Chapter Two

  Dr. Jay Snell Newsletter Feed and Free Bonuses  

Current, Christian Theology Built An Interpretive System Upon The Greatest Theological Blunder In Old Testament History, Which Strips Away From Christians The Abrahamic Blessing of Healing And Prosperity

The great mistake of Judaism was the "dis-connecting" of Moses' Law from Abraham's promises. They lost sight of the scriptural reason for the giving of the Law and its attendant sacrifices. They came to view the Law, not as an act of grace to enable them to maintain the blessings promised them through Abraham, but as a system of works, whereby they might approach God and secure his blessings. Unfortunately, the Church has established its theology upon this error, The Great Disconnect Theory, and sees herself also "disconnected" from Abraham. This can be demonstrated from the reader's own frame of reference. When you, the reader, hear the term Judaism, what do you think of? Most think of Moses, the Law, and the sacrifices. If we think of Abraham at all, we think of him primarily as our example of faith. We see him as a man whose faith we would do well to pattern ours after.

But, do we think of the promises of prosperity and good health promised him by God as being our inheritance also? Unfortunately, most of us do not. Why? Because we are the product of a wellmeaning but flawed theology that is based upon The Great Disconnect Theory. Consequently, it is a theology which is itself disconnected from Abraham. In this work, we call this disconnected theology, The God-Looked-Down Theory, and its description, prankishly goes something like this: "One day, God looked down from heaven and saw that Judaism was not working the way he thought it should. He saw the people breaking the Law of Moses right and left...and they were not making the sacrifices in the right spirit either...if they made them at all. So he said to himself, "I'm going to set me up a brand-new religion…something that’s entirely new...a religion the world has never seen before. I'll name it after my Son. I'll call this new religion Christianity. I'll send my Son to fulfill the Law of Moses and he will be the final sacrifice for sin.

Other than his final sacrifice for sin, there will be nothing in my new religion that even resembles Judaism, my old religion. Sure, I inserted some prophecies in the Old Testament to alert the people that I was sending a Messiah. And yes, I worded those prophecies in such a way that the Jews would be looking for a Jewish king. But, that's not the way my new religion will be. I'll throw out everything pertaining to Judaism but one…my Son will be the final sacrifice for sin and fulfill the Law of Moses forever. By his sacrifice, everybody, Jew and Gentile, can be saved. The vehicle of my new religion, this new Christianity, I'm going to name the Church. From now on, the Church will be my brand new covenant. And since I have now set up a brand new covenant, I'm going to throw out all my promises to give the Jews the land of Palestine forever. Over one thousand times the word give is used in my Old Testament, the preponderance of which pertains to my giving Palestine to the Jews. But, no matter. All that's over now. That doesn't count any more. After all, I've set myself up a new religion, a brand new covenant, and called it Christianity.

They don't need to think that I'm obligated to heal teir sickness anymore. Sure, I promised them that if they would keep the Law of Moses, or make the appropriate sacrifices if they broke it, I'd be their healer and take all sickness away from them. But, I'm not going to worry myself about keeping this promise. After all, I've got myself a new religion now. If they get sick, they will just have to pray, "If it be thy will," please heal me. Then, I'll check my will out and see if I happen to want to heal them.

My new religion is going to be based on poverty too. No matter that I promised the Jews that I'd prosper them and bless everything they set their hands to. No matter that I promised to bless their land, barns, fields, and cattle. Why, everybody ought to know that they can be a better Christian if they are extremely poor anyway.

My new religion will save their souls, but it will take away their land, their security in the land, their prosperity, and their healing. This is enough to do for anybody. Anyone who is grateful at all should be content to be saved from hell and let well enough alone concerning the rest. This is my new religion, my brand new covenant, called the Church and Christianity. And, if those Jews want to be saved from hell, they are going to have to forget everything in their old religion and join the Church and get baptized like everybody else!"

Is it any wonder that a Jew looks at a Christian as if he is insane when we witnesses to him about his new "superior religion" called Christianity? The Jew at least thought he had the blessings of salvation, land, security in the land, health, and prosperity promised by Moses if he kept the Law and its attendant sacrifices. He cut himself off from the above promises when he disconnected Moses from Abraham, but he still thought he had them. He based his thought upon The Great Disconnect Theory, still thinking, however wrongly, that he could secure the blessings listed above by obedience to Moses' Law.

The God-Looked-Down Theory of the Church corrects this error, this doctrine of works, but in correcting it, all the Jew is granted is the salvation of his soul. But, this "brand new religion" takes away his land, security in the land, health, and prosperity and doesn't replace it. The God-Looked- Down Theory doesn't replace it because this theory, also, views the Church as disconnected from Abraham, unaware that only through Abraham can the above blessings be realized. If The God-Looked- Down Theory of the Church is correct, we would all be better off if we were Jews under Moses, maintaining the blessings of Abraham by making the appropriate sacrifice when we've sinned, since those who did so were saved (Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 9:15). And salvation of the soul is all The God-Looked-Down Theory gives the members of the Church at this present hour. But according to the Abrahamic Covenant, in addition to the salvation of their soul, the Jews also had the promised land, security in the land, health, and prosperity guaranteed to them.

The "superiority" of this view of Christianity is not "superior." Judaism offered more, much more. The obedient Jew, standing before the altar of old, an ax in one hand and the warm body of a sacrificial animal in the other hand, his clothes drenched with the blood still spurting from the freshly made wounds, was better off in many ways than a member of The God-Looked-Down Theory Church today. Why? He was as saved from hell as any Christian today, but he also had the temporal blessings of Deuteronomy 7:12-26 and Deuteronomy 28:1-14 going for him. The God-Looked- Down Theory, however, takes it all away from him. Neither does this theory grant these blessings to the Church today.

Consequently, we are forced in our "superior, new religion" to pray, "If it be thy will" concerning sickness or financial needs. Then, when God checks the agenda for "his will" for that day, and perhaps, makes a decision to help us (based on nobody knows what), then so be it. Otherwise, we must content ourselves with being raped, plundered, ravaged, and devastated by the Devil.

And we wonder why it is so hard for a Jew to become a Christian. The God-Looked-Down Theory has taken his land, his security in his land, his healing, and his prosperity. It grants him salvation for his soul. But, he at least thought he had that anyway. No wonder it is difficult to win the Jews (God's chosen people, his people beloved above all people) to Christ as their Messiah, Savior, and Lord.

This volume demonstrates that the Church is not disconnected from Abraham and the promises made to Abraham are valid today and are her rightful inheritance not in the sweet by and by, but now while we need help with bills and illnesses. But first, why was The God-Looked-Down Theory concocted to start with? What is its theological foundation?

Based Upon That Greatest, Old Testament Blunder, Current Christian Theology (Which Strips Away From Christians the Abrahamic Blessings of Healing and Prosperity) Perches Precariously Upon Three More Great Errors

The God-Looked-Down Theory perches precariously upon three things: (1) the New Testament writers' reaction to the great Jewish theological blunder: The Great Disconnect Theory. (2) a misunderstanding of the term "new" in "new covenant" as meaning "new in time," when in fact it does not mean "new in time" or, as we would say, "brand new," (3) a misunderstanding of Jeremiah's expression "will make" in his statement, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel...." The God- Looked-Down Theory interprets "will make" as the equivalent of "start up" when in fact "will make" means the opposite, or "to bring to completion."

In this chapter, we look at the first "theological footing": the reaction of the New Testament writers to The Great Disconnect Theory. In chapter three, we look at the confusion about what "new" really means. And, in chapter four, we clear up the misunderstanding of "will make."

The First Great Error Upon Which This Current, Christian Theology of Denial Perches Precariously, is Misunderstanding the Threefold Reaction of the New Testament Writers to that Greatest, Old Testament Blunder

Now, we look at the first "theological footing" of The God-Looked-Down Theory, which is the reaction of the New Testament writers to that colossal, Jewish blunder of separating God's Law from Abraham's covenant on the one hand, and setting up the law on the other hand as a system of salvation by works. Just exactly how did they react to this salvation-by-works of the law heresy? They reacted in three basic ways: (1) the tremendous amount of space devoted in the New Testament to the overthrow of the salvation-by-works heresy, (2) the urgency with which they presented their case, and (3) the language they used as they attempted to replace this error with the truth that salvation is all of grace by faith. When these things are fixed firmly in the mind, i.e., the space taken up in the New Testament with combating The Great Disconnect Theory, the desperate urgency with which the New Testament writers press the war, combined with the proper categorizing of the language they used, the true nature of The God-Looked-Down Theory looms before us: it is a house of cards built on sand.

The First Reaction of the New Testament Writers to that Greatest, Old Testament Blunder, is Demonstrated by the Great Amount of Space in the New Testament They Devoted to Its Overthrow

The first reaction of the new testament writers to the heresy of salvation by works of the Law is demonstrated by the tremendous amount of space they devoted to its overthrow in the pages of the New Testament. Verse after verse, page after page of the New Testament is consumed with one purpose: to correct The Great Disconnect error of attempting to attain Salvation and blessings by works of the law. To correct this error of salvation by works of the law and replace it with salvation by grace is the all-consuming concern of the New Testament writers. The teachings of both Jesus and Paul demonstrate this fact.

The teachings of Jesus concerning the law were negative in many instances. They had to be negative because his was a message given to correct their Great Disconnect Theory of the law. He never repudiated the scriptural purpose of the Law (the Law was given as an act of grace to guard them against the loss of the Abrahamic blessings), but his messages concerning the law attempted to correct the perversion of making the law a religion of salvation and blessing by works. On numerous occasions he said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said...but I say unto you...." He would explain to them the error of what they had heard about the purpose of the law, and then correct it by quoting the correct Scripture to them. By this combination, "Ye have heard...but I say unto you..." he bathed their error in the floodlight of the true, actual purpose of the Law.

The major passages in the New Testament in which Jesus corrected their perversions of the law are Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; and Luke 6:1-5; in which he corrected their view of the Sabbath. And he continues his Sabbath corrections in Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; and Luke 6:6-11. The first three Scriptures listed above correct the criticism of the Pharisees concerning the picking of grain by Jesus' disciples on the Sabbath. The second three Scriptures correct their view that healing or "doing good" on the Sabbath is unlawful.

Their view of the law was cold, legalistic, to the letter. Jesus corrects this in Matthew 23:23-24 and Luke 11:42-44. He taught them the weightier matters of the law: love, justice, mercy, and faith. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17- 48), he said he came to fulfill both the law and the prophets, not to abolish them. He had no problem with the Law in its scriptural purpose, function, and result. But he spent a big part of his public Ministry correcting the mistakes of The Great Disconnect Theory.

When Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle, more than any other man he carried the war into the front lines of the enemy. He waged war against the Jewish view of salvation by works until silenced by death. The major passages in which Paul wrote to combat The Great Disconnect Theory are Romans 3:20-21, in which Paul shows a righteousness of God based upon faith like Abraham's which has nothing to do with the Law; Romans 6:14, in which he maintains that the law has no more dominion, even as a protector of the blessings, since Jesus, the Seed, has come; Romans 7:4-6, in which he states that we are released from the law; Romans 8:2-4, in which he shows the law is powerless to enable human nature to do the works of the law; Romans 9:31-32 declares that Israel had not righteousness by following the law because righteousness can only be attained by faith; Romans 10:5-13 shows faith righteousness is easier to attain than law righteousness; 2 Corinthians 3:6-11, in which he sees the law as the letter that kills; and Galatians 3:10-14, declaring that those trying to be saved by works of the law are accursed.

In every passage, Paul makes corrections to Jewish thinking concerning their severance of the law from the Abrahamic Promises. He boldly declares that without the link-up between the two, the law, rather than an act of grace to maintain the flow of blessings, has become an instrument of death.

The Second Reaction of the New Testament Writers to that Greatest, Old Testament Blunder, is Demonstrated by the Urgency With Which They Fought the War Against It

The war of salvation by grace versus The Great Disconnect Theory of salvation by works of the law, was for Paul, more than "words and theological clichés." He viewed with alarm the eternal damnation of his brethren, the Jews. He saw that their great error had dragged them into hell by the millions down through the centuries. The Great Disconnect Theory had become, for the Jews, the doorway to hell and must be lcosed at all costs, Although called to the Gentiles, Paul never forgot his brethren according to the flesh. He knew that as long as they followed The Great Disconnect Theory, they had no hope of salvation forever. He said "That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites:..." (Romans 9:2- 4).

While reading his words, one can feel the urgency, the desperation that Paul felt. His countrymen were in desperate straits and didn't realize it. Paul ferociously lunged into the war with both his preaching and his pen. With all the energies he could bring to bear, he never drew back from the conflict. He tried as hard as any man to shut this doorway to hell. With word and pen, he replaced error with truth. He tore into the error of salvation by works like a savage. His fixation, with its overthrow, was like that of a crazy man. No matter how fiercely the battle raged, Paul never asked for a time out, nor did he give one. He fought on. He fought on until his body was severely damaged by the scars that battle inflicted upon him. He asked Jesus three times for deliverance, and he fought on.

When the battle scars were caused by a shipwreck in the deep, he accepted it and fought on. When the battle scars were inflicted by flesh-tearing whips, he never flinched; he fought on. When thrown into prison, he gazed at the bars that bound him and sang praises to God at midnight; he fought on. He called it the sufferings of Christ which must be filled up in his body. Perils caused by waters, robbers, Jews, or Gentiles never stopped him; he fought on. Perils in the city, in the wilderness, on the sea, or among false brethren never shook him; he fought on. Weariness, painfulness, watchings, hunger, thirst, fastings, cold, and nakedness never floored him; he fought on.

This error, this doorway to hell, must be closed for his brethren. No matter how the scars of battle damaged his own body, he must close this doorway to hell. Paul, more than any man, fought on. He declared a Holy War that screams from the pages of the New Testament..."the doorway to hell must be closed...no matter what the cost...the doorway to hell must be closed!" More than any other man, the Apostle Paul pressed the attack and sounded the battle cry: "The doorway to hell must be closed at all costs!" He fought on! He battled every enemy and carried in his person the scars of it. He fought the Great Error of Judaism until death stilled his hand and silenced his lips. More than any man in the stream of human existence, he deserved to write his own epitaph: "...I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord...shall give me..." (2 Timothy 4:6-8). And, when he entered into Glory and appeared in the presence of Jesus, one cannot help but say, "He did more than any man to close the doorway to hell; he fought on." And one cannot help but believe that when Jesus saw him in heaven, he said, "Well done, my son...welcome home." He had fought on. God bless you, dear Paul.

With the death of Paul and the other great warriors of that first century, the developing Church moved into the battle stations and took up the cry: "The doorway to hell must be closed at all costs. Salvation by works of the law is the doorway to hell and must be closed at all costs. Salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ! Salvation by works of the law is the doorway to hell and must be closed at all costs."

Because of the two reasons presented above to overthrow the heresy of salvation by works of the law in the New Testament, Christian thought has been consumed primarily with this one issue. We fail to see much else. Up to a point, this is as it should be. Salvation by works of the law versus salvation by faith is the crucial issue. For this reason, it rightly receives prominence in the pages of the New Testament. This preponderance of space given to this battle in the New Testament combined with the fervency, the urgency, even the desperation of the New Testament writers to “close the doorway to hell at all costs," has had a greater influence upon the Church than is realized. Because of the space given and the fervency with which it is presented, the Church has no doubts that the doctrine of The Great Disconnect Theory (salvation by works of the law of Moses) is the doorway to hell. The Church also has no doubt that Jesus is the "end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" (Romans 10:13). But, unfortunately, the Church is not as certain that Jesus "is the Seed to whom the promise of Abraham was made" (Galatians 3:19). Neither is the Church at all certain that those historical promises God made to Abraham belong to her by inheritance.

The Third Reaction of the New Testament Writers to that Greatest, Old Testament Blunder, is Demonstrated by the Language They Used Against It

In addition to the above, the language used by the New Testament writers is their third reaction against the The Great Disconnect Theory, causing the Church's preoccupation with it, pushing other matters to the back burner. When considering the language the New Testament writers used concerning the Law, we must exercise much care, because this is the point at which The God-Looked- Down Theory has made its greatest blunder. This theory has blurred the distinctions that must be made when reading about the Law in the New Testament documents. Because the advocates of this theory have not kept uppermost in their minds the purpose of the Law, to maintain the Abrahamic blessings, they have attributed meanings to various passages of Scripture which those Scriptures do not have. An examination of the New Testament statements concerning the Law reveals that these statements must be grouped into four separate, distinct categories.

Category One speaks of the Law from the viewpoint of its original purpose. When Paul said, "...the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good" (Romans 7:12), he spoke of God’s reason for giving the Law, i.e., the maintenance of the Abrahamic blessings. Concerning its original purpose, it was holy, just, and good.

Category Two speaks of the law as a result of what it has become because of the Great Disconnection. It was designed to maintain the Abrahamic blessings. The Jews, instead, set it up as a separate religious system, a doctrine of salvation and blessings secured by their works. As such, it became an instrument of death, and those who followed this system, separated from Abraham, became accursed.

When Paul calls the Law the "ministration of death, written and engraved in stones" (2 Corinthians 3:7), did he actually mean that the Law really was a ministration of death? Of course not. The Law was an act of grace given to maintain the flow of blessings promised through Abraham. How can an act of grace designed to bless be a ministration of death? It cannot. Then what did Paul mean? He means that by following The Great Disconnect Theory, the Law no longer functions as an act of grace, but has become, for them, an instrument of death. When he said that "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse..." (Galatians 3:10), what does he mean? He means that their separation of the Law from Abraham has turned that which was given to bless them into nothing more than a religion of works and merit. As such, this act of separation has turned the Law into an instrument which will curse them. In Galatians 5:1, Paul refers to the Law as a "yoke of bondage," as something grievous to be born and implores his readers not to be entangled in it any more. Was the Law, according to its original purpose, really a "yoke of bondage"? No, it was an act of grace. It is a yoke of bondage only as a result of disconnecting it from Abraham and using it as an independent system to secure by works the blessings of God.

In Acts 15:10, Peter called the Law a "yoke upon the neck...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." Was this the effect of the Law upon them and their fathers when viewed from its original purpose? No. The Law was impossible to bear and became a yoke around their neck only after they set the Law apart as an independent doctrine of salvation and blessings by merit. In Romans 4:15, Paul states, "...the law worketh wrath:..." Was this God's original intent? No. The Law was an act of grace. Only when severed from Abraham and used as an independent religious system of salvation by works does it result in wrath. Romans 3:19 declares that "...under the law...all the world may become guilty before God." This passage also views the Law as the result of the Jewish error since "to make the world guilty" was not its original purpose. Had the original purpose been followed, the appropriate sacrifice would have been made, the offendor would have been held blameless, and the Abrahamic blessings that he already possessed would have been maintained.

All the above examples are Category Two statements. Not one passage speaks from the perspective of the true purpose of the Law, i.e., God's act of grace to guard the children of Israel against the possible loss of their blessings because of transgressions. Each statement views the Law from the standpoint of what they turned it into as a result of The Great Disconnect Theory. The Law is not a yoke of bondage, a yoke impossible to bear, an instrument of death, cursing people, resulting in guilt and wrath. These conditions accrue only as the Law is divorced from its original purpose. When it becomes an independent religious system of works and merit, the Law becomes all of the above. When used as an act of grace to maintain the preexisting Abrahamic relationship, it is none of the above. The Law is holy and just and good.

Category Three statements describe the Law by the terms and definitions used in The Great Disconnect Theory. In countering an argument, one must sometimes use an opponent's own terminology and definitions, to refute his position by showing that his terminology and definitions are erroneous. The New Testament writers did just this, meeting head on, and refuting the definitions and terminology employed in The Great Disconnect Theory. Hebrews 8:7 is a case in point.

 In this passage, the advocates of the Great Disconnect Theory failed to link Moses to Abraham. For them, Abraham had receded so far back, and Moses had become so predominate in their thinking that Moses' Law had become the "first" covenant. This "disconnection" between Abraham's promises and Moses' Law was so complete, that the Law was "first" to them, even though it appeared in history four hundred-thirty years after Abraham. They simply failed to see that the Law was added to Abraham's promises to enable the Seed Group to maintain Abraham's EULOGIA. They had set apart Moses' Law as a system of salvation by works, independent of Abraham. Abraham received little prominence, while Moses moved to "first" place in every aspect of their religious life.

Furthermore, those advocates of The Great Disconnect Theory, failed to see Jesus as the "seed of Abraham" or the "end of the law." For them, the appearance of this Jesus who "passed himself off" as the Christ, was a fraud. They viewed both Jesus and his teaching as a farce. They viewed his teaching as a "second," inferior, fake covenant, when compared to Moses' "first," real covenant. Since Moses' "first" covenant was real, it was to them, perfect or "faultless," therefore, there was no need for a "second" covenant. Consequently, their "stock answer" maintained that their “first” (disconnected from Abraham) covenant was "faultless," and therefore they had no reason to seek out a "second" covenant. In other words, "perfection" can't be improved upon. In their eyes, their "first" covenant was "faultless," therefore "perfect" in every way. Why look for a "second" covenant?

The author of Hebrews acknowledges the above as their position in Hebrews 8:7, which states, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." In this passage, he used their terms and definitions. As such, he acknowledged their view that Moses' Law was separated from Abraham's promises, having become “first” to them. He acknowledged their belief that this “first” covenant was "faultless," even though separated from Abraham. He acknowledged their view of Jesus presenting a "second' covenant in opposition to Moses' Law, their "first" covenant, and since this "second" covenant was unnecessary to them, they sought no "place" for it.

In Hebrews 8:7, "faultless" is the translation of AMEMPTOS. This word combines A, the Greek negative, with MEMPTOS, which means defective. The combination then, means "nondefective" or "faultless." Of course, from the perspective of God's real, actual purpose of the Law, it was faultless. Not one thing was wrong with it. Nothing was “defective about it. But, from the perspective of The Great Disconnect Theory (disconnected from Abraham), the Law was totally defective. An act of grace had been turned into an instrument of death. From this perspective (The Great Disconnect Theory) this "first covenant," Moses' Law, was not "faultless," it was fatally flawed.

However, the Jews believed that the Law (their "first" covenant) was "faultless" from their viewpoint. They erroneously believed the Law of Moses was a "perfect" system of salvation and blessing even though they disconnected it from Abraham's promises. Their mistaken theology viewed their mistaken conception of the Law as "faultless." The author of Hebrews meets, head on, their mistaken Notion that Moses’ Law was "faultless" when separated from Abraham's Covenant and used as a system of salvation by works. In other words, having described the Law using their terms and definitions, he absolutely refutes them in Hebrews 8:7, with a Greek device called the "Contrary To Fact Conditional Sentence."

Hebrews 8:7 is a Greek construction called a "Contrary to Fact Condition." When a Greek employed this construction, he placed something in its worst possible light. He says things that are contrary to fact or reality. He says the very opposite of what he perceives the facts to be: hence, the name a "Contrary to Fact Condition."

In the following discussion, we cite five other Scriptures showing conditions that are "Contrary to Fact." These examples will make clear, by illustration, to the reader's mind what the author said in Hebrews 8:7. Then we will give a fuller explanation of this "Contrary to Fact" construction. We cite seven Greek grammarians' explanations of this "Contrary to Fact" device, including five more Scripture illustrations of this same "Contrary to Fact" device. Finally, we apply the device to Hebrews 8:7.

FIVE SCRIPTURE EXAMPLES OF "THE CONTRARY TO FACT" DEVICE

1. In Matthew 23:30, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of saying to themselves that if they had been in the days of their fathers, then they would not have been partakers with their fathers in the blood of the prophets. However, both the condition and the conclusion in this verse are contrary to the facts in their case since they were not in the days of their fathers, and they were still partakers in the blood of the prophets.

2. "Except the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved:..." (Mark 13:20). Both these statements, however, are Contrary to Fact, since the Lord did not shorten the days and some flesh was saved.

3. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me…” (John 5:46). These two statements, both condition and conclusion, are Contrary to Fact. The facts are that they did not believe Moses, and therefore, neither did they believe on me (Jesus).

4. Mary said, "...Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother (Lazarus) had not died" (John 11:32). Again, both the condition and conclusion are Contrary to Fact. The Lord was not there and consequently, Lazarus died.

5. Jesus said to the disciples that "...If ye loved me (with supreme love), ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:..." (John 14:28). Again, both the condition and conclusion are Contrary to Fact. The disciples did not love (AGAPAO) him with a supreme love and therefore they did not rejoice at Jesus' return into heaven.

The reader should be able to grasp this "Contrary to Fact" device by now. This kind of sentence simply contains a condition (the "if" clause) which is contrary to the facts, plus a conclusion (the "then" clause) which states what would logically follow if the condition (the "if" clause) had been true or factual. But, since the condition is Contrary to Fact, the conclusion drawn from the "unfactual" condition will be "unfactual" also. In Greek grammar, the "if" clause (condition) Is called the Protatis and the “then” clause (conclusion) is called the Apodasis. The “it” clause is introduced with EI, a Greek word meaning "if." The conclusion usually contains the Greek word AN. This word is not usually translated into English. It is, however, the Greek's way of signaling us that what is said in the conclusion is not to be taken seriously. In other words, AN is the Greek's device for throwing doubt on a given conclusion. All Greek grammarians concur with the preceding analysis. The following quotes demonstrate this fact:

Summers says, "Second class condition is contrary to fact condition. This is to many one of the most baffling constructions in the English language where it is expressed by the subjunctive mood. In Greek it is expressed by the secondary tenses of the indicative mood. The correct form is EI with the indicative in the protasis and AN with the indicative in the apodasis" (RS p. 109).

Davis says, "It is the condition determined as unfulfilled. The condition is assumed to be contrary to fact...The condition has EI plus a past tense of the indicative, the conclusion has a past tense of the indicative usually with AN" (WHD p. 157).

Machen states that, "Conditions contrary to fact are expressed by the secondary tenses of the indicative in both protasis and apodasis. The protasis is introduced by EI and the apodasis has the particle AN, which, however, is sometimes omitted” (JGM, p. 157).

Voelz affirms that, "A contrary to fact conditional sentence imagines a possibility that is definitely impossible, either in the present or the past...Greek does not use the subjunctive for conditional sentences contrary to fact. They deal neither with the future nor with uncertainty, instead, they deal with the past or present and they contradict fact" (JWV pp.266-267).

Robertson and Davis declare, "Then the 'assumption' is that the condition is untrue...In neither case does the condition deal with the actual facts. In Luke 7:39, "...This fellow, if he were the prophet (which he is not), he would know (as he does not). So the pharisee argues about his guest. He 'assumes' two errors about Jesus, one that he does not know, the other that he is not the prophet he claims to be. He 'assumes' and 'states' as contrary to the fact and so untrue two actual truths for Jesus did know and was the prophet" (RD p.351).

A.T. Robertson says, "In this somewhat difficult condition only past tenses of the indicative occur. The premise is assumed to be contrary to fact...A good illustration is found in Luke 7:39. The Pharisee here assumes that Jesus is not a prophet because he allows the sinful woman to wash his feet. Jesus is therefore bound to be ignorant of her true character. The form of the condition reveals the state of mind of the Pharisee, not the truth about Jesus' nature and powers. As a matter of fact, it is the Pharisee who is ignorant...The statement of unreality here from the standpoint of the speaker or writer, is as clear cut and as positive as that of reality...The term "unreal" as applied to this use of the indicative properly belongs only to the standpoint of the user. To him the case is impossible and he makes a positive statement to that effect with the indicative" (ATR pp.1012- 1013).

Dana and Mantey concur, saying, "The premise is assumed to be contrary to fact in this class, and only the past tenses of the indicative are used. As suggested above, this condition states a thing as if it were untrue or unreal...The protasis is introduced by EI, and AN usually occurs in the apodasis” (DM p. 289).

Next, we briefly cite five more Scripture illustrations showing this construction.

1. Jesus said, "if ye were of the world, (then) the world would love its own:..." (John 15:19). However, the fact is that they are not of the world, therefore, the world does not love them.

2. Paul said, "...if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10). But, the "if" clause is Contrary to Fact since Paul does not go about pleasing men. Consequently, the conclusion is also opposite of that which is stated in this verse since Paul is most definitely a servant of Christ.

3. Paul said, "...If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:..." (Acts 18:14). But, it never hinged upon a wrong or wicked lewdness. Consequently, Paul doesn't have to tolerate them.

4. A good example of a "Contrary to Fact Condition" is Hebrews 8:4, which states, "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,..." Both of these assertions are contrary to the facts because Jesus is not on earth, he is in heaven, and since he is in heaven, he is a priest.

5. Another example is Matthew 11:21. In this passage, Jesus said to Chorazin and Bethsaida, "...for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." These two assertions, however, are factually just the opposite. The mighty works were not done in those cities. Neither did they repent.

In all ten of the preceding verses, illustrating the "Contrary to Fact" device, EI is used in the "if" (condition) clause and AN is used in the "then" (conclusion) clause. This is the regular way the Greeks structure the "Contrary to Fact" device. This is also the way Hebrews 8:7 is structured since it is a classic case of this device.

In addition, the two assertions made in Hebrews 8:7 are factually contrary to reality. From the perspective of their theology, the "first" covenant or Moses' Law was not "faultless." It was fatally flawed since their disconnecting it from Abraham turned it into a "death instrument." Furthermore, a place for the "second" or "new" covenant was indeed sought. Both statements in this verse state the opposite, then, of what the facts are. In other words, by casting their terms and definitions in the Contrary To Fact Device, this author not only declared that reality contradicts their terms and definitions, but also their entire theological theory. For the author of Hebrews, Moses' Law was not disconnected from Abraham's promised EULOGIA. (See Volume I.) Moreover, the author declares that God himself never viewed Moses' Law as defective from he perspective of his original purpose for it. Rather, he found fault with the people who responded to the original purpose of the Law by separating it from Abraham's Covenant and making it a system of salvation by works. He said, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant..." (Hebrews 8:8). Note well that God found fault with "them" and not with his act of grace, the Law, given to maintain an uninterrupted flow of Abraham's EULOGIA.

Category Four statements are those statements about the Law that are true, whether viewed from its original purpose or from the standpoint of the error. One such passage is the declaration in Galatians 2:16, "...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." This statement is true when regarded from the view of its true purpose. God never intended for the Law to be used for justification. He gave it to guard the descendants of Abraham from losing their blessings. However, the statement is also true from the perspective of the error. As a separate system of salvation and blessings, it was never able to perform justification for them. Thus, the statement is true from both perspectives.

The failure to properly categorize the Law statements has been a chief source of problem for the Church. Had the Law statements been properly grouped, the purpose of the Law as a vehicle of grace to maintain the Abrahamic blessings would be recognized, and such statements as "the Law is a ministry of condemnation" and "the Law was a jailer" would never have been made. Since the days of Martin Luther, the Church has had sermons preached from Romans 3:20, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." And, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Then, the commandments are preached, screaming, "thou shalt not." As a result, the world is brought under conviction by "thou shalt nots," since the hearers know they are not perfect (Romans 3:20), and they know that unless they “get right with God," they are in danger of hell (Romans 6:23). Consequently, they have associated the Law with eternal damnation. As a result they do not see the Law as a vehicle of grace. The Church gives Category One meaning to Category Two statements. If the Church would only stop and think, she would group the Law statements in their proper category, and The God-Looked-Down Theory would collapse.

The God-Looked-Down Theory fails to make this necessary distinction of properly categorizing the Law statements. Because of the great number of times (space given to close the doorway to hell) the Law is spoken of from a Category Two perspective, the followers of this theory read the Scriptures which state that the Law is bondage, wrath, guilt, a yoke, etc. They accept these statements as fact, assuming they represent the actual purpose and reason for the Law. They fail to distinguish Category One from Category Two statements, thus confusing their proper meanings. This blurring of the categories adversely affects the theory's interpretations of many Scriptures. As we shall soon see, the blurring of the Categories of Law statements renders The God-Looked-Down Theory so incredible that a forced rethinking of its basis, and therefore, its acceptance is now necessary.

The New Testament battle to close the doorway to hell is so intense that much space is given to it. Because of its overriding importance, the urgency of the message leaps from every page, capturing our attention and forcing our concentration upon it to the exclusion of almost everything else. In addition, since the actual, true scriptural fact that the Law was an act of grace to maintain the blessings has not been kept firmly in mind, the strong language used in the corrective passages cited above has influenced the Church to view the Law as an "actual" doctrine of works from which the world needs to be saved. In other words, the Church views Moses' Law as indeed, disconnected from the Abrahamic Covenant. And when the Church reads, :Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes" (Romans 10:4), they see Jesus as "fulfilling the law" (Matthew 5:17), but they do not see him as the "Seed to whom the promise was made" (Galatians 3:19). And since he fulfilled the Law, as the end of the Law, the Law must have been a system of salvation by works from which man himself needs to be saved, because it is by the Law that man is aware, every day of his life, that he sins.

As we are forced to concentrate so intently upon the Law by the preponderance of space given to it, as we feel the urgency and passion of the New Testament writers as they attempt to close this doorway to hell, and as we fail to properly categorize the language they used, Abraham recedes into the background of Christian thought and the Law as an actual, real system of salvation by works fills our vision. Consequently, Jesus really has become the mediator of a "Brand New Covenant," (separated from the Abrahamic Covenant) who fulfilled the Law, but the Church has lost sight of him as "the Seed" of Abraham to whom "the promise was made." Therefore, the relationship of Abraham to the Church is "nebulous" at best. If the Church sees Abraham related to herself at all, she sees him as a "father-figure" who had a great faith she would do well to copy.

Because of the above three reasons, the Church took a natural, and easy step in viewing herself as "disconnected" from the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, The God-Looked-Down Theory became her basic theology, unrelated at all to the promises of health, prosperity, etc. The interpretations given by The God-Looked- Down Theory, to the vast majority of the New Testament demonstrates that the Church is preoccupied with the Law of Moses to the exclusion of Abraham.

Before considering some New Testament examples of their bizarre interpretations, we need to summarize to this point, the results of the downward spiral taken by the Church, from the lofty heights of the Law as an act of grace, to groveling in the dust with a knee-jerk reaction to the Jewish error of disconnecting the Law from Abraham’s EULOGIA. On page 1268, the New Scofield Reference Bible has a note which perfectly summarizes The God-Looked- Down Theory's confusion over the purpose of the Law and substantiates the statements made in this section. Scofield says, "Before the Law the whole world is guilty, and the Law is therefore of necessity a ministry of condemnation, death, and the divine curse." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 1848, has also given Category One meaning to Category Two statements, confusing the real purpose of the Law with what the Law has become as a result of making it an independent religion of works. They say, "Indeed, so far from blessing coming to sinners by way of the Law, the Law worketh wrath: not wrath in men against the Law's restrictions as some have argued, but the holy wrath of God...."

Finally, since God seems to have given the Law to condemn, to bring wrath, death, guilt, a yoke no one can bear, then it fol

lows that this view will be reflected in every Scripture this theory attempts to interpret. In other words, everything else they interpret in Scripture will be influenced by the mistakes of The God- Looked-Down Theory. Their entire theological system will reflect these errors concerning the purpose of the Law. Everything in their system will reflect this "truth" that the Law is guilt, wrath, a yoke, and death. The next section demonstrates that, indeed, they do interpret other Scriptures in the light of this "truth" as we look at the misunderstanding of "New" in "New Covenant.

Again, the "proof is in the pudding." And this cliché fits what we've said in this chapter like a glove. One question demonstrates this assertion. How many sermons or Sunday school lessons have you, the reader, heard which reflects the law as wrath, guilt, damnation, etc.? We've heard them all our Christian lives. These sermons and lessons all derive from The God-Looked-Down Theory, and are all dead wrong.

 

Copyright 1996 - 2007
Date Last Updated: February 26, 2008
PO Box 59  ¦  Livingston, TX  ¦  77351
936-327-3676
http://jaysnell.org