Is Mary The Mother of God?

• Defining The Issues:

          -In 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus declared that Mary was "theotokos," a Greek term which is translated to mean "God-bearer." This was done to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ in response to the Archbishop Nestorius, who believed in separating His human and divine natures (i.e. a heresy termed "Nestorianism"). In a nutshell, the title theotokos was originally used to defend the full deity of Jesus Christ against heretics.
          -Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4, December 1996, p. 11). Today, the Roman Catholic Church uses this title, which was initially centered around the nature of Christ, as a way to exalt Mary.
          -"...the term God-bearer as it was used in the [Chalcedon] creed and as it was applied to Mary in these controversies said something about the nature of Christ, not the nature Mary. "Mother of God" is a phrase that has proper theological meaning only in reference to Christ. Hence, any use of the term that is not simply saying, "Jesus is fully God, one divine Person with two natures," is using the term anachronistically, and cannot claim the authority of the early church for such usage." (James R. White, Mary: Another Redeemer?, p. 47-48)

• Understanding This Title In A Proper Sense:

          -God is eternal (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 90:2). Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. So Mary could not be His mother in that His divine nature originated in her womb. It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus during His incarnation on earth. Mary did indeed carry both of Christ's natures in her womb as His body was still developing. These statements are in accordance with Scripture, and Roman Catholics would readily agree with them. On the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church has attached all sorts of bizarre teachings regarding Mary to the biblical concept of her motherhood.

• Additional Commentary On The Mother Of God Title:

          -Roman Catholic apologists have taken advantage of the ambiguity surrounding this title for the purpose of giving credibility to their Marian theology. Mary in the Catholic Church shares several of the same qualities and abilities as Christ Himself. The many titles ascribed to her perfectly fit the description of a goddess. 

          -Nowhere does Scripture justify erecting pillars in the name of Mary, giving her extreme titles of exaltation, and assigning providential roles to her. Kissing and weeping in front of statues of prominent Christian figures is also idolatry. The Roman Catholic Church calls Mary the mother of mercy. It has even been said that Mary sits at the right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ! None of this has any foundation in biblical teaching.
          -It is not necessary for us to resort to titles created by men, much less a Marian title, in drawing up inferences about the nature of Christ. Statements about how we come to understand Him can be made firsthand from His person, such as the Lamb of God, Son of God, and the God-man. Scripture already has enough information on the the person of Christ. 

          -The title mother of God has been mishandled to support an unbiblical ideology. Church councils are authoritative, insofar that they are consistent with the written Word of God. The sayings of men about theology are only subjective opinions and speculations apart from an objective standard to test them. Why is Mary's mother not called the Grandmother of God? Why would this exaltation not extend to her own lineage?

Does Galatians 2:16 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -Luke Lancaster wrote an article in which he defends the Roman Catholic view of justification. He argues that Galatians 2:16 does not exclude works of merit from justification before God, but affirms salvation to no longer be on the basis of the Mosaic Law. Right from the beginning of the post, a straw man argument has been erected by the author:

          "On this view, God is not concerned with whether the person obeyed God by living a holy life or whether he was baptized."

           The doctrine of Sola Fide simply means that we cannot earn our way into heaven by good works of any kind. It does not mean that God disregards our obedience to Him, but deemphasizes personal merit in obtaining a righteous standing before Him. Another aspect of Lancaster's argument being critiqued is cited here as follows:

         "Paul emphatically rebuked Peter. Man reaches heaven by the universal action of faith, which is always “working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as one family of God, which automatically dismantles any separation between them.

          Next, Paul draws out the —the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled by the New Law (Matt. 5:17). Jews and Gentiles have been united by Christ—He has torn down the wall separating them, and Paul cannot “build up again those things which I tore down” (Gal. 2:18). His identity is no longer found in the Mosaic Covenant, he has a new one: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20)."

          The Apostle Paul says that our justification is not by works. The reason given is that we receive a righteous standing before God by faith. In Galatians 2:16, he differentiates between faith and works of the Law. Paul denies that the latter is a way to receive justification before God. This truth is repeated three times in a single passage so as to stress its importance. Those who place their trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ will also serve Him, but that service does not constitute the basis for our justification before God.

          "The point of Galatians 2:16, then, is that Gentile Christians do not have to live like Jews. This is because going under the yoke of the Mosaic Law does not lead to salvation. Christians must follow Christ and His way of life (Gal. 6:2). They do what Christ commands, not what Moses commands (John 1:17). Christians need to live by faith, lovingly obeying Christ by loving others, which fulfills the whole Mosaic Law (Rom. 13:8). The Spirit empowers us to love others – and his presence particularly distinguishes the old yoke from the new (Rom. 8:1-4), which has the “circumcision of Christ,” baptism (Col. 2:11-12), and the new Passover, the Eucharist (1 Cor. 5:7, John 6:53).

          Galatians 2:16 has nothing to do with the Catholic belief that good works and receiving the sacraments are necessary, but not sufficient, for salvation. Deciding who spends eternity in heaven remains entirely the prerogative of our loving Creator, who has given ample guidance to the faithful. Our Protestant brothers and sisters have been misled about the meaning of the text, so let us gently show them their error (2 Tim. 2:25)."

          Justification does not depend on obedience to the Mosaic Law for the reason of God declaring us righteous by faith. There are no laws that we can obey to get right with God. The author glosses over what Paul says in Galatians. The Law of Love was literally embedded into the Mosaic system (Leviticus 19:17-18). To say that a person is not justified by the Law encompasses the Law of Love. Love of God and love of neighbor are what sum up the Law in its entirety (Matthew 22:36-40). There is not a single type of good behavior or work of grace that does not fit into those categories. We are saved by faith in God, apart from the merit of any and all good works. This excerpt from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary is pertinent here:

          "for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified--He rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Psa 143:2, "Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse and the blessing--are represented as diametrically opposed" [BENGEL]. The moral law is, in respect to justification, more legal than the ceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So "Sinai" (Gal 4:24), which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Rom 3:20)."

Micah 5:2 And The Deity Of Christ

        Micah 5:2 is regarded as a prophecy indicating where the Jewish Messiah would be born, a village called Bethlehem. This passage was written for the purpose of consoling a people devoid of hope, as it describes the arrival of a King in a futuristic sense who will bring about the redemption and restoration of Israel along with a kingdom that exists throughout the world. First century Jewish leaders during the first century understood Micah 5:1-2 to be a messianic prophecy (Matthew 2:3-6; Luke 2:4; John 7:41-42). King David was also born in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Jesus Christ is the most prominent figure in his lineage, legally speaking. God raised Christ up to rule eternally in David's royal ancestry through a covenantal promise (2 Samuel 7:12-17).

         There is an issue of word rendering in Micah 5:2 as it relates to the divinity of Christ. Translations such as the English Standard Version render the Hebrew word "olam" in this text as from ancient days, while others such as the New American Standard and King James read as from eternity. The Hebrew can either refer to unending time or to some distant point in the past. It can be argued that the Prophet Micah was conveying the meaning of eternity. The King being described in Micah 5:2 has supernatural qualities (compare with Isaiah 9:6).

         Jesus Christ did not exist from eternity past as a human. So, in that sense, He did indeed have a beginning. God the Son came down from heaven and took on human flesh. He was not created, but took on a new mode of existence. The phrase "ancient of days" refers to the incomprehensible essence of eternity. This source provides historical background regarding the interpretation of Micah 5:2:

        "Eliezer makes a remarkable observation: though the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, he existed “before the world was created” (Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 3:1). Micah says his goings forth are מִימֵי עֹולָֽם mimei olam (“from the days of eternity”). In other words, the Messiah has eternally existed. The Messiah is not a created being. The text implies a divine nature. Early Jewish interpreters understood this. The writer of 1 Enoch says, “From the beginning the Son of Man was hidden and the Most High has preserved him” (1 Enoch 62:7). Classical rabbinic texts described a pre-existent Messiah in b. Pesachim 54a, Nedarim 39a, the Revelation of R Joshua b Levi, and Seder Gan Eden." (Jacobs and Buttenweiser, “Messiah,” 511)"

        The text is obviously addresses the pre-existence of the Jewish Messiah. The idea of beginnings is emphasized twice in a row in the same passage. Consider also the rendering of Micah 5:2 as found in the New International Version where it says "origins." The meaning of this is that Jesus Christ is eternal. If Micah 5:2 is referring to a specific point in time when the Messiah was created by God, then it would simply be redundant. It would not make any sense for Him to be brought into existence many times. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary has this excerpt:

        "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalms 90:2, Proverbs 8:22, Proverbs 8:23, John 1:1 )."

         As for Matthew paraphrasing the messianic prophecy given through Micah and the LXX translation, it has been observed that:

         “A literal translation of Mic. 5:1 MT (5:2 ET) reads, “And you Bethlehem Ephrathah, little [or, ‘insignificant’] among the thousands [or, ‘clans’] of Judah, from you to me will go forth to be a ruler in Israel.…” Micah 5:1 LXX (5:2 ET) translates the Hebrew quite literally, but adds “house of” before “Ephrathah” and changes “thousands” to “rulers of thousands.” Matthew follows the LXX verbatim for “and you Bethlehem,” replaces “(house of) Ephrathah” with “land of Judah,” adds “by no means” before “little,” changes the adjective to the superlative form “least,” replaces “rulers of thousands” with “governors,” omits “to me,” but then reproduces “out of you will go forth” using LXX wording.” (The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by D.A. Carson and Gregory K. Beale)

Isaiah 9:6 Is A Problem For Jehovah's Witnesses

        The Jehovah's Witness New World Translation renders Isaiah 9:6 in the following manner:

        "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the rulership [the footnote for this word says "government; princely rule"] will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

        Note how this text is supportive of the full deity of Jesus Christ. That is something which is denied by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, a passage which says that Jesus is God can be found in a translation of the Bible that was specifically designed to remove references to His divinity. Even the New World Translation contradicts the doctrine of the Watchtower Society.

        If this is presented to a Jehovah's Witness, then he may very well be stunned or feel the need to explain away the meaning of Isaiah 9:6.

On Pope John Paul II Kissing An Islamic Koran

          Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) once kissed an Islamic Koran during a meeting with the Patriarch of Chaldean. This action no doubt resulted in controversy, as one has to wonder precisely what this man was thinking. After all, the Islamic religion rejects the gospel. It denies the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. So it is quite evident that Islam and biblical Christianity are incompatible with each other.

          Whatever the case, there is no wisdom in Christians (especially the supposed earthly head of the Christian church) bowing their heads and kissing the sacred texts of different religions. There is literally no excuse for such conduct, as such communicates endorsement. Christ made an exclusive truth claim (John 14:6). If other belief systems are acceptable to God, then Christ would be a liar and false messiah. That charge would be blasphemous to the utmost.

           If the pope is truly the Vicar of Christ on earth, then why would he display so much reverence for a religion that fundamentally contradicts his own? His action so clearly resembles that of an apostate (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 9-11). He also could have mislead those who are unlearned by his irresponsible act. Why then do Roman Catholics try so hard to defend this sort of behavior? The rightful thing to do would be to simply admit that the pope erred. Moreover, it is not as though we will ever see an imam kissing the Holy Bible.

          It seems that the pope these days will do anything to gain political influence. That appears to be the motivating factor behind the Vatican associating with Islam. The Roman Bishop definitely seems to be a figure who has charisma. Even today, millions flock to Rome just to behold him as he lectures. Faithful Roman Catholics bow before him and kiss the hand which wields the ring molded for his coronation. All of this is idolatry, pure idolatry.

The Charismatic Misuse And Abuse Of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Commentary:

This passage has been used by charismatic Christians to demonstrate that the miraculous gifts of prophecy and tongues will remain in the church until the Second Coming of Christ. Non-charismatics have used this verse to argue that tongues and prophecy ceased upon the completion of the canon of Scripture or the maturing of the early church. These interpretations turn on the meaning of "the perfect" (to teleion).

What both charismatics and non-charismatics can agree upon is that the gifts mentioned in this verse will be "done away with" (in the case of prophecy and knowledge) and will "cease" (in the case of tongues). They would also agree that the reason these gifts will not continue forever is that they are inadequate - imperfect in relation to the "perfect" that is coming. Finally, they would agree that the gifts were operative in Paul's time and that the time of their cessation was a future event for him. The difference in interpretation lies in whether the gifts mentioned have ceased prior to our time, or whether they are still operative for us, as they were for Paul, and their cessation lies yet in the future.

A careful reading of the text demonstrates that Paul may be drawing a distinction between tongues on the one hand and prophecy and knowledge on the other. The latter two gifts will be "done away" with (katargeo). Tongues are said to "cease" (pauo). The "perfect" will actively "do away" with the "partial." Katargeo is in the passive voice, indicating that the coming of the "perfect" is the cause of the "partial" passing away. Tongues, however, will cease of themselves. Pauo is in the Greek middle voice, which is defined as "an action taken by the subject upon him, her, or itself" (Friberg). Thus, tongues will "cease" of themselves - not as a direct result of "the perfect" coming. If this is the case, Paul is not speaking definitively about when tongues will cease - only that when "the perfect" comes, tongues will no longer be operative in the church. "The perfect" will do away with prophecy and knowledge; but tongues will have ceased at some point prior to that event.

Thus, even if we take "the perfect" to be the Second Coming, this verse does not teach that tongues will be active in the church at Christ's return.

As mentioned, "the perfect" is often taken by non-charismatics as being the completion of the canon This interpretation is possible, based on one of the meanings of teleion ("perfect, perfection, completion"). However, this interpretation seems foreign to the immediate context. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary notes:

It is difficult to prove the cessation of these gifts at the end of the first century A.D. by taking teleion to refer to a completion of the canon at that time, since that idea is completely extraneous to the context. While teleion can and does refer to something completed at some time in the future, the time of that future completion is not suggested in v. 10 as being close (EBC).

Other non-charismatics take teleion to be the maturity of the church, which more or less coincides with the completion of the canon. This interpretation is contextually more plausible (1 Corinthians 12 - 14 centers on church conduct), and thematically appealing:

There is much to commend this view, including the natural accord it enjoys with the illustration of growth and maturity which Paul used in the following verses (BKC).

However, I find this view somewhat strained lexically. While teleion can mean "a state of maturity" when speaking of a person, there are no other NT examples of it carrying this meaning when used of a collective group or abstract noun (which must be inferred as "church" in this interpretation). An additional problem with this interpretation is the fact that Paul says in verse 12 that "at that time" (i.e., when "the perfect" comes), he will "know fully." It does not seem reasonable to understand Paul to be saying that he expected to live to see the maturity of the church and then to "know fully." Rather, it seems more likely that Paul here is referring to a time of spiritual completion - either when he dies and goes to be with Christ, or at the resurrection following Christ's Second Coming.

Indeed, many evangelical commentators understand "the perfect" to mean either the Second Coming or the perfection of the human soul that occurs when the Christian is united with Christ in death:

On the other hand, in a number of contexts the related words telos ("end," "termination;" "last part") and teleo ("bring to an end") are used in relation to the second coming of Christ. This is true in both non-Pauline writing (cf. James 5:11; Rev 20:5, 7; 21:6; 22:13) and 1 Corinthians 1:8; 15:24. Since in the contexts of the Second Coming these related words are used and since Paul himself used telos in talking about the Second Coming elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, it seems more normal to understand teleion in v. 10 to mean that "perfection" is to come about at the Second Coming, or, if before, when the Christian dies and is taken to be with the Lord (2Cor 5:1-10) (EBC).

"But it seems that the perfect thing Paul has in mind must be the eternal state - "face to face" in verse 12 can best be explained as being with God in the new heavens and new earth. It is only in glory that we will know as we are known (John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p. 389).

But in heaven, faith will be swallowed up in actual sight, and hope in enjoyment. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But there, love will be made perfect. There we shall perfectly love God. And there we shall perfectly love one another. Blessed state! how much surpassing the best below! (Henry).

On the whole, it is probably best to take to teleion to mean the Second Coming (though the maturity of the church is possible as well). The gift of tongues will cease at some point prior to Christ's return, while this sublime event will do away with knowledge and prophecy. These two gifts need not be taken to be miraculous manifestations, but rather the gift of knowledge that allows the believers to grasp and retain the meaning of God's revelation and the gift of prophecy that allows teachers and pastors to powerfully and truthfully proclaim God's Word. Indeed, the view that knowledge and prophecy would lead to new revelations would contradict the counsel of Scripture in countless other places. Spiritual gifts - whether spectacular or mundane - are always focused on God's revelation, now complete in the pages of our Bibles.

Grammatical Analysis:

PAUSONTAI (PAUW) (3973)

• mid[dle voice] stop (oneself), cease (BAGD)
• to cease, leave off (Thayer)
• They shall cease (pausontai). Future middle indicative of pauô, to make
• cease. They shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves (RWP).

TELEION (TELEIOS) (5046)

• having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect; subst[tantive] to teleion what is perfect Ro 12:2; perh[aps] 1 Cor 13:10 (BAGD)
• brought to its end, finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect ... to teleion, substantively, that which is perfect... the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven 1 Cor xiii. 10 (Thayer).

Other Views Considered (Charismatics):

Objection: In order to understand this statement we need to examine its context. Paul said that prophecies will cease, tongues will be stilled, knowledge will pass away, and perfection will come (verses 8-10). Paul was speaking of a time yet future both to his original readers and to us. When the kingdom of our Lord is ushered in, perfection will come and there will be no further need of Spirit-given knowledge, prophecy, and tongues. They will disappear because they will be longer needed. But these operations of the Spirit are still needed today.

There is no indication in Scripture that tongues would cease at the end of the first century. Tongues are to be a part of the life of the church in every generation until Christ returns to set up His perfect kingdom. Paul's perception was that spiritual gifts would be operational until that day (1 Corinthians 1:7, 8) (from The Assemblies of God website).

Response: It must be admitted that this view is possible; however, it requires that we understand Paul's distinction between tongues "ceasing" of their own accord (middle voice) and prophecy/knowledge to be "done away" with directly by the coming of "the perfect" (passive voice) to be mere stylist variations and not related to the overall meaning of the text. Given Paul's careful use of language throughout this epistle, as well as in his other letters, a stylistic nuance seems unlikely.

If, as seems probable, Paul is teaching that tongues will cease of their own accord before the Second Coming, this interpretation must be rejected - at least with regard to tongues.

While there is no direct statement in the Bible that tongues will cease following the Apostolic age, there is substantial evidence that tongues did, in fact, cease. We may note that tongues are only mentioned in the earliest NT books. Paul wrote at least 12 epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter, James, Jude, and John do not mention tongues. There is no evidence from the sub-Apostolic fathers that tongues existed in the church after the first century (see Cleon Rogers, "The Gift of Tongues in the Post-Apostolic Church," Bibliotheca Sacra, 122, p. 134). An interesting sect known as the Montanists seem to have practiced something like speaking in tongues in the second century, but this group was considered heretical by other Christians because of its insistence that its leaders were receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit which added to - and even supplanted - the recorded teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

The Montanist movement was defeated almost incidentally as a result of measures the church took against Gnosticism and Marcionism, especially by the definition of the canon of Scripture, which closed the door to Montanus' new revelations (Heresies, p. 68).

While isolated groups on the fringes of mainstream Christianity have, from time to time, practiced something akin to speaking in tongues, this spiritual gift has not been normative for Christians since the Apostolic age - at least, not prior to the modern Pentecostal movement in late 1800's. Thus, the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that tongues have not ceased, a burden that would seem heavy indeed, based on the historical record.

Copyright © 2001-2005 by Robert Hommel. For an Answer Ministries (http://www.forananswer.org). All rights reserved.

Biblical Illiteracy Within The Roman Catholic Church

"There was a far more extensive and continuous use of Scripture in the public services of the early Church than there is among us. Usually speaking, our people only hear the Gospel and Epistle read in the Mass, with the psalms and the little chapter (scarcely more than a verse or two), usually from the Epistle, at vespers and compline on Sundays or great feasts. In the primitive Church it was very different."

Tom Arnold and William Edward Addis, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing Some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, p. 509

Analyzing The Spiritual But Not Religious Movement

          There is a trend within Christianity where a distinction is made between religion and spirituality. In other words, adherents of this movement have pitted the two words against each other or treated them like distinct concepts. Organized religion altogether has been condemned by these people as being legalism, which gets in the way of people growing in their relationship with the God. The phrase "spiritual but not religious," albeit of uncertain origin, has been used as a label for this contemporary movement relating to self-identity.

          While it is true that Jesus Christ vehemently denounced the outward ceremonial righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, it is a huge mistake to oppose being religious due to having a facile understanding on the nature of faith. True faith involves obeying God on His own terms. He joyfully communes with members of His church through the sharing of and living out the gospel. Additionally, the offices of elder and deacon are structurally set up for regulating the moral principles and worship habits of God's people.

          Therefore, Christianity is, in a very real sense, religious according to the purpose and design which God has mandated to maintain His church's spiritual vitality. James, the brother of Jesus, firmly acknowledges the contrast between dead religion rooted in hypocrisy and the worship that pleases our Creator (James 1:21-27). How we view religion should be determined by the context in which that word is used. Religion and spirituality are actually synonymous. If God had a problem with "religion" in and of itself, then why did He give the Jews the Mosaic Law?

          Us placing our trust in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ alone in no way nullifies our calling to serve God in the manner that He expects us to. God does not only enjoy fellowship with us on an individualized basis, but also with us as a collective body. Spirituality cannot be found within ourselves, as is proposed in Eastern religions. We are fallen creatures. We are not deities. God Himself is the ultimate solution to our problems.

How Christ’s Incarnation Differs From The Hindu Idea Of Avatar

Jesus Christ’s life, death, and miraculous resurrection are events rooted in history. Whereas the lives of the Hindu holy men are enveloped in mythology.

As an Eastern mystical religion, Hinduism does not emphasize chronology. And modern-day Hindus show little interest in the “historical” Krishna the way contemporary Christians inquire about the historicity of Jesus.

Scholar and Krishna devotee Mataji Devi Vanamali explains:

“Hinduism is not a historical religion. If somebody were to prove conclusively that Krishna, Rama, and the various gods of the Hindu pantheon never existed, most Hindus would not mind in the least, and the religion would continue to flourish as it has done for so many centuries. However, to the devotees of Krishna, he is as real as any of their friends or relatives or children, depending on how they regard him—as friend, relation, child, or lover. This being so, most Indians have not bothered to verify his existence.”1

Thus a major difference between Jesus Christ and the Hindu holy men (including Krishna) relates to history and the question of historical verification.

1. Vanamali, The Complete Life of Krishna: Based on the Earliest Oral Traditions and Sacred Scriptures (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2012), xiii-xiv.

Kenneth Samples, cited by Ken Temple

How Were Gentiles Saved In The Old Testament?

           The Mosaic Covenant was instituted for the Jewish people to serve as a code to guide behavior and a system of forgiveness. It foreshadowed the greater atonement of Jesus Christ that actually perfects those who believe on Him for salvation. The weakness of the Old Covenant is manifested by it requiring repeated animal sacrifices. While the Old Testament is mainly centered upon Israel, it does speak of the Gentile cultures which surrounded that nation. We are told that God held non-Jewish people accountable for sins such as idolatry and sexual immorality (2 Kings 22:17; Romans 1:18-32), with the reason being that they violated the law written on their hearts by God. This leaves us with an interesting question. How could the Gentiles be reconciled to a holy God before Christ came to die for their sins?

           The Law that was given to Israel by God through the Prophet Moses exemplified its uniqueness as a nation before the pagan cultures (Deuteronomy 4:5-9; Isaiah 42:5-7). The Law even contained clauses regarding the proper treatment of outsiders, thereby demonstrating God's care for those who were not Jewish. He provides equally for both the Jew and Gentile (Deuteronomy 10:16-21). The nations are in view through the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The Apostle Paul further elaborated on this truth as he was given new revelation from God (Ephesians 3:1-13). Non-Jewish believers were considered as members of His kingdom in the same manner as a believing Jew.

           Paul's revelation was groundbreaking in the context of early Christianity. He emphasized that God's grace extended beyond the boundaries of ethnicity and tradition, uniting Jewish and non-Jewish believers alike under a single divine promise. Through this new understanding, he sought to break down the barriers that had long divided people. Paul fostered a spirit of inclusivity within the early church. This message of unity and equality was revolutionary, affirming that faith in Christ was the sole prerequisite for full membership in God's kingdom. Cultural or religious background was ireelevant.

           Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament by converting to Judaism. They were saved by placing their trust in the God of Israel and identifying themselves with His people. False gods were forsaken for the worship of Yahweh. One noteworthy example of conversion is that of Rahab (Joshua 2). Another example of conversion is Ruth. She exhibited faith in God and entered into His covenant, which consisted of trusting in the promise of a future redeemer as foretold by the Holy Scriptures. The coming of a Messiah was believed by the patriarchs and the Jews in general. Converts partook in the Passover (Exodus 12:46-50). God has never been beyond the reach of individuals who truthfully seek after Him (Acts 17:26-27).