Hunt)
 
The Scriptures would certainly not be silent about such a major
and traumatic period of time for the church. If the rapture were
to happen partway through or at the end of the Tribulation, one
would expect the epistles to teach the presence, purpose, and
conduct of the church during the Tribulation. However, we find
none of this teaching whatsoever. Only a pretribulation rapture
satisfactorily explains the lack of such instructions.

(Garbage to Lahaye and Hindson comments - the more I read these
fundamental prophets the angrier I get. Nothing could be further
from the truth. But people do not want the truth, they want nice
sweet words to comfort them, put them to sleep, and so the
fundamental prophets give them those word, and probably
themselves also, for most of them, do not want to think they have
to stiffen their back-bone, stand up to be counted, put their
life on the line, even have to die for the truth. So a nice
secret rapture to take you to heaven and restful bliss for 7
years, while the world falls apart, blows itself to bits, and all
kinds of horrible things go on in a tribulation that Jesus said
would be the greatest tribulation to ever come on earth in human
history. The Bible gives examples after examples, teaching after
teaching, both Old and New Testament, that persecutions and even
death have come upon God's people at times, sometimes more often,
sometimes not as often. In the end time, the last 42 months, 1260
days [book of Revelation] God's true Church will again experience
persecutions unto death for some, and escape into the wilderness
for others. All expounded for you in detail in many studies on
this website including the book of Revelation under "The New
Testament Bible Story"  - Keith Hunt)

The Content of 1 Thessalonians 4:73-78 Let us hypothetically
suppose for a moment that the rapture is not pretribulational.
What would we expect to find in 1 Thessalonians 4? How does this
compare with what we observe there?

We would expect the Thessalonians to be joyous over the fact that
loved ones are home with the Lord and will not have to endure the
horrors of the Tribulation. But we discover that the
Thessalonians are actually grieving because they fear their loved
ones have missed the rapture. Only the possibility of a
pretribulation rapture accounts for this grief.

(Paul in 1 Thes. 4:13-18 is answering the sorrow and IGNORANCE
that some had in their mind, about those who had fallen asleep in
death. Many of his readers did not know the truths of God on this
matter. They were thinking and acting like the world - no hope in
death. Paul is having to help them, correct them, give them true
instruction about death. Obviously many did not know the answer
to death. There was no fear that their loved ones have missed the
rapture. They were IGNORANT about the "death question" - they did
not know, had to be instructed, in the death question. The world,
as many today say, there is nothing after death, no hope of some
life after death, so live to the fullest now, wine, women, and
song. 
This passage of Paul has nothing to do with some "secret rapture"
or any "rapture" per se. It has to do with Paul having to
instruct some who did not know about death and the plan of God.
He had to tell them there was hope, it was not like the world
viewed death, BECAUSE God would have a RESURRECTION BACK TO LIFE
FOR ALL SAINTS, DEAD OR ALIVE, AND IT WOULD BE WITH A TRUMP, AND
THE AT CHRIST'S COMING; THE SAINTS DEAD OR ALIVE WOULD MEET
CHRIST IN THE AIR, THE CLOUDS, AND BE WITH HIM FOREVER - Keith
Hunt)

We would also expect the Thessalonians to be grieving over their
own impending trial rather than over loved ones. Furthermore, we
would expect them to be inquisitive about their own future doom.
But the Thessalonians have no fears or questions about the coming
Tribulation.

(Well that is simple to answer. They had no fear or questions
about any coming tribulation, for they knew as Christians,
tribulation may very well come. I mean Paul was a great example
for them. They would see what Paul at times had to go through in
persecution and tribulation. They had known Stephen had been
killed for speaking the truth. They had known James and probably
others as we see in the book of Acts, were persecuted and even
killed. Going through tribulation was not a question with them,
of course not. For such was to be expected at times. Tribulation
for the faith of Christ was all around them, some persecuted even
unto death, others not. They had the apostle John, who seemed to
be free from any large tribulation, and as the century went on,
John lived to a ripe old age, while others like Paul and Peter
were killed for the faith. They had the words of Christ, that
persecution could come on you if you followed Him. Even Jesus
saying some who would kill you would think they were doing God a
service. They had no fear or questions about coming tribulations
because they did know the answer to that question - it could
come, and they could die for the faith, while others would live
on - Keith Hunt)
 
Finally, we would expect Paul, even in the absence of interest or
questions by the Thessalonians, to provide instructions and
exhortation for such a supreme test, which would make their
present tribulation seem microscopic in comparison. But we find
not even one indication of any impending tribulation of this
kind. Given the scenario in 1 Thessalonians 4, only the
possibility of a pretribulation rapture makes sense.

(Nope wrong again for Lahaye and Hindson. They knew the answer to
tribulation, small or great. It could come, small or great, short
or long. They had examples in the Old Testament of God's saints
under persecution, even to death - Hebrews 11. They had Paul's example 
of many persecutions, perils, stonings, beatings, and some saints who had
already been put to death for Christ. They very well knew the answer 
to tribulations. No need to ask Paul about it, or to be ignorant about 
that issue - Keith Hunt)

John 14.1-3 Parallels 1 Thessalonians 4.73-78 

John 14:1-3 refers to Christ's coming again. It is not a promise
to all believers that they will go to Him at death. Rather, it
refers to the rapture of the church. Note the close parallels
between the promises of John 14:13 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
First, consider the promises of a presence with Christ: "... that
where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:3), and "Thus we
shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Second,
note the promises of comfort: "Let not your heart be troubled"
(John 14:1), and "Therefore comfort one another with these words"
(I Thessalonians 4:18).

(Okay all good so far in the phrases picked out - Keith Hunt)

Jesus instructed the disciples that He was going to His Father's
house (heaven) to prepare a place for them. He promised them that
He would return and receive them so that they could be with Him
wherever He was.
The phrase "wherever I am," while implying a continued presence
in general, here means presence in heaven in particular. 

(Now Lahaye and Hindson start to go off track - "where I am" they
say "here means presence in heaven in particular." Now you try to
find the word "heaven" in this passage under discussion. Nope it
ain't there. It is someone reading into it what they want you to
read into it. They want to get this teaching of their's into your
mind, so they put words in the passage that are not there. They
pretty well know, most, the majority, of their readers look to
them for understanding the Bible [as most readers do little if
any Bible research for themselves]. They know most of their readers
stand in "awe" of them, so it is easy for them to "lead you down
the garden path." They tell you John is writing here that Jesus
meant you are going to heaven, even if Jesus did not say that at
all; they want you to believe it is most definitely implied -
Keith Hunt)

Our Lord told the Pharisees in John 7:34, "Where I am you cannot
come." He was not talking about His present abode on earth, but
rather, His resurrected presence at the right hand of the Father.
In John 14:3, "where I am" must mean "in heaven," or 14:1-3 would
be meaningless.

(The first one is correct as they put it. But now they want you
to hook John 14:1-3 with the first one they mention. But the
Bible has a context to all verses. And the Bible must interpret
itself. If Jesus had and wanted His followers to clearly know
that they would one day "get to heaven to be with him" it would
have been very easy for Jesus to have said, "Where I am in
heaven" or "Where I am you also will be with me in heaven."
Jesus said no such words. Now the fundamental people and just
about all Christianity teach that SOMEDAY you will "get to
heaven" - they may vary on the WHEN, but they all teach, one day
Christians will get to heaven, even the seventh Day Adventists 
teach it. So again reading into this verse that this is what Jesus 
was teaching, makes sense to them, for they all believe one day 
Christians will be with Christ in heaven.
Stop and think now, what if the religious Jews of Jesus' day did
not think about heaven as you going there, at death [if your a
good Jew or Christian] or think about it in the way Christians
today think about it .... just got to be there. What if many or
most of the religious Jews believed death was death, and only a
resurrection by God could bring you back to life. And what if
those Jews [and Christians] knew the Messiah would come and set
up a Kingdom over the nations of the earth, live on earth, rule
from Jerusalem. And what if with that idea in mind they knew the
resurrection would take place at the Messiah's coming, and so
they would be with Him on earth, via a resurrection from death. 
Now if all that was so with the religious Jews and Christians of
the first century, then the words of Jesus saying He would go and
prepare a place for them, come again, receive them, and wherever
He was they would be also, would be taken quite differently.
Well I submit to you, those words by Jesus would NOT be taken as 
Christians today want to take them.
And we also then must let the Bible interpret the Bible. Jesus
certainly taught He would come again, and His followers when He
came would be with Him. So when Jesus comes again, when His
people are with Him, where does He go? The answer is found in
Zechariah 14. Notice the words "in that day" and "mount of
Olives." And note verse 7 and Jesus saying in the Gospels that
only the Father new the day of Christ's return. 
It should all start to jell with you by now, if you have your
Bible open and ARE seeing the words for yourself - Keith Hunt)

A posttribulation rapture would require that the saints meet
Christ in the air and immediately descend to earth without
experiencing what our Lord promised in John 14. Because John 14
refers to the rapture, only a pretribulation rapture satisfies
the language of John 14:1-3 and allows raptured saints to dwell
for a meaningful period of time with Christ in His Father's
house.

(I have answered John 14:1-3 in another study on this website,
but I'm also answering it here. John 14:1-3 has nothing to do
about "going to heaven" - the word "heaven" is not there. As
shocking as it may sound, the Bible nowhere promises that
Christians will "get to heaven" or "be with Christ in heaven" or
"sit in heaven with the Father" - that is the heaven where the
Father and Jesus now live. The fundamental prophets do teach that
Jesus will rule the earth and the nations upon it for 1,000
years. They, or most of them now, from what I read in their
literature, do teach the new heaven and new earth, and God the
Father coming to the new earth. But ... but, and this seems
desperately important to them, somehow Christians have to get to
heaven. If it's not at death [many of them now know the immortal
soul idea has much difficulties] then they say, "when can we get
this going to heaven in?" Ah, they will as Lahaye and Hindson
have done "get going to heaven" in with a pre-tribulation, secret
rapture teaching. At least they say you can get to heaven for 7
years - Keith Hunt)

The Rapture and the Return

A comparison of the rapture (1 Corinthians 15:50-58; 1
Thessalonians 4:13-IS) with the glorious appearing (Matthew
24-25) reveals at least eight significant contrasts or
differences. These differences demand that the rapture occur at a
significantly different time from Christ's glorious appearing:

(Oh it does? Well we shall see, we'll look at what they say -
Keith Hunt)

1. At the rapture, Christ comes in the air and returns to heaven
(1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the glorious appearing, Christ comes
to the earth to dwell and reign (Matthew 25:31-32).

(Nope 1 Thes.4:17 does not say Christ returns to heaven. You have
to read that into the passage. It says we meet Him in the air,
the clouds, and we stay with Him. Where He goes from there you
have to let other verses tell you - again Zech.14. The glorious
coming, which is NOT a separate phase of two phases of His
coming, Jesus does indeed return to earth - Zech.14 again - Keith
Hunt)

2. At the rapture, Christ gathers His own (1 Thessalonians
4:16-17). At the glorious appearing, angels gather the elect
(Matthew 24:31).

(Bible semantics. One verse tells you it is Christ gathering,
another verse tells you HOW Christ will gather. By the authority
of Christ, the angels go forth to gather, in so doing it is also
Christ that gathers. The Bible is full of such talk, one verse
putting it this way, and another verse making to plain or in more
detail, as to how the other verse is carried out - Keith Hunt)

3. At the rapture, Christ comes to reward (I Thessalonians 4:17).
At the glorious appearing, Christ comes to judge (Matthew
25:31-46).

(Again, grasping at straws. Many events take place at the coming
in glory of Christ the Messiah. Breaking it up can be easy to do
IF you have a reason for doing it, and the fundamental prophets
with their secret rapture, 7 years in heaven for the saints, have
one huge reason to break things up and put them in an order the
Bible does not put them. Many things take place when the Messiah
comes. If you read my expounding of all the prophetic books of
the Bible on this website, you will come to see MANY things take
place at the return of Christ. Pouring out the seven last
plagues, hailstones, battle of Armageddon, resurrection of the
saints, rewards handed out, judgment on the Beast power, judgment
on the beast man and the false prophet and etc. to name a few -
Keith Hunt)

4. The rapture, resurrection is prominent (1 Thessalonians
4:15-16). At the glorious appearing, resurrection is not
mentioned.

(God does not have to mention the same things in the same
context, but in different passages. He is not obliged to follow
the arguments of Lahaye and Hindson on this point. God is God. He
sets the rules by which He desires to write. What is mentioned in
one passage about the same event, does not have to be exactly the
same things mentioned in another passage about the same event.
This kind of argument makes people say, "Well you can prove
anything by the Bible" and so the skeptic walks on thumbing their
nose at God and the Bible and people who prove anything from the
Bible - Keith Hunt)

5. At the rapture, believers depart the earth (1 Thessalonians
4:15-17). At the glorious appearing, unbelievers are taken away
from the earth (Matthew 24:37-41).

(Of course at the resurrection saints are raised from the dead,
living saints are changed, all leave the earth to meet Christ in
the air, in the clouds. Matthew 24:37-41 is completely
misunderstood by Lahaye and Hindson. I have expounded this
passage fully in other studies on this website, under prophecy.
Briefly: the context is the day of Christ's return verse 36. The
world will not expect it, just as they were not expecting the
flood of Noah's day. It is the day of Christ's return. Saints
will be on this earth, as I've proved in other studies. They will
be here and there. Some will be converted during the great
tribulation and day of the Lord; the book of Revelation says 144,000
from the tribes of Israel - Rev.7. Some will be around the un-
converted. The converted saints will, on the day of Christ's
coming, literally yes, disappear from view. Of course they will
because they will be in the resurrection and taken by the angels
to be with Christ in the air, in the clouds, upon the sea of
glass - Keith Hunt)
 
6. At the rapture, unbelievers remain on earth. At the glorious
appearing, believers remain on earth (Matthew 25:34).

(At the ONE event of Jesus' return, yes un-believers will be on
earth. Jesus is coming back to rule the physical nations of the
earth. At the same ONE event believers will be on earth, as many
in that day when they see Jesus return will believe, many will
know Christ does exist; many will come to repentance on that day.
And from then on the sheep and goats will be divided. All
expounded in-depth as I go through each prophetic book of the
Bible on this website - Keith Hunt)

7. Christ's kingdom on earth is not mentioned at the rapture. At
the glorious appearing, Christ has come to set up His kingdom on
earth (Matthew 25:31,34).

(Again, the same silly argument of Lahaye and Hindson. God does
not have to write the same thing the same way, mentioning the
same things, when writing about the same event. One aspect of the
same event can be mentioned in one passage, and another aspect of
the same event mentioned in another passage. My oh my, what a
silly argument - Keith Hunt)

8. At the rapture, believers will receive glorified bodies (1
Corinthians 15:51-57). At the glorious appearing, survivors will
not receive glorified bodies.

(Of course this is so. Very simple. At the resurrection saints
will be glorified, made immortal, raised from death to
immortality, or changed from flesh and blood to immortality. 
Those who survive the last years of this age, who are not chosen
to be saints and to be made immortal at Christ's coming, like about
10 percent of the people of the tribes of Israel, will go on into
the 1,000 years as physical people. Jesus and the saints will
rule over physical people in literal nations of the earth. Again
all expounded for you in detail as I reveal to you what all the
prophetic books of the Bible teach - Keith Hunt)

The Promise of Deliverance

In Revelation 3:10, Jesus promised, "I will keep you from [Greek,
ek, "out of"] the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole
world." This passage makes it clear that Christ's intention is to
keep the church out of the Tribulation period.

(Nope. The passage it to a "church group" only, see the context
of other church groups in Revelation 2 and 3. Revelation 12 gives
you the "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey wouls say on his 
radio program. It will be as it has always been in all
history - some of God's children will escape persecution and
tribulation and death, in the wilderness, and other children of
God will have to stand up and be counted, be a witness for the
truth, and even have to die for the truth of God. So it has
always been, so it will be again at the end time - Keith hunt)

The Greek preposition "ek" admittedly has the basic idea of
emergence. But this is not always so. Two notable examples are 2
Corinthians 1:10 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10. In the Corinthian
passage, Paul rehearses his rescue from death by God. Paul did
not emerge from death but rather was rescued from the potential
danger of death.
Even more convincing is 1 Thessalonians 1:10. Here, Paul states
that Jesus is rescuing believers out of the wrath to come. The
idea is not emergence out of, but rather protection from entrance
into divine wrath.

(Even so, using the Greek, does not change the fact that
Revelation 3:10 is about ONE GROUP of people to be spared from
persecution and death of the Great Tribulation, just as
Revelation 12 pictures and tells us - Keith Hunt)

If Revelation 3:10 means immunity or protection within as other
positions insist, then several contradictions result. First, if
protection in Revelation 3:10 is limited to protection from God's
wrath only and not Satan's, then Revelation 3:10 denies our
Lord's request in John 17:15.

(Revelation 3:10 is protection from Satan's wrath as well as
protection all the way through the last 42 months of this age -
the great tribulation and the day of the Lord - Keith Hunt)

Second, if Revelation 3:10 means total immunity, then of what
worth is the promise in light of Revelation 6:9-11 and 7:14,
where martyrs abound? The wholesale martyrdom of saints during
the Tribulation demands that the promise to the Philadelphia
church be interpreted as "keeping out of" the hour of testing,
not "keeping within."

(Keeping out of the hour of testing, is keeping out of, and not
within. For Revelation 12 tells you HOW the keeping out of is to
be done - fleeing to the wilderness, by part of the true people
of God, NOT by some "secret rapture" that takes you to heaven. 
Oh the lack of reading all the Bible, even all the passages on
any given subject, even all of a book. Such sloppy reading of the
Bible, gives sloppy theology that deceives millions - Keith Hunt)

The church is to be delivered from the wrath to come. The apostle
Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that we should "wait for
His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who
delivers us from the wrath to come." 

The context of this passage points to the rapture. The church
must be removed from the earth before the Tribulation begins in
order to be delivered from the wrath to come.

(Again, total garbage. The context is no such thing as Lahaye and
Hindson say. Look at it yourselves. Open your Bible. See it for
yourselves. Note verse 3 - work of faith, labor of love. Note
verse 6 - followers of us, and of the LORD. Note verse 8 - from
you sound out the word of the Lord .... in every place your faith
to God-ward is spread abroad. Go into chapter 2. It is all to do
with serving the Lord, in truth and life, and NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE RAPTURE OR RESURRECTION. 
LIVING IN THE LORD MEANS WE WILL NOT COME INTO THE WRATH OF THE
LORD VIA CONDEMNATION AND THE SECOND DEATH!! Keith Hunt)

The church is not appointed to wrath. According to 1
Thessalonians 5:9, "God did not appoint us to wrath, but to
obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." Once again, the
context of this passage shows it is referring to the rapture.

(The context is NOT referring to the rapture or resurrection per
se.
If you want to get real technical the context starts with "the
DAY OF THE LORD" verse 2. The day of the Lord is NOT the great
tribulation, but Lahaye and Hindson have no clue about
understanding Bible prophecy. So the day of the Lord is the last
day (day for a year in prophecy) - last year of this age. And so
Christians living at that time, by being in the light, watching
soberly, not as those in the night, spiritual darkness, but
putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet,
the hope of salvation - looking at the verses following. For we 
need to do this because God does not want us to face wrath, but 
salvation. In so doing we can live together with Him. Yes finally 
a resurrection to eternal life with Christ. 
Two things: So living we escape the day of the Lord that it does
not come on us as those in darkness, for it will bring sudden
destruction. This applies to those who are alive at the time of
the day of the Lord. Second, and more important, living in the
Lord, means we find salvation and not His wrath in condemnation
and the second death - Keith Hunt) 

Because the Tribulation specifically involves God's wrath, and
because Christians are not appointed to His wrath, the church
must be raptured out of the way before the Tribulation begins.

(No the Scriptures say the Great Tribulation is Satan's wrath on
the earth, especially he will go after the true Church of God. See
Revelation 12. Some will escape his wrath, and find safety in the 
wilderness. Others of the true church will have to stand up and be 
counted, they will have to be witnesses for the truth, and even die 
for the faith once delivered to the saints - Revelation 12 - Keith
Hunt)

If the church is raptured at the end of the Tribulation, no one
will be left to populate the millennium. 

(What absolute crazy Bible reading these two guys have between
them. I'm just about lost for words at their total ignorance of
the prophetic books of the Bible. The resurrection of the saints
of God, yes after the great tribulation and the day of the Lord,
means only that true saints are made immortal; the rest of the
physical people on earth, left alive after the battle of
Armageddon, the 10 percent of physical Israelites, they go on
into the millennium, the 1,000 year age, as physical people, and
continue to populate the earth - Keith Hunt)

Just prior to the beginning of the millennium, all sinners (those
who reject Jesus Christ as Savior) who survive the Tribulation
will be cast into hell according to Matthew 25:46. 

(Again a full misunderstanding of Matthew 25:46 - this parable is
AFTER Jesus has returned, when sitting on the throne of David.
The goats are not thrown into the lake of fire, the second death,
until the end of the 1,000 year age. All explained in detail in
many other studies on prophecy on this website - Keith Hunt)

Should the rapture occur at the end of the Tribulation, all
Christians would be taken from the earth as well, leaving no one
on earth with a natural body to repopulate the planet during the
millennium. 

(Gross error! Not all who will believe in that day, the day of
Christ's return, when thousands will see Him come in the clouds
of heaven, will be in the first resurrection. They may well
believe Jesus has come again, as like about 10 percent of
Israelites, but that will not qualify them to be in the first
resurrection. Hence tens of thousands will still remain as
physical humans. And not only that but thousands of un-believers
will survive and we have the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 and 39
coming to pass. There is so much on this, you will need to study
my expounding of all the prophetic books of the Bible, to
understand it all in detail - Keith Hunt)
 
The "righteous" (the "sheep") who enter the millennium are the
saints who survive the Tribulation - those who were unsaved at
the time of the rapture but became believers during the
Tribulation. 

(Garbage theology here also. The sheep of Matthew 25 are those
who accept Christ AFTER His return, when He sits on the throne of
David to judge the nations, to start to divide the sheep from the
goats - they are physical human beings - Keith Hunt)
 
Many of these saints will be martyred during this time, but those
who survive the Tribulation will repopulate the earth during the
millennium. For this to occur, the rapture must take place prior
to the Tribulation instead of at the end.

(All silly nonsense. Those saints who live during the great
tribulation and day of the Lord, will have qualified to be in the
first resurrection. As Jesus gave in one parable, some toil all
day [many years of their life - decades maybe] and some toil at the
11th hour - for a relatively short while, 42 months at the end of
this age, or a little less if called during the great tribulation, 
is a short time, an 11th hour. But Jesus went on to say, they all
received the penny wage as did those who toiled for a
long time - they all get salvation - Keith Hunt)


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Since the phrase "to meet the Lord" in 1 Thessalonians 4.17
can refer to a friendly city going out to meet the visiting king
and escorting him back to the city, does not this phrase point
decidedly to a posttribulational rapture?

First, this Greek term can refer to either meeting within a city
(Mark 14:13; Luke 17:12) or going out of the city to meet and
return back (Matthew 25:6; Acts 28:15). So the use of this
particular phrase is not at all decisive. Second, remember that
at the glorious appearing, Christ is coming to a hostile people
in general who will eventually fight against Him at Armageddon.
The pretribulational rapture best pictures the king rescuing, by
a rapture, His faithful followers who are trapped in a hostile
world and who will later accompany Him when He returns to earth
to conquer His enemies and set up His kingdom (Revelation
19:11-16).

(The truth is not ascertained by saying this fits a better
scenario than this other. 1 Thes. 4 and the context of verse 17
is to be put with 1 Cor.15 and many other verses, which I've already
done here and in many other studies on the subject - Keith Hunt)

2. Why does Paul write in 1 Thessalonians 5:6 for believers to be
alert to "the day of the Lord" if they're not going to face it
due to being raptured before the Tribulation?

Paul exhorts believers in 1 Thessalonians 5:6 to be alert and
living godly in a "day of the Lord" context just as Peter does in
2 Peter 3:14-15, where the "day of the Lord" experience is
clearly at the end of the millennium (because the old heavens and
earth will be destroyed and replaced with the new). In such
passages are exhortations for true believers to live godly lives
in the light of God's future judgment on unbelievers.

(Well for once the guys have a truth. Some verses are for people
down the passage of time, and for a generality for all Christians
for all ages, and so they do not come into the condemnation of the
wrath of God when the second death in the lake of fire takes
place - Keith Hunt)

3. Does not Matthew 24:37-42, where people are taken out of the
world, teach a posttribulational rapture?

In fact, Matthew 24:37-42 teaches just the opposite. First, it
teaches that Noah and his family were left alive while the whole
world was taken away in death and judgment. This is exactly the
sequence to be expected at Christ's glorious appearing as taught
in the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-43), the
parable of the dragnet (Matthew 13:47-50), and the "sheep and
goats" judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31-46). In every one
of these instances, at the glorious appearing, unbelievers are
taken away in judgment, and the righteous believers remain.

(Noah and his example is given by Jesus not to teach the wicked
with remain while believers disappear. It is given in the
context, yes context again, of "unexpected" - "unknown" - see
verse 36. Life was going on quite normal in the days of Noah,
Jesus gives examples of normal life of that time. It was so, right 
up to the time of the flood, that came UNEXPECTED. The whole section 
is to do with not knowing the day of Christ's return, only the Father,
and to watch the signs Jesus has given in the whole chapter, so
that day does not come UNEXPECTEDLY on Christians. For when it
does come the resurrection will take place and true Christians
will disappear to be with the Lord, verses 40-42. The Lord does
not come until AFTER the great tribulation and the day of the
Lord - Keith Hunt)

4. Does not a pretribulation rapture result in two second comings
of Christ, whereas Scripture teaches there is only one second
coming?

Not at all. Regardless of the rapture position one holds,
Christ's second coming is one event that occurs in two parts -
Christ coming in the air to rapture the church and Christ coming
to earth to conquer the world and set up His kingdom.

(Have you ever heard of such SILLY AND FROM PLANET PLUTO
reasonings? They tell us Christ's second coming is ONE EVENT,
then go on to say the one event has TWO PARTS. Now when you
understand as shown by them, that the two parts have 7 years
between them .... I mean, give me a break, one event with a
secret and visible two parts with 7 years in-between. This has
got to be one of the stupidest human reasonings in Christian
theology - Keith Hunt)

5. If pretribulationism is true, why doesn't Revelation 4-19
mention the church in heaven?

It is true that the Greek word for church (ekklesia) is not used
of the church in heaven in Revelation 4-19. However, that does
not mean the church is invisible. The church appears in heaven at
least twice. First, the 24 elders in Revelation 4-5 symbolize the
church. 

(Come on now, wow, what more silly reasoning - the 24 elders
symbolize the church. Give me another break! There is nothing in
the entire Bible to acquaint the 24 elders in heaven as
symbolizing the Church of God being in heaven - grasping at straws 
they are - Keith Hunt)

Second, the phrase "you saints and apostles and prophets" in
Revelation 18:20 clearly refers to the church in heaven. 

(Once more, this is getting so silly they should go on Canada's
TV show called "Just for Laughs." Jesus is writing (He's the
author of Revelation, see the beginning of chapter one) that yes the
heaven needs to rejoice over the obliteration of Babylon, but
also the apostles and prophets... It does NOT say the apostles
and prophets are in heaven. Again that has to be read into it, and if
you believe in the immortality of the soul and the secret rapture
idea, then you will read into this verse what these two guys have
done, to hold your teaching of a secret rapture with saints in
heaven for 7 years before Jesus returns visibly - Keith Hunt)

Also, Revelation 19 pictures the church (the bride of Christ) in
heaven prior to her triumphal return. Which rapture scenario best
accounts for the church being in heaven in these texts at this
time? A pretribulation rapture.

(The chapter does begin with a scene in heaven. But when we get
to the "Lord God omnipotent reigns" verse 6, we have come to the
Lord reigning, simple as that, right, yes pretty simple. The Lord
now reigns. When does the Lord reign? When He returns to earth.
His wife has made herself ready - white garments she has, that are the
righteousness of the saints, verses 7,8, and see Ps.119:172. When do 
the saints get to be with Christ? We have seen at the LAST trumpet sound. 
The resurrection takes place. They rise to meet Jesus in the air, in
the clouds - 1 Thes.4:13-17. The bride and the Groom are together; 
the marriage of the Lamb to the bride, the saints, takes place. 
Where? When they come together, as most human marriages do the same. 
They come together in the clouds of the air of this planet. This is NOT 
in heaven but in the atmosphere of this earth. Simple when you put 
Scripture with Scripture - Keith Hunt)

6. Why is Revelation addressed to the church if the church will
not experience the Tribulation period due to the rapture?

These texts cannot be used to determine the time of the rapture.
One of the chief characteristics of the rapture is that it will
be sudden, unexpected, and surprising. "No man knows the day or
the hour," so we should live so as to "be ready, for the Son of
Man is coming at an hour you do not expect" (Matthew 24:44). Only
a pretribulation rapture preserves an imminent ("at any moment")
return of Christ. 

(While no man knows the day not the hour of Jesus' return, only
the Father. Jesus in the Gospels and in the book of Revelation,
gives us signs upon signs as to what to watch for, leading up to the
day of His return. The idea of an "imminent" - "any moment"
return of Christ, is absolutely against all the signs and waymarks
Jesus Himself has given us. The idea that Jesus can return at any
second, is totally false, and not taught anywhere in the Bible.
Only those teaching a secret rapture can hold this "any second"
return for Jesus. The Bible holds no such view.
I very dogmatically will tell you that Jesus CANNOT return until
certain prophecies have taken place - certain signs He gave MUST
COME TO PASS before He can return - Keith Hunt)

Throughout the ages, Christians have understood the rapture to be
imminent. Nothing could be a better motivator to holy living than
knowing that Jesus could come at any moment.

(If it takes the idea that Christ can come at any minute or
second, to make you live a holy life, to serve the Lord, to love
the Lord with all your heart, life and mind, then YOUR CHRISTIAN
RELIGION I MUST QUESTION - Keith Hunt)

....................

Feast of Trumpets - 2012