People are NOT healed all the time, why we still pray

It is a fact that people are NOT healed, all the time by God; those who argue this is NOT a fact, is in denial. It is indeed a fact that not everyone is healed by God all the time no matter how hard we pray. As Christians, if we claim 100% success rate all the time, we are NOT doing God a favor, rather we are doing Him a disfavor. God NEVER promises unconditionally He will heal everyone in his present life on earth. Many verses can be cited for support of God heals, but none is saying that God promises unconditionally to heal everyone or for anyone all the time. As a minister in healing, we should refrain from stating that there is such an unconditional promise. If God does NOT heal all the time, should we still pray for healing?

It is NOT just healing
But it is also a fact that it is NOT just for healing, that we do NOT get a 100% success rate when we pray. We pray for many things and all sort of things; if you can have 100% success rate over long period of time, or near to it, let me know, maybe you can pray for me! Let me point out that it is therefore, improper to deemphasize praying for the sick any more than praying for other matters (job, life-time partner, money, shelter, and food or deliverance). In other words, the lack of 100% success rate is NOT limited to praying for the sick.

How do we explain, NOT all are healed?
Yes, it is true NOT all are healed when we pray for them; it is because God NEVER promises unconditionally to heal all, in their present lives on earth.

The redemptive works of Jesus Christ on the Cross are of 3-folds, spiritual, physical, works (or purpose). For understanding of this, please read my separate article, “Works of redemption by our Lord”. Basically, under physical, the body is being referred to, and my exposition in the article is that full redemption of the body is NOT intended in our current living on earth.

Full redemption comes after we pass on or when Jesus comes back (rapture following it), when we take on our incorruptible body. After The Fall, it was NEVER intended Man shall live forever in his earthly body; he is destined to die, so that he can take on the incorruptible body. That is why there is NEVER an unconditional promise in Scripture that God heals. You see, if God did give an unconditional promise to heal, then it will be God MUST heal, and if God MUST heal, then Man cannot die, and when Man cannot die, Man cannot take on the incorruptible body that Jesus talked about, and that scripture will NOT come to pass.

That, Adam and Eve would eventually died, did NOT stop God’s caring for them
After Adam and Eve sinned against God in The Fall, as decreed by God, they must die in accordance to the commandments God gave them in Gen 2:16-17.

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Gen 2:16-17)

The death was referring to both spiritual death and physical death. Spiritual death means to be separated from God by being thrown into the lake of burning fire in Hell to remain there, separate from God for eternality. But physical death must happen so that spiritual death can be entered into. That was why Adam and Eve must NOT be allowed to eat of the fruit from the Tree of Life anymore, and so, be put out of the Garden of Eden where the Trees of Life were found. Those wanting to have fuller exposition of The Fall, can read my separate series on “The Fall”.

But that, Adam and Eve would later (a few hundred years later) died (physical death), did NOT stop God from caring for them. Below are some verses indicating God’s care for the first family, after the Fall:

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. (Gen 3:21).

When Adam and Eve fell, they only made for themselves, leaf covering - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves (Gen 3:7).

Outside of the Garden, subsequently, Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. (Gen 4:1-2).

After Cain murdered Abel, and Cain was banished, Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” (Gen 3:25) When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. (Gen 5:3-5)

Thereafter, it was and is still the same
It is the same today, despite we are still going to die physically, God still cares for our physical and emotional well-being. It was prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 53, and it came to pass when Jesus walked on the earth as a man, and did that (cared), on behalf of the Father God.

The prophecy: Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)

The Fulfillment: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matt 8:16-17)

Jesus did only, those which the Father God would have done, and that included caring for the physical and emotional well-being of Man, while he (Man) lived: Jesus gave them {the Jews of His time} this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19). “I have testimony weightier than that of John {the Baptist}. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. (John 5:36). They did not understand that he {Jesus} was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:27-28).

Many healing accounts in Scripture
There are many accounts of healing in Scriptures, showing God did care to heal and make people well. Below are just examples from the Book of Matthew alone:

The “are you willing” leper healed: A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” 3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. (Matt 8:2-3).

Servant of “Centurion of great faith” healed: 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” 7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” 8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour. (Matt 8:5-10,13)

Peter’s mother-in-law healed of her fever: When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. (Matt 8:14)

Demons cast out and all sick THERE were healed: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matt 8:16-17).

Jesus healed all kinds of sicknesses and diseases: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (Matt 9:35).

Jesus’ disciples also healed various sicknesses, including expelling demons: He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. (Matt 10:1). Jesus’ instructions - As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (Matt 10:7-8).

Although here, there was no direct mention of healings done by the apostles, in Acts 5:16, it was recorded many sick, demonized and demon-possessed people were healed by the apostles.

Jesus healed daughter of a Gentile (we can pray for non-believers to be healed): A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matt 15:22-28).

Jesus healed many at one seating, the mute, the crippled, the lame, the blind, etc: Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. (Matt 15:29-31).

This is why I pray for the sick for healing
I reiterate, it is NOT that God MUST heals or God WILL heal; it is God can and does heal. And we should pray for the sick on the following grounds:

1. God cares for the well-being of Man while he (Man) lives on earth
2. God can and does heal. He healed in the past, and currently still heals.
3. Jesus when He walked on the earth, did that, and it was part of His manifesto (see Luke 4:18-19), and as followers of Jesus, we are to do the same.
4. It is a good way to love our neighbours.
5. Generally, healed soldiers of God are better soldiers.
6. It glorifies God when testimony of His healing is shared.
7. It edifies the Church.
8. It is good works, it is bearing fruit, and we are commanded in Scripture to do good works and bear fruit.
9. Divine healing is one of the signs and wonders and miracles that God said will accompany His gospel.
10. Sickness is NOT good.

Of course, all of us would like to see higher success rate out of our ministry of praying for the sick. With a right heart attitude, this is absolutely right, for our love and compassion desire more people be ministered and healed; but ultimately, God decides who He will heal; and people can be, NOT healed, for any one or more reasons. If it is one success out of 7 attempts, I am more than willing, to pray, even if it is one out of 77, I will still pray.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions - Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them {for that instance} were healed {by the Apostles}. Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out (Acts 5:16-19).

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Who killed Goliath?

In recent days, I have spent some time on the above subject, and it had begun with the reading of the first post, by the same name, by a Professor of the Old Testament, Dr Claude Mariottini. I was startled when I first came across the title, “Who killed Goliath?” I thought to myself, “I have gone through both books of Samuel and enough of the Old Testament stuff, but I had NOT previously come across any ambiguity as to who killed Goliath. Why, did this professor pose this question?” Did you also think it is clear-cut, even your Sunday School kids know the answer?

And so, I went back to my own study notes, which I refer to them as “my private commentary” on the Word of God. From the commentary that I had written up, it was this, and which I had previously accepted them plainly:

1 Samuel 17:49-51 – David killed Goliath {“everybody” knows that}

2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV84) – “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [c] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [d] the Gittite ….”

and the NIV84 footnote for [c] is this: “2 Samuel 21:19 Or son of Jair the weaver”; and for [d] is this: “2 Samuel 21:19 Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath”

1 Chron. 20:5 (NIV84) read as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

From here, previously, I concluded that David killed Goliath, and Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, Lahmi (assuming Jaare-Oregim and Jair were the same person, the father of Elhanan). But the Professor, in his first part of a 3-part article, said this:

“But the answer to the question “who killed Goliath” is not as easy as it seems. Several years ago, a group of international Old Testament scholars met in Paris at a two-day conference to discuss this issue. The topic of the conference was “Who Killed Goliath.” Scholar after scholar presented papers on different aspects of this issue. After two days of discussion, those scholars concluded that it was impossible to decide who killed Goliath.”

The Professor, in his articles, gave a few views of other scholars, but I would NOT go into them in any details, because I consider them as having little merit, but if you like, you can read all the 3 parts of the Professor’s article here: Who killed Goliath? Part 1; Who killed Goliath? Part 2; Who killed Goliath? Part 3. In the last part, the Professor gave His own take of who killed Goliath. Imagine, a group of international OT scholars, after researches and a 2-day conference could NOT conclusively decide who killed Goliath!

So, I commented on the Professor’s part I of his article:

“Unless, it is argued that the equating of Jaare-Oregim to Jair is NOT acceptable, it appears that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath whom David killed. Goliath could be a family or clan name, such was NOT uncommon in those days. The key figure would then be called “The such and such”, and in this case, “The Goliath”; and David killed The Goliath. Elhanan killed “a Goliath”, and that Goliath was the brother (Lahmi) of The Goliath.

With due respect, less fuss over this might be better.”

Without seeing the Professor’s view, my conclusion was that Goliath was probably a clan or family name of some giants. My own study of OT scriptures, without always ignoring genealogy, and my more recent study on a similar “same name issue” character, Obed Edom, had helped to me to believe Goliath could be a clan or family name. Those interested, can read my separate article on Obed-Edom, although it is quite separate from Goliath, but related, in the sense that the controversy over the “secret” or “pleasing ways” of Obed Edom also hinges on whether there was one Obed Edom throughout or there was more than one Obed Edom - “Secret of Obed Edom, faulty premise more likely”.

By now, you are probably wondering what the Professor’s view is! But before I reveal that, let me say that the Professor expressed his objection to the purported harmonisation of the 2 accounts of a Goliath being killed, one account in 2 Samuel (2 Samuel 21:19) and the other, in 1 Chronicles (1 Ch 20:5).

While there was a case for saying that a harmonisation was perhaps attempted, but the Professor’s slant was that the writer or he called him or them, the chronicler(s) of the Books of Chronicles, introduced “the corruption” to resolve the inconsistency of the 2 accounts of Goliath being killed in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 17:49-51 – David killed Goliath; and 2 Samuel 21:19 – Elhanan killed Goliath). Originally, I got a little confused and thought that the Professor was referring to a translation of 1 Chronicles, and so, I mistakenly thought that “the brother of” (Goliath) was introduced by a translator, but when I went to the Hebrew text (OT originally written in Hebrew) of 1 Ch 20:5, I realised that “the brother of” was in the Hebrew text. And so, my final conclusion is that I cannot agree with the Professor that “the brother of” was introduced into the Chronicles to harmonise the 2 accounts of Goliath being killed, in the Books of Samuel. Why do I say that?

My understanding is that we have to be clear first of all, whether we are referring to the original text, written in Hebrew, or a translation (into another language) of the Chronicle’s account. We need to distinguish between the original authors of the various books or epistles that made up the Bible (the official 66 Books – canonised Scriptures), and groups of persons who translate the Bible into other language(s). According to 2 Tim 3:16, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (KJV) or is God-breathed (NIV84); and so, we must believe the original authors had the inspiration from God, and in that sense, whatever that was written in Scripture (the original versions) had the approval of God, minimally, to me, God allowed them to be entered the ways the original authors entered them, influenced by their own personal styles and so on and so forth. Because of this understanding it is proper that a Christian takes the Bible as it is, authoritative; it is the words of God, there is no mistake in the words of God; any “mistake” that we see in the written form (as written by the original authors) of the words of God, it can only be the “mistake” made by the authors (NOT talking about the translators), but even so, since God had allowed it to be recorded as such, such “aberration” is NOT “fatalistic”.

Now, for the translators, it is a whole lot of a different story. The individual translator may claim he was inspired by the Holy Spirit for particular verse translation, but you have to decide if you can believe him. There are so many translations out there, and frankly speaking, there are some legitimate disapproval of some of the translations. Which translators are right? You, be my guest.

So, since we are NOT talking about a translation of the Chronicles, but the original Hebrew text, and “the brother of” (Goliath) was found in the Hebrew text, I can accept NO corruption of the Chronicle’s account, despite the Professor’s inclination. The suggestion that the original authors of Chronicles had wanted to harmonise the 2 apparent contradictory accounts (in the Books of Samuel) of who killed Goliath is just a speculation; no one knows the truth of that.

Now, to be clear, it was the 2 Samuel 21:19 account that did NOT have “the brother of” (Goliath) in its original Hebrew text; and translators, including the 1984 NIV translators, attempted to harmonise it to 1 Ch 20:5, through the use of footnotes. I accept the Professor’s protest against 2011 NIV’s rendering which inserted “the brother of” directly into the verse, and by way of footnote, mentioned that the Hebrew text did NOT contain the phrase, “the brother of”. With due respect to the Professor, we could argue against the introduction of “the brother of” by the translators, but we should NOT argue “corruption” by the original author(s) of the Books of Chronicles. Meaning, if we like, we can regard that there were 3 events, and NOT 2 events, meaning, David’s killing in 1 Samuel 17:49-51, as one event, Elhanan of Jaare-Oregim’s killing, as another event (2 Samuel 21:19), and finally, Elhanan of Jair’s killing, as a separate event (1 Ch 20:5).

It is obvious, by now there was more than one (1) Goliath; two (2) if you want to treat 2 Sam 21:19 and 1 Ch 20:5 as referring to the same account, three (3) if we treat all the accounts as separate. Then who killed Goliath? Even if we accept 1 Ch 20:5 as it was written, i.e. it was a brother of Goliath (called Lahmi), and NOT Goliath, who was killed, there were still two (2) Goliaths in the Books of Samuel. So who killed Goliath? My answer, you already know, in brief, from the above, David killed one Goliath, Elhanan of Jaare-Oregim killed another Goliath, and Elhanan of Jair killed another Goliath (called Lahmi); Goliath was (I believe) a clan or family name. What about the Professor’s answer?

The Professor ‘s answer is that Goliath was probably referring to a group of warriors, something like in the US, there were the “navy seals”. In other words, David killed one such warrior, and Elhanan(s) killed other such warrior(s). The support cited by the Professor was that there was a recent discovery made, where a potsherd was dug out in Gath where Goliath lived, that had “Goliath” written on it, and the inscription was believed to have been made over 100 years subsequent to David’s time. In reply to my comment, the Professor agreed that it was possible that there were a family of Goliaths. However, he said that he believed the archaeological find could indicate that the name was used by other people. Now, there is NO conclusion to that last statement; for to me, who were “other people” and who were the descendants of Goliath clan, who is able to tell now?; a 100 years from David’s time was NOT very long, possibly, the children of the deceased Goliaths, were still around and could be the “other people”.

Until more light can be shed from archaeological discoveries, there is only so much we can deduce from the information recorded for us in Scripture. I suppose, of the two views, mine or the professor’s, you can just take one. I will still stick to mine, though, and I will say a little bit more about it.

Normally, such family name or clan, as I understand them to be, there was a “head” and the head started the line (or name), and it was possible that the Goliath that David killed was The Goliath headman. The timing could suggest that, since when David killed The Goliath, he (David) was still a young boy who did NOT have any warriors with him, unlike his brothers who were already serving at the battleground; the other accounts appeared to have occurred subsequent to David’s killing. Of course, it was also possible that because of the fame of David, well, “The David”, the Goliath that he killed was being labeled as “The Goliath”. In any case, there were 2 or 3 Goliaths killed.

It is too long a shot to claim that Elhanan and David were the same man. The suggestion that David was without sword, and it was another who killed the Goliath and David just assumed the credit, it is NOT admissible (this was one of the views expressed by other scholars), for it was CLEARLY stated in 1 Sam 17:51 that David killed the giant with the giant’s sword – “David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.”

Finally, as I have hinted in my comment against the Professor’s 1st post, all of these should NOT distract us from the story of David’s slain of a giant with a sling and a stone. In Biblical interpretation, the part of the Word that clearly has no ambiguity, we accept without questioning, and if we have to, we will drop ambiguous parts, favoring the one without ambiguity. Compared with the others, where goliaths were also killed, David’s story is “big deal”, NOT without reasons or merits: David was still a shepherd boy, courageous for a boy, he stood for God, he chose to arm appropriately, yes, he was without sword or armor, he used only a sling and smooth pebbles.



Anthony Chia, high.expressions - It is understandable we do NOT have revelation of all of Scripture (i.e. we do NOT understand all of Scripture), and some parts of the Bible, to us, really are short, in details, but Scripture was NOT intended to record everything; Scripture itself, in John 21:25, said there would NOT be enough room in the world to contain it, if we had recorded just all the things that Jesus did. But we CANNOT doubt the integrity of Scripture.

PS: If you cannot remember anything else, still just continue to remember David killed a Goliath with a sling and a stone!

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

The potter and the clay – His sovereignty

In the Old Testament, the subject of potter and clay was clearly seen in the words of 2 significant prophets of Old, namely, Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah came on the scene about a hundred years earlier than Jeremiah. He started prophesying around 740 BC during King Uzziah (or Azariah) of Judah, and died during the reign of King Hezekiah. All in all, he prophesied during the reigns of King Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah.

Jeremiah started prophetic ministry around 626 BC, during the reign of Josiah, King of Judah. His ministry was believed to have continued until after the destruction of the first temple of Jerusalem (Temple of Solomon) around 586 BC by the Babylonians.

The parable of the potter and the clay was most comprehensively expressed initially by the prophet Isaiah.

Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand (Isaiah 64:8).

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? (Isaiah 29:16)

9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10).

We can trust that the parable of the potter and the clay expressed by Isaiah was inspired by the LORD. Then, subsequent to Isaiah, the LORD confirmed the parable through His instructing the prophet Jeremiah to go to a potter’s house, and while there, and while Jeremiah was observing the potter reshaping a marred pot into another pot, He, the LORD, spoke out concerning the parable:

“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (Jeremiah 18:6)

Then, in the New Testament (NT) we read of the parable in the Book of Romans, by the Apostle Paul:

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

It is a parable
Why do I say it is a parable? Because it fits the definition of a parable. What is a parable? The Greek word for parable is parabolē, which means

1) a placing of one thing by the side of another
2) metaphor - a comparing, comparison of one thing with another, likeness, similitude

This is to say a parable comprises concepts of “parallels”, metaphors, and analogy. The idea to bear in mind is the chief definition of placing of one thing by the side of another, i.e. there are 2 different things being put side by side and being talked about. This is why for some of the parables in the Bible, the opening goes like this, “The Kingdom of God is like ….”. At the end of the day, we still go back to one of the 2 things, and the correct one to go back to, is the one being illustrated, NOT the metaphor.

Now, it is important when you are reading the Bible, to know whether you have come to a parable or just a narrative. For example, the narrative about the woman with blood issue (been bleeding for 12 years) touching Jesus’ cloak and got healed is NOT a parable – it is an account of an event and should be interpreted as such.

Remember I said there are 2 things in a parable, the thing (in this case, the set of things, God and men), and the metaphor (potter and clay). In this parable in question, there is a pair, with potter, the metaphor for God, and clay, the metaphor for men. In interpretation of a parable, we must always remember at the end of the day, we go back to the “thing”, and NOT the metaphor or we do NOT stop at the metaphor.

The Interpretation
For a start, I would like to put the verses we have seen above, altogether in one place:

Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand (Isaiah 64:8). You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? (Isaiah 29:16) 9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10). “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (Jeremiah 18:6). Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

From Isaiah 64:8, we can derive this understanding: we have God, our LORD; He is to be understood as our Father. We are men, and we have a Father God. When He is Father, we are children. Framing in terms of what we can understand (Father and children), we, men are given rise to, by the Father, God. A child is begotten by a father, just as a pot or a piece of pottery is made by the potter from clay. Not only that, a child is shaped by the father, just like the clay is shaped by the potter. The child is likened to the clay. A Man, a grown-up child, is likened to a pot or a piece of pottery, shaped from clay. Just as the pottery was the result of the works on clay of the potter, we are the works of God’s hand. Honestly, how many of us can consider ourselves as fully-grown up, and NO longer need working on, by God? In God’s eyes we are all still children, still likened to be clay or unfinished pottery pieces.

Of course, Isaiah 64, in terms of chronological order, came subsequent to the earlier mention of the subject of potter and clay, but it is being put right in the beginning here by me for the reason we are able to more simply see the parable-placing of the 2 sets of things, as according to the definition of a parable. As to what Isaiah was trying to say (to the LORD), I will cover it, a little further down this article.

If we read Isaiah 29:13 (before Isaiah 29:16), we can see the LORD was expressing His disapproval that the Israelites were NOT properly regarding Him as their Father, the one who gave rise to them, and endowed them to be who they were. At that time, the Israelites only honored God with their lips, but their hearts were far from God; they did NOT worship or revere God in truth, but their worship of God was made up of only rules taught by men. In other words, they had turned things upside down; it should have been they were to do according to what God had dictated and NOT they did what they thought they knew better.

Isaiah, in verse 15 of Isaiah 29, spoke woe against the Israelites then, who thought they were above God, that they could hide their plans from God; they could do evil in darkness and thought that no one would see, and no one would know. It was and is of course, the other way round, God is entitled NOT to reveal some of His plans, and He sees all and knows all, for He is the one who formed us and He is in charge.

Although initially Isaiah 29:16 was spoken against the Israelites, we can note that it can be speaking to us, too. Are we treating things the other way round, we think we are the “father”, and God, the “charge”? Metaphorically, the potter was thought to be like clay, and the clay, potter. Isaiah posed if we could think the Father God did NOT create us, Man; or we considered God as knowing nothing. Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? The Isaiah 29:16 text is exhorting us to examine our attitude toward God’s involvement, His work in our lives? Are we critical of what God is doing? Are we disapproving, are we resisting?

If we think that way, as described in the Isaiah 29:16 text, we are in fact, quarreling with God, our Maker (Isaiah 45:9-10). Isaiah said, “Woe to us”, who are but potsherds, broken pieces of pottery. Can the clay question the potter? Just as the potter has all the right to make anything out of a lump of clay, and the clay cannot protest, so does God has the right to decide what He wants to shape us to be. If the potter wants to make a vase, he makes a vase; if he wants to make a spittoon, he makes a spittoon. Similarly, God has the sovereign right to decide if he will have us be a doctor or a nurse, a preacher or a teacher, or a hard laborer or a janitor. We cannot question the will of the Father God for each one of us, just as the clay has no say what the potter will shape it into.

Again addressing the Israelites, this time Jeremiah, in Jer 18:6, was saying, could NOT God do as He pleased with the house of Israel, just like the potter, the clay? Jeremiah was being referred to the re-shaping or re-moulding of a marred pot into another. Because of things that had happened in the history of the Israelites, their flawed ways and sins, and all, accordingly God was then having the full right to re-shape the house of Israel. Even though it was against the Israelites, it can be applied to us; God is entitled to reshape us to function in whatever manner He deems fit, even when we are found “marred”. In other words, God has the right to change how and what He will have us do or function in, as He deems fit, with changes in and around us. Maybe, something has happened, can be to/in us, or even just to the circumstances around us, God has all the right to tune us to function in the role that He now desires, much like the potter has the right to reshape a marred pot into something else, say, a vase or spittoon or something. In addition, implicit in that text, is God’s willingness to re-work us, and NOT just dump us; and that is a comforting revelation!

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah were underlying the sovereignty of God, His right to decide what He wants to do with us. He has all the right to decide each of our role, and to change that.

Before I move to the NT’s mention of the parable in Romans 9:21, let me cover what I said I would cover, concerning what Isaiah was trying to say in his use of the parable in Isaiah 64. In all the other mentions, as covered above and also in the NT that we will deal with after this, the parable was directed at men. The parable was used to explain, teach and even admonish us. In Isaiah 64:8, Isaiah was speaking to the LORD – “Yet, O LORD, you are …..”. In other words, even as God had previously given prophet Isaiah, this parable, and the understanding thereof, to speak, teach and admonish the Israelites, Isaiah used it in his appeal to God to turn away from His anger.

Isaiah asked for mercy from God, stating that God was our Creator, Father, the one who begotten us; we are works of His hands, likening us to the clay, and God, the potter. In other words, Isaiah was imploring God, on account of us being works of His hand, NOT to be angry beyond measure (Isaiah 64:9); NOT to remember their (Israelites’) sins forever. The historical background was that by that time, the Israelites had been sinning very badly, so badly that Isaiah said in verse 6 of Isaiah 64, all of the Israelites had become like one who was unclean, and all their righteous acts were like filthy rags, so much so that God had hidden His face from them (v7). Isaiah was interceding for God’s turning away from His anger against Israel, and he appealed to God’s personhood as the Creator, Father, and metaphorically, the potter.

To me, the NT Romans 9:21 is another way of stating Isaiah 45:9-10, although it also touched on Isaiah 29:16.

9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10).

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

Clearly, as in Isaiah 45, the Romans text spoke about the sovereignty of God, and that He has the right to make us out to be whatever He so desires; and we cannot quarrel with Him on that. Just as the potter has the right to make out of the same lump of clay, some pottery for noble purposes, and some for common use, so God is entitled to shape us to fit whatever role He so desires each of us to undertake, regardless we thinking if one role is nobler or more common compared with another.

Sure, some roles, in our eyes, are nobler or more common compared with others, but in God’s eyes, actually, what He assigns is noble, none is ignoble, for ignobility is incompatible with the nature of God. Common is NOT ignoble!

The incorrect and correct way of linking to 2 Tim 2:20-21
There are teachers or speakers who combine Romans 9:21 and 2 Tim 2:20-21 in one preaching. There is nothing wrong with that, except, they must NOT lump the 2 texts together and explain them similarly, often subverting the true intent of 2 Tim 2:20-21. It is wrong to do that. As stated above, firstly, common is NOT ignoble. Secondly, in 2 Tim 2:20-21, the Apostle Paul was teaching that there is a Man’s part – we are to cleanse ourselves of ignoble, and set ourselves on the noble, in order that we can be a holy vessel, useful for the Master’s use, to do any good works. Whereas, Romans 9:21, also by Paul, as we have seen above, spoke about the sovereignty of God, and He decides what He wants to make us to be, and assigns to us our lot, as He desires; that is part of His part.

For the benefit of readers, I put down here the 2 Tim 2:20-21 text:

20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work (2 Tim 2:20-21).

The correct way to link Romans 9:21 to 2 Tim 2:20-21 is the answer for the question posed by verse 19 of Romans 9:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” (Romans 9:19)

The answer is that there is still a Man’s part, and it is as stated in 2 Tim 20:21, Man has to cleanse himself from the ignoble, so that he will be an instrument for noble purpose, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. We are resisting His will when we do NOT choose to cleanse ourselves from the ignoble. A whole list of ignoble was given by the Apostle Paul in 2 Tim 2 & 3, and I did provide a summary of the ignoble in my separate article on the exposition of 2 Tim 2:20-21, you can get it here, “You must choose to cleanse yourselves from ignoble”



Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, I thank you for your revelation that I am NOT submitting to your sovereignty, and therefore, am resisting your will when I am NOT choosing to cleanse myself from the ignoble. I am to cleanse myself from the ignoble so that I will be an instrument for noble purpose, made holy, useful to you and prepared to do any good work.

PS 1: Of course, the proud are guilty of resisting His will, and it is being listed as one of the ignoble in 2 Tim 3.

PS 2: No, Romans 9:21 is NOT in support of immutable personal predestination (emphasis of Calvinism). In fact, if we believe God is consistent, the same imagery of potter and clay as used in Jer 18, is still applicable even in NT times; in metaphorical terms, the potter will reshape the marred pottery, in actual terms, God refashions a “marred” individual; NOT immutability.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

They call it the view of Hell

Recently, I read a long write-up of an interview between a distinguished Post and a Bible scholar on the subject of the view of Hell. The scholar has a view of Hell which differs from the traditional view of the same. This article I am putting up here, is in defense of the traditionalist view of Hell, and in the process, expresses views contrary to the followers of the so-called conditionalist view of Hell. With a view to give understanding, I also elaborated on a number of peripheral, but connected issues to the view of Hell.

View expressed here are my own
The views expressed in this article, as well as those in the various articles of mine, which I will give reference to, are solely my own, and do NOT necessarily represent the church or any Christian organization which I am a part of, or have associations with. Of course, who we sit under over the years, does shape our belief in matters relating to the faith.

Also, as far as possible, I try my best (I am human, too) NOT to attack a person per se; rather I do speak out against questionable teachings. If you teach wrong teaching on the core theologies of the faith, I will NOT hesitate to write against that teaching.

On exegesis
Talking about Hell is like talking about Heaven when one has NOT been to either. So, there is no facts to talk about, no evidence to study, except for expressions of Man (inspired by the Holy Spirit) in the Word, and various writings throughout times, including ancient times, before and during the Bible authoring. For me, it has always been that we give the strongest weightage to the Word. Any data, information or views expressed in extra-biblical writings, if admitted, must NOT contradict existing ones (however incomplete, they might seem) in Scriptures. In other words, filling in the gaps must NOT contradict existing information as stated in Scriptures.

It is also NOT acceptable to hide behind bombastic words such as perspicuity when one contradicts existing facts of the Word. Yes, what does that word, “perspicuity” mean? Acuteness of judgment! Whatever acuteness of judgment that one may have, it cannot contradict the revealed facts of the Word, for the Holy Spirit does NOT contradict the Word of God.

Anything with NO link to information in Scriptures, is pure speculation, and must be recognized as such. I am NOT saying we cannot speculate but we must note the difference between speculation and correct adoption of filling in the gaps, as a manner of interpreting Scriptures (I expressed in some of my articles, also, my stand on experiences, which in this case, is NOT relevant {experience of Hell, anyone?}, that people should NOT form theology out of their experiences, but to view experiences as testifying to theology derived solely from the Word).

My caution, to even distinguished pastors and ministers, is that we must all be very careful when we are inclined to “borrow” explanations in ex-biblical writings to explain the Word. In the same way, it is also absolutely critical we translate the Bible correctly, that we are careful NOT to add or subtract from it, or color the translation with our own “slant” in theological beliefs. (I am aware that inevitably a view is sometimes adopted, for pure lack of data or information. Having the correct overall counsel of the Word is of utmost importance in translation of Scriptures).

Three views mentioned
Three views are mentioned in the interview, of Hell, and are as follows:

1. The traditionalist view - hell as the fire that torments forever.
2. Universalist view - hell as the fire that purifies and refines.
3. Conditionalist view (the scholar's view) - hell as the fire that consumes.

This, I take serious issue with!
In the interview, the scholar expressed his agreement with the interviewer that he (the scholar) and the universalists agree on one thing, and that one thing is that our God is a loving God and so cannot be sending someone to Hell to be burned and tormented forever.

The conditionalists and the universalists cannot accept that our God is a loving God and at the same time, can still be sending {this of course, is understood by all as consequence of our sinning} some to Hell to be burned and tortured forever. Now, they cannot accept; that is their position, but that does NOT mean anything! They cannot accept, but that does NOT mean that it cannot be! I am NOT saying that the conditionalists are apostates, but there are Christians who teaches that everyone will go to Heaven, because they erroneously argue that sending people to Hell is incongruent with the character of God.

The point is that there are many people in the world who subscribe to this view: “I do NOT want a God who will send me to Hell because I refuse to listen to Him”. The Gospel is that we have to accept God’s plan of salvation through Christ Jesus; we have to subscribe to that Gospel; that is what the Word said. Anything to the effect of, “No-lah, since God is so loving, that He even sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us, surely He cannot be sending us to Hell to be burned and tortured.”, is heretic, if NOT apostate. Like I said, I am NOT saying the conditionalists are apostates, but more inclination towards a loving God cannot be sending people to Hell or to Hell to be tormented for long stretch of time is likely to fuel more false “theologies” to be spun out to paint an incorrect will of God for Man, as portrayed in Scriptures.

I once read over the internet of a teacher who taught that everyone will get to Heaven to be with God, regardless of whether or not, in the person’s life-time, he accepts the Lord as his personal Lord and Savior. Many concerned Christians wrote against that teaching, and one of the things expressed was this: “You mean I have been interceding for my family members to receive Jesus into their lives for nothing!”. One of the verses cited in support for such argument that all men will be included is this:

1 Tim 2:4 (KJV) – “{God} Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

Well, the verse said that God “will have”, thelō (G2309), desires, all men be saved, but it does NOT say that it is God MUST save all men.

We really must be very careful when we import extra-biblical views into our faith. Another example of unacceptable portrayal that our God is a loving God who will be willing to give 2nd chances to people, is that there are teachers that went round teaching that we can intercede for the dead to be admitted to Heaven, giving rise to ridiculous “passing the buck” to children of reluctant parents who did NOT want to give their lives over to Jesus while they are alive. A friend of mine was so tempted by that erroneous “loop-hole” that he asked me if it is indeed possible that his children can, in the future, intercede for him to enter into Heaven when he, in his life-time, is NOT going (NOT willing) to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.

Then, along the line of man-centred (instead of God-centred) reasoning expressed in the interview, there are teachers who expressed that over the history of mankind, millions and millions of people have died without entry into salvation; how can it be that “entry into salvation” is an essential criteria, too many would be lost?! True, over the years, millions if not billions, have died that way, but that does NOT negate the Gospel or the Word of God, for Jesus Himself has expressed:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14).

If God’s love MUST absolutely see us in Heaven, why the need to send Jesus? The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be ignored.

Then, there are those who taught, based on, “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”, a narrative by our Lord, Jesus, and concluded that entry into salvation is NOT the essential criteria to get to Heaven, but works (good works) solely, is the essential criteria. Their central argument was that works (good works) evidenced the love of such a “good works” person, and because God is love, God will recognize those good works, and the person will be granted entry into Heaven, and he is able to avoid being sent to the burning fire of Hell. This, in my view, is apostate, for it is incongruent with the revealed will of God for Man, as written in the Gospel. My definition of being an apostate is one holding onto core theology incongruent to the REVEALED will of God, as written in the Word. If you want my interpretation of the same narrative of our Lord, read this separate article of mine: “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”.

It is NOT so much the concept (here, expressed as “view”) of Hell that is of issue, it is the saying that a loving God cannot be sending some to Hell to be burned and tormented (torment or torture itself carries connotation of significant length of time of suffering), that I seriously take issue with.

Which is more vindictive; putting people to fire to burn to purify and refine (universalist view), or putting people to fire to consume (conditionalist view)? Obviously, conditionalists are no more portraying a loving God than the universalists or the traditionalists. They are saying that one sent there, is consumed, which means that he is NO more, absolutely or final or irreversible. Let’s say for a moment, that the conditionalist is right, but is the picture he painted, one of a more loving God than the other scenarios? I do NOT know about you, when there is NO more of me, in absolute, how can it be more loving! To me, it is an oxymoron, to say that this conditionalist view is more acceptable over the traditionalist view because it paints a more loving God.

It is NOT the intention of this article to dwell on the universalist view of hell as fire that purifies and refines, but I will just state, as far as I am concerned, that view of Hell is undisputedly incorrect based on the revealed will of God, as written in the Bible.

Man bipartite or tripartite?
The scholar spoke about Man as being with soul and body. Although it is NOT very clear from the interview whether or not, he is of the view that both the soul and body are both physical and mortal, such is the view held by other conditionalists, and they and scholar made no reference to the spirit of Man. So, it is either they are viewing the spirit and soul of Man as synonymous or they do NOT believe Man is tripartite. The soul {psychē, G5590} and spirit {pneuma, G4151} of Man is NOT synonymous – Heb 4:12.

Whether or NOT a conditionalist believes that Man is tripartite, the correct biblical view is that Man is tripartite, i.e. Man is body, soul and spirit. For understanding of this, please read my separate article, “Man is body, soul and spirit”. In it, NOT without reference to Scriptures, is the view expressed. It is based on interpretation of Scriptures (of course, one can dispute my interpretations, but, I believe they are NOT incorrect, although my article explained the tripartite nature most simplistically, compared with the common articles you find on the internet). If you follow my argument there, the potential for immortality is present right from the beginning, in God’s creation of Man (meaning if Adam did NOT sin, he would be living forever by just taking in of the fruit from the Tree of Life). This is contrary to the belief of the conditionalists who believe that it is an entirely afterward issue, with immortality coming in view only when resurrection takes place. My article explains it is in the creation of Man, that Man was granted the potential for immortality, compared with animals and plants. Man was given a spirit by God, and it is the spirit of Man which has the capacity of eternal life or immortality that gave the soul of Man the potential of immortality.

Man is with a spirited soul, animals and plants are without, that is why I also hold on to the view that animals (and plants) do NOT go to Heaven. You can read about this in my separate article, “Animals do NOT go to Heaven”. Our belief of spirits being capable of living forever, is that, which will make a lot of difference in how we make sense of some of the deep things of God. For example, angels are spirit (of course, we know God is spirit, The Spirit), and so, angels do NOT expire, become nothingness! When Man was created, he was NOT meant to expire, too! If you believe in the story of Lucifer, of his creation, his fall, the pronouncement against him, and his destiny, which you can read about it as part of my separate article, “It is a tug of war”, you will be able to more clearly see the link between the immortal spirit, Satan (aka or pka Lucifer), and Man’s predicament.

The scholar said that it was the Greek philosophers who colored the lenses of the early fathers of the faith to embrace immortality of the soul. Well, Greek philosopher, Tertullian, or Swiss scholar, Oscar Cullmann or NOT, I know of him NOT (only because the scholar mentioned them), but like I say, “I believe in the immortality of the spirit, but NOT the soul, per se”. Now, in my understanding, the body is physical, the soul is the life participle or the being {psychē, G5590}, and the spirit of Man is spirit. The soul is NOT physical, the spirited soul is definitely NOT physical.

For a Christian, it is his spirited soul that lives on, in Heaven, meaning, he does NOT go to Heaven as a blank sheet, without soul, contrary to the belief of some Christians, partly, I supposed, they are influenced by the saying that the soul is mortal and physical (Now, the soul of animals and plants are mortal, but NOT that of Man, because of the spirit of Man).

As I have pointed out, among other things, in my separate article, “God is gender-neutral, He is Spirit”, one in Heaven does know who his earthly father and mother were or who were once their children on earth, although people are no longer given in marriage in Heaven; you will know, because your soul (or at least aspects of your soul) is NOT gone! {This separate article of mine will make an interesting read. By the way, the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix June 14-15, 2011, took issue with the adopting of the latest translation of the NIV Bible (2011 Translation) with one reason being the new translation adopted gender-neutrality in the translation. For example, where it appeared “brothers” it would now read “brothers and sisters” or “sons”, “sons and daughters”; such insertion is really NOT required}.

Hell and “new heaven and new earth” incompatible!
Satan (aka or pka Lucifer) and angels are immortal, based on understanding that can be derived from Scriptures, for the latter speaks no death or expiry of The Devil or angels, except that Satan and his minions would end up in the burning lake of fire. It is pure speculation on the part of the scholar in the interview to think that there cannot exist, Hell or a part thereof – the burning lake of fire, when the new heaven and new earth come into being. Scriptures speaks of NO destruction of Hell or the burning lake of fire, and it specifically talked about Hades and Death being thrown into Hell (Rev 20:14) at the closure of this current world.

Either it is a chapter to added, of its destruction, in the distant, distant future, for reason that it touches on a separate frame of distant time, or it will NOT be destroyed, Hell, that is, we really do NOT know; and frankly, to the extent that it is revealed of Hell, its character of being a tormenting place, it is sufficient as a warning to all. Please choose to fear God!

Torment may or may NOT be forever, absolutely, but we are NOT consumed instantly
Perhaps, there is no one verse in Scriptures that can be interpreted undisputedly as indicating tormenting in Hell is forever, absolutely, but there is also NO verse that indicates that burning in the burning lake of fire is short-lived. The conditionalist’s idea suggests we get “fried” like fish in fire is without scriptural support. Look, if it is all to be viewed in the physical, how long can we be fried in the burning lake of fire. In physical-humanistic view, of course, if the conditionalist is NOT consumed, he must be superman, from the Planet, Krytonite, or something!

The scholar in the interview said the Bible teaches us that it is that the fire consumes; yah, but Bible also teaches us that, it is that the “fire” refines; so, the universalists are correct - hell as the fire that purifies and refines? No, distinction must be made between “fires” in our current lives, and the burning lake of fire of Hell. As far as dealing of God with Man as revealed in His will, as written in the Word, there are chastisements and there is a punishment-in-finality (By the way, do you know why the 2 sections of the Bible are called testaments? Because they are the wills of God for men {testament = will}! So, don’t say, God revealed nothing of His will; some of them, are there in the Bible). Being thrown into the lake of fire of Hell for torment is the punishment-in-finality for Satan and his minions and all men counted with Satan. Beyond that, the Bible does NOT say, and views are pure speculations.

But who say, we are to view the burning in the lake of fire in our physical-humanistic perspective. Now, there was such a thing as a burning bush (like that encountered by Moses); the bush did NOT get burnt (Ex 3:2-3, Acts 7:30), why can’t there be a fire where we are being “roasted”, but we do NOT die or disappear or no more!

While conditionalists claimed there are no definitive verses to say in uncertain term, that the tormenting in Hell is eternal, there are many verses collectively SUGGEST that we do NOT get dropped into the fire of Hell and become instantly or quickly consumed. Below are some verses about Hell, and I have classified them under captions to make it easier to see the points I am making (I have excluded Luke 16 verses, as the Greek word used there, was “Hades” rather than Hell or its part thereof – the burning lake of fire. Hades will be destroyed, that I agree, for it is stated in Scriptures – Rev 20:14. But Hades and Hell are different.):

The fire is eternal:
Matt 18:8 - If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mark 9:43 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Mark 9:48 - where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Jude 1:7 - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

My point: The above speaks of a fire that is eternal or everlasting. As used in Matt 18:8 above, for example, it is the same word as used in eternal life or everlasting life. So, what do these verses tell us? There is an eternal fire or everlasting fire. So, it is unlikely it is a fire that was up for a brief moment that all of the unsaved are thrown into, including Satan and his minions, and then put out, and then God will have the new heaven and new earth come into place, as is suggested by the scholar in the interview.

There is the argument by conditionalists that, it is the result of punishment that is eternal NOT the punishment itself or process of punishment. But clearly, the “eternal” is attached to the fire, as used in the above verses.

Eternal punishment:
Matt 25:46 - “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV84). And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV).

My point: The above is a good example of same meaning use, for “eternal” or “everlasting”; the same Greek word was used in the verse at the 2 different places, “aiōnios” (G166), which means “everlasting”. How long is everlasting as applied to life, and how long is everlasting as applied to punishment, be my guest? It is also clear, the eternality is attached to the word, “punishment” just as it is attached to the word, “life”. I really do NOT appreciate how people can insist that it is NOT about the punishment, but the result of punishment. Let me explain.

Frankly speaking, if it were referring to the result of punishment, i.e. the person is consumed, no more, “apa pun tak ada” {a Malay phrase for “no more), no more Anthony, or no more John, how NOT eternal can one understand the result of that punishment be, if the word, “eternal” is NOT used? Of course, when you are “no more” it is eternal, it goes without saying! – no need to say “eternal”. Therefore, it is intentional for using “eternal” there, against “punishment”, to give an idea of the length of time of the punishment, just as it is to explain to men, how long is the life that we are going into, for we all know, the life that we know and are living in, currently, is one of several tens of years. In other words, eternal, against “life”, is similarly to explain we are NOT entering into another life-span that is only another several tens of years.

Be thrown into Hell:
Matt 18:8 - If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matt 18:9 - And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:45 - And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

Mark 9:47 - And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.

Matt 13:42,50 - They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Rev 20:15 - If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

My point: Why say “be thrown into the fire” or “be cast into the fire” by so many different authors, why NOT just say, “be consumed by the fire” or “killed or destroyed” by the fire? Because it was meant to portray there is still life after being put into the fire. It is NOT instant or quick annihilation, if it were so, at least one of them, the authors, might have said it, but NO, none of them said it.

Go into Hell:
Mark 9:43 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

My point: Yes, the above 2 verses, did NOT use “be thrown into”, but, for Mark 9:43, “go into hell” could very much be intended as the same as “be thrown into”, for while still on the same topic, a few verses down (Mark 9:47), the Apostle Mark used “be thrown into”.

We have seen from Matt 25:46 above, that the Apostle Matthew was speaking of “eternal punishment”, and so, the “depart to go into” eternal fire, is NO different from the interpretation of “being cast into” the eternal fire.

There will be weeping/wailing and gnashing of teeth:
Matt 13:42,50 - They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matt 18:12 - But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matt 22:13 - “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Matt 25:30 - And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

My point: What do wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth signify? Untold anguish and suffering, and it meant to portray a picture of, at least a period of suffering, surely NOT any sort of quick annihilation. I can drop you into a pit of fire, you tell me do you have time to weep or gnash your teeth in the fire; talking about physical!

Into Darkness:
Matt 18:12 - But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Jude 1:11-13 - Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

My point: Both the above verses implied length of time through the use of weeping and gnashing of teeth, and “reserved forever”. It is interesting here that “darkness” was used for Hell. On the surface, fire and darkness do NOT seem to go together, but, I believe the darkness referred to, was NOT the absence of the literal light that a fire would give out; rather it was darkness as in “bad”.

Conclusion: The above verses, collectively, can be reasonably be taken to have painted a picture of NOT an instantaneous or quick annihilation of our spirited souls, but a torment of the same, in the burning lake of fire in Hell.

Definition of “death” or “die”
On the issue of definition for “death” or “die”, I beg to differ from the scholar of the interview. His view is that “death” or “die” has to be referring to the same, in the physical sense. No, sometimes, those two words, referred to physical death, sometimes they referred to non-physical death.

In the Book of Hebrews, we can see an instance of it being used as physical death. Heb 9:27 – “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,” As physical death, Man dies ONCE, NOT twice, as implied by the scholar in the interview, in his physical rendering of the second death.

A second time death for a person, and there is such a thing (but NOT for the saved ones), but it is NOT referring to physical death. Rev 20:14 – “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.” Yes, the second death always is referring to the same {death} in the lake of fire of Hell.

Whether or NOT, the non-believers will be raised with an incorruptible body, is NOT that relevant, for that body is NOT of the same “physical nature” as we understand it to be, although, it is NOT wrong to view that body to be given us, as “physical”, for it is the final part of our physical redemption, one of the 3-fold redemptive works of our Lord (For understanding of the redemptive works of our Lord, read my separate article, “Works of redemptions of our Lord”). It is NOT physical like our flesh is! Just consider Lucifer, is he NOT with a body (read Eze 28, and know that he had a magnificent body), yet it is NOT physical like we are. The death in the burning lake of fire is NOT physical; for the body if there is one for the non-believers or any men, it is NOT physical like our flesh is; also the soul of Man is NOT physical, and the spirit of Man is NOT physical.

It is my belief that the spirited soul of Man cannot just die physically. Analogous to physical death, I can believe that the spirit can be weakened to a very weak state, well maybe even “coma equivalent”, but God can revive or quicken that spirit and it will come to life! Whether or not, one day, in the most distant, distant future, God will revive the spirits “trapped” in the burning lake of fire, we are NOT told; only God knows.

The death in Gen 2:17, the “you will surely die”, there 2 ways of interpreting it, but none is like that suggested by the conditionalists, although one of the two interpretations does amount to PHYSICAL death (ultimately), BUT it is the FIRST death! I shall explain.

Elsewhere (in other articles), I have only given one of the 2 interpretations, and it was this: The death was NOT referring to the physical death, rather it was referring to the second death, for clearly Adam did NOT die shortly after The Fall, but he lived to have Cain, Abel and Seth, and lived to an age over 900 years. This is NOT an incorrect interpretation, only that it is viewing the matter from the perspective of God - the first death, the physical death is only a “cross-over” or a transition. The relevant death from the perspective of God is the second death, the lake of fire in Hell.

The second interpretation, though it came to me earlier on, but it became clear, only most recently, is this: Indeed, the death referred to, was PHYSICAL death BUT it is the FIRST death, NOT the second death! This is viewing the matter from humanistic angle, emphasizing physical life, for truly from pure human point of view, if my life ends, what else is there to talk about! But conditionalists are still wrong, the second death is NEVER a physical death. It is said that the correct translation of the Hebrew text (OT, originally in Hebrew) is “dying you will die”. Well, the “dying” is referring to the second death (continuous tense implied “on the way to death {to the second death}), the “will die” is referring to the first death, the physical death that is common to all men. Adam would die (physically), and he did die, some 900 years later. The “dying” was referring to “spiritual decay” or weakening of the spirit of Man, together with his soul. With separation from God, the spirit of Man would get weaker, and so, the word, “dying”, and indeed it would be death (second death) for ones who do NOT receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. That is why Scriptures said that Jesus is the quickening spirit, coming to quicken or enliven the spirit of Man:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam {Jesus} was made a quickening spirit (1 Cor 15:45, KJV)

Therefore, to be comprehensive, both deaths were being referred to, in Gen 2:17. It is to be understood that in that time Man had no understanding of death, and God introduced it in that first prohibitive commandment. The nature of “death” is NEVER mixed up, first death is physical and second death is non-physical (culminating in the lake of burning fire of Hell, unless redeemed by the Lord). Also, the order is also NEVER mixed up, physical death must be entered into before non-physical one can culminate in the lake of burning fire of Hell, and that is why Adam was barred from (further!) eating from the Tree of Life, and be put out of the Garden of Eden.

By the way, the death in Romans 6:23 – “the wages of sin is death”, is to be similarly explained, following the principle of first mention. So, it is NOT entirely incorrect to say the death in Romans 6:23 is referring to the second death (from the perspective of God), and it is also NOT quite wrong to say that the same death was referring to first death, physical death (along the line of interpreting “dying you die” of Gen 2:17), but commonly I DO reference it to second death, solely because if we say it is the first death, much explanation, like what I have done above, needs to be given, for most people will argue back, saying experience is pointing to a man who commits a sin, is not necessarily going to die (physical, first death) from THAT sin. That is why, I always warn people, and I remind myself, NOT to form theology purely out of our experiences, but to regard our experiences as testifying to theology derived solely based on the Word. In the same light, it is worth mentioning that a number of true occurrences do NOT make a truth; people also need to be careful NOT to confuse true occurrences with truth.

It is also worth mentioning that because the lack of understanding of death in Gen 2:17, and the insistence of saying death of Romans 6:23 is the physical, first death, without understanding of the underlying explanation, coupled with human weakness of only wanting to recognize sight, some have even spun out their own theology of implying there is difference between the wages of sin before entry into salvation and the same, after entry into salvation. Nowhere in Scripture, is there mentioned such a notion that the same sin that one commits after entry into salvation is any different from that, before salvation. Also, do NOT listen to overly grace believers, and their teachers, who tell you Romans 6:23 is NOT referring to believers, because the author was referring to believers in that passage.

The scholar’s understanding of Romans 6:23 pointing to physical death did NOT comprise the correct underlying explanation; he just erroneously assigned the PHYSICAL attribute to the SECOND death.

The scholar’s argument that the famous John 3:16 verse should be taken at face value, suggesting the word, “perish” in it, be taken at face value to mean “consumed”. The Greek word there, “apollymi” (G622) does NOT just refer to physical death. It has non-physical death meanings which included the followings: to be put out of the way entirely, render useless, give over to eternal misery in Hell, to be lost, to be in ruin. In fact, it has NO less non-physical death connotations than physical ones!

Similar arguments can be said of Matt 10:28 – “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” The “destroy” in it, is the same Greek word, “apollymi” (G622), which I have just seen in John 3:16. The soul here, as referred to Man, is always the spirited soul, and is NOT physical. As to the issue of “soul and BODY” in Hell, like I said earlier, even if non-believers (or any men) are given a certain body after death, that body’s physical attribute is NOT the same as our flesh. The “destruction” in Hell even of the BODY (of those NOT going to Heaven) is NOT physical in the sense that we are quickly consumed, no more, vanished!

{Added 11 Oct 2011 - An Old Testament Professor's views
1. Only God is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) - Now, the scholar, as I have said above, is of the view that the soul or I prefer to called it, the spirited soul, is immortal only after receiving salvation.  The Professor views that the soul does NOT live on when we die.  He quoted 1 Tim 1:16 that only God is immortal, and he also said that the inhabitants of Shoel was never referred to as "nephesh" (soul).  But he admitted to Old Testament (OT) talking about both living nephesh and dead nephesh.  (My view is that "dead" does NOT mean "no more".  For example, a spiritually dead soul can be revived, by God!) My view is this:  We need to get the perspective right.  This is what 1Tim 6:13-16 reads:

13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Now, the above was the Apostle Paul's charge to Timothy which started at verse 11.  Verse 16 was indeed a description of God, that God alone is immortal, and God lives in unapproachable light.  The professor is implying that because it was said that God ALONE is immortal it cannot be that man (or man's soul or spirit or spirited soul) can be immortal.  Is he then denying the eternality of his own life, a believer!  Is eternal life a fake!  No, God is immortal of His own, immortality is of Him; He is Life; He is the source of life, He is the Beginning and the End. We, believers, have immortality, our immortality is a derived immortality, an immortality sourced in God.  It is the same with concept of God lives in unapproachable light, so we cannot be walking in the light?  No, Scriptures talked about and exhorted us to walk in the light, and we will have fellowship with God and with fellow believers.  It said "unapproachable" light, right there, in 1 Tim 6:16, how then can we walk in the light, it is just like granted immortality, we are granted approach into light.  It is also self-contraditory of the Professor to say that the soul die on physical death, and then agree with the scholar's argument that the soul (and the body) can still be "perished" (killed) in Hell. As to when Man has the capacity for eternal life, I have expressed my view earlier on. 

2. God punished in the OT to the 3rd and 4th generation (Exodus 34:6-7), and since OT is shadow of the NT, consistently, the punishment in NT should have an end.  Again, it is an issue of perspective.  What is expressed in that Exodus text concerned "punishment while men live" which can even be called chastisement, while punishment in Hell is "punishment in finality".  Just because there is a stop to God's punishment for the living (earthly life) in the OT does NOT necessarily mean that there has to be a stop to the punishment post death (post physical death).

3. Professor's conclusion - "After comparing the teachings of the New Testament with what I knew about what the Old Testament teaches, it is obvious to me that what The Fire That Consumes teaches reflects the true Biblical teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked." I say, while Scripture does NOT contradict itself, the NT does supersede certain (and certain only) positions of the OT, and there are clarifications and expansion of existing truths.  The position that the fire of Hell is the fire that torments also does NOT contradict the OT, and it does relfect the true Biblical teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked."}

Minor or Major?
Whether or NOT the spirited soul is consumed or being tormented over time in the burning fire of Hell, is NOT a major point, but the refusal to accept the revealed will of God as written in the Word, that the loving God can send someone to be tormented in burning fire of Hell is NOT minor. It is a failure to appreciate the ultimate form of love of God for Man, is "loving Man unto righteousness" (a specific `ahab love). Ultimately, God can only love Man unto righteousness; meaning if you refused righteousness, you leave God no choice, but to have you away, eventually, in the burning lake of fire of Hell.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions – What God did NOT reveal at all (NOT even clue), any view is pure speculation; it means nothing even if you get it right, and it also means nothing when you get it wrong. Outside of the time frame revealed by God, what God will do with the spirited souls in burning fire of Hell, only He knows, if He chooses NOT to reveal it, I accept it as it is. I only need to be faithful to those that He has chosen to reveal.

PS: If the scholar (conditionalist) is arguing that after all the torment, God is going to annihilate the spirits trapped in the burning fire of Hell, he has to be clear about that, but my post-reading of his arguments (his own writings), did NOT reveal that picture; they picture more of accusations of erroneous interpretations of traditionalists of Scriptures and their blatant importing of heresies, which (both sets of accusations) I do NOT agree. I still insist if finally God annihilates the spirits there, that picture is NOT yet apparent from the counsel of the Word, and yet to be seen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Good works explained (PART II)

Unto God
In PART I of this series, I have said that we must consider works from the perspective of God. Some time back I wrote an article on Keeping Christmas; you may access this article, here: Keeping Christmas. In the writing of that article, I believed the inspiration for the story there, of the 3 men (friends) came from the Spirit of God. That story, as well as whether or not, Christmas is of any significance depends on whether Romans 14:6 is being subscribed to.

He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God (Romans 14:6).

Things we do which we regard them NOT unto the Lord, chances are that they are NOT good works. This is, of course, a “big picture” guidance.

Going fishing!
Is going for a weekend fishing at the seaside, a good works? Now, looking at the activity per se, perhaps, it is NOT a good works; what does fishing at the seaside got to do with the Lord? Of course, directly, the activity per se, does NOT have anything to do with the Lord.

Let us twist it a little bit; if the Lord says to you in a dream or a vision to go to such and such a seaside, at such and such a time, to fish there, and He will show you what to do when you are there, it will be a completely different thing; your going to fish at that seaside that weekend is a good works, in accordance to the will of God.

What if there is no such vision or dream, can it still be a good works? Well, it depends, and many different scenarios can come into the picture, but I will just mention 2 more to illustrate at the end of day, above all else, wisdom and judgment must be applied, with big pictures and certainties (what we know without ambiguity) kept in mind:

Let us say, now, you skip your weekend church services so that you can go fishing every weekend; that will NOT be a good works, will it? No, bad works more likely. Next, assuming you are NOT skipping church services, and you are going fishing, because you, too, need to take breaks and have some recreation, and fishing is something you would like to do, to unwind. In this case, maybe, that is a good works, if you believe with those unwinds, you are better able to cope with stresses of life and even more able to serve God because of your rested-ness, and God does NOT suggest to you otherwise. Is it unto God? You think about it! At the worst, it is perhaps, “no works”, but NOT bad works.

Not to be paranoia, but good works matters
I am NOT suggesting people be paranoia, always insisting everything we do must amount to good works. We should avoid bad works though. Doing much good works is good, but I cannot prescribe how much is enough or how much is NOT enough. I believe no one really knows, but the message of Romans 14:6 is NOT complete without me giving the next few verses following:

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:6)

7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:7-9)

We can see from the above verses, a believer is NO longer supposed to live to himself alone; he cannot just do his own things only; he has to live to the Lord, meaning we belong to the Lord. 1 Cor 6:19-20 reads as follow:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20).

While I cannot tell you, how much good works are required of each of us, for even the words of Jesus on “Who are the sheep and goats” which spoke about the need of doing good works by believers, did NOT elaborate on the quantum required thereof, verse 9 above of Romans 14, clearly stated that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all believers. It is really heretic, in my view to teach, as it is being done by some Free Grace teachers, that Salvation and Lordship of Jesus are separate, that one can have salvation without submitting to His Lordship.

In my separate article, “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”, I suggested that readers should seriously consider that the sheep referred to by Jesus are believers with good works. You should read it.

In “Luke 6:46 - PART I – Salvation and Lordship are together”, I argued that salvation and Lordship are necessarily together, for I believe, at the end of day, God is only admitting to Heaven those whom He knows will come under his Lordship. True, He is the Lord of all (regardless our acceptance of Him), but He is after a kingdom in Heaven of men who would embrace His Lordship wholeheartedly (we know that angels who did not, were “kicked out”). If you are NOT, why should you be there? To oppose God, or to incur wrath in Him? Yes, I mentioned in that article, works per se, is NOT what God is after, but obedience to His Lordship is; however, it is also clear that good works is a product of a life of submission unto His Lordship.

Will I make the mark?
If what I said is of truth, how do we know if we would make the mark {on submission to His Lordship, and therefore, good works}, and God will admit us (to Heaven)? I cut paste this from my “Salvation and Lordship are together” article mentioned above:

“We live in faith, through faith, and by faith. And faith is spelled as “R I S K”. I used to want that it should be a clear-cut issue, yes or no (it is common human tendency), but you know what, that is being legalistic! There is one thing, we cannot miss when we study the ministry of Jesus when He walked the earth, and that is He was against legalism. If it were 100%, or God MUST do it, it is NOT faith, it is legalism.”

There is no clear-cut answer; that is what a life of faith is about, we try to know more of God’s ways and will, for us, put into practice, and obey as much as possible, and rest in our trust in God, in His justice and righteousness, in His love and faithfulness (Ps 89:14), and in His wisdom and judgment. A scripture that is close to what I am trying to portray is this:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence (1 John 3:18-19).


Warning, nothing is hidden, though
Two set of verses pointed very clearly nothing, including sins, bad works, and good works, are hidden. 1 Timothy 5:24-25 read as follow:

24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. (1 Tim 5:24-25).

As a side, verse 24 actually suggests that some people’s sins (including believers) are known and judged summarily (without delay), for some others, their sins would be known and judged later (but NOT ignored, or escape judgment). This, in my view, contradicts some overly grace teachers’ teaching that believers will NEVER be judged anymore when they had already been judged on entry into salvation; in line with their erroneous (in my view) notion that even the FUTURE sins of a believer had been forgiven him at his MOMENT of entry into salvation. Verse 25 clearly said that good works are treated by God likewise; some are noted summarily, and perhaps, even “rewarded”, but others that are NOT yet openly made known, they will be surfaced later, NOT hidden, NOT lost, NOT, not taken into account subsequently.

The other verse which confirms God knows everything concerning the believers is this:

Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his [a],” (2 Tim 2:19a).

The footnote [a] to the NIV version of this verse actually references the verse back to Numbers 16:5 where a group of Levites was trying to usurp the powers and the sacred duties assigned to the High Priest. The incident and how it was finally settled, showed among others, 2 things: one, God knows who are His and who is supposed to do what, and what was done by who, nothing is hidden from God, and two, as was previously pointed by me in my separate article, “Don’t play, play, words from the mouths of favored men of God can be powerful”, God can just be listening to the words of His favored servants, and do as the servants pronounced!

Simply put, we cannot fool God, for God neither slumber nor sleep (Ps 121:4); whether or not our works are unto Him, He knows; whether or not, we are doing in submission to His Lordship, He knows. Those who read my Salvation and Lordship article mentioned above, would remember that I said this, “Submission is not blind or Lordship cannot be accidental. By submission is not blind, I mean one does not submit to nothingness, in other words, when one submits, one is submitting to someone or something, otherwise, it is not submission. Lordship is not accidental, is to mean you cannot say, “But, I also did that what, can’t you, God, just count it that I done it, in submission to you?” Good works is about works unto the Lord, and it is about submission unto the Lord, even as it is works from and of faith, the understanding we arrived at, from PART I of this article series.


Must submission necessarily implied works?
Not must, but it almost inevitably does. Very simply, being submissive to one, means we do as being told; yah, we do something. To me, even loving God is works! Love does NOT do nothing! We are told to love God. Does that tell us to do nothing? Or do our own things? No, loving God is NOT doing nothing. Still have doubts, read again 1 John 3:18-19 (given above). We do, do our own things, but that is NOT exactly connected to submission.

I have a son, and he does, do his own things (play computer games, etc, etc), but his doing such, per se, do NOT indicate his submission to me, his father. If I tell him NOT to do his own thing (say, play computer games) for an hour, and he obliges, that is submission. Sure, if I had not told him that he could NOT do his own things like playing computer games, he, by playing computer games does NOT indicate that he is NOT submissive to me, but it also does NOT indicate that he is submissive.

To be submissive to God, you are to do (or NOT to do) something; in other words, you effort or labor (well, to refrain is also effort-lah) in accordance to the desires of God. Of course, if God says, “Go, play some computer games, and have some fun”; then that too, is works. Love God and love people are works, worship God is works, even as such are acting in submission to God.

Jesus’ bringing us salvation through His works on the Cross, the redemptive works of our Lord, when we embrace that salvation, we have said, we also need necessarily embrace submission to His Lordship, for His redemptive works include redeeming our works or purpose aspect of our lives. If you read my separate article, “Works of redemption of our Lord”, you will realize that the Lord NOT only wanted to grant us eternal life (spiritual redemption), and give us, in our next life, an incorruptible body (final part of physical redemption), but also to give us back works or purpose of life (works/purpose redemption). All 3-fold redemptive works start immediately upon entry into salvation, but they are NOT FINISHED in the blink of an eye, despite Jesus’ saying, “It is finished” on the Cross.

Overly grace teachers who tell you that you are FINISHED, NOT work in progress in anyway, are creating their own theology. Just because Jesus said, “It is finished”, did NOT mean you are finished, perfected. Jesus was simply expressing He (NOT you) has finished the works His Father had wanted Him to do. Jesus knew what He must do and He did what He must do to complete the assignment God had given Him. Honestly, if I do what I WANT, going forward, I cannot be sure of my eternal life; and I have NOT my incorruptible body yet, physical redemption surely NOT finished for me yet; and directly in connection with what we discussed here (works), I have a long way to go, in learning submission, and do works pleasing unto God; I am a Christian of many years now, but still I am NOT fully aligned to God’s ways to function fully in the works/purposes He has for me, rather I am still spending a lot of time doing “my things” (Please, I am NOT suggesting you condemn yourself; that would NOT be what God would have intentioned, even if you are a lazy bum or a selfish fellow. You are exhorted to move in the right direction, and NOT to condemn yourself in the existing spot.) Seriously, to walk in the redemptive works of our Lord, we are to produce fruit from good works in our lives; it is NEVER JUST basking in grace, even though, you can bask in grace, and sometimes, and for some believers, some basking, indeed, would do them good, but that is another matter, altogether. Christians are to do good works (Eph 2:10).


Anthony Chia, high.expressions - The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt 3:10).

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.