Calvins Refutations From His Own Published Work: A Critical Review By Author Eli Kittim

Calvin’s Refutations from His Own Published Work: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim

Excerpted from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian religion, Book 3, ch 23.

——-

Calvin’s god Chooses Whatever He Pleases and We Have No Right to Question his Choices

In Institutes, Book 3, ch 23, Calvin says that god chooses whatever he pleases, and we have no right to question his choices. But isn’t that tantamount to saying that “he does as he pleases” as opposed to acting according to the principles of truth and wisdom? Calvin writes:

Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did

so, we must answer, Because he pleased.

But if you proceed farther to ask why he

pleased, you ask for something greater and

more sublime than the will of God, and

nothing such can be found. … This, I say,

will be sufficient to restrain any one who

would reverently contemplate the secret

things of God.

Yet isn’t that precisely what Calvin is doing? Inquiring into the “the secret things of God”? Calvin’s argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:

Accordingly, when we are accosted in such

terms as these, Why did God from the first

predestine some to death, when, as they

were not yet in existence, they could not

have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you

imagine that God owes to man, if he is

pleased to estimate him by his own nature?

As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but

be hateful to God, and that not from

tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to

death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they

complain?

He continues his thought that even though god condemned them to hellfire long before they were even born, or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin says:

Should all the sons of Adam come to

dispute and contend with their Creator,

because by his eternal providence they

were before their birth doomed to perpetual

destruction, when God comes to reckon

with them, what will they be able to mutter

against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are

subject to condemnation. Let them not,

therefore, charge God with injustice, if by

his eternal judgment they are doomed to a

death to which they themselves feel that

whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature.

But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,

admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons

of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness

in which they are now involved; and this is

just what I said at the first, that we must

always return to the mere pleasure of the

divine will, the cause of which is hidden in

himself.

So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin asserts:

They again object, Were not men

predestinated by the ordination of God to

that corruption which is now held forth as

the cause of condemnation? If so, when

they perish in their corruptions they do

nothing else than suffer punishment for that

calamity, into which, by the predestination

of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he,

therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his

creatures? … For what more

seems to be said here than just that the

power of God is such as cannot be

hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he

pleases?

Calvin says “How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness?” But Calvin doesn’t explain how that is so except by way of assumptions, which are based on the idea that god acts as he pleases and does as he wills. But that’s circular reasoning. It’s tantamount to saying that something is true because I assume that it is, without any proof or justification that it is true. It’s a fallacious argument. Calvin argues thusly:

It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek

to subject that which has no bounds to the

little measure of their reason. Paul gives the

name of elect to the angels who maintained

their integrity. If their steadfastness was

owing to the good pleasure of God, the

revolt of the others proves that they were

abandoned. Of this no other cause can be

adduced than reprobation, which is hidden

in the secret counsel of God.

Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.

God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so.

Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.

Biblical Predestination Doesn’t Imply god’s Sovereignty But God’s Foreknowledge

Calvinists employ Ephesians 1.4-5 to prove that god clearly elected to save some (and not to save others) before the foundation of the world. But that is a misinterpretation. The entire Bible rests on God’s foreknowledge, his ability to see into the future: “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10; cf. Jn 16.13; Rom. 1.2; Acts 2.22-23; 10.40-41). In other words, God did not choose to save some and not to save others. Rather, through his *foreknowledge* he already knew (or foreknew) who would accept and who would decline his offer. That’s why Rom. 8.29 (BLB) says, “because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” This explanation is consistent with God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, as well as with the justice and righteousness of God! It is reprehensible to suggest that god would choose by himself who would be eternally saved and who would be eternally condemned. That would not be a fair, just, and loving god. However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:

If God merely foresaw human events, and

did not also arrange and dispose of them at

his pleasure, there might be room for

agitating the question, how far his

foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but

since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed

that they are so to happen, it is vain to

debate about prescience, while it is clear

that all events take place by his sovereign

appointment.

So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion.

god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure

In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting! He writes:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct

terms, God decreed that Adam should

perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who

is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he

pleases, could have made the noblest of his

creatures without any special purpose.

They say that, in accordance with free-will,

he was to be the architect of his own

fortune, that God had decreed nothing but

to treat him according to his desert. If this

frigid fiction is received, where will be the

omnipotence of God, by which, according to

his secret counsel on which every thing

depends, he rules over all?

Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:

it is impossible to deny that God foreknew

what the end of man was to be before he

made him, and foreknew, because he had

so ordained by his decree.

If this isn’t an evil doctrine I don’t know what is. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He writes:

God not only foresaw the fall of the first

man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but

also at his own pleasure arranged it.

Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin writes:

Here they recur to the distinction between

will and permission, the object being to

prove that the wicked perish only by the

permission, but not by the will of God. But

why do we say that he permits, but just

because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself--viz. that man

brought death upon himself merely by the

permission, and not by the ordination of

God; as if God had not determined what he

wished the condition of the chief of his

creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,

simply to confess with Augustine that the

will of God is necessity, and that every thing

is necessary which he has willed.

Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases:

There is nothing inconsistent with this when

we say, that God, according to the good

pleasure of his will, without any regard to

merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates

others.

Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:

Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to

charge God with dispensing justice

unequally, because in this predestination he

does not observe the same course towards

all. … he is free from every accusation; just

as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the

debt to one, and exact it of another.

Conclusion

Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).

The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!

This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!

Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!

——-

The Tower of Babel: History or Prophecy?

By Biblical Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 📖

The New World Order

For decades, atheists, anarchists, and irreligious organizations——such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation & the American Atheists——have tried to ban religious freedom and religious expression from society, culture, education, and the media. And, by and large, these secular humanists have won that fight. The Bible was removed from American classrooms in the 1960s, and shortly thereafter prayer and the Ten Commandments were also removed.

The current shift toward atheism in America and Europe is largely due to these political endeavours. And in the globalist agenda——as propounded by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, & António Guterres (the Secretary-General of the United Nations)——religion plays a subordinate role in the upcoming one-world government.

In fact, powerful leaders have been conspiring for decades. We’re talking about a global dictatorship that has been in the making since the founding of the Federal Reserve in the early part of the 20th century. It has been affectionately called by Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, & Gordon Brown, among others, as “the new world order.” It’s not a conspiracy theory since many US presidents, British prime ministers, and high level officials——including Charles, Prince of Wales——have explicitly referred to it as an ideal future government that they’re all working towards as if “they are one people” (cf. Genesis 11.6)! This is no longer a conspiracy theory since this totalitarian world government——which has now reared its ugly head by censoring the masses through social media-driven panic, fake news, government lockdowns, and forced mask and passport mandates——is emerging before our very eyes. Surprisingly, the Bible foresaw this attack on religion, and especially on Christianity, and recorded it in Scripture. Psalm 2.1-3 (NRSV) reads:

Why do the nations conspire, and the

peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth

set themselves, and the rulers take counsel

together, against the Lord and his anointed,

saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds asunder,

and cast their cords from us.’

The Tower of Babel & the One-World Government

The modern discoveries & innovations in virology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, molecular biology, as well as the harnessing of nuclear energy are seemingly implied in the following Biblical excerpt from Genesis 11.6:

and this is only the beginning of what they

will do; nothing that they propose to do will

now be impossible for them.

Might the scheme to “confuse their language” be a form of electromagnetic pulse attack known as EMP? An EMP is a massive burst of electromagnetic energy that can be generated using nuclear weapons. It creates an enormous magnetic field that can cause widespread damage & disruption to electrical and power grids within range. According to Peter Pry, a defense analyst with the Congressional EMP Commission:

You can use a single weapon to collapse

the entire North American power grid. …

Once the electric grid goes down,

everything would collapse … Everything

depends on electricity: telecommunications,

transportation, even water.

This is certainly one way to “confuse” or disrupt all forms of communication.

Since the towers or ziggurats that ancient people built were no match for the modern skyscrapers, might the Tower-of-Babel narrative be a *prophecy* instead of an origin myth about why people speak different languages? Let’s look at the evidence. The Hebrew Bible (Gen. 11.4) says that the people built a tower (וּמִגְדָּל֙ ū·miḡ·dāl) whose top (וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ wə·rō·šōw) is in the heavens, or will reach into heaven (בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם ḇaš·šā·ma·yim)! Have the ancients ever built a tower that soared above the clouds? Hardly! However, the Jeddah Tower (aka Kingdom Tower), currently built in Saudi Arabia, will be 1 km (3,281 ft) high, “whose top” will literally be “in the heavens.” And it is appropriately called: a “tower.”

Notice also that many of today’s highest skyscrapers are actually called “towers” and they do, in fact, reach the clouds: the Jin Mao Tower, in Shanghai, the Willis Tower, in Chicago, the Petronas Towers, in Kuala Lumpur, the Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, even the Empire State Building, in New York City. Here’s a shot of the Empire State Building peeking above the clouds!

The Prophecy Concerning Babylon the Great

Revelation 18.8-21

‘therefore her plagues will come in a single

day — pestilence and mourning and famine

— and she will be burned with fire; for

mighty is the Lord God who judges her.’ And

the kings of the earth, who committed

fornication and lived in luxury with her, will

weep and wail over her when they see the

smoke of her burning; they will stand far off,

in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas, alas,

the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For

in one hour your judgment has come.’ …

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a

great millstone and threw it into the sea,

saying, ‘With such violence Babylon the

great city will be thrown down, and will be

found no more.’

Conclusion

All of the evidence——including the language of the Hebrew Bible——supports an *apocalyptic* rather than a pseudo-historical Tower-of-Babel. The so-called “confusion” or disruption of communication may indicate the coming world Judgment in the form of EMP attacks & nuclear weapons, as alluded to in Daniel 12.1, Joel 2.31, Zechariah 14.12, Matthew 24.6-21, Luke 21.20-26, & Revelation 6.12-15 (i.e. the Great Tribulation). And the prophecy is set to take place when the whole world will be united as “one people” (Genesis 11.6), or one-world government!

Genesis 11.4-9:

Then they said, ‘Come, let us build

ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in

the heavens, and let us make a name for

ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered

abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’

The Lord came down to see the city and the

tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord

said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they

have all one language; and this is only the

beginning of what they will do; nothing that

they propose to do will now be impossible

for them. Come, let us go down, and

confuse their language there, so that they

will not understand one another's speech.’

So the Lord scattered them abroad from

there over the face of all the earth, and they

left off building the city. Therefore it was

called Babel, because there the Lord

confused the language of all the earth; and

from there the Lord scattered them abroad

over the face of all the earth.

—

Why Cessationism is a False Doctrine

By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Cessationism: God is Dead

Today, cessationists, like Justin Peters & John MacArthur, believe that God no longer communicates with mankind. It’s as if God is dead. Supposedly, he no longer performs miracles, or prophesies, or speaks. These people will often claim that if you want to hear God speak, read your Bible.

They have shut him out so thoroughly and to such an extent that it appears as if God doesn’t really exist outside the Bible. According to the cessationist movement (which by the way represents mainstream academic Christianity), God seemingly doesn’t have an independent existence outside the pages of Scripture. It’s as if he were a literary character that has been subordinated to biblical expediency. Existentially speaking, he’s not to be trusted or believed. For all intents and purposes, he doesn’t exist. It’s as if he died and left us his last will and testament. As the omnipotence-paradox riddle goes, it’s as if the Bible has become the stone that’s so heavy that even God can’t lift it.

Is Religious Experience Unchristian?

John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:

work out your own salvation with fear and

trembling.

——-

Should We Reject Supernaturalism?

The problem with cessationists is that they think that the process by which we “have Christ” is through reading the Bible. They pretend as if the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. So the Bible is wrong in pointing out the existence of the supernatural realm?

In order to shield themselves from the abuses and excesses of the Charismatic Movement (which has more often than not misattributed spiritual gifts or popularized false ones), they have inadvertently disassociated themselves from authentic gifts as well. So, they downplay and discredit all visions and experiences as if they were once sanctioned by God in antiquity but forbidden in modern times. But is Jesus’ promise limited to the apostolic age, when he says (Jn 14.21 NRSV), “those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them”?

In first Corinthians 12.4-11, Paul informs us that the spiritual life is accompanied by spiritual gifts that are *continuously* bestowed on the believers by the Spirit of God. He enumerates them as follows:

there are varieties of gifts, but the same

Spirit; and there are varieties of services,

but the same Lord; and there are varieties

of activities, but it is the same God who

activates all of them in everyone. To each is

given the manifestation of the Spirit for the

common good. To one is given through the

Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to

another the utterance of knowledge

according to the same Spirit, to another

faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of

healing by the one Spirit, to another the

working of miracles, to another prophecy, to

another the discernment of spirits, to

another various kinds of tongues, to

another the interpretation of tongues. All

these are activated by one and the same

Spirit, who allots to each one individually

just as the Spirit chooses.

Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? By reading about him in a Book? That’s preposterous!

Justin Peters, a famous expository preacher, also insists that God doesn’t communicate with anyone today. He even offers a challenge to find a single verse either in the Old Testament (OT) or the NT where anyone ever mentions that the Lord spoke to them. For starters, Scripture is filled with the expression “the LORD says” (see e.g. 1 Kgs 12.24; 21.19; Jer. 23.38; Ezek. 6.3; 20.5; Mt. 3.17; Acts 9.4-6; 13.2; Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Pet. 1.18-19) and so on and so forth. The irony is that in trying to refute the notion that God talks to people, Justin Peters ends up demonstrating the exact opposite because, apparently, God talks to him. He exclaims (emphasis added):

THE LORD IS TELLING ME TODAY

to tell you that if you feel like the Lord

might be trying to tell you something,

then he’s not trying to tell you anything.

Let me get this straight: the Lord *told him* that he *doesn’t talk* to people? Hmm. Isn’t that an oxymoron? Then he shifts to a strawman argument in which the criteria depend on one’s *certainty* of who it is that is speaking. And he furnishes us with certain examples from the OT, stating that unlike modern examples, the ancient prophets knew exactly who was speaking to them. But earlier he emphatically stated that regardless of your level of certainty, God is not speaking to you:

If you want God to speak to you dear

friends, there’s one way, I guarantee you,

you will hear God speak: read your Bible.

If you want God to speak to you audibly,

read it out loud.

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/7buV1Hj1pMA).

——-

Cessationist Deism

This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who isn’t accessible to creatures and doesn’t personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (Jn 14.17, 23; cf. Rom. 8.9) is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). Thus, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20 (NLT), Jesus declares the exact opposite:

‘Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you

hear my voice and open the door, I will

come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].’

Usually, whenever a believer is regenerated by the Spirit they’ll experience at least one of his charisms (cf. Acts 2.2-4; Rom. 12.6-8). Moreover, there’s not a single verse in the NT to indicate that these phenomena were limited to the Apostolic Age. In fact, the exact opposite is true. In Acts 2.17-18 (NRSV), God promises to speak to believers “in the last days” (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις):

‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that

I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and

your sons and your daughters shall

prophesy, and your young men shall see

visions, and your old men shall dream

dreams. Even upon my slaves, both men

and women, in those days I will pour out my

Spirit; and they shall prophesy.’

But according to cessationism, it seems that a personal relationship with Christ is equivalent to reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no continuationism of the work & gifts of the Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. Wow! This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

BIble Idolatry

The cessationist message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. Today, God only speaks through the Bible. They have made of the Bible an idol. And they have also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet they worship the Bible! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):

‘You search the Scriptures because you

think they give you eternal life. But the

Scriptures point to me!’

In short, according to cessationism, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God (the Spirit; Jn 4.24) as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! According to cessationism, they interact with us only in and through the Bible. Thus, we only believe in the literary “word” of God. These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. Cessationists are in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, they don’t seem to know its author. They only meet him via that book! This is what the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15.8)!

——-

Conclusion

There are different types of cessationism. But even the most open-minded, which acknowledge that God *occasionally* works by supernatural means today, still limit the person & work of the Holy Spirit to a (bare) minimum. Yet every new birth is a miracle! For cessationists, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34.8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!

This is the hallmark of a false doctrine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It’s a counterfeit Christianity! This idolatrous view is far removed from Christian teaching.

If we sum up full cessationism, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s the cessationist message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! They reduce apocalyptic & existential Christianity to literature!

And they further contradict both themselves and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist today. So, this teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory eisegesis wherein they refute the very teaching they espouse, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!

My question is simply this: does cessationism represent authentic Christianity? And, judging from the statements of its leading proponents, the answer is a resounding no! As 1 Thessalonians 5.19-20 (NRSV) says: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets.”

—

A Critique of Form Criticism

By Bible Researcher & Award-Winning Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is Form Criticism?

Form criticism is a discipline of Bible studies that views the Bible as an anthology of conventional stories that were originally transmitted orally and later codified in writing. Therefore, form criticism tries to identify scriptural literary patterns and trace them back to their particular oral tradition. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament Bible scholar, was the founder of form criticism. He was also one of the leading proponents of the “history of religions school,” which employed the methods of historical criticism. While the methods used in *comparative religion* studies were certainly important, these liberal theologians nevertheless began their formal inquiry with the theoretical presupposition that Christianity was equal to all other religions and they, therefore, rejected its claims to absolute truth. However, this underlying presumption involves circular thinking and confirmation bias, which is the habit of interpreting new evidence as confirmation of one's preexisting beliefs or theories. Despite the usefulness of the approach, form criticism involves a great deal of speculation and conjecture, not to mention blatant unbelief. One of its biggest proponents in the twentieth century was German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884—1976). Similar to other form-critics who had a bias against supernaturalism, he too believed that the Bible needed to be “demythologized,” that is, divested of its miraculous narratives and mythical elements.

Form criticism is valuable in identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as narrative, poetry, wisdom, or prophecy. It further seeks to find the “Sitz im Leben,” namely, the context in which a text was created, as well as its function and purpose at that time. Recently, form criticism's insistence on oral tradition has gradually lost support in Old Testament studies, even though it’s still widely used in New Testament studies.

Oral Tradition Versus Biblical Inspiration

Advocates of form criticism have suggested that the Evangelists drew upon oral traditions when they composed the New Testament gospels. Thus, form criticism presupposes the existence of earlier oral traditions that influenced later literary writings. Generally speaking, the importance of historical continuity in the way traditions from the past influenced later generations is certainly applicable to literary studies. But in the case of the New Testament, searching for a preexisting oral tradition would obviously contradict its claim of biblical inspiration, namely, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3.16). It would further imply that the evangelists——as well as the epistolary authors, including Paul——were not inspired. Rather, they were simply informed by earlier oral traditions. But this hypothesis would directly contradict an authentic Pauline epistle which claims direct inspiration from God rather than historical continuity or an accumulation of preexisting oral sources. Paul writes in Galatians 1.11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible, in order to confirm their revelations. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And all of them are writing from outside Palestine.

By contrast, the presuppositions of Bible scholarship do not square well with the available evidence. Scholars contend that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his purported death, and that these oral traditions were obviously in Aramaic. But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how did the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death? Furthermore, who are these sophisticated Greek writers who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? It sounds like a non sequitur! Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? Given that none of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine, it seems well-nigh impossible that the Aramaic community ever existed.

Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and is trying to confirm his revelations by quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic oral traditions but from Greek literary sources!

Conclusion

It doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul, or anyone else, reiterates because it’s irrelevant in proving the impact of oral tradition. The point is that all the sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation (cf. Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Tim. 3.16)!

And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek literary tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.

Moreover, who are these Greek authors who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It therefore sounds like a conspiracy of sorts.

And why aren’t Paul’s letters in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic oral sources are the Pauline epistles based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Greek Septuagint in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of New Testament Scripture? And why does Paul record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis just doesn’t hold up. Nor do the so-called “oral traditions.”

—

What Are the Biblical Grounds for Divorce?

The inspiration for this paper came from a Facebook “Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group” member.

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Marriage: When One Spouse is an Unbeliever

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul discusses some cases about marriage. He explains that marriage is a remedy against fornication; that it is better to marry than to burn with lust (vv. 1-9). If we focus specifically on 1 Cor. 7.15, Paul is talking about married partners, where one is a believer and the other is not, and is giving biblical instructions as to how to handle that particular situation. Notice that verses 10-11 (NRSV) represent a *direct command* from God “that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Here, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the mere notion that one’s partner is an unbeliever (a heathen) is not yet ground for divorce!

By contrast, verses 12-13, which apply to verse 15, are offered “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6):

if any believer has a wife who is an

unbeliever, and she consents to live with

him, he should not divorce her. And if any

woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,

and he consents to live with her, she should

not divorce him.

In other words, this is not based on a command from God but rather on Paul’s advice for a suitable compromise. Paul asserts that if the unbelieving partner agrees to stay married, the believing partner has no legitimate right to divorce them. Why? Because the believer edifies and influences the unbeliever towards holiness (v. 14).

However, in 1 Cor. 7.15 there’s an exception. If the unbeliever doesn’t wish to stay married, the believing partner (the Christian) is under no obligation. He/she may get a divorce. For God called us to peace, not quarrels & fights. The “brother” (ἀδελφὸς) or “sister” (ἀδελφὴ) in verse 15 are obvious references to a “brother” or “sister” in the faith. It’s also clear from verse 12 that the so-called “brother” refers to the Christian *believer,* not to the unbeliever. So when Paul says, “in such a case the brother or sister is not bound” (οὐ δεδούλωται), he’s referring to the Christian husband or wife who is under no obligation to continue in this marriage (SBLGNT):

εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω · οὐ

δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς

τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ

θεός.

Translation (v. 15):

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let

it be so; in such a case the brother or sister

is not bound. It is to peace that God has

called you.

The term δεδούλωται (dedoulōtai) means “enslaved” or “under bondage.” It’s a verb. Specifically, it’s a perfect indicative middle or passive 3rd person singular. Strong's 1402: it comes from doulos; to enslave (douloó).

Returning to 1 Cor. 7.15, remember that the Pauline recommendation that’s offered with regard to marriage is “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6, 12). In other words, the believing partner can legally divorce if the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to stay married, but this is not based on the Lord’s command but rather on Paul’s advice! That is to say, you can still try to salvage your marriage, seek reconciliation, and try to work things out, provided both parties agree. But if they don’t, and the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to remain married, the Christian partner is allowed to divorce them. That’s essentially what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 7.15!

We can speculate as to what this divorce entails, but Paul doesn’t actually spell it out for us. It can involve a number of issues. Some commentators think that the verse implies that the unbelieving party seeks a divorce on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and that they will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied. In that case, Paul exhorts us to let them depart.

Although that can certainly be one of the reasons for the divorce, there can be many others. The married life can be made intolerable if the unbeliever, for example, urges the believer to join in such acts as conscience cannot approve. Then there can be grounds for divorce.

Paul doesn’t tell us but leaves the question open because it applies to so many different situations and circumstances. One thing is certain. If one’s spouse is not a believer and wants a divorce, you are not under any obligation to remain married. But if the unbelieving partner wants to remain married, you are not allowed to divorce them. According to God, there’s only one ground for divorce, namely, infidelity. That’s the basic New Testament message concerning marriage!

——-

Remarriage

Later on in the chapter, another advice (v. 25) is given regarding remarriage, specifically the widow’s right to remarry (v. 39). Let’s take a closer look at the Greek text.

In 1 Cor. 7.39, the verb δέδεται is used, which comes from the verb δέω, meaning “to bind” or “to tie.” There’s also an alternative form of δέω derived from Ancient Greek, namely, δέννω ‎(dénnō)! And, of course, from this verb comes the verb δέδεται (1 Cor 7:39). Thus, *δέδεται* essentially means that someone or something “is bound” or “is chained.” The term δέδεται is a verb, perfect indicative middle or passive - 3rd person plural, with a ται ending! 1 Cor. 7.39 reads:

Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ

αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα

ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ ·

Translation:

A wife is bound as long as her husband

lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to

marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord.

So, a wife is allowed to remarry (a Christian) if her husband passes away.

——-

Conclusion

This is simply a brief study of 1 Cor. 7. Rather than drawing conclusions from a few verses, a further study is needed to see how the entire New Testament (in canonical context) deals with the issue of marriage. In other words, the exegesis might be correct, but there may be additional elements that are mentioned elsewhere that change the overall meaning of the text. We should never build a theology based on one or two verses. That’s why we need a wider study (in canonical context) in order to verify the exegesis!

——-

Are the Four Living Creatures of Revelation Alien, Human, or Angelic?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Ezekiel’s Account

In the Old Testament (OT), Ezekiel’s book describes the prophet’s “visions of God” (1.1), especially those of four living creatures. Ezekiel recounts it as follows (1.4-5 NRSV):

As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the

north: a great cloud with brightness around

it and fire flashing forth continually, and in

the middle of the fire, something like

gleaming amber. In the middle of it was

something like four living creatures. This

was their appearance: they were of human

form.

What Ezekiel saw were not actual creatures or beasts but rather figures that resembled them. He describes seeing the “likeness” or “similitude” (דְּמ֖וּת də·mūṯ) that resembled four (Heb. חַיּוֹת ḥayyōṯ) living creatures or beasts. Then, the prophet begins to describe their appearance (מַרְאֵֽיהֶ֔ן mar·’ê·hen). Ezekiel 1.5 says that they had the likeness of ’ā·ḏām (i.e. of a man or a human being). Ezekiel 1.6-7 further describes them as follows:

Each had four faces, and each of them had

four wings. Their legs were straight, and the

soles of their feet were like the sole of a

calf's foot; and they sparkled like burnished

bronze.

Ezekiel’s narrative doesn't appear to describe human beings but rather some kind of extraterrestrial (or transhuman) creatures or beasts (1.5). Furthermore, no human being has straight legs or “the sole of a calf’s foot” (v. 7). However, with regard to these physical descriptions, including their feet that “sparkled like burnished bronze,” I have tried to show elsewhere that this imagery may be associated with Jesus Christ (cf. Rev. 1.13-15). See my article, “Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/653464965934661632/christ-the-terminator-half-man-half-machine

Eli of Kittim

Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine

“I’ll Be Back” By Author Eli Kittim End-Time Visions of the Messiah’s Robotic Enhancements What if Jesus paid a steeper price for our sa

Ezekiel also mentions that “they had human hands” (v. 8). Then, in vv. 10-11 he says:

As for the appearance of their faces: the

four had the face of a human being, the

face of a lion on the right side, the face of

an ox on the left side, and the face of an

eagle; such were their faces.

This symbolism is reiterated in Revelation 4.6-7. As we will see, Ezekiel’s “creatures” of the tetramorph, which are depicted in animal forms, appear to be different portraits of the Messiah, even though in the Book of Revelation they seem to be completely separate from him.

The 4 living creatures are depicted as winged figures, which are archaic symbols of divinity. The lion seemingly represents Christ (Rev. 5.5), alluding to his royal stature as conqueror! The ox appears to illustrate Christ’s sacrifice. In Mt 11.28-30, Christ wants us to heed his warning so as to be equally yoked:

Come to me, all you that are weary and are

carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you

rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from

me; for I am gentle and humble in heart,

and you will find rest for your souls. For my

yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The wooden yoke or beam that is typically used between a pair of oxen seems to represent the cross of Christ as well as the injunction to take up our cross and follow him, and to unite ourselves to him (Mt. 16.24). Finally, the eagle depicts the divinity of Christ (cf. Rev. 8.13).

An alternative but Christ-based model of the tetramorph is the patristic interpretation, which depicts the four living creatures as symbols of the 4 evangelists’ accounts of Christ. There are different versions but most follow the description of Epiphanius’ (310-403) account:

Matthew’s gospel portrays the man.

Mark’s gospel depicts the lion.

Luke’s gospel represents the ox.

John’s gospel symbolizes the eagle.

Notice the OT description of the four living creatures in which “all four were full of eyes all around” (Ezek. 1.18). Compare this verse with that from the New Testament (NT) concerning the Lamb of God “standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes” (Rev. 5.6). In fact, Ezek. 1.28 clarifies and summarizes the aforesaid vision by making the following declaration:

This was the appearance of the likeness of

the glory of the Lord.

So, from a Christian perspective, this sounds very much like Christ the Lord!

——-

The Apocalyptic Vision of Revelation 4 through 6

In the NT, the four figures of Rev. 4.6 that are “full of eyes in front and behind” (cf. Ezek. 1.18) are called animals or creatures (τέσσαρα ζῷα), not angelic beings. As for the “twenty-four elders” of Rev. 4.4, they are discussed at length in my article “Who Are the Twenty-Four Elders of Revelation Chapter 4?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/117722359047/who-are-the-twenty-four-elders-of-revelation

The Book of Revelation gives us additional information about the function of these four “creatures” and what they actually do. Apparently, they act as models and influencers of worship (Rev. 4.8-11), while crying a triple invocation of holiness:

Day and night without ceasing they sing,

‘Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty,

who was and is and is to come.’ And

whenever the living creatures give glory and

honor and thanks to the one who is seated

on the throne, who lives forever and ever,

the twenty-four elders fall before the one

who is seated on the throne and worship

the one who lives forever and ever; they

cast their crowns before the throne, singing,

‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to

receive glory and honor and power, for you

created all things, and by your will they

existed and were created.’

A major difference between the Ezekiel account and the one in Revelation 4 is that, in the latter, the living creatures are completely separated and distinct from Christ!

The similarities can be explained by the principle of “expositional constancy.” This principle is based on the notion that an image or idiom is employed in the same way (consistently) throughout the Bible. The fact that the same symbols are used both for the Messiah and the living creatures suggests an intimate connection between them. Thus, the images of messianic typology in the OT seem to be related to those in the NT.

Moreover, notice that the living creatures are explicitly described as “animals” (Gk. ζῷα), not as part of the angelic host. Any inference on our part to associate them with the cherubim or any of the other orders of angels is unbiblical because it cannot be substantiated. In point of fact, no angel has ever been described as an animal (Gk. ζῷον) in the Bible! However, a living being, such as a human being, can also be defined as a creature. In fact, in his work entitled “Politics,” Aristotle says that “man is, by nature, a political animal.” Thus, the NT references to ζῷα or creatures may be allusions to human beings, and especially to the humanity of Jesus.

In the Abrahamic religions, the seraphim are considered to be heavenly beings with either two or three pairs of wings and functioning as throne guardians of God. They’re traditionally known as the burning ones who praise God night and day by means of the Trisagion liturgical hymn (i.e. Thrice Holy): “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3). In Christian angelology, the seraphim are considered among the highest-ranking heavenly beings, comprising pure light, who seem to have direct communication with God. Some think that they’re an exalted order of angels aka cherubim. But despite the cherubim’s proximity to the throne of God, there are notable differences. For example, the cherubim have 4 wings whereas the seraphim have 6 wings, and the latter fly overhead whereas the former do not. Therefore, these disparate Biblical passages do not seem to depict the same phenomena or the same living creatures. For instance, in Isaiah 6.2 these celestial beings are called śə·rā·p̄îm (Seraphim), not beasts. Similarly, the cherubim are called hak·kə·ru·ḇîm (Gen. 3.24), not creatures (cf. Rev. 19.4 where the 4 living creatures are called ζῷα or “animals”). So, even though the 4 living creatures are, in some respects, reminiscent of the seraph in Isa. 6.2-3, they have vastly different depictions.

Are the Four Living Creatures UFOs?

Given that Ezekiel’s account has sometimes been interpreted as a UFO sighting, the animal-like “creatures” that are neither fully human nor decidedly angelic could therefore qualify as “aliens,” according to the Ancient astronaut theorists. This is the pseudoscientific hypothesis that intelligent, extraterrestrial beings from other planets visited the earth in prehistoric times using technologically advanced spaceships. In this instance, they’re basing their theory on various Biblical accounts, such as the one in Genesis 6.2 in which “the sons of God” made contact with human beings who gave birth to giants (called “Nephilim”). These events occurred “when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them” (Gen. 6.4).

But the Ancient astronaut theorists are especially interested in the extraordinary account of Ezekiel chapter 1. Ezekiel 1.13 seems to be suggesting some type of spacecraft propulsion, including “something like a wheel within a wheel” (v. 16), not to mention various other references to “wheels” and to *flight* (vv. 19-20), as well as “something like a dome” or a sphere on top of them (v. 22). These descriptions seem to indicate some kind of advanced alien spacecraft. Not only are the images reminiscent of a UFO but also the “creatures” themselves appear to be alien in that they’re neither human nor angelic in nature. So, the question of their origin deserves a legitimate biblical investigation.

However, Ezekiel clearly states that he had a vision (1.1), not a close encounter of the third kind. Ezekiel’s account, therefore, comprises a spiritual experience, not a physical contact with aliens. In fact, Ezekiel heard audible voices from heaven and describes the experience as “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord (1.28). As for the “creatures” themselves (based on the imagery that is used), they seem to be identified with Christ to such an extent that it is difficult to separate the two. That’s because the living creatures are the royal emissaries of Christ! As you will see, they’re part of the exclusive elite group that governs heaven. And they’re part of the glorious throne room of God. Here’s an example. In the midst of the throne——between the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders (the inner circle of God)——is Christ (5.6). Revelation 5.8-10 reads:

When he [Christ] had taken the scroll, the

four living creatures and the twenty-four

elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a

harp and golden bowls full of incense,

which are the prayers of the saints. They

sing a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the

scroll and to open its seals, for you were

slaughtered and by your blood you

ransomed for God saints from every tribe

and language and people and nation; you

have made them to be a kingdom and

priests serving our God, and they will reign

on earth.’

Notice, the text doesn’t say that by his blood Christ ransomed for God extraterrestrials from the multiverse, from every solar system, planet, and alien life form. On the contrary, it says that those that Christ redeemed “will reign on earth.”

The 4 Living Creatures Have a Surpassing Knowledge of God Which Raises Them to Divine Status

And when Christ took the book, the 4 creatures and the 24 elders prostrated themselves before the Lamb and sang a new song of praise and thanksgiving. It appears as if these holy congregations are presided over by these high-level government officials, as it were, who appear to be the highest-ranking officers or high priests in God’s inner circle. They have direct access to God. They seem to be next in rank to Christ and are, perhaps, empowered to serve as ecclesiastical authorities in his absence. The 4 living creatures are God’s elite group who lead the myriads of angels in prayer (5.14), who preside over the dissemination of prophecy, including the dispensation of judgment, as in the breaking of the 7 seals in Revelation 6.

Notice the chain of command. Christ opens the seals and the 4 living creatures, in turn, make the official proclamations. For example, during the breaking of the first seal, the first living creature summons forth, “as with a voice of thunder, ‘come’ “ (6.1). The second creature also commands “come,” in relation to the 2nd seal, the red horse (6.3). The same thing occurs with the 3rd seal (6.5). Then, in Rev. 6.6, the 4 living creatures pronounce the judgment! And, once again, the 4th seal is announced by the 4th creature (6.7). Based on their function and position, the four living creatures appear to be the highest order of celestial beings in the upper echelons of God’s government.

But it remains enigmatic why they are referred to as creatures. Given that they are the highest form of life, they might appear to us as strange and, perhaps, even terrifying creatures. Let’s not forget what God says in Exod. 33.20:

you cannot see my face; for no one shall

see me and live.

After all, God, the Son of God, and the four living creatures are all extraterrestrials. They are not human. Christ is the only extraterrestrial who becomes human in order to redeem humanity. But he, too, like Superman, “is not from this world” (Jn 18.36). The Matthew Henry Commentary on Revelation 4 says that by mentioning the many eyes of the living creatures, scripture is denoting their “sagacity, vigilance, and circumspection.” In other words, they seem to possess powers that are close to those of God!

As to the identity of the 4 creatures, John Gill’s exposition of the Bible (Rev. 4.6) mistakenly says:

the angels cannot be intended, because

these four living creatures are said to be

redeemed by the blood of Christ, and are

distinguished from angels in (Revelation

5:8-11).

Although the angels are certainly not intended to describe them, nowhere is there any evidence that the four living creatures were redeemed by the blood of Christ! But Gill’s commentary is correct in refuting the notion that the 4 creatures represent the evangelists, because “it makes John to be one of the four creatures which he saw.” John Gill’s commentary also understands the important administrative functions of the 4 living creatures with regard to Judgment. It says:

and one of them is said to give to the seven

angels the vials of wrath to pour out …

(Revelation 15:7).

John Gill’s exposition of the Bible (Rev. 4.6) correctly states that the four living creatures cannot possibly be the tribulation saints:

these four living creatures are distinguished

from the hundred and forty four thousand

on Mount Zion, in ( Revelation 14:1

Revelation 14:3).

Thus, the four living creatures are neither angels nor men.

——-

Conclusion

According to the Genesis 1 creation account, God’s focus is predominantly on the earth, not on other planets, solar systems, or galaxies. What is more, in Colossians 1.16, the author——most likely Paul, since the letter’s authenticity is still staunchly defended by many credible scholars——gives us a short briefing on “all things in heaven and on earth [that] were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers.” The only other classes of beings that are mentioned, other than humans, are the spiritual beings which have been traditionally grouped into three celestial orders (from highest to lowest): the Seraphim/Cherubim & Thrones; the Dominions/Powers; and the Principalities/Archangels & Angels. No other life forms are mentioned.

In fact, Revelation 21 shows that the destruction of the universe is associated with a recreation of “a new heaven and a new earth” (v. 1). But this is all done with humanity in mind (v. 3):

And I heard a loud voice from the throne

saying, ‘See, the home of God is among

mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be

his peoples, and God himself will be with

them.’

The text doesn’t say that all life forms will eventually unite and live on earth. It only mentions mortals (Gk. ἀνθρώπων). In fact, there’s no Biblical evidence that God created any other alien life-forms. Those who claim that Hebrews 1.2 refers to many worlds are in error because the Greek term αἰῶνας refers to ages or cycles of time, not to physical worlds. It’s a mistranslation. Moreover, Christ redeemed humans, not aliens. He himself became man (Jn 1.14; Phil. 2.7) and will one day resurrect *humans* (not extraterrestrials). God's plan of redemption (Eph. 1.7-14) is exclusively for human beings. In fact, the entire universe will be destroyed and remade so that redeemed humans (not aliens) can inhabit it, according to the text.

At any rate, God “is not from this world” (Jn 18.36), and neither are the 4 living creatures. So, although there is no evidence of physical extraterrestrials roaming around on other planets, the invisible kingdom of God is itself of extraterrestrial origin. And since the four living creatures are deeply identified with Christ, and are neither angels nor men, they might be the highest form of life ever created by God, ranking above the angelic host, second only to the Trinity!

——-