Bill Maher Says God is a Homophobic “Psychotic Mass Murderer” Who Supports Slavery

Recently in an interview with Jim Wallis, Bill Maher on his show made the statement “Explain to me how a book that is written by God, who is perfect, there’s so much–it’s pro-slavery, pro-polygamy, it’s homophobic, God in the Old Testament is a psychotic mass murderer–I mean, there’s so many things in it.". The interview can be seen here. There is much more about the interview and Jim Wallis that could be said, bit I am to address that particular comment made by Mr. Maher here.

Those accusations are often parroted by atheists against God and the bible. That fact that Bill Maher needs an explanation shows his lack of understanding on the matter. Jim Wallis was correct about one thing, slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was more like servitude. People often think of slavery today in terms of the African slave trade, however that sort of slavery was explicitly denounced:

"You shall not steal. (Exd 20:15)"

 "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exd 21:16)"

"If a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and mistreats him or sells him, then that kidnapper shall die; and you shall put away the evil from among you. (Deu 24:7)"

We often look at history through the lens of modern society, but it was a different time and culture than it is today. What is the social norm now was not the social norm then. There were many reasons why people became slaves, sometimes it was out of necessity. Some chose to become slaves either to pay off their debts or because they were too poor to support themselves. Sometimes it was a punishment for a crime. Being a slave wasn't always a permanent situation and there were certain laws in effect to prevent mistreatment of slaves. While we may think of that sort of servitude negatively today it wasn't the social issue that it was then. They would probably find some of the things we do today as equally reprehensible to them. In any case it's a moot point considering Christians and Jews don't own slaves today. You can read more about slavery here.

On polygamy, it is true it was a common practice in Old-Testament times and many prominent biblical men had multiple wives and concubines including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. However does that mean that God was pro-polygamy? No, there is also rape, incest, and murder in the bible but just because it's there does not mean God supports it. It's just telling a story of what happened. God, in facts, makes a very pro-monogamy statement when he says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Gen 2:24).

While polygamy was a common practice in Old Testament, often times it created only problems. For Abraham, there was such animosity between Sarah and Hagar that Hagar was forced to leave. With Jacob there was a rivalry between his wives Leah and Rachel. If King David had been content with one wife he would never have sinned with Bathsheb. King Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines and yet they turned his heart away from God. This was warned about in Deuteronomy: "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deu 17:17)" By the time we get to the New Testament, polygamy becomes phased out in favor of monogamy:

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  (Mat 19:4-5)"

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)"

"Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  (1Co 7:2)"

Now, calling the bible homophobic shows an automatic bias against those who do not support the gay lifestyle. The word "homophobic" is an ad-hominem label that has it's roots in the gay activist community. It's a word that is intended to demonize and marginalize anyone who disagrees.
 
Bill Maher is correct with what the bible has to say about homosexuality. It explicitly condemns the "act" of homosexuality, the only way to get around those verses is to allegorize them. Much could be said about homosexuality, but suffice to say God created the genders for a specific purpose. It does not take a degree in biology and physiology to understand that the male anatomy is perfectly made for the female anatomy, and using it in a way that it is not intended is called a perversion.  More on that here.

On Bill's last point he states God is a "psychotic mass murderer". Now I am going to assume he is talking about the Israelites conquest of Cannan and destroying whole cities including men, women, and children in the process. Interestingly Bill doesn't believe in the Bible, yet he does believe in the parts that make it look bad. One could write a whole dissertation on this topic but I'll keep it short. We have to put things into proper context. For one the people living in Cannan were not nice guys, they would sacrifice there children by burning them alive. They were aggressive and in many instances attacked Israel first and not one of them made a peace treaty with Israel. One of the main reasons they were wiped out was because they were evil. If the goal was genocide then everyone living in Cannan would have been killed but this was not so. Some were just driven out, others were allowed to remain. You can read more on that here.

Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels?

This is a commentary to "Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels?" by Don Stewart. Don does a good job at presenting both sides of the argument, tho he ultimately sides on the gross sins of humans and not angels caused the flood. I want to comment on his article and interject my own thoughts. The article itself is lengthy so I will only post snippets, you can read the full article here. My responses will be in blue.

1.Ancient View
The angelic view fell into disrepute among Christian interpreters from the fourth to the eighteenth century. Saint Augustine's rejection of the angel interpretation (De Civitate Dei 15, written between A.D. 413-426, had enormous influence. Those who rejected the supernatural angelic reading did so because of theological objections that arose to angels cohabiting with humans.

Augustine was not perfect, some would argue he never fully converted from his pagan roots and introduced many heresies into the church. Agustine did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and allegorized Genesis. He attempted to de-mythologize the bible. Prior to Augustine all the Jewish and early Christian commentators took the angelic view of Genesis 6.

The Bible-believers who hold to the angelic view do so because they feel it best fits all the evidence of Scripture. They strongly reject the idea that any part of Scripture is mythological. Furthermore many of them believe that the later myths that arose concerning angels and women producing
monstrous offspring may have been derived from the actual occurrence as recorded in Genesis.

This is the view that I hold. I believe the Sons of God were fallen angels that commingled with human woman and produced a hybrid race of giants called Nephilim.


2. Septuagint
Though the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 was an ancient view, it was not the only view in antiquity. Therefore the angel view was not the only position held in the ancient world.

Correct, but those interpretations that do should not be so easily dismissed. Generally speaking the angel view is older than the non-angelic views of Genesis 6.

Only one manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) reads angels of God. The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek translations) read sons of God not angels of God in Genesis 6:2,4. Therefore one cannot appeal to the Septuagint to support the idea of angels.

The Hebrew word for Sons of God is "Ben elohiym". According to Strong's Lexicon Elohiym can refer to God, gods, goddesses, angels, anything supernatural but there is no mention of it ever applying to mankind in any way. The Book of Job most definitely uses Sons of God (ben elohiym) to refer to angels.


3. Apocryphal Books
How much credence do we give any of the apocryphal books? Though they are ancient interpretations they not on the same level as inspired Scripture. 

Many non-canonical books are referenced in the bible, such as the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Both Jude (Jude 4,6,13,14-15) and Peter (2 Peter 2:4;3:13) quote from the Book of Enoch. In fact Jude paraphrases and alludes to the Book of Enoch extensively. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a fragment of the Book of Giants, which is thought to be based on the Book of Enoch. The ancient Hebrews obviously regarded The Book of Enoch highly enough to quote from it and preserve it within the caves of Qumran.


4. Obvious Reading
Why didn't Moses say angels if he meant angels? There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels—never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim. Therefore calling them angels here is anything but obvious. To the contrary, the angel view would seem more inconsistent in this context of Genesis where angels are never specifically mentioned.

A counter question would be why didn't Moses say Sons of men if he meant human beings? Sons of men or Sons of Adam always refer to men. Sons of God refer to those that belong to God and have been linked to angels in the Book of Job. The Book of Job is considered the oldest Book in the bible. Is it possible that Mosses used the term "Sons of God" to refer to angels because Job used it first?



5. Technical Phrase
First, there are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the exact phrase is used (Job 1:6, 2:1). In Job 38:7 the definite article Ha is missing. Therefore to say that the term is used consistently for angels is misleading since there are only two other verses in the entire Old Testament where the exact the phrase is used. The fact that these two places refer to angels is clear from the context, not from the phrase itself. 

Furthermore, the Old Testament does contain references to the sons of God as being human beings.

While it's true the sons of God can refer to humans,  it doesn't refer to all human beings just those that belong to God (Such as the Jews or those whole follow Christ). The fact that is also referred to angels in the Book of Job, if only two places, means the term is not used consistently for human beings either.

Interesting to note here that according to the Book of Enoch and Jubilees, the angels original mission was to teach law and justice to mankind. This may have been Gods way of teaching man before He gave us the Torah and the prophets. Somewhere along the way these angels decided to rebel against God, commingle with women, and teach man about warfare, astrology, and other forbidden knowledge. This may have been where mystery religions originated.


6. Consistent Interpretation
The contrast between sons of God and daughters of men do not have to be between human and non-human entities. Those who reject the angel view do not feel their interpretation is inconsistent.

It is interesting that sons of God was chosen instead of Sons of Men, one has to wonder why was this seeming distinction made? If the contrast is not between human and non-human entities than what else can it be?


7. Took Wives
The phrase took wives is a standing expression for marriage relationship with only these two exceptions. There is nothing in the context that would indicate these are other than real marriages. The sin was not fornication, the Hebrew makes this clear.

Rather they took wives or they fornicated it's really irrelevant, the important point is there was a physical union and giants were produced.


8. Not a Mythological story
While it is true that simplistic parallels from other cultures does not make the story mythological, it could explain why some ancient interpreters believed the angelic explanation.


It really shouldn't be so hard to believe. As Christians we believe in talking snakes and donkeys, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, invisible entities known as angels and demons. What then is so difficult about believing angels co-habited with women?

I tend to believe that the Nephilim later inspired Greek Mythology and not vice versa. In Greek Mythology, Titans were a powerful race of deities descended from Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). Similarly the angelic view of the Nephilim were said to have a maternal linage from earth and a fraternal lineage from the sky.

In 2 Peter 2:4 it says "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast [them] down to hell and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment". The word for "hell" is tartaroō which means "throw to Tartarus". It's only used once in the New Testament and in Greek Mythology Tartarus is where the Titans and the giant Hekatonkheires were imprisoned.

Another interesting comparison between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods is found in the Book of Enoch. According to the Book of Enoch, a sect of 200 fallen angels led by fallen angel named Semyaza descended on Mount Hermon. In exchange for human females they taught mankind magic, conjuring, weaponry, and cosmetics. One of these chief fallen angels was named Azazel. Azazel is the Hebrew word used for scapegoat. Azazel closely resembled the Greek god Pan who who was half goat/half man creature that lusted after females and whose father was Hermes. Hermes is phonetically similar to Mount Hermon, where the fallen angels supposedly first descended. It is interesting then that Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi to preach at Mount Hermon, the location of Pan's Grotto and a spring which was called the Gates of Hell. It was here that Jesus said "..and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mat 16:13-20). Jesus and his disciples were no doubt well aware of the apocryphal teachings about the Nephilim.


9. Satan And Seed Of Woman
Scripture records that Satan does make several attempts to defile the promised seed, but all other attempts are done by men, not angels. Also the Old Testament frequently warns against intermarriage of God's covenant people with those outside of His covenant (Exodus 34:16). In addition, Scripture speaks of unwarranted marriages within their own people (Genesis 24; 27:46; 28:1).

We can't rule out the possibility that Satan uses a multi-pronged approach in attempting to defile the promised seed. Could it be the frequent warning about intermarriage to those outside His covenant stem from angles co-mingling with women?

Some people believe the giants in the land of Canaan were another attempt of Satan to destroy God's chosen people. As Chuck Missler has said,  Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim in his attempt to thwart the plan of God. When David killed the giant Goliath of Gath he kept his sword and his head. Goliath's head was later buried several miles away in Jerusalem at Golgotha. Golgotha means place of [the] skull and may have been named so because Goliath's skull was buried there. Also Golgotha may be a combination of GOLiath and GATH (GOL-GATH-A). Golgotha was the place where Christ was crucified, which we call Calvary. As Jesus was crucified with nails in hands and feet and the blood running down his body onto the place where this giant's skull was buried one can not ignore the similarities to Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."


10. Judgement Of Flood
Why else would he totally destroy the human race except for eight people? Merely the intermarriage between humans, whether the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, or between kings and common people, would not be sufficient reason for God to wipe out the entire race.

Some believe Seth descendants were the godly line and Cain's descendants were the wicked line. However both Cain and Seth had the same sin nature. Noah's son Ham is even cursed because of some sin against his father (some believe it was incest) . Noah's great-grandson Nimrod became the world's first dictator. So the Seth line was not so pure. Moreover Seth had many children besides Enosh (Gen 5:7), as did all of Noah's forefathers, yet only Noah and his family were the only descendants of Seth that were saved.

It would appear shortly after Enosh is born all men began to profane the name of the Lord.  Genesis 4:26 says "Then [men] began to call on the name of the LORD." However the Hebrew word for "began" (chalal) can also mean to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate.


The context of Genesis 6 emphasizes the sin of humans, not angels as the reason for the Flood (verses 3-7,12,13). The sons of God were the ones who initiated this sin. Why weren't they mentioned in the judgment if they were angels? This leads us to conclude that only humankind was involved in the sin.

I believe the judgement of the angels invovled are mentioned in Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Certainly all mankind began to sin after the fall of Adam. But if this was the reason for the flood what did it really accomplish? It did not wash away the sin nature of man. Men resumed sinning after the flood. Our sins today are no less than those of the days of Noah.


11.The Nephilim (Giants)
The fact that Nephilim are mentioned in Scripture as existing after the Flood (Numbers 13:33) does not imply they survived the Flood but rather that their name lived on of men of great stature.

There appears to be a second outcropping of Giants after the flood as both the giants in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 are called Nephilim. There is no indication of where these giants come from, tho it's conceivable another batch of fallen angels could have co-mingled with women as in Genesis 6:4.

The Nephilim or mighty ones were on earth both before and after the marriages—they did not arise after them.

Gen 6:4 says  "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown." There's two ways this can be interpreted. One is that there were giants already on earth before and after the the Sons of God came unto the daughters of men. The second interpretation is there were giants in those days (before the flood) and then after (the flood). I believe it is the latter interpretation as Genesis was written by Mosses. From Mosses perspective there would have been giants before the flood and there were giants in the land of Canaan. The spies reported that they were like grasshoppers in there sight (Num 13:33).

In addition, Nephilim does not necessarily mean giants. The word may be derived from the Hebrew naphal meaning fall upon others (Joshua 11:7; Job 1:15; Jeremiah 46:16). Therefore it could refer to those who attack others.
 
According to bible scholar Michael S. Heiser, naphal is not the root word of Nephilim and does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall upon".  If the word nephilim came from Hebrew naphal, it would not be spelled as we find it. The form nephilim cannot mean "fallen ones" (the spelling would then be nephulim). Likewise nephilim does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall away" (that would be nophelim).  Nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun naphil which means giants. In fact the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates nephilim as "gigantes”.

Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 uses Nephilim twice to describe sons of human parents not angels. The human father is Anak (Numbers 13:22,28,33). If Nephilim denotes offspring of human parents in Numbers 13:33, then why not in Genesis 6:4?

Numbers 13:33 clearly states that the descendants of Anak came from giants (nephilim).

Furthermore, the Nephilim, contrary to many opinions, were not the offspring of sons of God... 
In a parenthetical phrase we are told that the Nephilim were present during this scenario.... Almost all modern versions of the Bible put these five passages in parentheses. Such frame-brakes supply extra information from the narrator... Therefore it is more proper to understand the statement about the Nephilim as an explanatory parenthesis—it was during the time the Nephilim were on earth that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Thus neither the sons of God, nor the mighty men, had anything to do with the Nephilim. When it says, they were mighty men, the they refers back to the sons of God, not the Nephilim. 


Of course the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) texts have no parentheses, periods, commas, quotation or interrogation marks etc. These were added later and can greatly effect the meaning of a sentence. 


12. Jesus' Statement
Angelic cohabitation with earthly women does not seem to be a possibility... There is no reference in Scripture to fallen angels ever having a body.

But there are references to angels having physical bodies. The angels that visited Abraham ate (Gen 18:1-18), as did Jesus in his resurrected body (Luk 24:41-43). If they could eat what else could they do? The angels they visited Lot could be seen and felt (Gen 19). By every indication they were corporeal. Likewise Hebrews 13:2 says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Jesus himself could be considered a hybrid, his mother was a human but his father was not.

My supposition is this, if it's possible to change from mortal to immortal (1 Corinthians 15:52-53), such as with Enoch (Hbr 11:5), then is the reserve also plausable? To change from immortal to temporal physical bodies? I believe the possibility exists.


13. New Testament Evidence
These New Testament passages do not link perversion with angels. Many interpreters feel it is fanciful to assume that these verses refer to angels that sinned before the Flood... Furthermore, the angels who visited Sodom were good angels. There is no example in Scripture of evil angels ever assuming a body.

As previously noted there are examples in Scripture of angels assuming a physical body (Gen 18-19). Rather they were good angels or not is irrelevant. It means a precedence can be found in Scriptures for angels assuming a body.

This evidence is none the less helpful in showing that one simply cannot assume that the readers of 1 Peter had an 'angelic' interpretation of Genesis 6:2,4 in their minds. Indeed, Peter would not have assumed an 'angelic' interpretation in his readers' minds either, for no uniform interpretation of this passage can be demonstrated for the first century AD (Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale, 1988, pp. 212, 213).

Generally speaking all the Jews and early Christians held the angelic view before Augustine's influence. Those scriptures in Peter and Jude are paraphrased from the Book of Enoch which makes it clear that the Sons of God were angels and there sin was co-mingling with women. We should bear in mind that the New Testament writers were influenced by many extra-biblical sources, The Book of Enoch was one of those sources. There are three versions of the Book of Enoch today tho these are not the original Book of Enoch. However, it is possible to cross reference many of the Enochian sources to one another, Biblical sources, and historical sources to establish that there are, indeed, portions of the original record of Enoch that have survived in the greatly adulterated versions discovered in the East.


14. Angels Not Exempt From Judgement

Because there is no mention of angelic judgment in the Genesis passage it seems to be clear that it is the judgment of humanity that is in view. The judgment of the angels in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude more likely refers to their original sin, rather than their sin immediately before the Flood.

Clearly not all of the fallen angels are imprisoned. Satan, the leader of the angelic rebellion against God, is not imprisoned. Why would God allow the rebel leader to remain free, but then confine the angels who followed Satan in the rebellion? No, it makes more sense to understand the “spirits in prison” as the fallen angels who participated in an additional rebellion, e.g., the sons of God / daughters of men incident. The fallen angels who mated with human females are the ones who are imprisoned.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. (Eph 6:12)"


Other Problems With The Angelic View

1. Immediate Context Of Passage
There is nothing in the context that would identify the sons of God with the angelic host. Angels have not been mentioned in the Book of Genesis to this point and certainly nothing in the story demands we understand the sons of God as angels... from beginning to end, 6:1-8 concerns humanity and its outcome, not angels and their punishment.

While it's true if we look solely at Genesis 6:1-8 and nothing more than we would conclude it is solely about the sins of humanity. However if examine all of scripture, explore extra-biblical sources and commentary of Genesis than we can conclude the culpability of angels also.

 2.Phrase Sons of God Is Unclear As we have noted, the phrase sons of God is not a clear reference to angels. The three references to the phrase sons of God in Scripture is an insufficient data base to understand the meaning of the term. Though it is possible the phrase means angels in Genesis 6, it is by no means certain... Elohim can be rendered a genitive of quality, meaning godly sons, referring to the heritage of the Sethites.

According to this view, the Sons of God were the godly decedents of Seth, while the daughters of men were descended from the ungodly Cain.  If that is the case the Sethites were not so godly if they were marrying the ungodly Canaanite women. And what was wrong with the Sethite women? Where they that ugly?

3.Cryptic Reference 
 If the sons of God refer to angels in Genesis 6, then the reference is cryptic. Angels have not been mentioned thus far in Genesis. Later they will be mentioned a number times but every other time they are spoken of, they are specifically called angels. Why not here if they were angels?


4.Different Context Than Job
Though angels are in view in Job 1 with the phrase sons of God, it is the context that makes it clear. The context is different in Job and Genesis. In Job, there is a heavenly court that it identified. There is no such heavenly court or any hint of angels in this context. 

It is said that Job is the oldest book in the bible, older than Genesis. Since Job used Sons of God to refer to angels it is possible that's why this reference was used in Genesis. The reverse questions is why not just call the Sons of God men if they were men?


5.Angels Do Not Have Physical Form
A major problem with the angel view is that they are ministering spirits—they do not have corporeal form. Though good angels at times assumed some physical form, it is not the case with evil angels. There is not one biblical example of angels taking on a physical form. God would have to grant them that ability.

Rather they are good angels or evil angels is of no consequence, they are same type of being. As previously noted in Genesis 18 & 19 the angels can appear in corporal form, presumingly for special assignments.  It's possible they were granted this ability before the flood to instruct man as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees suggests. Or perhaps they have always had this ability but only a few have dared to abuse it as the judgement from God would be swift and severe. In any case there is a presidence for angels having corporal forms in the body. We do not know the extent of these corporal bodies.

6. Demons Are Limited By God's Control and Have Limited Power
 However great their power may be, it is nevertheless subject to all the limitations that belong to creatures. Angels, therefore, cannot create, they cannot change substances, they cannot alter the laws of nature, they cannot perform miracles, cannot act without means, and they cannot search the heart; for all these are, in Scripture, declared to be prerogatives peculiar to God.

Some believe that demons are actually the disembodied spirits of Nephilim.  I will not go into all the details here, but if it's true then demons and fallen angels are not the same thing or subject to the same limitations.

Since this is the case, God would have to have allowed these angels to assume human bodies to be able to produce this race of half-angel, half-human. This is inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in Scripture—He does not participate in sin. 

By that logic man should not be able to sin either since God created us and he does not participate in sin. However God has given his creation free will to choose right from wrong. It's possible the angels original mission on earth was noble and just but they chose to sin. It would not mean God participated in their sin.

Prophetic history in Genesis

"for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done" (Isa 46:9-10)

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." (Ecc 3:11)

"And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." (Rev 21:6)

History is circular in that the end will mirror the beginning and we will eventually come full circle. This is why God says he knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. If we look at Genesis backwards we see it perfectly mirrors end time events, including the rapture.

Outpouring of the Holy Spirit preceding the return of Christ
Gen 8:8-12 "He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground."
Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. "
Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
*The dove is a picture of the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:16).

Great upheaval in nature and cosmic activity
Gen 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Luk 21:25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;"

Signs of the days of Noah, violence, evil imaginations, corruption
Gen 6:11 "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."
Matt 24:37 "But as the days of Noah [were], so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. "

The translation of Enoch\The rapture of the church
Gen 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God; and he [was] not, for God took him."
Rev 4:1 "After these things I looked, and behold, a door [standing] open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard [was] like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

Cain is marked\The Anti-Christ and the Mark of the Beast
Gen 4:15 "And the LORD said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him. "
Rev 13:16 "He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, "
*Punishment for killing Cain was seven times, the length of the tribulation is seven years.
*Punishment for killing Lamech was seventy times seven, the same length of Daniel's 70 weeks.

Abel is killed\The saints are killed 
Gen 4:8 "Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. "
Rev 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then [I saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received [his] mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. "
*Abel is called righteous in Mat 23:35

The defeat of the serpent\Satan bound 1000 years (End of the tribulation)
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
Rev 20:2 "He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is [the] Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; "

Satan deceives Eve\Satan deceives the nations one last time
Gen 3:13 "And the LORD God said to the woman, "What [is] this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Rev 20:7-8 "Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number [is] as the sand of the sea. "

The tree of life
Gen 2:9 "And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life [was] also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Rev 22:14 "Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."
 
Everything is made perfect and new
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Gen 1:31 "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed [it was] very good." 
Rev 21:1 "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea."

Credit to Perry Stone

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil." (Romans 13:1-4)

I will attempt to address the following questions:
1)Is every government that exists appointed by God, even the bad ones?
2)Should we obey a government even if it's tyrannical?
3)Is it okay to criticize governing authorities that are appointed by God?
4)Were our Founding Fathers sinning when they rebelled against England?

1)Is every government that exists appointed by God, even the bad ones?

"And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise And knowledge to those who have understanding."(Dan 2:21)

"For exaltation comes neither from the east Nor from the west nor from the south. But God is the Judge: He puts down one, And exalts another." (Psalms 75:6-7)

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." (Romans 13:1)

From the above scriptures we can conclude that God can and does appoint leaders. Mosses and David are two examples of God raising men up and giving them authority over others. However if we examine other scriptures we see Satan is also in the business of appointing leaders.

Satan is described as the god of this world (2 Cr 4:4). Likewise John says the whole world is under the control of the evil one (1Jo 5:19). Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and said all the authority (of these kingdoms) would be given to Him if He would worship Satan. This claim of ownership was never contested by Jesus and Satan could not tempt Jesus with something he did not have (Luke 4:5-7). Matthew 12:26 acknowledges that Satan has a kingdom. The Book of Daniel (Dan 10:20) describes two spiritual principalities, the prince of Persia (Persia was the dominate power of that day) and the prince of Greece (Alexander the Great became the next power), indicating Satan does have influence over the kingdoms over the earth. In Ezekiel 28 Satan is described as the King of Tyre who was the real power behind the power of Tyre. Satan's man The Anti-Christ will have authority over every tribe, nation, tongue (Rev 13:7). Revelation 13:2 makes it clear this authority comes from Satan not from God, "The dragon (Satan) gave him his power, his throne, and great authority."

So are all authorities appointed by God? I think the key is in Romans 13:3-4. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil"... For he is "God's minister" to you "for good". That would exclude Hitler, Stalin, the Anti-Christ or any other tyrannical leader that does not intend to do you good. In no way can evil leaders be considered God's ministers. If rulers are evil then God did not appoint them.

2)Should we obey a government even if it's tyrannical?
I certainly believe we should be law abiding citizens and submit to governing authorities. Romans 13 makes it clear we should obey the laws and pay our taxes, especially if we want things to go well with us. Jesus also said to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Mark12:17)"

However does that mean we should submit to tyrannical governments? I don't believe so, for what will be God’s if all things are Caesar’s? The last part of Mark 13:17 clarifies there are some things which belong only to God. If laws contradict the Word of God we are not obligated to obey them. Peter said "we ought to obey God than man. (Acts 5:29)" There are many biblical examples of men and women not submitting to authority when it contradicted with the Word of God:

Mosses mother defied the Pharaoh's command to kill all Hebrew babies (Exodus 1:15-21)
Mosses defied Pharaoh to free his people.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the golden image. (Daniel 3:18)
Daniel did not obey the decree not to petition any god or man for thirty days, except the king.
Mary and Joseph did not obey Herod's command to kill the baby boys. (Mat 2:16)
An angel did not obey the governing authorities when he broke Peter out of jail (Acts 12:6-11) or when God broke Paul and Silas out of jail (Acts 16:25-34)
Mordecai refused to bow down to the Persian magistrate Haman. (Esther 3:5
Seven thousand in Israel refused to bow down and worship Baal. (I Kings 19:18)
Christians were routinely persecuted for preaching the gospel because the authorities had forbidden it.
An angel warns the people not to take the Mark of the Beast even though the Anti-Christ is given authority to cause all to receive his mark. (Rev 13:16, Rev 14:9)

3)Is it okay to criticize authorities that are appointed by God?
It is certainly acceptable to rebuke authorities if they are in error. Paul rebuked Peter after he segregated himself from the gentiles and would not eat with them (Galatians 2:11-21). This was the same Peter who was given great authority by Jesus to carry on his work after his departure (Mat 16:17-19). The early Christians had no reservations in criticizing evil rulers:

"Never shall I pray for the emperor’s well-being or for his great and brave regiments but that they may be faithful soldiers and in the water of Christ be born again for the Father and receive from heaven the Comforter himself, that they may cast off the darkness of idolatry and see the light of eternal hope which does not flow into the humours of the eyes gleaming through the windows of the body, but shines in pure hearts within. …I assure you I shall never obey one who commands a sin.”  -St. Romanus, right before he was martyred in the early fourth century

"Torture, imprisonment, the claws, the hissing red-hot plate, even the final suffering of death, are all mere sport to Christians. How vain and futile are you rulers! How senseless Caesar’s decree!" -St. Vincent of Saragossa

 "Here am I, a foe to the worship of evil spirits; I trample idols under foot, and with heart and lips I confess God. Isis, Apollo, Venus–they are naught; Maximian himself too is naught; they because they are works of men’s hands, both worthless, both naught. Though Maximian, lord of power and yet himself vassalage to figures of stone, prostitute himself to his gods and make himself over to them, why does he persecute noble hearts?"  -St. Eulalia

The big difference between now and then is those people couldn't vote, they had an Emperor. We on the other hand have elected officials that are supposed to be accountable to us. We don't serve them, they are supposed to serve us.

4)Were our Founding Fathers sinning when they when they rebelled against England?
Romans 13:1 says the authorities that exist are appointed by God and that every soul should be subject to those governing authorities. However Romans 13:3-4 defines these governing authorities ordained by God as "not a terror to good works, but to evil" who are God's ministers, in other words Romans 13 is talking about just governments. There is no mention of obeying unjust governments. Was British monarch a just government? You can decide for yourself. The Declaration of Independence lists the many grievances against the King of Great Britain.

As noted above Satan can also ordain leaders, and we must also take into account our own freewill when we elect leaders. If God ordains every government then why does Hosea 8:4 say "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge [them]." If the Found Fathers were guilty of sin when they rebelled against England then Mosses would also be guilty when he rebelled against Pharaoh.

I believe Christians who think it was wrong to rebel against King George largely do so because of there views on Romans 13:1 and God's sovereignty in all things. However Christians living during that era would disagree. They believed it was obedience to God to rebel against tyrants and would often cite Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." Pastors were activity involved in rebellion against the King and preached it from the pulpits two decades leading up to the American Revolution. Clergymen named the Black Robe Regiment fought in the war of Independence. King George reportedly denounced the American Revolution as "a Presbyterian Rebellion". The Reverend Nathaniel Whitaker, citing Joshua 11, wrote:

"[W]hile all the peace in his kingdom, for aught we find, God commands Israel to raise an army, and invade the tyrant’s dominions. The moral reason for this is obvious. For usurpation or oppression, is offensive war, already levied. Any state which usurps power over another state, or rulers, who by a wanton use of their power, oppress their subjects, do thereby break the peace and commence an offensive war. In such a case opposition is mere self-defense, and is no more criminal, yea, as really our duty to defend ourselves against murderer, or highway robber. Self-preservation is an instinct God implanted in our nature. Therefore we sin against God and nature, when we tamely resign our rights to tyrants, or quietly submit to public oppressors, if it be in our power to defend ourselves"

http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Religious-Roots-of-the-American-Revolution.pdf

Pre-trib Typologies - How a priest was conscreted in the Old Testament

The Typology of how a Priest was consecrated in the Old Testament:

  
A type is a biblical person, thing, action, event, ceremony, structure, furniture, number,  etc. that foreshadows an "antitype" of the same in the New Testament. The consecration of the priest in the Old Testament mirrors the walk of the believer in the New Testament. 

The Tabernacle that God commanded Moses to build can be seen as a "type" of the church. The tent that covered the Tabernacle was called the "tent of meeting" because it was here God promised to meet with Moses and the people.

The Courtyard surrounding the Tabernacle represents the world in that the courtyard is filled with sinners and also God's people. Because the court is "typical" of the world, the priest must first "leave the world" before he enters Tabernacle.

The Priesthood served as a "type" of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the believer. The priesthood mirrors the Church today. While priests offered animal sacrifices to God, Christians offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Jesus is our high priest (Heb 4:14), and we are his holy priesthood. "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pe 2:5)"

A Priest would approach the Altar of Burnt Offerings through fear and trembling, after he made the sacrifice he would stop at the lavar to wash his feet and hands before entering the tabernacle. This is akin to a believer purifying himself before going into worship and a type of baptism. Once a believer is baptized they are separated from the world and added to the body of Christ.

Following the washing of there bodies they put blood on the tips of their right ears, on their right thumbs, on on their right foot. Notice the washing was done before the blood of consecration was put on, similarly before we can come to the atoning power of the blood of Jesus, we must have our bodies washed in the cleansing waters of immersion.

The first thing a priest did once entering the Tabernacle was to dress the lamps of the Menorah and replenish the oil. The lights were to burn continuously. The Menorah can be seen as "typical" of the bible in that is our only light in the assembly today.

Next the priest approached the Table of Shewbread. Pure Frankincense was placed on top of the bread and burned on the Alter of Incense. The incense brought to the Tabernacle as an offering for God is a "type" of the Believer's worship service unto God and the incense was "typical" of a prayer.  Psalm 141:2 hints that these physical offerings would be replaced with spiritual worship in the New Testament.

The Alter of Incense was placed by the Inner Veil, with the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy Seat on the other side of the veil. It was above the Mercy Seat that God came down to commune with man. This parallels the promise to believers that He hears and answers the prayers of the Believer.

The week of the Priests consecration, the holy garments of Aaron are put on them for "seven" days. "And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end: for seven days shall he consecrate you. (Lev 8:33)" The only antitype this could represent is for us, the church, to be in heaven for seven years during the tribulation. The only tabernacle a modern-day priest will enter for a shebuah, period of seven, is the New Jerusalem in heaven. Just as the priests was required to put on the priestly garments in the tabernacle for a period of "seven", it is mirrored by us putting white clothing on in heaven during the marriage supper of the Lamb.

"Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."  And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, "Write: 'Blessed [are] those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (Rev 19:7-9)

Pre-trib Typologies - Ruth and Boaz

Ruth and Boaz

The story of Ruth and Boaz is a picture of the rapture. The story begins with a Jewish woman named Naomi who losses everything when her husband dies and she decides to return to Bethlehem with her daughter-in-law Ruth, whose husband also died. In Bethlehem a relative of Naomi named Boaz falls in love with Ruth and eventually they marry. In the process Noami's land and position is redeemed under Jewish law.

Naomi, a Jew, is a picture of Israel left alone and destitute. Ruth, a gentile, is a picture of the gentile church. Boaz, a Jew, is a picture of the Messiah. Boaz was a kinsmen redeemer for Ruth, whom he took as his bride. Likewise Christ is our kinsmen redeemer who will take us, the church, as His Bride.

During Wheat harvest a threshing board was used to separate cereals from their straw. Incidentally the Latin word for this farm instrument was called a tribulum, which is where we get the English word tribulation. Before the wheat harvest we find Ruth suddenly at the feet of Boaz. The picture is that of church, the Bride of Jesus at his feet before the tribulation. Just as Boaz marriage to Ruth redeemed Naomi, likewise Israel will become redeemed from destruction and it's lands restored.

Pre-trib Typologies - Isaac and his marriage to Rebekah

Issac and his marriage to Rebekah

Issaac as a type of Jesus:
As Isaac is a type of Jesus we also see parallels between Isaac's life and Jesus' life:

Both were children of promise (Gen 15:4, Isa 7:14)

Both births were pronounced (Gen 18:10; Luk 1:30-31)
Both were named before their birth (Gen 17:19, Mat 1:31)
Both were a miraculous birth. Sarah was old and barren, Mary was a virgin.
Both were called the "only Son" (Gen 22:2; Heb 11:17 and John 3:16)
Both were mocked and persecuted by there own kindred. (Gen 21:9-10; Gal 4:28-29; Mat 27:29)
Neither had broken any laws deserving of death (Gen 22:2; Matt 27:24) . Isaac carried his the wood on which he was to die (Gen 22:6), Jesus carried his own Crucifixion stake. (John 19:17)
Issac went willingly to the alter (Gen 22:9;), Jesus went willingly to His Crucifixion. (John 10:17)
Issac was taken to Golgotha on Mt. Moriah (Gen 22:1-2), Jesus was taken to Golgotha on Mt. Moriah
Both were given up by their father. (Gen 22:2; Matt 27:46)
In both cases God intervened and ensured life, before the offering took place.

Eliezer as a type of the Holy Spirit:
Eliezer was a servant of Abraham. The Holy Spirit is a servant of God.
Eliezer was sent to Haran for a bride for Issac. The Holy Spirit was sent from Heaven to get a bride for Jesus.
Eliezer was not sent for a bride until AFTER he was offered up. The Holy Spirit was not to get a bride for Jesus until After His death and resurrection.
As Eliezer did not talk about himself but his Master's son, The Holy Spirit does not talk about Himself but about Jesus.
As Eliezer was urgent, so the Holy Spirit is urgent
As Eliezer gave gifts to Rebekah, so the Holy Spirit gives gifts to us


When Eliezer got Rebekah's consent to be the bride of Issac. he himself took her back to Issac-he did not send her back while he remained with her kinsfolk. So when the bride, the church, is ready the Holy Spirit will be in heaven with her.

Rebekah as a type of Bride of Jesus:
As Rebekah was a virgin, the bride will be presented as Espoused Virgin to Jesus.
As Rebekah believed and yielded to the pleadings of Eliezer, so the Bride believes and yields to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit. 
As Rebekah was willing to separate herself from her kinsfolk, so the Believer is willing to separate himself from his kinsfolk for Jesus' sake.
Rebekah's family proclaimed her "The mother of thousands of ten thousands; And may your descendants possess The gates of those who hate them." (Gen 24:60), Likewise the Assembly of Believers will bring thousands of millions of Believer's to Jesus.
As Elizer, on his way to Isaac, told Rebekah all about his Master Issac and what was in store for her, so the holy spirit, as we journey on our earthy pilgrimage, tells us what's in store for us when we shall meet our Issac--Jesus.
As Rebekah was a Gentile Bride, the Body of Jesus is a Gentile Bride.
As Rebekah did not have to pass through any tribulation before she left her home to go to Issac, so the Believer's will not have to pass through the tribulation before meeting Jesus.

As Issac left his home and went out into the field to meet Rebekah, so Jesus will descend down from Heaven to meet His Bride, the Believers in the air. Just as it was the end of the day when Issac met Rebekah (Gen 24:63), so shall it be the end of the day (End of this Dispensation of Grace) When Jesus meets His Bride. As Issac came from the well of La-hai-roi, which means Presence of Him that Liveth and Seeth; so Jesus will leave His Father's Presence who Liveth and Seeth, to meet His Bride.

Just as Joesph took his Gentile bride BEFORE the seven years of famine, Rebekah did not have to go through any tribulation before she was taken. The picture of that of Issac getting his bride without tribulation, is that of Jesus coming for His Bride without tribulation. Some have compared Jesus coming for His bride after tribulation to spousal abuse. On the contrary all pre-tribulation typologies show a shadow of good things to come not bad.

Pre-trib Typologies - The Typology of Joseph as a picture of the Messiah

The typology of Joseph as a picture of the Messiah
Joesph can be see as type of Messiah in that there lives had many parallels. For example:

Joseph\Jesus
Joseph was a Shepherd (Gen 37:2)
Jesus was a Shepherd (Jh 10-11)

Loved by the Father (Gen 37:3)
This is my beloved Son (Mt 3:17)

Brethren did not believe him (Gen 37:5)
Neither did the brethren believe in Him (Jn 7:5)

Brethren hated him (Gen 37:4)
They hated both Me and my Father (Jn 15:24)

Brethren rejected his reign (Gen 37:8)
We will not have this man reign (Lk 19:14)

Conspired against him (Gen 37:23)
Took counsel against Him (Mt 27:1)

They stripped him (Gen 37:23)
They stripped Him (Mt 27:28)

Sat down and watched him (Gen 37:25)
Sitting down they watched Him (Mt 27:36)

Sold for silver (Gen 37:28)
Sold for silver (Mt 26:15)

Everything prospered in his hands (Gen 39:3)
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hands (Isa 53:10)

All things were put into his hands (Gen 39:4-8)
Hath given all things into His hand (Jn 3:35)

Bound and imprisoned (Gen 39:30)
Bound and led away (Mt 27:2)

With two malefactors (Gen 40:2-3)
With two malefactors (Lk 23:32)

One received message of life, the other died (Gen 40:21-22)
One thief penitent – Today you shall be with me in paradise (Lk 23:43)

None so discreet and wise (Gen 41:39)
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)

They bow the knee to him (Gen 41:43)
Every knee shall bow (Phil 2:10)

Thirty years old (Gen 41:45)
About 30 years old (Lk 3:25)

God used Joseph’s suffering to save (Gen 50:2)
God used Jesus' suffering to bring blessing (Ro 5:8)

Given power over all Egypt (Gen 41:42-44)
All power given unto Jesus (Mt 28:18)

Gentile bride to share his glory (Gen 41:45)
The Believer in Jesus will share His glory eternally

God promised a place of rulership (Gen 37:8)
The government shall be on His shoulder (Isa 9:6)

Cast into a pit, but delivered from it (Gen 37:24, 28)
Now he that ascended, what is but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth (Eph 4:9)

Imprisoned on false charges (Gen 39:19-20)
For many gave false witness against Him (Ml 14:56)

His brothers did not recognize him with their first meeting but with their second they did (Gen 42:8, 45:1)
His brothers did not recognize him with their First Coming but with the Second they will (Jn 5:43,Mat 23:39, Zec12:10)

Joseph dealt with his brethren as to bring them to repentance (Gen 42:7)
If they shall confess their iniquity… then I will remember my covenant (Lev 26:40, 42)

Joseph reveals himself to his brothers during their imprisonment (Gen 45:1)
… in their affliction they will seek me early. (Hos 5:15)

After Joseph's revelation of himself to his brethren, they proclaim that he has saved their lives
(Gen 47:25)
So when Jesus reveals Himself to His brethren the Jews, they will proclaim Him alive and the Saviour Of Mankind (Zec 12:10)

Joseph then establishes his brethren and their families in the “land of Goshen” (Gen 45:10)
Jesus will re-establish the Jews in the Promised Land (Gen 15)

If the life of Joesph and Jesus so closely parallel one another then we should also pay close attention to Joesph's marriage. After Joesph was exalted he married Asenath, a gentile bride, BEFORE the seven years of famine. Likewise Jesus will get a bride after his resurrection. After Joesph got his bride Egypt, which is a picture of the world, suffered a seven year famine. Likewise after Jesus gets His Bride the world will go through a seven year tribulation.

Pre-trib Typlogies - Noah and the flood\Shadrach Meshach and Abednego:

Noah and the flood\Shadrach Meshach and Abednego:
We get the English word rapture from the Latin word  rapiēmur, which is a translation of the Greek word harpazo which means to catch up, take by force, catch away, pluck, catch, pull. The premise of the pre-trib rapture is built on the foundation that the righteous are always spared God's Judgement\tribulation. The story of Noah illustrates this point. Note there is a distinction between tribulation that comes from the world, and tribulation that comes from God.

The Lord called Noah a righteous man (Gen 7:1) and found "grace" in His eyes. He was also a gentile, keep this in mind for later. Noah is a "type" of a believer. Before God brought judgement upon the world He had Noah build an Ark to escape the flood waters. The Ark can be seen as a type of rapture. The righteous were sparred God's judgement and kept "high above the earth" and not on it.

Seven's are also repeated often in the story of Noah. Noah took seven of every clean animal, Noah waited in the Ark for seven days, The Ark rested on Ararat in the seventh month. Could it be God is drawing attention to the number seven? What other period of seven takes place in the New Testament? "And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man. (Luk 17:26)

Let's parallel Noah with the story of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego. Remember these were Hebrew men who were thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to bow down to the golden statue, yet they came out the fires unscathed. The fires are a type of tribulation. Shadrach Meshach and Abednego can be seen as a "type" of Jewish remnant. The golden statute is a type of anti-christ. If you put the story of Noah and the story of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego together you see a picture of the tribulation. The gentile church escapes the tribulation just as Noah (a gentile) escaped the flood, while the Jewish remnant, who refuse to worship the antichrist, comes out of the fires of the tribulation unscathed. Just as Shadrach Meshach and Abednego came out of the fiery furnace unscathed.

Homosexuality and gay marriage

Homosexuality and gay marriage are a hot topic today. Up until a couple of decades ago it was never talked about and could even send someone in jail for two to ten years and/or a fine of $2,000. Needless to say a lot has changed since then and homosexuality has slowly become accepted as normal by mainstream America, and even the world. What hasn't changed is what the bible has to say about it:

"Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

There are many verses in both old and new testaments which condem the "act" of homosexuality. I will not go over all those verses here, however it is clear by biblical standards homosexuality is a sin, which is called an abomination.  The Hebrew word for abomination is towebah, which means wickedness or abominable (to God). Comparing homosexuality to an abomination seems to distinguish it from other sexual sins such as adultery and fornication.  So why is homosexuality a sin anyways?

When God created Eve for Adam He set a precedence, a model if you will for us to follow. God then created the institution of marriage between a man and a women, "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)". We see the purpose of sex is for procreation,  "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (Gen 1:28)" So we see the model that God created, a physical union between a man and a women for the purposes of procreating and creating families.  Therefore homosexuality is a sin for the same reason adultery and fornication are a sin, because they operate outside the design and order that God created.

Often times those who disagree with homosexuality are portrayed as hateful and homophobic. However this is not true, you can disagree with someone's lifestyle without hating them or fearing them. And you can love someone without having to agree with everything they do or believe. I've known as few homosexuals and I have treated them with the same respect that I would treat anyone else, and that's how it should be.

I understand there are people who truly struggle with homosexuality. I don't believe they are born that way, there are probably environmental factors involved, but everyone struggles with some sinful desires. For some it might be drugs for others it might be gambling or promiscuity, etc.  We all have sinful desires but those feelings do not make something right. A person may feel like cheating on his wife, for example, but because he feels like committing adultery does not make it right. We may not always choose how we feel but we can choose to act on those feelings or not. It's like the difference between thinking about robbing a bank and actually robing a bank, one will get you in trouble the other won't.  Likewise with homosexuality the sin is not feeling a certain way or being attracted to the same sex, the sin is making a decision to act on those feelings and engage in homosexual relationships. Therein is where the sin lies and the choice.


While homosexuality has been around for thousands of years the notion of gay marriage is relatively new. From a Christian perspective the idea of gay marriage is anti-God, it is a rebellion against the union that God established between a man and a woman. During Old Testament times sin brought severe judgements against nations and cities, like Sodom and Gomorrah. Luckily we live in a period of grace, however if we continue to ignore what God says about it and call good evil and evil good we will eventually see those very same judgements brought upon us.

Religious arguments aside, there are social implications to gay marriage to consider. You've probably all seen the the equal symbol on Facebook of those who support gay marriage. They may not realize it, but the notion of (social) equality is an ideology of Marxism, which has permeated all aspects of our society today. Equality ignores if doing something is inferior or not or what consequences it will bring, only that it's fair and equal. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the standard since time immemorial. In redefining marriage we don't know the social consequences of changing this  basic building block of any society because it has never been tried before in all of history. It opens the door to pluralistic marriage, polygamy, and incestuous marriages because the same arguments for same sex marriage can apply to those as well. Anything goes. That alone should make one pause to consider the social implicates of redefining marriage.

Also as gay marriage becomes legal, the gay population essentially gains a right and those who disagree lose a right. If a pastor refuses to marry a homosexual couple or if a business does not want to support same sex marriage then they become liable for lawsuits, which has already begun and will only get worse with time. Ultimately I believe this will bring about religious persecution not just for Christians, but for other faiths as well who believe in traditional marriages.

In closing there is an agenda afoot to make homosexuality not only tolerated but accepted, by force if necessary. The strategy is laid out in a 1989 book called "After the Ball", written by two homosexual activists. In their book they describe three techniques used to change the minds of Americans through propaganda, Desensitization, Jamming, and Conversion. Desensitization gets people used to the gay lifestyle by inundating them with gay related advertising. We can see this being done in movies and television shows. Jamming works to change people's thoughts and feelings about homosexuality through shame, doubt, and peer pressure. Those who disagree are made to appear as bigots, again through the use of propagandist advertisement. Conversion is the ultimate goal to persuade the Average American to join there cause. You can read more about it here.

Lot and his two daughters

Question:How can Lot have two virgin daughters that are married?

 "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." Gen 19:8

 

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, "Get up, get out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city!" But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.Gen 19:14

Possible Answer:
Only two daughters are mentionied in the Genesis account, possibly because they were the only survivors.  However it is conceivable Lot had more daughters that were married. In fact rabbinic literature (The Midrash) says that Lot had 4 daughters, two that were married and two that were not. The two married daughters probably stayed behind with there husbands and this could be the reason why Lot's wife turned back.