Category: Christianity

Kenneth Gentry, and some others that he uses as proxies, have been attacking Gary DeMar publicly (much of it on Facebook) since 2023 about the three questions controversy. Gentry and others have been alleging that DeMar is a closet full preterist. (More on full Preterism later.) In their minds, that makes DeMar a heretic and thus guilty of unorthodox eschatology.

In response, DeMar has simply pitted one supporter of the three questions against another to show that none of them agree with each other, so why should he respond directly. As a debate tactic, this is brilliant.

Furthermore, the original three questions lacked any citation of Scriptures to defend their claims. The originators of the three-question letter controversy base the whole thing on church tradition and not Scripture. This is why they are divided on their understandings. It is this hole in their logic that I would like to comment upon.

As DeMar likes to point out, when it comes to the historic Creeds of Christendom, nobody decided to “show their homework.” The Creeds make claims about the Christian faith but never cite any verses as proof texts; neither do they have any minutes of the meetings to explain the logic of why statements were included. In short, all that is preserved for us are the conclusions and not anything to back them up.

For the purposes of this blog, I am limiting discussion to the Nicene Creed. FYI the Nicene Creed was drafted in 325 AD and updated slightly into its final form in 381 AD.

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,* who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Two comments on the above version. First, this is from a Roman Catholic website and a word or two might be different in another English translation. Second, in the paragraph on the Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Yep, “and the Son” highlights the difference in the understanding of the Trinity between Churches; although there is much history behind this division.

Preterism

Preterism, in its simplest form is believing that some parts of the Bible are in the past. If you believe Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and fulfilled related Old Testament prophecies, then you are a preterist. If you believe that some prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD, but others are still future to us then you are a partial preterist. If you believe everything in the Bible including the last few chapters of Revelation are fulfilled in some way, then you are a full preterist.

Sadly, the difference between full and partial Preterism is really more nuanced than what I just stated. There are people that are in between full and partial preterists. Some folks believe that some things began in the past, continue to be true today, and will not know complete fulfillment until sometime in the future.

The two sections of the Creed getting the most attention in the controversy are these:

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

I could dissect these parts in much detail but not too many folks would care so I’ll try to keep this simple.

The type of questions being asked are like this:

• Where are these statements found in the Bible (Proof texts)?
• How did the original audience understand these statements?
• Were the statements based on Scripture, future or past when written into the Creed in 325 AD?
• When is or will be the resurrection of the dead?
• When is or will the Kingdom begin?
• What and when is the world to come?
• If Jesus is on the Throne now, what is he doing or waiting for?
• When is the resurrection of the dead?

Again, we have to reverse engineer the Creed to figure out such questions.

Folks, this sounds simple at first blush but once you start looking at this, it is evident that you are treading into deep theological waters trying to fully grasp the concepts tossed out by the writers of the Creed.

The Creed speaks of a future coming of Jesus, presumably at the end of the world but where is that in the Bible? Most of the coming passages are understood by the signers of the three questions letter as coming in judgment in the First Century, but “The Church” has historically believed in a final and consummating coming at the end of history.

This leaves a theological mess. Were the coming passages fulfilled (full Preterism)? Mostly fulfilled (partial Preterism)? Mostly in the future (Premillennial)? Requiring double fulfillment? Or something else?

Here’s an example from Paul to illustrate the complexity of the issue. He writes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This verse is often quoted to give comfort to grieving families. It was quoted at my wife’s funeral. But how do you get to be “present with the Lord” without being judged in some fashion so God permits you to enter his presence? This implies that judgment is not at the end of the world but upon death. So, if you are judged at death then why not also be given your resurrected body at the same time? We spend eternity in bodies not as spirits floating around on clouds playing harps.

Gentry and his friends presuppose that the Creeds and Church tradition are correct about much of this being future and then interpret the Bible with these presuppositions trying to discern which bucket that a particular verse belongs in. If you agree with him then he calls you “orthodox” and if you disagree—especially about the timing—then I guess you get a letter calling you “un-orthodox.”

Matthew 24

Generally, Matthew chapters 23-25 are all one dialogue by Jesus frequently called the Olivet Discourse. Chapters 24 & 25 are said in response to questions asked of Jesus by his disciples. Some folks like DeMar believe that chapters 24 and 25 are a single unit speaking of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Others split chapter 24—some like Gentry at very odd points—into part being fulfilled in 70 AD and part of the prophecy being future.

J. Marcellus Kik and many others split Matthew 24 between about verse 34 to 36 so that the first part of the chapter is about 70 AD and the rest is the traditional Second Coming.

Kenneth Gentry does this too, plus he pulls Matthew 24: 27 as a stand-alone verse concerning the Second Coming even though it comes in the midst of the part which most think applies to AD 70.

“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

I don’t want to get into the weeds about this except to say that Gentry didn’t always hold this position but has adopted it in more recent times. It makes no sense, but he is hell-bent in accommodating the Creed into his post millennial position. He needs verses to support both AD 70 and the traditional Second Coming. Gentry is a lone gunman on verse 27 but holds this unique position.

If you look at the Olivet discourse, what many such as Kik try to do is book end the statements about “this generation” to fit an AD 70 application (Matthew 23:36 to Matthew 24:34) and then futurize the rest of chapter 24. Gentry randomly cherry picks verse 24:27 that he is compelled to futurize in the midst of the “this generation” passage.

Gentry is obliged to shoehorn verses into the future because of the Creed and Church tradition; not the context.

Were Matthew the only account of what shall be the signs of the end and coming of Jesus, then maybe Kik could have a point, but this bifurcation of Matthew is destroyed by looking at the same account in the other synaptic Gospels.

Conflicting Versions

Once you compare Matthew 24 & 25 with the parallel accounts in Luke 21 and Mark 13, then the structure forced onto the account in Matthew collapses. It is clear that all three accounts in their entirety are about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. It was a local judgment that could literally be escaped on foot by fleeing to the mountains. As proof that this was so, there are zero historical records of a single Christian being killed in the siege of Jerusalem. Secondly, Christians knew it would happen all the way back to the beginning chapters of Acts. Why was the Church in Jerusalem the only place where property was sold and the proceeds held in common by and for the Church? It was not socialism in the Bible; it was a testimony that the city would be lost within a generation as Jesus prophesized.

The problem that Gentry and other signatories of the three-question letter have is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that all parties signing the three questions letter agree apply to the end of the world. At least some of the signers believe verses should be applied to the AD 70 judgment.

On the one hand they want the traditional view that Jesus returns at the end of everything and at the same time they know that most verses apply better to an AD 70 fulfillment.

Folks the truth is that Jesus doesn’t really tell us how it all ends. Neither does he tell us what heaven will be like. In the end, we will have a body like his. We will not marry nor be given in marriage. We will have jobs of some sort and worship God. There is no more death or sin. Anything beyond this is speculation.

Between now and then, the Gospel will spread across the world. Most people will be believers at some point in the future. So many folks will be saved that when it is all over, it can truly be said that Jesus is the savior of the world. The end, whatever form or time it happens, is thousands of years from now. You are still living in the early church so buckle up and get to work.

Yep. The highlight of my day was going to the church’s men’s Bible study last night. One guy that regularly attends is a former member of the LDS Church. He made a comment concerning Jesus binding the strong man and stealing his goods. (We’ll get to the text in a moment.)

The Bible study leader was dumbfounded. He couldn’t get past the wooden literalism that Premillennial Dispensationalists have when reading the Bible. Pre-Mil people don’t have the discernment to know when the Bible is using figures of speech, metaphors, and so forth or is intended to be read as written. Literally means in accordance with the literature but such a concept is outside of their biblical understanding.

The leader was tripped up on the idea that Jesus could possibly steal anything. Why? Because Jesus was honest, and God and a good teacher. Also, binding is a violent act, another obstacle to understanding the text. Biblical Jesus is not the weakling, milquetoast guy that modern people envision him to be. Of course, the context didn’t help. He just got more confused.

Later, I told him that Jesus binding the strong man—the Devil—and stealing his stuff—us—was the unanimous understanding of the passage by the Reformers, but those guys have no credibility with him. Nope, he is nondenominational and proud to have never been a member of any church. He thinks he knows the Bible but like all such people in nondenominational churches, he knows the milk of the Word backwards and forwards but seems to miss that we are commanded to get into the meat of the Word.

Sorry, but the meat of the Word gets messy and difficult; challenging our most deeply held ideas about God and our relationship to him.

We—the ex-Mormon and I—left him last night totally stuck after being confronted with the Truth but unable to comprehend it.

I will now quote the passage and then toss it to Logos software to give you their take. I’m doing this sight unseen (I don’t know what Logos will say but I’m confident I’m right.)

Yep, now you can test both the Scripture and AI in the same exercise. Sounds like fun to me. Here we go.

The Text

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house

Matthew 12:25–29.

Logos AI analysis

Jesus uses the image of binding a strongman to respond to accusations that he casts out demons through Satan’s power—the strongman represents Satan himself[1]. The parable poses a logical challenge: how can anyone plunder a strong man’s possessions without first restraining him (Matt 12:25–29)? The strongman’s house symbolizes the world under Satan’s control, his possessions are the spirits and people enslaved to him, and Jesus’ exorcisms constitute an assault on that domain[2].

Rather than being in league with Satan as the scribes claimed, Jesus came to Satan’s “house” to bind him and liberate the souls held captive there[1]. Satan’s kingdom collapses not through internal division but through the invasion of God’s kingdom in Jesus’ ministry[2]. The binding itself remains theologically complex—while the text doesn’t explicitly clarify the timing, it’s fundamentally connected to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and eventual return as judge[2]. In the immediate context of his earthly ministry, the binding may relate to his baptism and wilderness temptation, or more broadly to the kingdom’s inauguration through his work[2].

The metaphor invites reflection on God’s role as liberator—mirroring the exodus when God bound Pharaoh and freed Israel, Jesus’ ministry inaugurates a new exodus, liberating God’s people[2]. Some modern charismatic movements apply this parable to believers’ spiritual warfare, teaching that Christians must bind strongmen in their cities, though Jesus never instructs his followers to do this[1].

**Biblical passages related to this theme:** The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and through death Christ destroyed him who held the power of death—the devil (Heb 2:14–15). Jesus declares that the judgment of the world has come and the prince of this world will be cast out (John 12:31).

[1] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021).

[2] R. Alan Culpepper, Mark, ed. Leslie Andres and R. Alan Culpepper, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2007), 115–116.

Yep, like Doug Wilson said, “Jesus binds Satan and steals his stereo.”

Conclusion

Folks, this illustration is exactly why I attend this church. They need the light of the Gospel. God put me here for this and a few other reasons. If we are to break the false doctrine of popular prophecy thinking, somebody has to disrupt the paradigm. Breaking said paradigm is done by exploiting the cracks in the prevailing presuppositions and demonstrating the inability of their template of providing real answers.

Michael Heiser is right in saying the stuff people skip over are the important parts that are there for a reason. Premillennialism skips the parts that don’t fit their system or recast them into something foreign to the text. Forcing them to account for the things they can’t forces them to either adjust their worldview or deny God’s Word.

I hate that modern folks compartmentalize everything because then they can’t see the relationships between things or the way that Idea A and Idea B are contradictory and can’t simultaneously be true. By holding both in isolation, they attempt to affirm both, which is a logical contradiction.

The frustrating thing at this Bible Study is the claim that they are right about everything because the Holy Spirit showed it to them. That’s laughable. The Spirit can only use what you have studied. If you block stuff because it is difficult or potentially doesn’t agree with you then you aren’t grappling with the text. We are told to be ready and always have an answer for the hope that is within us.

Lastly, the pastor has renounced Premillennial Dispensationalism from the pulpit but the folks in the pews haven’t got the message yet. They have ears but don’t hear and eyes that can’t see but they claim to be more enlightened than Christians in previous generations. Such a claim is laughable but was made earlier last night with much affirmation. Sad.

This blog is, at least in part, a swipe at the Baby Boom generation (~1946-1964). Yep, the ungrateful brats that F***ed-up the country for the rest of us. BTW I am barely considered a Boomer so I can say that and not get accused of dissing the gray-haired generation. Said comments also are applicable to those older than the Boomers. I don’t know what to call that generation. Contrary to Tom Brokaw, they aren’t the “Greatest Generation” because they were too young to participate in WW II.

Whether my comments are applicable to the younger crowd, maybe The Chief can let me know when next we speak.

Our society has been described as disposable. We have disposable diapers, razors, disposable food containers, and the like but we also treat humans as disposable. Abortion is “products of conception” which are fit to flush down the toilet. “Special needs” children get locked-up and are rarely seen in public. We have “old folk’s homes” where we send elderly people to await death. We have political parties in our country that support slavery, exploitation, child labor, and a host of other ills just as long as they occur in other countries and not are not seen in ours. Nobody in the West could afford an iPhone or Tesla car if the rare earth metals were obtained ethically. Much manufacturing in China would cease if not for slave labor. Then there is the eugenics behind organ harvesting on an industrial scale.

Below I take on false views held by many self-described Christians.

“The body is garbage,” claimed a nameless person mentioned by Rev David Chilton in one of his sermons recorded in the 1980’s. (Chilton didn’t believe that but dealt with folks that did.)

Yep, the spirit is what is important, the body is just the prison of the soul. Ever heard comments like that before? While such may have been spoken by the Apostle Plato, such language was never uttered by the Apostle Paul, or any other writer of Holy Scripture. Such division of body and soul is not biblical but Greek. Yet, many people believe it is true.

In this category, I include my own parents as well as my grandparents. When someone died in my immediate family circle they were cremated and forgotten. Typically, there is no memorial service, wake, or any other remembrance. No gravestone because there is no grave.

In addition, the possessions of said relatives are not offered to family members as keepsakes. Nope. When my grandfather died, my dad gave a few firearms to a cousin and then called Goodwill or some similar charity group to clean out the house. He kept nothing and offered nothing to the rest of us. Like I said before, it’s just dumping the trash.

Oh, so what happens when you ask to be present when the ashes of dear so-and-so are disposed of? Nothing. (I did think you needed a government permit to scatter human remains but I know my folks never followed that directive.) When the time came to scatter said ashes, do you know what happened? Zippo. The phone is silent. The email is mute. The snail mail was never sent. Years after the fact you might overhear a comment stating that over there is where some beloved person’s ashes went. It matters not if you ask to be present. Crickets.

Folks if you thought cancel culture was just on the Left, try dying in my family. There is zero hope of being honored or remembered. Your existence is swiftly erased with extreme prejudice.

When my aunts died, did I get notified? Generally, no; not if they were part of my grandmother’s generation. Occasionally, if they were of my parents’ generation then my folks might mention it. Either way, incinerate and forget them was the practice.

Lest you think this idea that the body is garbage is unique to my family, may I point you to the Neptune Society. They offer cremation services for the masses.

Or Oregon offers composting of dead people. Yep, they literally make you into worm food.

My problem is that biblically speaking, burning bodies is sacrilege. The body is to be honored. More on that shortly.

Lest you think my family are the only ones that advocate disposal of loved ones; here is how this often is manifests amongst folks that claim to be Christian. Grandma dies. We hold a service for her—which is good. But then someone says, “What’s in the coffin isn’t grandma, she’s in heaven not here.” Then they make a reference to Paul’s saying that “absent from the body is present with the Lord”.

If by saying this, they deny that the person in the coffin is actually grandma then they are wrong. Both the body and the spirit are grandma. The body is not a corrupted husk that contained the real grandma. Nope, that’s Greek thought not biblical thought.

Folks, this is the classic definition of loss of big picture. Jesus was not raised as a spirit. The Church has a name for people that believe that way, “heretic.”

Jesus was raised bodily. Yep, his resurrected body was different, it was a perfected body, but a body, nonetheless. In another sermon, David Chilton makes reference to a young man saying that he can’t wait to get to heaven because then he can’t sin anymore because he will no longer will have a body. This is not biblical.

God gave Adam a body and said it was “very good”.

It is unnatural that the body and spirit are separated at death. This is the result of sin. Please understand, I am ok with claiming that immediately following death, the deceased person gets their new, resurrected body. And following a judgment, believers are in the presence of God in that eternal form. Some folks think you need to wait until the end of something, usually not the end-end for this to occur. Some biblical passages seem to imply that the judgment is immediately after death not after one’s body spends thousands of years in the ground. Whether the body and spirit are reunited shortly after death or later on, it will happen. You will spend eternity in a body not as a disembodied spirit.

The normative in Scripture is that the body is treated with respect and reverence. A body is buried with honor and an expectation of an afterlife. The classic example is in the latter part of Genesis. Joseph, the guy with the coat of many colors, makes a final request just before his death. When you leave Egypt and return to the Promised Land, take my body with you and bury me there. Joseph had been dead for the better part of 400 years before his remains were returned to the land of his birth. People knew that this body was Joseph and he was given the honor due to a prince of both Egypt and Israel.

In like manner, every time a Christian is buried, he is testifying that he has a hope in a future resurrection. This is why churches have had graveyards in close proximity to their places of worship. Like many things, the present practitioners have forgotten the historic view; the faith of their fathers. Heck, for that matter, why don’t modern churches use church architecture for their construction? Why are they all theater-in-the-round or gymnasiums with folding chairs?

Those European Cathedrals that took centuries to build had a purpose in the way they were constructed. I bet you don’t even know why Holy Water and Gargoyles were included in the church’s design. The Gospel is silently built into how and why each building was designed, hence the name “church architecture.”

Oh, the answer to my rhetorical questions above, Holy Water is in the back of the church as a symbol that it is by baptism that we gain entry to the church. Gargoyles symbolize demons fleeing the presence of the Church. Remember Jesus saying that “… the gates of hell shall not prevail?” Again, church architecture has meaning, but folks don’t know the Gospel well enough to know what they are looking at.

Like many in our society, what I say or whatever reasons that I might give for Christian burial will not move the needle with folks. They are much more comfortable arguing feelings than facts. Facts can only be employed if both sides agree to let something external to them be their authority and rule for conduct. For Christians this should be the Word of God but often it is not. When every man does what’s right in their own eyes then civil dialogue is not possible. This is just as true discussing death as it is politics.

My folks want to be cremated, have no memorial service, and no acknowledgement of their lives. Oh, this also means no closure for grieving family members, but they don’t care. Such an attitude gives a new spin to the comments of Jesus when he said, “Let the dead bury the dead.”

Folks, there is such a thing as “Christian burial;” it’s too bad most Christians don’t believe in it anymore.

• Have you ever wondered why tens of thousands of First Century Jews converted to Christianity while virtually none do today?
• Why does the Gospel of John start with “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God?”
• Why is there about a 900-year discrepancy between genealogies in the Old Testament—depending on which version of the Bible that you read?
• What or who was Melchizedek?

These are just some of the issues touched upon by Douglas Van Dorn’s book “The Battle for the Bible’s Truth: Genesis 6, Jesus, and the second Century Plot to Deny the Messiah.”

The set-up for the book is this: imagine that you are a Jew in the Second Century.

• In 70 A.D. the Romans sacked and burned Jerusalem and destroyed your center of worship (the Temple) and thus your religion as it had been practiced for more than a thousand years. 1.2 million Jews died in this uprising.
• Then in the Bar Kokhba rebellion, Christians failed to join the Jews in a second rebellion against Roman, 65 years after Jerusalem fell, because they rejected Bar Kokhba as a false Messiah.

At this point in history, the Jews and Christians finally split for good. However, Jews are still losing people to the upstart Christian sect. The remaining rabbis are desperate to consolidate power and stem the tide of converts following Jesus because of their understanding of the Old Testament promises.

In what today might be called a “Hail Mary” play, they decided to change the Old Testament Scriptures to stop the bleeding and erect barriers to any further losses to Jesus.

As Van Dorn shows, the Second Century rabbis did deliberate edits that two centuries later were being adopted by Christians. Today, nobody knows the difference and the falsehoods created by the rabbis are considered in many circles as Christian Orthodoxy today.

By comparing various texts and manuscripts, Van Dorn shows that the errant text is the Jewish one—the Masoretic—which is the basis of many English versions of the Bible including the King James Version (KJV).

I won’t spoil the book—which I highly recommend—however, the rabbi’s edit which is clearly the easiest to see is Deuteronomy 32:8

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance,

When he separated the sons of Adam,

He set the bounds of the people

According to the number of the children of Israel.

In context, the phrase “according to the number of the children of Israel” is nonsense. In the Table of Nations—which follows the Flood in Genesis 10—Israel is nothing but a glimmer in the eye of Abram’s ancestors. There is no Abram or Israel in existence. Thus, to state that there is a relationship between the Table of Nations and the children of Israel is nonsense. The older translation is “the number of the sons of God.” This edit (the children of Israel) was unknown before the Second Century A.D. This shifts the passage from teaching about principalities and powers (i.e. heavenly, spiritual beings) and instead substituting men.

Substituting men for spiritual beings is a constant refrain in the Second Century edits. They tried to obscure or obliterate references to the pre-incarnate Christ. This was done deliberately to keep Jews from seeing the Messiah in their own Scriptures. Furthermore, the correct textual understandings were anathematized by teachers of Judaism.

By the Fifth Century, the rabbi’s ruse was adopted wholesale by the Christian Church and has been the majority view ever since.

Van Dorn is trying to expose and correct the record. The book is easily read and written at a level that is accessible to the masses. The type is larger than I was expecting and is only about 150 pages. It retails at Amazon for about $20.

A good companion book would be the “Unseen Realm” by Michael Heiser.

Heiser is concerned primarily with the supernatural view of the Old Testament. While there is some overlap, the emphasis of each book is different.

I highly recommend Van Dorn’s book to any and all.

The following is a partial list of false prophecies about the Rapture, battle of Armageddon, or Return of Christ in my lifetime (post 1960).

The list also does not include the voluminous number of prophecy pimps in modern pulpits claiming all the signs are in place and it could be any minute. In the Old Testament God’s people were to execute false prophets, in the New we just buy their books. WTF?

• If you like subversion in the Bible or authors such as Brian Godawa and Michael Heiser, then do I have an interesting book for you.  (Subversion is using divine attributes claimed by pagan gods such as Baal that the Bible says are only true of the one living God.)
• If you have ever been bothered by the New Testament passage about women being saved through childbirth, again this is the book to explain this verse.
• If you want to understand how the Apostle Paul interacts with the goddess Artemis in the New Testament, then this might be a book for you.
• If you want to have more background on the Ephesian church mentioned in Revelation 2:1-7 then this book will be helpful.

The full title of the book is “Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament.”

It is written by Sandra L. Glahn. Glahn is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Yep, I actually read a book by someone at DTS. It’s probably the only title I have read during the current century by anyone associated with DTS.

The book is six chapters. Chapters 2-5 are solely about Artemis in art, literature, architecture, and artifacts. Another name for Artemis (Greek) is Diana (Roman).

Artemis

Artemis is not the guy from “The Wild, Wild West.” Nope. Not Artemus Gordon. (Baby boomers think Artemus and Artemis are pronounced the same.)

In the original TV series, Ross Martin played Artemus Gordon and Robert Conrad played James West. It ran from 1965-1969. A movie was made in 1999 featuring Will Smith as James West and Kevin Kline as Artemus Gordon.

Artemis is a female god who is a virgin by choice but also the goddess of midwifery. Yep, a virgin that specializes in delivering babies. She is the sister of Apollo and hunts with a golden bow. It was common to ask her to assist in delivering a baby without harm to the mother. In cases of a difficult delivery, she was called upon to offer women a painless death.

The temple to Artemis was in Ephesus and was regarded as the greatest of the ancient 7 Wonders of the World. It was four times the size of the Parthenon in Athens. Ephesus was the Roman provincial capital of Asia. It was also a center of Emperor worship. Chapter 1 of the book is an introduction and chapter 6 is mostly an analysis of Paul’s writings; especially to the Ephesians and Timothy.

Glahn focuses much of her discussion on 1 Timothy chapter 2; mostly verse 9-15.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Timothy 2:9–15.

Also worth noting are her comments on 1 Timothy 5:13; specifically the words “gossips” or “tattlers” (KJV) and “busybodies.” See page 124.

13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

1 Timothy 5:13.

As usual, the translators are afraid to give you the true thrust of the meaning of the Greek words. Glahn argues for tattlers=“those who talk nonsense” and busybodies=“those practicing magic” as the more accurate rendering. I the context, I think she is correct.

The book is an easy read. It is well researched and organized effectively. Part of it may be considered controversial in its treatment of a woman’s place in the church. Her comments on this topic are limited to 1 Timothy 2 so don’t base any doctrines off of her conclusions.

Final Thought

I’ve had the book for almost two years but just got around to reading it. Per her book, Artemis was second only to Zeus in popularity in the Greek speaking world. Artemis is currently popular in modern society as the goddess of the transgenderism cult.

Yep. True story. Long ago I was a member in good standing of the oldest Christian Church in the West. I was baptized as an infant at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Woodland. A small town just north of Sacramento California. I attended the parish school from kindergarten through sixth grade.

I won’t go into all the weeds but let’s just say that by fifth grade, I had decided God wasn’t real. I purposely wrote God with a lower case “g” and was sour on the idea of his existence. I butted heads with the nuns from the on-campus convent. I drive Sister Ilene up the wall, and my behavior prompted more than one parent-teacher conference.

I came across someone of a different faith that got me to read the Bible. I found stuff in the Bible that was contrary to what the church taught. I brought some of these things to the nuns at the school. They had no response to my Bible based questions except to say that I wasn’t capable of reading the Bible on my own. I needed the priests and bishops to tell me what it said. I was warned that if I continued reading the Bible on my own that I might become a heretic just like Martin Luther. (Oh, FYI it was the first time that I ever heard of Martin Luther.)

I became hungry for some answers to my questions.

Oh, the passage that gave the nuns fits was that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Yep. Jesus was the oldest but clearly, he had siblings. Roman Catholics reject these scriptures or try to weasel out of them, but they are unambiguous.

Here is what Logos found via an A.I. search.

The Gospels identify Jesus with specific family relationships: he is called “the carpenter’s son” with brothers named James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt 13:55–56), and sisters are mentioned but remain unnamed (Matt 13:55–56). Mark’s account similarly refers to him as “the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), and after the resurrection, his brothers appear with Mary in prayer (Acts 1:14). Paul identifies James as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19), and James eventually became a pillar of the Jerusalem church.

Source R. Alan Culpepper, Mark, ed. Leslie Andres and R. Alan Culpepper, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2007), 190.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim that said brothers and sisters can’t really be that due to claims of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This doctrine is nonsense. The Bible says so.

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [quote from Isaiah 7:14] 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 1:23–25.

It says Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until Jesus was born, not that he never had sex with her. Folks, sex is part of being married. In fact, it’s not really a valid marriage if the couple doesn’t have sex. That is why having sex is called “consummating the marriage”.

Oh, for doubters of my claim, here is a portion of an article on consummating a marriage that I grabbed from my friendly Internet search engine.

In canon law and many religious traditions, consummation is considered essential for a marriage to be fully valid, often linked to the potential for procreation. Some doctrines even specify that intercourse with contraception may not count as consummation. Historically, consummation was sometimes verified through rituals or inspections, though such practices have largely disappeared.

Here are some Bible verses concerning, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus’ siblings.

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Matthew 13:55–56.

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mark 6:3.

22 … And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?

Luke 4:22b.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

John 6:42a.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 1:14.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 1:19.

By the end of seventh grade, I knew about Jesus, but I was confronted with the fact that I didn’t know him. I was missing a relationship with him. Frankly, I didn’t know there was such a thing. Knowing about someone and knowing them are two different propositions. I learned that this was a spiritual truth as well. Yes, I slowly decided that God was real, but I was missing him in the Roman Catholic Church.

During this time in my life, my mom ended up watching Bill Graham on television. She prayed along with Graham and gave her life to Christ. (More on this shortly.) She started taking us to a Baptist church in town. I liked that they had a youth program and was excited to have adults around me that were open to answering any questions that I could hurl at them. I got answers not deferrals to higher authorities.

As summer approached, mom signed all three of her children up to attend the summer church camp. At camp, I was told that Jesus died for my sins and I could have a personal relationship with him. He would forgive my sins and come into my life. I had only to ask him. As a first step to show my desire to know Christ in an intimate way, I was asked at the end of the chapel service to come forward and pray. I did so.

Folks, the act of walking down the aisle does not save anyone but for me it was a first step in knowing Christ as opposed to knowing about him. That camp experience really changed me. For others it was a flash in the pan that never really took, but it was transformative for me.

My life changed as a result of that encounter with God. My relationship with God has changed over the years because I have gotten deeper into the Bible than many others that I know. I have changed my views of somethings, but God is more real to me now than He was that summer. That was fifty years ago.  

If you have a desire to know God more intimately, then ask Jesus to save you from your sin, redeem you, and make you a new person. Then, start reading your Bible. Many folks say to start with the Gospels. On one level, the Gospel of John is an easy read but if you grew up with “a Charlie Brown Christmas” then start with Luke. It will sound familiar.

Over time, God expects you to deepen your walk with Him. Yep, you will mess up. Ask forgiveness and keep going. Perseverance is an important part of living out your faith. Oh, exercising your faith in a community of believers is the biblical norm. This might take some trial and error to figure out. For me, the Roman Catholic Church was not the place where I got fed a lot in a spiritual sense.

Knowing God is possible if you seek after Christ. I may say that I’m really right but I know that only God truly is.