Debunking The Jehovah's Witness Teaching On The 144,000

• Discussion:

          -The Watchtower Society teaches that there is a literal, anointed class of 144,000 Christians who will inherit the kingdom of God and reign with Christ. Other believers who qualify to fit into a secondary rank will get to dwell together in a world of paradise under the headship of the 144,000. To summarize, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a distinction among types of redeemed people.

           The Bible does not place a specific limit on the number of people who can enjoy spending eternity with God in heaven. Everybody who asks receives, and everybody who seeks will find (Matthew 7:8). There is no spiritual distinction among those who have placed their trust in the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21-22). The Apostle Paul says without setting forth any categories that our citizenship is in the heavenly sanctuary above (Philippians 3:20). Jesus Christ said that the "household" of the Father is comprised of "many rooms" (John 14:2-3).

          If the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in their understanding regarding the 144,000 people spoken of in Revelation chapters 7 and 14, then that would mean (in order to remain consistent with the rest of the context) only a small remnant of Jewish people could be saved. With that point comes other inferences that are ludicrous. Charles Taze Russell would be excluded from heaven because he was not a Jew. The Apostle Peter would be excluded from heaven because he was not a virgin. All women would be excluded from heaven because the context identifies all members of this group to be males (which would be sexist).

          These believing Jewish males could very well be ordained by God from the twelve tribes of Israel to preach the gospel in the midst of tribulational calamity (Revelation 14:1-3). Other commentators take this reference to the 144,000 to be a symbolic representation of the entire body of the saints. After all, Revelation 7:9-10 says that countless multitudes of people were standing before the throne of God worshiping and singing praises. Nonetheless, the idea that only 144,000 people will enter heaven is untenable.

          Strangely enough, the idea of an eternal paradise earth for a secondary class of believers was introduced into the Jehovah's Witness sect by Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society. It was not taught by Charles Taze Russell, who is reputed to be the founder of what has been termed the Bible Study Movement. This teaching has not been present among the Jehovah's Witnesses from the very beginning.

Was Mary Magdalene A Prostitute?

"There is no evidence that the early church tried to tarnish Mary Magdalene’s reputation by making her out to be a prostitute. Any reference to her as a prostitute does not come from the Bible. Here is what we do know of Mary from the biblical record: Seven demons were cast out of her by Jesus (Luke 8:2); she witnessed the horror of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:32-56); she was present at the burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-61); she, along with two other women, went to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1), and she was the first person to see Jesus in his resurrected body (John 20:10-18).

Some have surmised that since her name and story appear immediately following the account of a prostitute, the two are one and the same woman (see Luke 7:36-8:2). But there is no biblical support for this conclusion. (Most historians agree that the reference to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was started in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I). Still others have conjectured that she is the anonymous woman caught in adultery. There is no evidence to support that assumption, either. Some have guessed that she might have been a prostitute simply because she came from Magdala, which was often associated with prostitution. Once again, the Bible says no such thing. Any association of Mary of Magdala with either of the above-mentioned anonymous women would have been merely a result of conjecture--or very careless scholarship--probably dating to the Middle Ages, as opposed to a smear campaign."

James L. Garlow and Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code, p. 59-60

Was Jesus Christ Crucified On A Cross Or A Stake As The Jehovah's Witnesses Claim?

• The Greek Terms Stauros And Xulon:

          -The Greek word stauros has been a subject of much debate regarding its meaning in the context of crucifixion. Historically, stauros could refer to a pole or stake, not necessarily the traditional cross shape commonly associated with Christian symbolism. Various forms of crucifixion existed, as noted by Seneca the Younger who observed, "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet.”
          -In addition, the Greek word xulon describes anything made from wood and could be used to refer to a tree. In the New Testament, specifically Galatians 3:13, the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which originally spoke of people being hanged on trees as a sign that they were cursed by God. This context emphasizes that the form of the crucifixion device, whether a cross or a stake, is secondary to its symbolic significance.

• Biblical Evidence Of The Traditional Cross:

          -Despite the linguistic flexibility of stauros and xulon, there is compelling biblical evidence supporting the traditional cross shape:
            *The doubting Thomas encounter (John 20:24-29): This passage mentions nails (plural) piercing Jesus' hands, suggesting multiple nails, which aligns with the cross having an extended horizontal beam.
            *Pontius Pilate's inscription (Matthew 27:37; Luke 23:38): The inscription nailed above Jesus' head indicates an elevated structure, consistent with a cross rather than a stake.
            *Peter's Foretelling (John 21:18): Jesus describes Peter's future crucifixion by Roman guards, emphasizing the stretching out of hands, which mirrors the traditional crucifixion posture.

• Controversy With The Jehovah's Witnesses:

          -Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus was crucified on a stake, not a cross. Originally, the Watchtower Society taught that He died on a cross but later shifted this stance. This change has sparked theological debates, particularly given the biblical descriptions that support the traditional cross shape.

• The Jehovah's Witnesses And Bodily Resurrection:

          -Jehovah's Witnesses also contend that Jesus did not resurrect in a physical body, but as a spirit. Scriptural accounts, however, affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. Luke 24:39 explicitly shows Jesus inviting His disciples to touch Him and witness that He has flesh and bones. Moreover, in Luke 24:40-43, Jesus eats in front of His disciples, further proving His physical form. John 2:19-22 emphasizes that Jesus' body was indeed resurrected, countering the notion of a purely spiritual resurrection.

A Critical Exposure Of The Clear Word Bible

• Discussion:

          -The Clear Word Bible is a paraphrase written by Jack J. Blanco and made available to the public by the Review and Herald Publishing Association in March 1994. This product of the Seventh-Day Adventist church was designed to be an amplified version of Scripture. The Clear Word Bible was made for devotional use. Nonetheless, this paraphrase is to be avoided because it contains textual modifications aimed at reflecting aberrant Seventh-Day Adventist theology. It contains bias in support of false doctrines such as annihilationism and Sabbatarianism. Following are examples of textual perversion within the Clear Word Bible:

• Genesis 2:2-3:

          -"Then on the seventh day of creation week, God stopped to enjoy what He had made and to rest in the beauty of it all. So He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a day of spiritual refreshment and joy." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of this passage makes the seventh day a day of creation when the process was actually completed on the sixth. The Sabbath is introduced prior to the time when the Bible itself reveals that day (Exodus 16).

• Genesis 35:18:

          -"But Rachel didn’t survive the birth, and as she was dying, she named her baby Benoni, which means Son of My Sorrow, but Jacob renamed the baby Benjamin, meaning Son of My Right Hand." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of Genesis 35:18 is clearly biased in favor of the false teaching called soul sleep.

• Matthew 25:46:

          -"I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.” (Clear Word Bible)

          -"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (English Standard Version)

            *This verse has been altered so drastically in the Clear Word Bible that it barely resembles how reputable translations render Matthew 25:46. The translators grasped at straws here to avoid the clearly unfavorable implications of this passage as it relates to annihilationism.

• John 10:30:

          -"You see, my Father and I are so close, we're one." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"I and the Father are one." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"I and the Father are one." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of this text is problematical because it describes a relational oneness rather than ontological. The oneness spoken of in John 10:30 is of being or the nature of God, not merely relational closeness.

• Hebrews 4:9:

          -"So there still remains the offer of spiritual rest that God intends for each generation to have, of which the Sabbath is a symbol." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (English Standard Version)

            *This passage, when taken in context, plainly tells us that it is through Jesus Christ that we enter into the promised rest of God. It has nothing to do with Christians observing a weekly Sabbath.

• Comments From Wayne A. Grudem On The Poor Quality Of The Clear Word Bible:

          -"I do not think anyone should trust The Clear Word as a reliable translation of the Bible, or even as a useful paraphrase. It repeatedly distorts the teaching of the Bible. It removes significant content that is in the original Hebrew or Greek, and adds new ideas that are not found in the original texts. Verse after verse has been changed simply to support unusual Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, but these changes are not supported by reliable translations such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, or NIV, or even by dynamic equivalence translations such as the New Living Translation or free paraphrases such as The Message. I was deeply troubled as I read various verses because it was clear that these verses were no longer the words of God only, but the words of God mixed in with many words of man, and ordinary readers of The Clear Word will not be able to tell the difference."

Is It Wrong To Celebrate Easter?

        It would be inaccurate to consider Easter, also known as Resurrection Sunday, a pagan holiday. Christians have for centuries set aside that time to specifically celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That day was formally recognized as such when Roman Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The annual dating for this holiday is determined by moon cycles as was the Jewish Passover, though both religious observances are distinct. Differences in timing and how the Easter celebration was to take place can be traced back to the earlier second century.

        Any parallels to pagan symbolism would be the result of primitive believers interacting with the culture of their day. Nonetheless, customs and traditions are not inherently sinful (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture records believers assembling on Sunday (Acts 20:7-12), yet it nowhere mandates us to gather on that day. Is the church service being conducted in accordance with the Word of God? Thus, we see what amounts to a biblically permitted tradition. The question of Easter is one that deserves fair treatment.

        Most things nowadays have pagan parallels, which would even include the names of planets in our solar system and days of the week. Can we do anything at all? Can we use anything? Similarities do not in and of themselves prove something to be evil or malicious. Similarities do not inherently prove a logical connection or association. Symbols are subject to reinterpretation and can therefore be reused.  If pagans once did something, that does not necessarily mean Christians cannot do them for good reasons or simply for fun. Pagans also eat, walk, talk, and breath.

        Resurrection Sunday was celebrated by Christians long before it was made about the mythical creature called the Easter Bunny. The holiday points us to Christ, namely His resurrection. That historical event is of pivotal significance to our faith. If Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our faith would be in vain. That point is certainly worthy of repeated commemoration. Such a ceremony does not exceed or violate the principles of Scripture.

        Claims of Easter being pagan originated with pagans themselves and secularists who detest the truth of the gospel. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. No mere man has the power to make a day that God created corrupt. Christians who dogmatically condemn the celebration are guilty of making category errors and oversimplifications. No sacrifices or homage is given to false gods in the process. The English term Easter comes from the Old German word "erstehen," which means coming back to life. It does not pertain to the celebration of anything pagan.

        The form of compromise (which Easter is not) Scripture condemns is that which hinders service or allegiance rightfully belonging to God alone. There comes a point when separation no longer resembles a desire to grow in sanctification but a religious recluse. The latter is not the way God wants us to be. If we were to be absolutely disconnected from the world, then He would have to remove us at this very instant. We are to engage the culture with our beliefs, but lovingly stand firm in so doing.

        Even the act of painting eggs or the idea of imaginary rabbits are nothing more than childish means of entertainment. Such is not inherently involved or related to the worship of idols. Whether or not a Christian chooses to observe Easter is entirely a matter of conscience or personal preference. It is not meant to be a test of orthodoxy. It is not a matter to break fellowship over.

Does The Roman Catholic Eucharist Entail Cannibalism?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article with the intent of addressing the charge of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism. The author provides three lines of reasoning as to why he believes that particular objection to be invalid, which are being examined here. His words are cited in bold and followed by a critique:

         "First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way."

          The Roman Catholic Eucharist does indeed imply cannibalism, since it includes literally consuming the human flesh of Jesus Christ. Eating only part of a victim does not remedy this dilemma. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he has eaten a whole victim or does so in a different manner.

          How can one consume blood in a non-bloody fashion? How can one eat soul and divinity when chewing is a physical process?

          "Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral."

          The usage of symbolism does not suggest as a logical consequence a literal understanding or act practiced. Jesus Christ is our source of spiritual life. We partake of Him by trusting in His work on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

          How come the inspired writers of the New Testament never clarified that the eucharist was not cannibalism?

          "Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word."

           Just because a figurative expression has a negative connotation in various contexts, it does not follow such always has that same meaning or intention in every occurrence. There is nothing ruling out the possibility of more neutral or positive usages of eating flesh or drinking blood in a symbolic sense. For example, Psalm 23:5 uses imagery of a table being prepared before enemies to signify God's provision, even in the midst of adversaries. Psalm 119:103 describes the words of God as "sweeter than honey" to one's mouth, giving praise to God for His wisdom. Further, there is no substantive reason to believe that the Jews may have taken "Christ at His word" because it seemed He was encouraging the practice of sin. In fact, His metaphor was more an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.

          If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by the priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. If transubstantiation is true, then that would mean the full human body of Christ is literally inside the stomachs of partakers during the liturgical service. Even getting His entire body into our mouths at one time would be an impossibility. These conclusions are nonsense, as our digestive system would be holding far beyond its natural capacity. Jesus Christ has a material body, just as we all do. That means His body and blood would have been consumed a long time ago. They would have been all eaten up two thousand years ago, making such in future generations a logical impossibility! Nothing is sacrificed during the Mass except one's own common sense.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Fulfillment Of The Jewish Passover?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria wrote an article in which he tries linking the sacrifice of the mass to the Passover feast. He also responds to certain objections to Roman Catholic theology based on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold letters and followed with critical commentary:

          "The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t."

          1 Corinthians 5:7-8 says that Jesus Christ is our Passover. He died on the cross. That is what the slaughter of the Passover lamb typified, not some miraculous change of the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The point of this passage is that when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are to do so without malice. It does not specifically address the mode in which we partake of Christ in communion.

          "If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you. (Hebrews 10:25-31)" 

          Hebrews chapter ten says nothing regarding the sacrifice of the mass. Rather, it addresses the singular act of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The people who forsake Him have denied the only sacrifice available for sin. Note that this context denies the work of Jesus is ongoing or reenacted (Hebrews 10:18). That point is stated emphatically.

          "Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?"

          That only begs the question. No explanation of how or why is given for us to believe that the eucharist is the same sacrifice that took place on the cross.

          "Here is what Protestants miss and don’t understand. And the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t understand the Scriptures."

          Must a "Protestant" become a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon in order to see those particular systems of doctrine in Scripture? This actually sounds like something the Gnostics would have said with their emphasis of obtaining "higher knowledge" about God upon joining their sect. De Maria reads foreign ideas into Scripture as he engages in circular reasoning and strains typology beyond its original intent.

          "In the Old Testament, we learn that Sacrifice is not simply the slaughter of the victim. Sacrifice is also the offering of the Victim. And Sacrifice is also the consuming of the Victim. Christ takes care of the first two aspects of His Sacrifice. We participate in the same Sacrifice by consuming the Passover. Have you not read in Scripture (Exodus 12:1-10)?"

           It is a non-sequitur to say that we eat the literal body of Christ during the Lord's Supper because the Israelites ate the flesh of the animals that they sacrificed. Further, no transubstantiation took place in the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The Lord's Supper is a New Testament institution. It is the New Covenant form of Passover. However, no transubstantiation takes place in the latter any more than it did in the former.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:22] We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation. (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27). Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins."

          Nice try with the use of flowery philosophical language, but Hebrews 9:22 is still a problem because there is no blood shed during the mass. That is the means by which atonement and forgiveness of sin is enabled, so it does not have propitiatory value as Rome teaches.

           Observe Paul's analogy of the body of Christ to the Jewish altar. Did the Jews eat pieces of the table? Are we literally one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)? The reference to "partaking of Christ" is obviously not meant to be understood literally. We do so through faith by looking at the memorial.

          If sacrifices for sin have to continually be made, then those offerings have insufficient power to redeem lost souls (Hebrews 9:13-14; 10:1-2; 10-11; 18). Thus, Roman Catholic teaching on the eucharist has blasphemous implications.

          "Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?"

          Christ translated His literal blood to the heavenly sanctuary so that it could be applied to the Mercy Seat and sprinkled on believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:12-28).

          "[Responding to Hebrews 7:27] True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain (Revelation 5:6)?"

          Revelation 5:6 is imagery describing eschatology, not the eternal state of Christ. It is using imagery to identify Christ as the one who has been slain, not as one who is continually being slain. The context indicates that His work is a completed action:

          "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6, emphasis added)

          "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added)

           "Saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12, emphasis added)

          The Apostle John's message is perfectly consistent with the author of Hebrews. Jesus took care of the issue of sin and its punishment roughly two thousand years. His work has already been accomplished in full.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:12] Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass."

           Jesus died once for all. His one sacrifice is complete and perfect, never again being repeated or made ongoing. It is not like the Old Covenant sacrifices, which were repeatedly offered because they could never actually atone for sin.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:26-28] This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it."

          The Roman Catholic Mass is contradicted because the text tells us that Christ is only going to appear twice with the later time to bring salvation for those who believe. Moreover, Christ's work is contrasted with the work of the Old Testament high priests whose work was ongoing.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 10:10] Yes. Once for ALLLLLLLLL. That includes us. And the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, are applied to us, in the Mass."

          Jesus Christ was offered up once for eternity. It is that single act by which our redemption was made possible. Only Christ could offer Himself up (John 10:17-18). He made His sacrifice one time. He died one time. It is not happening today because it was finished at Calvary. His work has already been accomplished. The benefits of the Cross are applied to us by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:1).

          "[Responding to Romans 6:9-10] Excellent! It is Protestants who accuse us of killing Christ over and over. But we don’t believe that at all. We simply obey His Word and “do this in remembrance” of Him. We “re-present” the once for all sacrifice upon the altar as He commanded. Yes, we have an “altar”. It is the Table of the Lord. But it is an altar of Sacrifice (Hebrews 13:10)."

          There cannot be an atonement sacrifice without the death of a victim. This only goes to show that the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation requires us to believe that which is totally unimaginable! In fact, the notion of "re-presenting" a once-for-all sacrifice sounds similar to the time traveling that we read of in science fiction literature.

           In Hebrews 13:10, it is not clear at all that the reference is to the eucharist. It seems rather to be talking about the cross, the salvation, and benefits of Christ, which we have in Him.

1 Timothy 3:16 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

           "By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)

           Some of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we possess contain a textual variant when it comes to the Greek word that is translated as "who" (who was revealed in the flesh) and the Greek word for "God." It seems likely for a number of reasons that the pronoun "who" is the original word in the original autographs penned by the Apostle Paul.

           It would have been tempting for a scribe who held to a high Christology, one who acknowledged Jesus Christ's full divinity, to change the word "who" for the "God" in emphasizing Christ's divinity. First of all, His deity is not the main aspect of the text in question. Further, the use of the pronoun is perfectly consistent with the manner in which Paul writes elsewhere in regard to Christ (Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:5-11).

           Nonetheless, 1 Timothy 3:16 supports the deity of Christ in a subtle fashion. The language of "he was manifested in the flesh" suggests that He existed prior to His incarnation. He was not created, but took on human flesh. This text reflects a primitive Christian hymnal.

           The phrase "justified in the Spirit" refers to Christ resurrecting bodily from the grave (Romans 1:4; Ephesians 1:19-23). The phrase "seen of angels" points to Christ ascending into heaven (Acts 1:9-11). The phrase "proclaimed among the nations" refers to His glory being revealed by the Holy Spirit through the gospel to the world (1 Corinthians 15:1-6; 2 Corinthians 4:2-4). The phrase "taken up in glory" refers to Christ being exalted at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:56-60). Jesus Christ is God incarnate. This note is also insightful as to how 1 Timothy 3:16 points to Christ's divinity:

           "Notably, the phrase “great indeed, is the mystery of godliness” may intentionally echo the phrase frequently heard in Ephesus: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:28). If so, Paul is indirectly subverting the cult of Artemis, Ephesus’ patron goddess."

Exposing The False Gospel Of Physical Well-being

        Prosperity gospel teachers such as Joel Olsteen are known for making fraudulent promises of physical recovery, financial blessings, and freedom from demonic influences to those who voluntarily donate large sums of money. It is claimed that God gives people who have enough faith a hundredfold in terms of wealth and health in addition to the forgiveness of God for sin provided at the Cross. Professing Christians who give money to prosperity gospel ministries are wrongly assured that God will materially reward them as a result of their contributions.

        The Columnist Tara Isabella Burton recounted the origin of the prosperity gospel in these words:

        "Its roots, though, don’t just lie in explicitly Christian tradition. In fact, it’s possible to trace the origins of the American prosperity gospel to the tradition of New Thought, a nineteenth-century spiritual movement popular with decidedly unorthodox thinkers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James. Practitioners of New Thought, not all of whom identified as Christian, generally held the divinity of the individual human being and the priority of mind over matter. In other words, if you could correctly channel your mental energy, you could harness its material results. New Thought, also known as the “mind cure,” took many forms: from interest in the occult to splinter-Christian denominations like Christian Science to the development of the “talking cure” at the root of psychotherapy."

        The Encyclopedia Britannica says the following about the origin of the prosperity gospel:

        "The early 20th-century New Thought movement, a mind-healing movement based on diverse religious and metaphysical presuppositions, shaped the later development of prosperity gospel. Although the movement was not necessarily Christian, religious strains of New Thought generally emphasized the immanence of God, the divine nature of humanity, the immediate availability of God’s power to humans, and the belief that sin, human disorders, and human disease are basically matters of incorrect thinking. Moreover, according to New Thought, humans can live in oneness with God in love, truth, peace, health, and plenty, and many groups emphasized Jesus as teacher and healer and proclaimed his kingdom as being within a person."

        Needless to say, neither the origin nor the essence of prosperity theology is Christian. Jesus Christ promised spiritual as opposed to material blessings to those who obeyed His commandments. Moreover, we are not to follow Him with the intent of receiving things from God. That is not Christianity. The core of religion is not what God can do for us, but what we can do for the glory of God. We serve Him because He is worthy of being served.

        People involved in the Word of Faith Movement have been guilty of abuses of spiritual gifts when it is claimed that there are Christians not filled with the Holy Spirit. They do this when it is claimed that a lack of healthiness and wealth is due to a lack of trust in God. He is not involved in any system of doctrine that leaves one penniless and unable to care for one's own needs.

        Jesus Christ warned against a materialistic mindset when He spoke of storing up treasures in heaven:

        "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:19-24)

        Christ exposed in simple terms the vanity of accumulating riches for oneself in this life by pointing out the fact that items can be stolen and destroyed. They have no eternal value so they should not be our chief focus. The prosperity gospel reverses this order by insisting on having our best life here on this earth. Jesus Christ spoke of the difficulty a rich man has in becoming saved (Matthew 19:23). How can such a person place his trust in a God that he cannot see?

        A balanced view of personal finance has been laid out for us in the Old Testament:

        "Two things I ask of you, Lord; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." (Proverbs 30:7-9)

        The point is not that wealth is bad as such, but that it is hard to keep God in one's own thoughts when he has extravagant means of physical comfort.

        The Apostle Paul stated that the love of money is a root of evil:

        "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

        The truth of these words has been proven time and time again. Many a life are like books illustrating the wisdom of the above saying. Money is not everything. It is not the key to lasting happiness or fulfillment. There is more to life than one's own riches.

Christians Can Speak Things Into Existence?

        A blatantly unbiblical idea present among people involved in the Word of Faith Movement is that Christians can use the "force" of faith to speak things into existence. In other words, faith is seen as the mechanism by which our words make personal wishes of health and prosperity come true. Nonetheless, this johnny-come-lately model of faith and prayer is utterly incompatible with everything that Scripture says regarding the sovereignty of God and the nature of His promises.

         The creation account of Genesis brings into light the grand majesty of our Creator. He spoke the entirety of the universe into existence ex nihilo. The fabric of life is sustained by His magnificent power. That provides an ideal description of deity. Thus, attributing the ability of creating things by command to human beings amounts to idolatry because that would also make us gods. Faith itself would become the object of worship. God Himself would essentially be dethroned of His unique position of honor and supremacy. We share traits such as emotion, intellect, and reason, but we are not partakers of His divine essence.

         Even the Egyptian magicians who were summoned by the Pharaoh to imitate the miracles performed by Moses recognized limits to their abilities (Exodus 8:18-19). The notion of people being capable of speaking things into existence is impossible because such a superpower transcends our physical limitations. If a person has been influenced by this dangerous deception, then he would do well to read Isaiah chapters forty through forty eight. That context goes on at length to tell us that there is literally nothing like God in terms of His power.

          Despite the major biblical problems with this teaching, some proponents have desperately tried finding biblical support for their reasoning. A classic example of eisegesis would be Romans 4:17, which says, "...the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not." But the Apostle Paul in this text is speaking of God, not man. It is He who works in us. Faith involves us trusting and depending on God. The purpose of us praying is to conform ourselves to His will (1 John 5:14). It is indeed a terrible misfortune to see so-called ministers such as Joel Olsteen, Joyce Meyer, and Kenneth Copeland promote such aberrational theology.