Understanding the Basics of Pietism

Pietism is difficult to define because it can be taught and practiced in an unlimited number of ways. Some versions appear to be innocuous while others are so radical that most people would see that something is wrong. I now know that no version of pietism is actually innocuous. If a teaching is called pietism but teaches no more than what God has always used to sanctify Christians, then it is not really pietism. Real pietism always harms those who embrace it.

The essence of pietism is this: It is a practice designed to lead to an experience that purports to give one an elite or special status compared to ordinary Christians. The Bible addresses this error in the book of Colossians.⁴ The false teachers in Colossae claimed to have the secret to a superior Christian experience that would cause people to rise above the bad “fate” they feared. Paul went on to explain that they already had everything they needed through Christ and His work on the cross. Another way of stating this is: If after having fully trusted Christ’s finished work on the cross, you are told that you are still lacking something, you are being taught pietism.

Church history is littered with misguided pietistic movements. Many of them are linked with mysticism. I will give examples later in this article. Pietism can be practiced many ways including enforced solitude, asceticism of various forms, man made religious practices, legalism, submission to human authorities who claim special status, and many other practices and teachings. The fact that pietism has many forms can be seen by the litany Paul gives in Colossians:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:16-23)
Paul calls this approach “self-made religion” which is exactly what all forms of pietism are. They all suggest that having been converted by the Lord through the cross and practicing His ordained means of grace by faith are inadequate. They have discovered a better way that leads to a higher order experience. Paul says they have “the appearance of wisdom.”

His list includes ascetic practices. These appear to most poorly taught Christians to be what the Lord wants. They reason, “Of course God is happier with a person who sells all and moves into a convent where he takes an oath of poverty than He is with someone who goes to work forty hours a week and uses some of the money to buy things.” Is He? When I was a pietist, if someone told me he prayed two hours a day, then I had to pray three hours to make sure I wasn’t missing out on something. I reasoned, “Of course God is happier with a Christian who prays three hours than one who prays two.” Is He? When I was a pietist I would work on cranking up my desire for holiness because I reasoned that holiness is found through something in the person rather than through God’s grace. Based on sermons I’d heard I reasoned, “Christians are not experiencing a higher degree of holiness because they do not desire it enough.” Is that true? No, none of these pietistic statements are true.Such teachings lead to elitism and comparing ourselves to others. The Bible tells us not to do that. Paul stated that these practices “are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

God is committed to the holiness of everyone He has redeemed. He makes them holy through His ordained means of grace. Paul warned both the Galatians and the Colossians against adding anything to the work of Christ: “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him” (Colossians 2:6); “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). This means that salvation is by grace through faith and sanctification is by grace through faith. There is no secret principle to be discovered that creates higher order Christians. Here is how it is explained in Hebrews: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. . . . For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:10, 14). Pietism is an attack on the scriptural truth that Christ has already done it all and that this is true for all Christians. I believe in progressive sanctification, but God is sanctifying all Christians by the same means.

Pietism in Church History

Since pietism existed in Colossae in Paul’s day it has always been in the church. But we want to analyze some expressions of it to see why it arises and how it works. Church historian Justo Gonzalez chronicles the beginnings of the monastic movement which was apparently a reaction to a perception that popularity and success had tainted Christianity after it was endorsed by Constantine. ⁵ The question they dealt with was how to overcome Satan (pietism often offers special protection from Satan) who was tempting people with success now that martyrdom was no longer available. Gonzalez writes, “Many found an answer in the monastic life: to flee from human society, to leave everything behind, to dominate the body and its passions, which gave way to temptation. Thus, at the very time when churches in large cities were flooded by thousands demanding baptism, there was a veritable exodus of other thousands who sought beatitude in solitude.”⁶ This version produced the Desert Fathers as they have come to be known.

Some documents from the early church fathers describe the lives of “anchorite” monks who fled society to live in the desert. One was Anthony who gave away all his riches before entering his new life: “He then [after leaving his teacher] went to live in an abandoned cemetery, where he subsisted on bread, which some kind souls brought him every few days. According to Athanasius, at this time Anthony began having visions of demons that accosted him almost continuously.”⁷ Ironically, fleeing the city to escape Satan’s temptations did nothing to actually deliver him from Satan.

The monastic movement led to the idea that one could become a higher order Christian and be more pleasing to God. The movement also introduced mystical practices that today are being brought back into the church under the guise that they came from a time when Christianity was pristine and not tainted by modernity.⁸ What is really happening is a repeat of history. When Christians perceived that the success of churches in times of prosperity caused certain ills, they fled to solitude where they became mystics. This process is happening today again. But these pietistic movements did not lead to a more pristine Christianity in the past, nor do they do so today. They lead to elitism as Gonzalez points out: “On the other hand, this sort of life was not free of temptations. As years went by, many monks came to the conclusion that, since their life was holier that that of most bishops and other leaders of the church, it was they, and not those leaders, who should decide what was proper Christian teaching.”⁹ Some today have determined that ordinary Christians¹⁰ are so tainted by modernity that these elite ones refuse to be called “Christian” but rather prefer the term “Christ followers” because the elite deem themselves to be following Christ in a pristine way that is not true of the rest of us.

The monastic movement became more organized and still exists today. The Roman Catholic Church acclaimed their deeds done beyond what is required of ordinary Christians and developed a teaching called “works of supererogation,” a teaching rejected by the Reformers.

An example of the ‘works done beyond’ are the monastic vows taken by certain monastic orders: They are considered works of supererogation in Rome. Those who take the vows are deemed more pious than ordinary Christians.

Luther wrote a lengthy essay demonstrating that scripture rejects the validity of monastic vows.¹¹ His essay is also an interesting look into the issues that were debated at the time of the Reformation. One key issue for Luther was that the monastics went beyond the gospel and made commandments out of matters that God has not commanded and in so doing sought to achieve a superior standing before God. One such example was celibacy. Luther argued that vowing something that God had not commanded is sinful: “The very foundation of the monastic vows is godlessness, blasphemy, sacrilege, which has befallen them because they spurn Christ, their leader and light, and presume to follow other things they think better.”¹² They thought they could improve on the teachings of Christ and live a superior spirituality by swearing oaths to live pious lives beyond anything Christ required of His people. Luther condemned this as sinful. Luther wrote, “If you obey the gospel, you ought to regard celibacy as a matter of free choice: if you do not hold it as a matter of free choice, you are not obeying the gospel. . . . A vow of chastity, therefore, is diametrically opposed to the gospel.”¹³ So in Luther’s day, he taught that Christians were in error and sin if they bound themselves by oath to a practice not required by Christ. Though they may think themselves more pious than ordinary Christians because of their special vows, Luther called them gross sinners.

In spite of Luther’s thundering condemnation of those who practiced the pietism of Rome (not called pietism at that time), in less than 200 years it was a Lutheran, Phillip Jacob Spener, who is credited as the creator of the movement that gained the name “pietism.”¹⁴ However, Spener himself apparently was not a pietist in the sense of claiming a higher order Christianity. The list of Spener’s proposals for the church includes more intensive Bible study, the practice of the priesthood of believers, practicing deeds of unselfish love, and dealing with unbelievers and heretics with dialogue and loving persuasion rather than compulsion.¹⁵ Spener’s concern was corruption: “He was reacting against the polemical orthodoxy that was sterile amid the immorality and terrible social conditions following the Thirty Years’ War.”¹⁶ Though it could be argued that the term pietism should be reserved only for movements that seek to reform a corrupt situation in the church, the fact is that it became attached to the mysticism of Jacob Boehme and his many spiritual descendants. Not only that, many movements to fix a perceived problems in the church have taken a mystical, elitist, trajectory which is what characterizes pietists.

So with due respect to people who consider themselves “pietist” along the lines of Spener, I believe that my definition describes the key ideas that have been promoted in church history. The problems Spener wanted to cure were caused by the existence of the state church which was not a Biblical idea. They did not need more piety; they needed to define the church in Biblical terms. Unregenerate people forced into a state church because of a war are by nature impious. The state church will always be corrupt because Christ’s church is not attached to a particular civil government.

Mysticism and Perfectionism

Boehme’s mysticism included an eclectic mix gleaned from cabbalism, alchemy, neoplatonism, and other really bad sources. Even Theosophists claim Boehme as one of their own.¹⁷ People of his ilk have arisen with some very strange versions of pietism. One was Jane Leade whose mystical, elitist writings are preserved on websites of her present day followers. This sample of Leade from An Enochian Walked with God shows how elitist pietism can be:
But now methinks, I hear some say at the Reading of This, Oh! You have mentioned a high and lofty State, which is as a new thing that hath not been declared; as that in this present Life there should be found any to ascend to the New-Jerusalem, to feast and worship GOD There; This, you will say belongs to the Enochian Life; but That Age of the World is not yet come, so as to know a Translated State. We grant it, that it is not common, only peculiar to some, that in Enoch’s Spirit are raised to walk with GOD, and so are taken up in the Spirit wholly. But we may hope This day of the Spirit is coming on, whereby it shall be known more universally; in the which Angelical Spirits shall ascend, and That Divine Principle shall open, that now hath been so long shut up: Then you will know a New-state of Living, that you never knew before; for it will turn the Love of all mortal Things out of the Hearts-door: This will in very deed be known.¹⁸
Leade’s pietism re-emerged in the twentieth century in the Latter Rain movement that also claimed that certain elite Christians would emerge. They claimed that the “manifest sons of God” that Paul mentions in Romans 8 are not all the saints at the resurrection (which is what Paul taught) but certain elite Christians who achieved that status now. The Latter Rain movement has now become the latter day apostles and prophets movement that is also pietistic to the core. They claim special status that ordinary Christians know nothing about. It is followers of that movement who typically post Leade’s writings on websites.

Not all versions of pietism are as radical and heretical as that of Boehme and his spiritual descendants. For example, Boehme’s ideas influenced William Law: “[A]lthough they [Boehme’s writings] strongly influenced The Spirit of Love (1752, 1754) and other later writings of William Law, causing a rift between Law and John Wesley, who described Boehme’s writings as ‘most sublime nonsense.’”¹⁹ But Wesley’s Methodism and perfectionism were themselves pietistic. Wesley is an example of a much less extreme pietism. But the idea that some humanly discovered and implemented method can lead to the achievement of a better Christian life than through the ordinary means of grace is nevertheless pietism.

Some of our Evangelical denominations have been pietist from their very inception. Charles Finney’s teaching in the mid 19^th century caused the problem. Finney’s teachings, as I have argued before, were heretical. He too taught Christian perfection. Wesley at least held to prevenient grace so as to avoid Pelagianism.²⁰ Finney was fully Pelagian in his approach to both salvation and sanctification.²¹ And his innovations permanently changed much of American Evangelicalism. After Finney other perfectionist movements arose. The Holiness movement, for example, came not long after Finney. Both the Holiness movement and the subsequent Pentecostal movement held to second blessing doctrines that by nature are pietist because they create an elite category of Christians who have had a special experience that ordinary Christians lack. The Keswick Holiness (also known as the “Higher life” movement) movement is an example of pietism and elitism as well. The Holiness movement in general is a pietistic movement that claims a special experience that creates higher order, (often supposedly perfected) Christians. They are in error. Ironically, the deeper life or higher order Christians do have something distinct about them—they have embraced error.

Today the largest new pietist movement is the Emergent Church. As I pointed out earlier, pietism often arises in response to the perception (sometimes warranted) that the church has become too worldly and it seems true once again today. Some now assume that since ordinary Christianity is compromised, they must discover an extraordinary way to become better Christians. One Emergent leader has even entitled one of his works, “A New Kind of Christian.”²² But this movement really isn’t all that new. It draws on teachings and practices found in other pietist movements in church history. In fact, a recent Emergent book includes essays by those experimenting with communal living, something I tried in my pietist days!²³

Furthermore, the Purpose Driven movement is also a pietistic movement. Rick Warren claims there are world class Christians that are in a better category than ordinary Christians. He had his followers take a long oath at a baseball field to pledge themselves to serving his new reformation. I already mentioned the apostles and prophets movement that is pietistic. So ironically, three huge movements in American evangelicalism (Purpose Driven, Emergent, and C. Peter Wagner’s latter day apostles) are all based on pietism. The three movements seem radically diverse, but each one claims to be a new reformation and each offers a higher status than that of ordinary Christians.

Is Orthodoxy Dead?

Church history tells us that the charge pietistic reformers level against the church is that the church practices “dead orthodoxy.” Some years ago I hosted a pastor’s meeting at which pastors could discuss theological ideas. Position papers were presented and then critiqued by the group. Some of the pastors came from the Charismatic movement (also pietistic). A common theme from the Charismatic pastors was their distain for doctrine. Because theirs was a reform movement, they were fighting “dead orthodoxy.”

I spoke after one of our meetings with a pastor who told me that when he was a Lutheran, reciting creeds and doctrines caused him to be spiritually dead. I responded, “So believing that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, who lived a sinless life, who died for sins and was raised on the third day and bodily ascended into heaven killed you spiritually?” He said, “I didn’t really believe those things.” He had assumed that the cause of his unbelief was not sin, but a church that recited creeds. I believe that it is much better to preach those doctrines from the pulpit and call for people to repent and turn to Christ than to make recitation part of a liturgy. But nevertheless the creeds were not the problem, unbelief was.

Christian orthodoxy simply means holding to the true beliefs revealed in Scripture. These beliefs are often systematized as topical teachings such as the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of justification, and so on. Genuine faith in the truth of the gospel is saving faith. No one having saving faith is “dead.” In Ephesians 2:1-8 Paul teaches that we were dead, but that God made us alive, and that He did so by grace through faith. It is also true that where genuine saving faith exists, it produces evidence in the lives of those who have it as Paul asserts in Ephesians 2:10. So when James says that faith without works is dead, he refers to something other than the type of faith that Paul says is a work of grace. It is the type of faith demons have (see James 2:17-19). In the gospel of John, John uses the term “believe” in two ways.²⁴ There are those, for example, who “believed” in John 8:30 but when confronted with their need to be set free began to debate Jesus and later accused him of sin (see John 8:31-47). Jesus told them they were definitely not from God. But in many other places in John those who believe are true believers who have eternal life.

My conclusion is that “dead orthodoxy” is orthodoxy that people might fight for because of parochial reasons (“this is our tradition and no one is going to change it”) but in which they put only mental assent faith. I gave mental assent to creeds when I was 12 years old because it was my duty to join the church at that age; but I was a dead sinner. But it most assuredly was not the truth contained in the creeds that killed me; it was my unbelief. Those “believers” in John 8 proved themselves to be unbelievers by refusing to become Jesus’ disciples, learn the truth, and be set free.

Pietism misdiagnoses the problem and creates a false solution. It sees a compromised church that is apparently caught in dead orthodoxy. The real problem is not dead orthodoxy but spiritually dead sinners who give mental assent to orthodox truth but show no signs of regeneration. If indeed such a church existed (if truth really is there God has His remnant there as well), that church would be characterized by worldliness and sin. This is the case because dead sinners do not bear spiritual fruit. There was a church in Revelation that Jesus called “dead.” Pietism that holds to the true gospel but goes beyond it imagining that the dead sinners who are church members are Christians. When some of them become regenerate through the efforts of the pietists, they assume they have now entered a higher class of Christianity. They posit two types of Christian: “carnal” Christians and “spiritual” Christians. But in reality there are only Christians and dead sinners.

Furthermore, pietism sees the lack of good fruit in the “dead orthodox” churches to be a sign that teaching doctrine is of no value and that what really matters is practice and not doctrine. So they gravitate to works righteousness. This is precisely the mode of the Emergen Church. It has been the approach of pietists throughout history. But works that do not result from a prior work of grace (which is the result of God’s work through the gospel to convert dead sinners) are in fact “dead works” no matter how pious they look. Mother Theresa did good works but denied the exclusive claims of the gospel. That “piety” is of no eternal value if those who were the recipients of the good works never hear or believe the gospel and thus end up in hell.

God’s revealed truth is never dead, but sometimes it falls on dead ears. In John 6 multitudes who were interested in following Jesus for bread left Him when He spoke the truth to them. The few who did not have dead ears were asked if they would leave too. Peter answered for the group: “Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God’” (John 6:68, 69). Genuine faith like that is not the domain of higher order pietists who learned the secrets of the deeper life, it is characteristic of every one of Christ’s true flock who ever exists. Pietists think that adding some man made process to what Christ has provided for all Christians throughout the centuries can cure a problem that never existed: being “dead” because of believing the truth. Instead of a cure, they create an illness as they lead people away from the finished work of Christ.

Pietistic Misuse of 1Corinthians

The favorite proof text for pietists of all sorts has been this passage: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ” (1Corinthians 3:1 KJV). I cite the KJV because that is where the term “carnal” as in “carnal Christian” came from. In my early pietist days, as I said, I was influenced by Watchman Nee. He made a strong point about a passage just before this verse: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man” (1Corinthians 2:14, 15). The word “natural” from the Greek is literally “soulish.” Nee used that as proof for his anatomical sanctification scheme. In that scheme, the spiritual man is one whose soul is inclined to the spirit (i.e. their spirit as joined to the Spirit) rather than to the external world through the body. My other early teacher, Kenneth Hagin, had a similar teaching but it was based on the idea of following one’s spirit rather than what he called “sense perception” (lying symptoms that you were sick when God said you were healed for example). The result of these teachings is a two tiered schema for the church: the carnal Christian and the spiritual Christian. In pietism there is always a process that leads to an experience that brings one into the more favorable category.

But was Paul teaching that some Christians are actually not spiritual but carnal or “soulish”? I used to think so until I read Gordon Fee’s excellent commentary on 1Corinthians. The “carnal Christian” teaching fails to take into consideration the larger context of Paul’s letter. The “natural man” who does receive the things of God on the ground that he thinks them “foolish” is not a carnal Christian, but a person who has rejected the gospel. This can be seen by Paul’s prior use of “foolish” in chapter 1: “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1Corinthians 1:23-25). The lost who are not “the called” are the ones who consider the message of the cross “foolish.”

Furthermore, 1Corinthians 2:14 teaches complete inability, not merely a lack that is only due to not having the right teaching. In the pietist scheme of things, the carnal Christians could remedy their problem if they would only adopt the teachings and practices promoted by the pietists. But the Greek of 1Corinthians 2:14 literally says that the natural man is “ou dunatai gno_nai” not able (i.e. without power) to know. He cannot know because he is unregenerate, he does not have the Holy Spirit. Believers have the Holy Spirit, unbelievers do not. The natural man is an unbeliever, not a carnal Christian. Paul makes this clear in Romans:
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:5-9
In Romans it is made explicitly clear that those who are “fleshly” and “without power” (the same word as used in 1Corinthians 2:14 – dunamis) to serve God, obey God, or please God are not Christian. They are not carnal Christians, they are lost in sin.²⁵

Gordon Fee points out that this section in 1Corinthians has been subjected to misuse for a very long time:
This paragraph has endured a most unfortunate history of application in the church. Paul’s own point has been almost totally lost in favor of an interpretation nearly 180 degrees the opposite of his intent. Almost every form of spiritual elitism, “deeper life” movement, and “second blessing” doctrine has appealed to this text. To receive the Spirit according to their special expression paves the way for people to know “deeper truths” about God. One special brand of this elitism surfaces among some who have pushed the possibilities of “faith” to the extreme, and regularly make a “special revelation” from the Spirit their final court of appeal. Other “lesser” brothers and sisters are simply living below their full privileges in Christ. Indeed, some advocates of this form of spirituality bid fair to repeat the Corinthian error in its totality.²⁶
The great irony is that those who find a hyper-spirituality doctrine in 1Corinthians are falling into the very error Paul wrote to correct, as Fee so eloquently pointed out. If you have been subjected to pietistic teachings of one form or another, I urge you to buy Gordon Fee’s commentary that I cite here and read it. It was very instrumental in helping me find my way back to the truth.

But you may be thinking, “Paul did call the Corinthians ‘carnal’ did he not? So how can you say there are no ‘carnal Christians’?” That is a very good question. The answer is found in Paul’s use of irony. Some of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible are misunderstood when an ironic statement is taken to be literal. Another example is the passage in Revelation 3 where Christ is standing at the door knocking. This is an example of irony—Christ on the outside of His own church seeking to come in for table fellowship when the table fellowship of the church is supposed to be all about Christ! But not seeing the irony, people take this as an evangelistic passage and teach that the sinner has to open the door or Jesus will be stuck outside.

Similarly, when Paul says to the Corinthians that they are “carnal” (1Corinthians 3:1) he is issuing an ironic rebuke! They were the ones listening to the “super apostles” who suggested Paul was not spiritual like they were. The Corinthians prided themselves in their supposedly superior spirituality. Paul said that true spirituality was always centered on the cross, not the wisdom of men. The Spirit’s work in our lives is because of the cross. But the Corinthians were thinking and acting like unbelievers, i.e. the “carnal.” Again, Fee helps us:
First, picking up the theme of being “spiritual” from what has just preceded, Paul makes a frontal attack and pronounces the Corinthians as not spiritual at all. Indeed, they are just the opposite: they are “fleshly”—still thinking like mere human beings, those who do not have the Spirit. With this charge Paul exposed himself to centuries of misunderstanding. But his concern is singular: not to suggest classes of Christians or grades if spirituality, but to get them to stop thinking like the people of this present age.²⁷
So Paul’s use of irony to rebuke the Corinthians is interpreted as literal in order to set up an elitist version of Christianity which is the very thing the Corinthians did that Paul was rebuking.

Pietistic teachings based on bad exegesis of 1Corinthians have abounded for centuries. Those I have mentioned in this article are merely a sampling. Another I heard was that the bride of Christ will consist of the elite Christians and that lesser Christians will merely be “handmaidens” who get to watch but are not part of the marriage supper of the Lamb. I am sure that my readers have heard versions of this that I have not. But if you understand one thing, the two categories are the regenerate and unregenerate—the first category are those who are spiritual, the second are those who are carnal—you will have understood Paul’s teaching in Romans and 1Corinthians. Being regenerate is an extraordinary thing which is miraculous work of grace that God gave to unworthy sinners.

Conclusion

Pietism cannot help but take people’s minds off of the gospel. When I was a pietist I thought salvation was an interesting first step a person took, but mostly lost interest in the topic unless I ran across someone who needed to pray the sinners prayer, which I imagined was the first step. The gospel of Christ was only of marginal interest to me as I sought the “deeper things.” The more I tried to be a very special type of Christian, the further my mind wandered from the cross. I was guilty of the very thing for which Paul rebuked the Corinthians.

I lament the wasted years sometimes; but my wife reminds me to think about God’s providence. She says, “If we had not gone through all that back then you would not be able to help people the way you do now.” This is true. My prayer is that my “wasted” 10 years will help some of my readers avoid falling into the same type of trap. If you have salvation, the forgiveness of sins, you have the greatest imaginable spiritual riches. It truly is an extraordinary thing to be a Christian.

Listen to the radio program on this topic
Issue 101 – July / August 2007

---

End Notes

1. Nee had an unusual anatomical sanctification scheme that requires distinguishing between body, soul and spirit with the spirit being the pristine source of sanctification and the body needing to be subdued as the soul learns to follow the regenerated human spirit.
2. One thing Hagin and Nee had in common that probably attracted me to both of them was the idea of the primacy of the human spirit and the idea of gaining special knowledge by following ones spirit.
3. Though the college had a pietistic 2nd blessing doctrine, my teachers were sound and pointed me in the right direction. I could have been saved from years of error had I listened more closely to some of them.
4. See CIC Issue 69; March/April 2002 The Colossian Heresy Part 1 for a detailed, theological explanation of Colossians chapter 2. http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue69.htm
5. Justo L. Gonzalez The Story of Christianity Vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1984) 136, 137.
6. Ibid. 137.
7. Ibid. 140, 141.
8. The Emergent Church movement is well known for doing this.
9. Gonzalez vol. 1, 143.
10. When I speak of “ordinary Christians” I mean those who are truly converted but claim no special or elite status. Nominal “Christians” who are actually unregenerate are not Christian at all in the Biblical sense.
11. Martin Luther, The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows from 55-Volume American Edition Luther’s Works on CD-ROM (Fortress Press, Concordia Publishing: Minneapolis, 2001) Vol. 44, page 243.
12. Ibid. 260.
13. Ibid. 262.
14. The New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright, and J.I. Packer ed. (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1988) s.v. Pietism, 516.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/boehme.html
18. http://www.passtheword.org/Jane-Lead/enocwalk.htm in a section called “The Enochian Life.”
19. The New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. Boehme, Jacob 106.
20. Pelagius was an early heretic, condemned by church councils, who taught that all humans have the ability to obey God without a prior work of grace.
21. See CIC Issue 56 Charles Finney’s Influence on American Evangelicalism – http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue53.htm
22. Written by Brian McLaren
23. An Emergent Manifesto of Hope Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007)
24. Ryan Habbena’s article Formulating a Theology of pistueo_ (believe) in John’s Narative: http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch007.htm published at cicministry.org under “articles/scholarly.”
25. See Gordon Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” in The NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament; (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1987) 115 – 120 for an excellent scholarly discussion of what Paul means by the “natural man.” It is noteworthy that Fee is a Pentecostal and as such belongs to a denomination that tends to pietism; but Fee warns against such interpretations of 1Corinthians.
26. Ibid. 120.
27. Ibid. 122.

---

Published by Twin City Fellowship

God’s Plan of Salvation

Let us go all the way back to Genesis chapter 3, where we learn about the disobedience and fall of man. After Adam and Eve sinned, God clothed them with “garments of skins” (Gen. 3:21). Their own method of covering themselves with fig leaves was not sufficient. Man cannot cover himself. God must provide the covering. In order to make them garments of skins, God had to slay an innocent animal or animals. Innocent blood had to be shed.

God was here giving Adam and Eve a picture of the salvation which He offers to every person. Notice the following truths: (1) The importance of the blood. The blood of an innocent victim had to be shed. (2) Expiation for sin is only possible where there is blood shed: “it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation” (Lev. 17:11). This means that man’s sin problem cannot be solved apart from the shedding of blood. (3) God’s plan of salvation involves the death of an innocent substitute. Sin deserves and demands judgment and death. An animal was killed instead of Adam and Eve.

In Genesis chapter 4 we have Cain’s offering and Abel’s offering. Abel’s offering was a blood sacrifice. An innocent animal was slain. Cain brought the work and labor of his own hands which was not acceptable. Man’s works and intentions and mitzvoth [meritorious acts] fall short of what God requires.

Animal sacrifices were offered even before the time of Abraham. Not only did Abel offer an animal sacrifice, but Noah

God’s holy law is summarized by the 10 Statements or Commandments found in the Torah (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). None of us have kept the 10 Commandments perfectly. None of us have given God first place every day of our lives. There have been times, especially in the days of our youth, when we have all dishonored and disobeyed our parents. We have all taken the Lord’s Name in vain at one time or another. When we are honest, most of us would admit that we have stolen something that did not belong to us. In short, we are all law breakers deserving death! And how many of us have kept the greatest commandment of all found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5?

God knew that, as sinful persons, none of us could keep His holy commandments. For that reason He provided for our sins through the sacrificial system. The animal offered for sacrifice had to be “without blemish” (Lev. 1:3; etc.). The substitute who dies must be perfect and “without blemish.”

This brings us back again to man’s basic problem. “God’s perfect holiness and justice demands that sin be punished by death (compare Gen. 2:17 and Exodus 21:12,15-17). When the Hebrew man brought forward the spotless lamb and placed it on the altar he was acknowledging the following:

I recognize that I am a sinner (Eccl. 7:20) and that I deserve to die. However, as I put my hand on this spotless lamb (see Lev. 1:4), I am acknowledging that this innocent animal is my substitute and is going to die in my place. The blood of this animal will be shed so that I can live.

All of these offerings and sacrifices were a picture of God’s provision for man’s salvation. God was giving the children of Israel a picture of the sinless Substitute who would someday come.

God’s Promise of a Savior

Just as the Jews were the custodians of the Holy Scriptures, so too they were the custodians of the Messianic promises. God promised Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed by Abraham (Gen. 12:3). Since all people on earth are sinners (Psalm 14:2-3), all people deserve God’s curse, not God’s blessing. Only those who have been saved from their sins can be blessed of God. Thus the promise of blessing for the families of the earth must include salvation for the families of the earth and this salvation (Yeshua) would come through the seed of Abraham. The Messiah must be of the line of Abraham.

The same promise was renewed to Isaac (Gen. 21:12) and Jacob (Gen. 28:14) and thus the Messiah must also be a descendant of Isaac and Jacob. Since the Jews may be defined as those who have descended from Jacob, we can say that the Savior must be a Jew. He must be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In Genesis 49:10 we learn that the kingly line (the line possessing “the scepter”) must come out of the tribe of Judah. Since the Messiah will be God’s anointed King (see Psalm 2), the Messiah must come from the line of Judah.

In Isaiah 11:1 we learn that the Messiah, God’s great King, must come from Jesse, hence from the line of David (Jesse was David’s father). The covenant God made with David (2 Samuel chapter 7) confirms that this great King must come from the line of king David.

What About His Birth?

There is an amazing prediction in Micah which says that Israel’s great Ruler must come out of Bethlehem of Judah: “And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me—One whose origin is from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2).

God’s great sign or miracle would be that the Messiah must be born of a virgin: “Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The Hebrew term “young woman” (almah) is used in the Torah of women who were certainly virgins (see Gen. 24:43 and Exodus 2:8). The Jewish translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint in the third century b.c.e. used parthenos to translate the word almah, and the Greek term parthenos clearly denoted virginity.

The context of Isaiah 7:14 involves the LORD speaking to Ahaz about a great sign or miracle. For a young woman to become pregnant and give birth to a son is not a miracle. It happens all the time. But for a virgin to become pregnant and give birth to a son is a great miracle indeed.

In Isaiah 9:5 (9:6 in most English versions) the male child who is born is called the “the Mighty God” () and “peaceable ruler.” He will trace His human descent from David (Isaiah 9:6; 9:7 in most English versions).

To summarize his birth: It must be in Bethlehem of Judah. It must be a miracle birth, by way of a virgin. The One born will be “the Mighty God” but will trace His human lineage through David.

The Death of Messiah—
Does The Messiah Have to Die?

The Tanakh gives us the answer to this very important question. The first promise of the Messiah is found in Genesis 3:15. Since the JPS edition of the Tanakh does not accurately translate this verse, I will give a literal rendering from the Hebrew: “And I will put enmity (hatred) between you (the serpent) and the women (Eve), and between your seed and her seed; HE shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

The Messiah is here spoken of as “the seed of the woman.” The seed of the woman will have his heel bruised. This implies that the Messiah must suffer. Let us clarify this with other Scripture.

Daniel chapter 9 is a passage which orthodox Jews are today told not to read. It is a forbidden passage. The main reason for this is found in verse 26 where we are told that the Messiah will be CUT OFF.

The JPS edition of the Tanakh does not accurately translate this verse. It is translated as follows: “The anointed one will disappear and vanish.” “Anointed one” is a good translation because the term “Messiah” simply means “the anointed one.” But the verb does not mean “disappear.” The meaning of the Hebrew term is very clear and every rabbi is familiar with this common Hebrew term. It means “cut off” and often is used in the Hebrew Scriptures of a violent death. One example is in Genesis 9:11 where men are “cut off” by the violent death caused by the flood waters in the days of Noah. It is interesting that in Genesis 9:11 the JPS translators render this verb “cut off.” Daniel 9:26 literally says:

“the anointed One will be cut off; it is not for Him”

He is not cut off for any crime which He had done, but He is cut off for the sake of others. He died, not for Himself, but for others, as their Substitute. This is why the common English version says, “Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself.”

The Time of Messiah’s Death

The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 is truly amazing. Not only must the Messiah die (be cut off), but this passage also tells us when this will happen. Follow the calculations. [Note: these calculations are done very simply here for the purpose of this booklet. For a more exact calculation, factors such as leap year, etc. must be figured. However, the date arrived at is good within 10 years. If you want a more detailed explanation and a more exact calculation, write to me and I will recommend further reading on this fascinating prophecy. For our purposes, however, the following calculations will suffice.]

Daniel sees the history of the nation Israel as a period of 70 weeks. The Hebrew term for “week” is a period of seven, but in this case it is not a period of seven days (as we normally think of a week) but a period of seven years. The beginning of this 70 “week” period was when the commandment was given to restore and build Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25). This commandment was given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 445 b.c.e. (compare Neh. 2:1-8). When must the Messiah be cut off? Verse 26 says He will be CUT OFF after 62 “weeks” (which must be added to the seven “weeks” of verse 25), making a total of 69 “weeks” (62 + 7 = 69). The Messiah, therefore, must die after 69 “weeks.”

With each “week” as 7 years, this gives us 69 X 7 total years which equals 483 years. If you add 483 years to 445 b.c.e. you arrive at a time that is close (plus or minus 10 years) to the time Jesus Christ died on the cross. When the exact calculation is made, we learn that these 483 years came to an end just prior to the death of Christ. Thus this amazing prophecy in Daniel not only foretold that Christ would be “cut off” (suffer a violent death) but also it gives the time when this death would occur.

How Must The Messiah Die?

Not only does the Tanakh tell us that the Messiah must die and when He must die, but it also tells us HOW He must die. Again, let us allow the Hebrew Scripture to say what it says.

Psalm 22 is one of the most amazing prophecies found in the Tanakh. Here is described an intensely graphic picture of death by crucifixion (written by David hundreds of years before there even was such a thing as Roman crucifixion). Note the details as you read the Psalm: bones (of the arms, hands and pelvis) out of joint; action of the heart affected; strength exhausted; intense thirst; partial nudity, etc. In verse 19 (verse 18 in many English versions) it even tells what they will do with the victim’s clothes (a prediction which was literally fulfilled by the action of the Roman soldiers, men who were certainly ignorant of this Psalm, thus making any self-fulfilling of the prophecy impossible).

Note especially verse 17 (verse 16 in many English versions). The JPS edition renders the phrase: “they maul my hands and feet.” The exact meaning of the verb is difficult to determine because this is the only place in the Tanakh where this verb occurs. Many Bible scholars believe it means “to bore, to hew, to pierce.” Many English versions thus translate it this way: “They pierced my hands and feet.”

Another key prophecy is found in Zechariah 12:10. This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, but it will be fulfilled at the Messiah’s second coming when the nation Israel will recognize their Messiah. It is when they realize who He is that they will mourn greatly. The Hebrew text says, “They will look upon Me whom they have PIERCED.”

This is another example where the JPS translators have not given us a good rendering of the original Hebrew text. Their flawed translation is this: “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain.” I encourage anyone who knows Hebrew to translate this phrase literally (word for word) based on the Hebrew text. It literally says this:

“They shall look upon Me whom they have PIERCED”

The verb means “pierce, pierce through, run through.” It is used in the Torah in Numbers 25:8 of two people being pierced through with a spear by the hand of Phinehas. It is used in Judges 9:54 of a man being pierced with a dagger. It is used in 1 Samuel 31:4 of Saul being “run through” or pierced by a sword.

It is interesting that the LORD Himself says, “They will look upon ME whom they have pierced.” When was the LORD pierced? When did God die? Remember, the Messiah is more than a mere Man. He is the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:5), even the Son of God (Psalm 2:2,6-7). But how can God have a Son? Consider carefully the words of Proverbs 30:4 (speaking of the Creator God): “Who has ascended heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hand? Who has established all the extremities of the earth? What is his name OR HIS SON’S NAME, if you know it?”

In Zechariah 13:6 we have another interesting passage which possibly pertains to the death of the Messiah, but which has also been obscured by the JPS translation: “What are those sores on your back?” The footnote has this: “Lit. sores between your arms.” Both are poor translations. The Hebrew word for back is not used, neither is the word for arm used. It is the word HAND [] that is found in the Hebrew text. The common English version renders it this way, “What are those wounds in your hands? [literally ‘between your hands’] Then he will say, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” Messiah was wounded between or in the middle of His hands by nail wounds.

We have seen that the Messiah must die, when He must die and how He must die. Now we must think about the most important question:

Why Must The Messiah Die?

Isaiah chapter 53 is another passage which orthodox Jews are told not to read. It is not read in the synagogues. It is a forbidden passage. But why should a chapter from the great prophet of Isaiah be forbidden? Is not all of God’s Word important? If God spoke these words through Isaiah, why should we not read it?

When Jewish people ask sincere questions about Isaiah chapter 53 they are usually told that the suffering servant describes the nation Israel. Though it is true that Israel as a nation has suffered greatly, yet as we read these verses we find that the One spoken of is an individual not a nation. As you read this chapter, notice the repetition of the personal pronoun “HE.”

From the earliest days Isaiah 53 was understood by the Jews as applying to the Messiah. [For Documentation of this fact, see the pamphlet Isaiah 53: Of Whom Does the Prophet Speak? (Available from the Friends of Israel, P.O. Box 908, Bellmawr, NJ 08099-9900 Phone 1-800-257-7843)]. The interpretation that the suffering servant in this passage refers to the nation Israel originated in medieval times. Why did the Jews change their minds about Isaiah 53? Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki (Rashi), a noted medieval commentator of the Eleventh Century said this, “Since Christians interpret Isaiah 53 as being a prophecy concerning Jesus, we maintain that this is a prophecy concerning the people of Israel.”

Let us consider some of these important verses in Isaiah 53 so that we can understand why the Messiah must die:

Verse 3

He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering…He was despised, we held him of no account.

When the Messiah came, He was rejected by men. He was despised and hated and put to death. He was a suffering Messiah. He was not received and welcomed as the Messiah and for the most part His saving work was rejected.

Verse 4

It was…our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God.

The Messiah was smitten by God. A holy God must judge sin and punish sin. When the Messiah took our sins upon Himself, He was judged and punished by God. We are the ones who should have been punished, but He was punished in our place. He died as our Substitute, as our perfect Sacrifice. He took upon Himself the punishment we deserved. He was judged in our place. We are the guilty ones who deserve death, but He died instead of us.

Verse 5

But he was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed.

Why was the Messiah “smitten by God” (verse 4)? He was smitten “because of our sins,” and “because of our iniquities” (verse 5). He died for our sins. This is perhaps the meaning of the phrase in Daniel 9:26 which has been translated, “Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself.” The Hebrew man placed his hand upon the lamb of sacrifice acknowledging that the animal would die for his sins (Leviticus 1:4). This was a picture of our sins being placed on the Messiah as He died in our place. Healing and wholeness and salvation can only come as a result of what He did for us when He suffered and bled and died.

Verse 6

We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the LORD visited upon him the guilt of all of us.

The bad news is that we ALL have sinned. The good news is that Yeshua died for ALL of us. We are all guilty, but He bore the guilt of us all. All of our sins were laid on the Messiah. He who was sinless was treated as a sinner for us. As our Substitute He took our sins upon Himself.

Verse 7

Like a sheep being led to slaughter, like a ewe, dumb before those who shear her, He did not open his mouth.

The Messiah became the perfect Sacrifice, the perfect Substitute. All the other sacrifices merely pointed to Him. He was as a lamb without blemish and without spot (absolutely sinless, the only Man who ever lived who kept God’s commandments perfectly), and He was willing to be slaughtered for you and for me.

Verse 8

He was cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.

This verse supports the fact that Isaiah is not talking about the nation Israel as the suffering servant. He is talking about the Messiah who was cut off because of the sin of his people Israel. Israel deserved the punishment as do all people. We are all guilty before a holy God. We have all sinned and broken God’s commandments. We deserve the death penalty but He died in our place. He bore our condemnation. He faced the wrath of God in our stead. He was judged instead of us. Who crucified the Messiah? Was it the Romans? Was it the Israelites? Was it Pilate? The ultimate answer is this: “I crucified Yeshua. It was because of me He died. It was for my sins that He suffered and bled and died. I should have been put to death because I am the guilty one, but He died for me.”

Verse 10

But the LORD chose to crush him…that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, He might see offspring and have long life.

The LORD chose to crush Messiah. At first thought this seems to be a horrible statement. Why would it please the LORD to crush His anointed One? But we must remember that this was done for our sakes, and for our salvation. The Messiah had to receive a crushing blow so that we could receive God’s gift of salvation, which we do not deserve at all.

How can a dead Messiah see offspring and have long life? This is impossible unless He comes back from the dead. The Messiah will die, and yet He will live.

Verse 11

My righteous servant makes the many righteous, It is their punishment that he bears.

The Messiah is called God’s “righteous servant.” He was perfectly righteous. He was sinless. He lived a perfect life and kept the commandments perfectly. He was the only righteous man who ever lived—right acting, right thinking, right speaking, right being. He was perfectly innocent, and yet He died in our place as if He were a guilty sinner. It is my punishment that He bore. The only righteous Man who ever lived paid the penalty for my crimes. He was sentenced to death so that I might be pardoned. He died that I might live. He was treated as an unrighteous criminal so that I might be justified or declared righteous in Him (even as Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6).

Verse 12

For he exposed himself to death and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of the many and made intercession for sinners.

He did not die for a few, He died for the many. The One died for all. He poured out His soul unto death. He bore our guilt and was punished for our sins. Sin demands death (see Gen. 2:17 in the Torah and Ezek. 18:4). Yeshua died instead of us and paid the death penalty in full. The LORD, who is the righteous Judge of all the earth, is now completely satisfied that sin’s penalty has been paid. Because of what the Messiah did for us, the LORD is able to provide for us complete forgiveness of sins: “For I will forgive their iniquities and remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34 and see Psalm 103:10-12).

What Must I Do?

In conclusion, let us go back to verse 1 of Isaiah 53:

Who can BELIEVE what we have heard?

This is the crucial question. Will you BELIEVE what you have heard from Isaiah? Will you BELIEVE what the prophets have written? Will you BELIEVE what the Tanakh says? Will you BELIEVE the traditional Hebrew text which God has so wonderfully given to us and preserved for us?

God has told us about the Messiah—who He is and what He has done. We can either believe this message or not. We can receive the message of the Tanakh or we can reject it. We can put our trust in the Messiah or we can try to explain away these amazing prophecies.

Thank you for taking the time to read this little booklet. If I can be of further help, please let me know. I have learned how difficult it is for a Jew to believe in Yeshua. Often there is a great cost involved. For some it means the loss of family members, excommunication from the synagogue and perhaps even a funeral in effigy. But can any price be too high to pay for a right relationship with the living God? And God may use you in a very special way to reach other Jewish people with His message of Life and Salvation.

For helpful literature along these lines, ask us for the testimony of Dr. M.L.Rossvally, surgeon in the U.S. army during and after the Civil War. Dr. Rossvally was an orthodox Jew and the story of how God worked in his life and in his family is remarkable indeed. Click here for this document.

Let me close with two verses from the Psalms:

(1) Taste and see how good the LORD is; happy the man who takes refuge in Him! (Psalm 34:9, verse 8 in the standard English versions).

(2) Psalm 2 speaks about the Messiah, the Lord’s anointed (verse2), God’s great King (verse 6), the One of Whom God said, “You are My Son” (verse 7). The Psalm ends with these words:

Happy are all who take refuge in Him!

May you come to know the blessing and happiness of putting your trust in Yeshua, the One who died for you!

Supplemental Material on a Great Prophecy Penned by Isaiah

ISAIAH 9:5
(Isaiah 9:6 in most English versions)

Four names are given to this Child, each name consisting of two members or two Hebrew words. The Masoretic accentuation supports the position that there are four names.

Literally translated the verse reads as follows:

Because (a) child [male child] has been born for us;
A Son has been given for us;
And the rule (dominion) has been [placed] upon His shoulder;
And His Name has been called…

WONDERFUL COUNSELOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hebrew term “wonderful” means “that which surpasses human thought and power, incomprehensible.” He is a wonder. The word is used in Judges 13:18 of the Name of the Angel of the LORD who in verse 22 is identified as God. See also Isaiah 28:29 where the counsel of the LORD of hosts is said to be wonderful or unfathomable.

MIGHTY GOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compare this identical phrase found in Isaiah 10:20-21 where “Mighty (Heroic) God” refers to the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.

ETERNAL FATHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With respect to His people, He will ever be as a father. “You, O LORD, are our Father; from of old, Your name is ‘Our Redeemer’” (Isaiah 63:16 and see Psalm 103:13).

RULER OF PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His reign of peace is described in Isaiah 2:4.

ISAIAH 9:6
(Isaiah 9:7 in most English versions)

This verse further describes His kingdom of peace. The Ruler is clearly identified as a descendant of King David, the true Messiah who will establish the kingdom which had been promised by the mouth of all the prophets. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts shall bring this to pass!

The Present Church Age

While national Israel has had a great past and is also destined to have a great future, her present position is one of divine rejection and, hence, spiritual degeneracy. But God foresaw all of this and, therefore, formulated “the eternal purpose” (Ephesians 3:11) – to gather out the Church during this period.

The Old Testament prophets foresaw two great future events which concerned the Messiah, namely, the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow (Read 1 Peter 1:10-12). Their view of things-to-come seemed to be contradictory, for, while on the one hand they envisioned a Messiah Who would be rejected and ultimately crucified, they also saw that same Messiah enthroned in supreme glory as earth’s last Monarch. (Contrast Psalms 22 and 69 with Psalms 72 and 45, or contrast Isaiah 53 with Isaiah 35.) How could both views be reconciled? How could He be both rejected and yet reign? Just one word solved the problem – resurrection! The Messiah Who died must rise from the dead, in order to make good the second part of the program.

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS DID NOT FORESEE THIS PERIOD

But the prophets did not foresee the great interval between these two events. These have been likened to a man standing on a level plain and viewing two distant mountain peaks. From his viewpoint the two peaks seem to blend on a common horizon. But actually there is a great valley between, which the viewer does not, and cannot, see. This valley suggests the present Church age. The believer today looks back to the one peak and forward to the other.

Let us turn to Isaiah 61 and read carefully the first two verses; then read Luke 4:16-21. It will be noticed that our Lord closed the book in the middle of the second verse of Isaiah 61. Why did He not complete the passage? The answer is found in the fact that “the day of vengeance of our God” is future, and lies entirely beyond this present period, which is described as “the acceptable year of the Lord.” In other words, right in the middle of Isaiah 61:2 there is a break of about 2,000 years which was not foreseen by Isaiah at all!

Another example of this break is found in Zechariah 9:9, 10. The ninth verse was fulfilled at our Lord’s first coming (Matthew 21:1-9). Verse 10 had never yet been fulfilled, and will be realized only when our Lord Jesus returns to the earth in glory. If, therefore, verse 9 is past and verse 10 is future, then it is obvious that the Church age must be inserted between the two. This dispensation was unknown to these Old Testament prophets, for it was a secret locked up in the counsels of God and not revealed until after the Cross and resurrection by the Holy Spirit. A careful study of Ephesians 3:1-11 and Colossians 1:24-27 makes this clear.

3. THE PRESENT CHURCH AGE

We have learned that the Old Testament prophets did not foresee this present age that lies like a great valley between the two mountain peaks of the first and second coming of Christ. Remembering that the first peak indicates His sufferings and the Cross, while the second peak His glories and the crown, we shall now consider God’s present purpose.

3.1 It is a Mystery

Throughout Paul’s writings are repeated references to what he terms “the mystery.” This was a special secret made known to him by the Holy Spirit, and explained as the present purpose of God to take out from the Gentiles a people for His name (Acts 15:13-18). The clock of prophecy having stopped when Jesus died, and remaining silent until God’s present work among the Gentiles is completed, it is clear that the present outcalling is not the subject of Old Testament prophecy at all. In Romans 16:25, 26 Paul writes, “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel…according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets…made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” We must not assume that “the scriptures of the prophets” refers to Old Testament prophets, for such a conclusion would contradict the very thing Paul is saying that the mystery had been kept undeclared until now. The expression is more accurately “by prophetic scriptures,” and refers to the current writings of Paul himself.

Just what is “the mystery”? The answer is that, consequent upon Israel’s rejection of her Messiah, the grace of God has overflowed to the Gentiles. By means of His gospel of salvation to “whosoever believeth in him,” an entirely new society has come into being. Paul explains “how that by revelation he (God) made known unto me the mystery…which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel; whereof I was made a minister” (Ephesians 3:3-7).

3.2 Its Charater

The first mention of the Church is found in Matthew 16:13-18. It was not until the Lord had presented His claims as King to the nation of Israel and had heard those claims officially repudiated (Matthew 11:16-24; 12:24) that He mentioned the Church. The word “church” comes from a Greek word which means “a called-out assembly.” It is a selection; it is an out-calling from the masses. Notice also that it was future at this time; “I will build my church.” Hence it was unknown in Old Testament times.

3.3 Its Commencement

The Church begin at the Day of Pentecost. This Church is described as “Christ’s body” (Ephesians 1:23). A body demands a head! But Christ did not take His place as Head until He ascended to the Father’s right hand (Colossians 1:18). The birthday of the Church, therefore, was the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit, sent by the risen Christ, formed all believers into that organism known as the body of Christ.

3.4 Its Composition

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 2:11-18). The Church is composed of all regenerated Jews and Gentiles. The moment a Jew or a Gentile receives Christ as Savior, the Holy Spirit unites him to the body of Christ, where all national distinctions disappear (Colossians 3:11).

3.5 Its Characteristics

The stones for Solomon’s Temple were taken out from those dark subterranean quarries and, after being prepared, were placed in Jehovah’s dwelling. Even so, God is quarrying out “living stones” by means of the gospel and these stones are being “built up a spiritual house,” even the spiritual temple of the Lord (Ephesians 2:21, 22).

3.6 Its Consummation

The glorious destiny of the Church is to be with and like Christ forever. At His second coming, as Bridegroom, He will present this redeemed company to Himself. The Lamb’s wife (Revelation 21:9) will share Christ’s glory as she reigns with Him over the redeemed creation, just as Eve shared Adam’s reign before sin made its entrance into this world.

4. THE SEVENTY WEEKS PROPHECY OF DANIEL IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHURCH

The famous “seventy weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9:20-27 is all-important. In this passage the prophets knows that the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity have almost expired. In these verses, however, Gabriel gives an outline of the entire history of Israel from the conclusion of the captivity until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory.

4.1 The Word “Week” Means Seven Years

“Seventy weeks (or sevens) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” The word “weeks” simply means “sevens.” It might mean seven days, months, etc., but the context makes it clear that these events must refer to years; otherwise, the whole prophecy is void of sense. Then notice the word “determine.” The expression is literally “cut off,” which simply means that these 490 years are cut out from the entire period of time. Moreover, they exclusively concern Daniel’s people and Daniel’s city – the Jews and Jerusalem. Hence, they have no application to the Church, which is chiefly Gentile. If we fail to recognize that these 490 years affect only the Jews and Jerusalem and run their course only during Israel’s establishment in the land, our thinking will be confused indeed.

4.2 Purpose of the Seventy Weeks

Notice also that six great events are to happen to Daniel’s people within the 490-year period:

1. “To finish the transgression,” i.e., Israel’s great sin in rejecting Christ.
2. “To make an end of sins,” i.e., to expiate Israel’s other iniquities.
3. “To make reconciliation for iniquity,” i.e., the Cross.
4. “To bring in everlasting righteousness.” This does not mean merely that righteousness has been made available, but that Israel will possess it through the Messiah. This will be fulfilled in the Millennium.
5. “To seal up the vision and prophecy,” i.e., all prophecy will eventually be fulfilled and faith will give place to sight.
6. “To anoint the most Holy,” or the Holy of Holies. This, I take it, refers to the restoration of the Shekinah glory to the nation.

Have all these things already been fulfilled in relation to Daniel’s people and city? Certainly not. Several of them lie in the future.

4.3 Meaning of Daniel 9:25

Verse 25 gives us the starting point of the prophecy; it was from the time that the command should go forth that Jerusalem should be rebuilt. It seems clear that the permission granted to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2) to build the wall, streets and city at Jerusalem is the correct starting point, and from that date (about 445 BC) until the Lord Jesus Christ publicly presented Himself to Israel as their King was exactly 483 years, or 7 weeks plus 62 weeks (i.e. total = 69 weeks). It has been demonstrated that this was the precise time-period from the decree of Nehemiah 2 until the day that the Lord Jesus rode triumphantly into the city as the King of Israel.

You will notice that these 69 weeks are divided into two unequal portions – 7 weeks and 62 weeks. The 7 weeks, or 49 years, covered the period of the rebuilding of the city and the re-establishment of Jewish worship. The “troublous times” are described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

4.4 Meaning of Daniel 9:26

“After threescore and two weeks (62 weeks) shall Messiah be cut off, shall have nothing”. It is understood that to these 62 weeks we must add the aforementioned 7, making 69 in all, or 69 x 7 = 483 years. These are prophetic years of 360 days each (Note: Bible prophecies are figured in years of 360 days is the comparison.of the equivalent time units of three and a half years in Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; and 13:4. The three and a half years equals 1260 days or 360 days per year). Since a calendar year is 365 + 1/4 days, it follows that in 483 prophetic years we lose 483 ( 5 + 1/4 )days = 2536 days, just under 7 years. Therefore, 483 prophetic years equal approximately 476 calendar years. From the beginning of 445 BC to the end of 31 AD would be 476 years. There is, of course, no year numbered zero. This is a rough calculation, but it shows how amazing the prophecy is. The 69 weeks reach to the time of the death of Christ (v. 26).

Not only that, but the people of the coming prince would destroy the city and the sanctuary (v. 26). This brings us down to AD 70, when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem. Hence, the 483 years ran out on the day of Christ’s “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, and at some indefinite time after that we have the Cross and the destruction of the city.

This present age is not referred to in the prophecy, except in a very indirect way. It is briefly condensed in the last few lines of verse 26: “Even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” This is exactly what our Lord predicted in Matthew 24. Hence, this Christian era comes in parenthetically at the end of verse 26 and the beginning of verse 27.

4.5 Meaning of Daniel 9:27

The last verse of the chapter is full of significance, “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” The “he” does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to “the prince that shall come.” Who is this coming prince? He is the prince of very people who destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. These were the Romans. Hence, it is clear that the coming prince will also be a Roman. To whom does “the many” refer? We believe that this refers to the mass of Jewry who will be re-established in Palestine, and who, in order to protect themselves against the threats of the Assyrian, or “little horn” of Daniel 8, will make a seven-year treaty with the Roman Beast (i.e the Anti-Christ – political beast). This covenant will guarantee to Israel political, territorial, and religious protection for seven years. However, “in the midst of the week,” that is, after the covenant has run for three and a half years, the emperor will break that covenant, treating it as a mere “scrap of paper,” particularly the clauses that have to do with the religious question.

He suddenly prohibits all the Jewish sacrifices and recognition of God in order that he himself may become the only object of worship. The “abomination of desolation” referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 is set up in the Holy Place, and all are commanded to worship this idol on pain of death. Compare Revelation 13:5-8.

The last sentence of the chapter is quite significant: “Because of the protection of abominations there shall be a desolator.” The meaning of this seems to be that because Israel as a whole accepts this flagrant idolatry, worshipping the man who is the devil’s masterpiece, God will raise up a desolator who will be the rod of His anger to punish His professed, but rebellious, people.