For PERSPECTIVES Vol. 4 No. 1 [January-April 2001]   

Please feel free to submit short questions or your comments. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. We reserve the right to use or not use submitted material (in whole or in part), to include your name, and to edit or condense your questions for clarity and space. Click here to submit a question or comment to the editor.

The Torah

What scripture of the bible states that the Torah is null and void as the legal code?

--Worth Wray

The Sinaitic Covenant was a contract. In legal terms the phrase "null and void" simply means "not binding" and nothing more. The specific words are not in the New Testament but the doctrine they symbolize is (see our feature article above). The Sinaitic Covenant was a form of "marriage" agreement between the ancient nation of Israel and the Eternal God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8, 16:20, 16:32). In Christ, God became human. The death of Christ permanently terminated this "marriage" covenant and therefore the Law (the Torah) flowing from it following the nature and conditions of such agreements. It became null and void at his death. The two covenants did not coexist, for without the cessation of the Sinaitic Covenant God would not be free to enter into the New Covenant, for it contained a marriage provision as well. The Sinaitic Covenant, construed as a form of marriage agreement, also made it possible for God to divorce the house of Israel (Jeremiah 3:8). This dissolution of the marriage was sufficient in itself to discontinue the Sinaitic Covenant as to the house of Israel. As to the house of Judah, the death of Jesus of Nazareth brought the agreement to a permanent end. See also Sinaitic Covenant Terminated.

--editor

Ark of The Covenant under Golgotha?

Regarding your question from writer Knut Synnes inquiring of someone discovering the Ark of The Covenant under Golgotha: I believe the source of this story can be found on a website called Ron Wyatt's Biblical Treasures.

There is a rather detailed story on the site about Mr. Wyatt and his sons being allowed to excavate in the Golgotha (my recollection is that they claim "the Golgotha" was found in an overlooked rubbish or dump site) area perhaps ten or so years ago (maybe longer, I don't remember). He claims to have discovered the postholes for public-execution "cross" setup, and a crack near one of these holes in the bedrock. After much digging he claims to have discovered a hidden entrance to a room or cave beneath, which contained the Ark, and that this Ark had what he assumed to be blood stains on it. They closed their dig and have never revealed the exact entrance location to the discovery. Mr. Wyatt apparently had a number of explorations in the middle east and claims several other discoveries. One of which was the location of the "real Mount Sinai", Jabal Al Lawz, in Saudi Arabia. This apparently precedes by some time the much- advertised surreptitious visit to Jabal Al Lawz by Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams ( the video tape of this escapade can be obtained from Bible Archaeology, Search and Exploration Institute 800 680-3300). If Wyatt's story is to be believed, he found this site long before Cornuke and Williams. I have no idea of the veracity of Mr. Wyatt's claims, but the web site is interesting reading. He is now deceased, but his sons and his wife apparently maintain a museum related to his discoveries in Tennessee. Anyway, this is offered as a response as to where the information alluded to by your questioner is coming from as a source.

--Tim

Poor Joe, An Observant Jew or the Antichrist?

I think that it is very possible that Joe Lieberman is the Antichrist. The Antichrist must be a Jew (Daniel 11:37 KJV). The phrase "God of his fathers" and every other similar phrase like "God of your fathers, God of their fathers, etc." (a total of 51 times throughout the Bible) are ALWAYS in connection with the God of Israel and NEVER connected to any other god or gods. NEVER. The newer bibles are WRONG for putting "gods of his fathers" in Daniel 11:37.(There are other places as well which imply that the Antichrist is Jewish such as Jesus' statement in John chapter 5 which tells us that the orthodox Jews who rejected him are going to accept the false Messiah. They would never accept a GENTILE as their long awaited Messiah. The Jews know (and you should also) that the expected Messiah has to be a Jew!)

Ok, now that that's out of the way: The Antichrist gets 3 1/2 years of power (Rev. 13).Our President gets 4 years. If Gore gets elected and then dies after about 6 months (July of 2001) that would leave Lieberman with the remaining 42 months. That would fulfill Revelation 13. Daniel 11:20 describes the predecessor of the Antichrist. It says that he will end up dying after a short time. This would fit in perfectly.

If Gore gets elected, Lieberman would be the first Vice-President to actually fit the description of an antichrist in 1st John chapter 2.(denying that Jesus is the Christ, he is antichrist). Every President and Vice-President so far have all claimed to be Christians. Lieberman is an orthodox Jew who rejects Jesus. He is an antichrist according to 1 John chapter 2.If Lieberman does become President, the orthodox Jews will probably look at him as their long awaited Jewish Messiah riding to victory on the democratic donkey (Zech. 9:9) ! The Jewish translations of Zechariah 9:9 change the word "salvation" to "victory". So, he comes in VICTORY in their eyes, NOT with salvation as in our Christian Bible translations. The orthodox Jews expect their Messiah to rule the modern day Roman Empire. They would probably proclaim Lieberman as Messiah if he has anything to do with the rebuilding of the Temple. Daniel chapter 11 says that the Antichrist doesn't get the "honor of the kingdom" (the top seat in the kingdom) but he ends up getting in by flatteries. Gore picked Lieberman in order to flatter the American people and show them just how inclusive the Democrat party can be, and if Lieberman's the Antichrist, YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE INCLUSIVE THAN THAT!!! Also, Daniel 11:17-19 may be describing Bill Clinton. (This is the leader right before the one who dies an untimely death, ---that is, Gore) It says that he corrupts a young woman and that she doesn't stand on his side (Liewinski). It also says that he has reproach (shame) on him.

So, if I am correct, then we are to expect the following:

1. Gore will win the coming election (this HAS TO occur in order for my view to be true).

2. Gore will be known for raising taxes. (Hebrew: "he causes an exacter to pass over" --- Maybe he'll put taxes on the internet or something? Democrats are known for raising taxes.)

3. Gore will then die an untimely death. ("neither in anger or in battle", ---possibly a health problem)---Gore would have to die about 6 months into his first term (July of 2001). The exact date of Lieberman's starting point would be July 11th)Subtract 42 lunar months [exactly 1260] days from when Gore's first term would end (Dec 31, 2004) and you come up with July 11th of 2001 as Lieberman's starting point.

4. Lieberman becomes President and fulfills the remainder of Daniel. (from 11:21 onward) I would keep a very close eye on Lieberman.

Just recently his 2nd cousin Rabbi Lieberman got killed in Israel while defending "Josephs tomb". Put Lieberman (the Rabbi) and Joseph (the tomb) together and you get Joseph Lieberman (Just something extra to think about.) If he does become President, I can easily see him getting revenge on the Palestinians somehow. I believe that the President of the USA represents the king of the North and the head Arab leader in the middle east represents the king of the South. Maybe Saddam Hussein.

--Sal Conte

This argument is either a joke or a classic example of eisegesis, that is reading into biblical text what one wants to believe rather than reading out of the text in context. As far as the Bible itself goes, there are only three texts that deal explicitly with this evil ruler-the book of Daniel, Paul's letter of II Thessalonians, and the book of Revelation. None of these picture the Antichrist as Jewish--far from it!

Daniel 11:36-40 deals with a political leader. This ruler will "consider himself greater than any god" and speak horrendous things against the God of Israel, invading the Holy Land, capturing Jerusalem, and oppressing the Jews. All biblical scholars know the model here is the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek-Syrian ruler who oppressed Israel during the time of the Maccabees (165 BCE). His defeat is celebrated at Hanukkah. Antiochus, as the original archetype of the Antichrist, is surely about as non-Jewish as you can get!

In the second passage the apostle Paul alludes to this very text of Daniel when he offers his own interpretation regarding the arrival of this figure (II Thessalonians 2:3-11). He is to "sit in the Temple of God, claiming that he himself is God." Paul clearly has the actions of the Roman Emperor Caligula in mind here, who attempted to do just that in CE 41--ordering his own statue to be set up in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. At the time II Thessalonians was written all eyes were focused on the emperor Nero, who was expected to behave in similarly mad ways. Again, it is unmistakable that Paul does not have in mind a figure who would be Jewish.

The book of Revelation states the most about this evil figure of history, with "Rome" written all over the various descriptions of his reign of terror. His mysterious identifying number is 666 and the title Nero Caesar, spelled in Hebrew neron kasar which has numbers associated with each letter of the alphabet, adds up to just that sum. The standard Roman numerals--I, V, X, L, C, D, when added up, also total 666. The Antichrist does attack Jerusalem, and oppresses the people of God, but he rules from a city set on Seven Hills that controls the whole earth-clearly Rome. The writer of Revelation, like Daniel and Paul, understands the final oppressor as a Gentile-on the model of an Antiochus, a Caligula, a Nero, or a Domitian-who did oppose Jews and Christians.

None of these Bible texts offer the slightest possibility that the Antichrist is understood to be a Jew. For more information read the editorial by James D. Tabor.

--editor

Is Jesus God?

Jesus is not God, the bible clearly states that he mentioned God as his Father, why in the world would he pray to himself, and in the model prayer state ' our father'. And I'm not in the school of thought that it's oh, so a mystery that it's not meant for mere man to understand. The word of God was written precisely to de-mystify himself and be known by his earthly children as to who he is what his purposes are.

--dzsd

The teaching of the apostles was that Jesus was indeed God. Their writings claim that Jesus is the eternal Word, through whom and for whom God created all things. They taught that before his human birth, he existed eternally with God and as God (John 1:1-2, 1:14; Revelation 1:8). They held that God created everything in the universe by and through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3). For the first Christians Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah, sent from God to be humanity�s Savior and redeemer (John 1:29; 3:15-17; Acts 4:12). They believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, engendered in the human flesh of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18� 25; Luke 1:34�35).

The nature of God separated Jews and Judeo-Christians in the early years of Christianity. Paul held that Jesus was a stumbling block to unbelieving Jews. "For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 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" (I Corinthians 1:23-24 NASB).

--editor

YHWH and Allah, One and the Same? 

With reference to your lead article on the website in 'Biblical Archaeology' magazine regarding the violence in Palestine, the statement is made: "Judaism and Islam are mutually incompatible religious systems -- YHWH and Allah are not the same God." How can you derive the one statement from the other?

Christian Arabs worship Allah the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (blessed be His name!). Christians believe that He is the same as the YHWH of Israel's prophets, as also does the Qur'an, quite emphatically.

Did I misread your intention? It is certainly true that the conservative elements in both "religious systems" are incompatible, but to state that these are therefore two different gods is NOT true religiously, as far as both Christian and Islam teaching is concerned, and it is certainly NOT true as far as the pre-Islamic history of Arabia is concerned.

--Lloyd Thomas, Cape Town

Thank you for making this point. The word God can mean many different things to reasonable people. Christians claim to worship a monotheistic deity they refer to phonetically as God but some of them unknowingly worship false deities they believe is the true God of the Bible. The apostles taught that these deities are none other than manifestations of Satan, the god of this world, and as a result their religions are vain and demonic. Worshipping Satan and calling him God does not change the fact that Satan is not the true God of the Bible.

You indicate that Allah is the standard Arabic word for God, derived from Il�h the North Arabian longer form of El, predating Islam. It is true that Christians as well as Muslims use the term in reference to a supreme deity. Moreover, Allah does share the same root as the ancient Hebrew term for God. The archaeological evidence of the stone lintel dated to about 100 years before Mohammed reading in Arabic "Blessed be Allah the father of our Lord Jesus Christ" is a quote from Ephesians 1:3. So we have Arabic Christians, anciently and today, using sounds and alphabetic characters to describe the deity they believe the first Christians and the apostles knew as God (in its Greek and Hebrew forms) just as we use the word God in English.

Nevertheless, when people speak of God and claim their concept of God as the Creator and the one and only true God does not make the deity they worship the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Simply because they claim and declare their Jesus (often pronounced Gee-zazz) or their deity as the God of the Bible does not make it so. There is no God but one (I Corinthians 8:4) but there are thousands of counterfeit religions in the world, many of them masquerading as authentic Christianity, using the words Jesus of Nazareth, God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Allah of Christian Arabs is not the Allah of Islam. The phonetics may be the same but not the theological concept.

Our original point was that the deity worshipped by Jews and Muslims is not one and the same, irrespective of the use of the identical language, for their deity or in reference to the same Scriptures. The controlling evidence lies not in linguistics but in theology. In this case the Islamic concept of the deity they worship and the way of life that it entails as opposed to the deity Jews worship and the Jewish way of life. The nature of the three great monotheistic religions is that God is one but the question is which one? Those called by God and indwelled by the Holy Spirit have no doubt which is the true God and which are the counterfeits.

--editor

You Don't Believe Very Much

Just scanned through your section WHAT WE BELIEVE, and it seems that you don't believe very much. It would do you well to look into the scriptures a little more and do more study into the names of the father and the son. Their names are forever. YAHWEH the father and YAHSHUA the son and their names are forever. YAHWEH IS THE FATHERS NAME, and will remain his name forever. He remains the same yesterday today and forever. When Yahshua comes he is not coming to institute some new law. It will be the same law he kept when he was here on the earth. The Greeks have done a wonderful job on the new testament in hiding the name of Yahshua, the only name whereby we may be saved. The Greeks have substituted the name with the name Zeus. The letter J was not added to the English language til the 1700's. Prove all things, and if they are not true then don't print them on your site for all to read.

--Hank Hines

Sorry you don't like our statement of fundamental beliefs even though they come from God's Word. Well, we decided to revisit it and make some adjustments. We recognize that reasonable people can differ on the meaning of the Scriptures under the best of circumstances. At least we gave scriptural authority for those beliefs and will continue to refine our writing. Where, however, is your evidence? All we see in your e-mail is, in today's language, spin. The thrust of your argument reads like the sacred names heresy.

--editor

Our Words Screw Up?

You are going to screw up a lot of people's thoughts on God when you go against what the Bible says. IT says that there was nothing before God created everything and the Earth was bare before He created any beings. Get your facts straight.

--Kaerobani

We agree there was nothing but God before God created something, but where in the Bible do you find that the earth was bare? You don't. There was a time, however, when there were no lifeforms on the earth--millions of years ago when it was in the process of cooling down.

--editor

Divorces Among Christians

Matthew 5:31-32. Your comment? I believe many divorces among Christians and others are caused by greed, abuse - emotional and physical - and many other reasons in addition to fornication. Does verse 32 mean it is acceptable to divorce and remarry for fornication only? I am not trying to start a discussion, or argument I would like to know you opinion.

--Vernon Rio

Some people interpret this passage as applying to fornication only. In other words the marriage was fraudulent in its inception. In such a case the usual legal rule is that the injured party can elect to be bound or to annul the marriage. Before the 1950s in the USA this was the general rule in divorce cases. Today it is no-fault dissolution of marriage.

Other people argue that the word in Greek translated fornication in the KJ includes conduct that we understand as adultery or fornication. In this understanding the aggrieved party would be free to put away the mate for adultery according to Jesus' words.

In either case Jesus addressed a group of unconverted Jews still bound to the Sinaitic Covenant and its Law of Moses. This makes any applicability to Christians difficult because it removes the teaching from its original context. The New Covenant was not applicable until after Jesus' death and the Acts 2 coming of the Holy Spirit (creation of the Church). The Law of Christ is a wholly different matter than the Law of Moses.

You might want to take a look at I Corinthians 7:8-16. The rule of law here appears to revolve around what a believer or an unbeliever is by definition. If a believer is one indwelled with the Holy Spirit then the converted party can put away an unbelieving mate under certain circumstances. I have known professing believers whose conduct (failure to support their family, physical and emotional abuse, repeated adultery, incest) is wholly inconsistent with conversion. In such cases the unbelieving partner, according to the apostle Paul (not the Lord as he says) can be put away and the believer is free to remarry. So-called believers who would connive to put away their mates are by definition not believers.

--editor

What Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?

I was wondering if you guys know anything interesting about the Ark of the Covenant. Do you have any theories about it? Or if it was taken by Egyptians when they raided Jerusalem?

--James Kaerobani

The ark remains lost. It was lost even in Jesus' day. No one really knows when, how, or why it disappeared. Click here to view our answer to a similar question.

--editor

Were the Ten Commandments Found?

I have a friend who believes that the ten commandments (the original stone tablets written by God) have been found. I have tried to find proof, one way or the other, but have had no luck. Any information you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

--LaMarr Anderson

The original stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments were kept within the ark. The ark remains lost and with it the tablets. If they were found we would all hear about it. The problem is that you cannot really prove a negative but only show the improbability of it. Why not place the burden on your friend to produce the evidence?

--editor

Second Coming

Do you think we will see the second coming in the near future? The European Union is developing fast. Where will the antichrist come from, Europe, Asia, the U.S., what biblical evidence is there?

--Pradip Joshi

Not in the near future, but it could occur in the lifetime of people now living, for there are important biblical prophecies that must be fulfilled before that time. Many Christians believe that the Third Temple must be built first and that there will be a rapture that will remove them from the world before the Great Tribulation. The latter was not the teaching of the apostles. It is a regrettable heresy read into the New Testament giving many people a false sense of security and an incorrect view of prophecy and biblical Christianity. The doctrine is of recent origin and was not a teaching of the Church in its first 1500 years of history. The Bible suggests that the antichrist will be a European leader claiming to be a Christian. Read our comments above on Poor Joe.

--editor

Was Herod Antipas a Jew?

Can you please answer this question for me? Am I right in assuming that Herod Antipas was a Jew and for this reason and as a descendent of Judea, the king of Galilee? Thank you

--Susy Woods

Herod Antipas, called Herod the tetrarch in the New Testament, was a Jew as the term was understood in Herodian times. He was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace and became the king of Galilee through succession on the death of his father Herod the Great.

--editor

Biblical Languages

I have a question about something in one of the articles on your site, this was the comment: The dominant language of the Roman empire was Latin, but its use was predominately in the West. The koine, meaning "common," Greek was spoken throughout the Eastern portion of the empire and in much of the West. While Aramaic was a common language of the Syro-Palestine region it was of limited consequence in the Roman Empire.

Of even less consequence was classical Hebrew, which had so fallen from use that it was archaic and relegated to formal religious matters. From the vantage point of CE 68 it was likely seen to be too limited as a result of the then-raging First Jewish Revolt and its probable consequences. Thus Hebrew was impractical, Aramaic was limiting, and Latin was far too removed. Yet Greek was used extensively throughout the Eastern portions of the empire.

My question is "when did this change?"

--A. Braxas

Language is dynamic and is always changing. From time to time languages become extinct. Scholars believe that the Jewish people adopted the language of the Babylonians when in captivity and brought Aramaic with them when they returned to Eretz Israel at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Hence, the prevailing view is that Aramaic was their primary language at the time of Herod and Jesus. Some Israeli scholars argue that Mishnaic Hebrew was the common spoken language by Judean Jews in the first century CE not Aramaic.

--editor

Page last edited: 01/05/06 07:59 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often