In a recent Editorial, we stated “that no one has seen God the Father, except in a vision.” When people saw God in the Old Testament, they saw Jesus Christ. We continued:

“When we consider the example of Moses, we find in Exodus 33:11 that ‘the LORD spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend’… in Exodus 33:18, Moses asked to see God’s glory. In verse 20 God or Jesus Christ replied and said: ‘You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.’ In verse 23 we find that God did allow Moses to see His back, but not His face. God stated later that Moses saw the form or similitude of the LORD (Numbers 12:8). In these examples, men and, at times, women, had seen the appearance of God, actually Jesus Christ…”

We state much more about Jesus Christ, being the God of the Old Testament, in our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—A Great Mystery.”

On the other hand, while people never saw God the Father “face to face,” they DID see Him in visions. The Old Testament writers knew about the existence of the Father, and in the New Testament, further visions were given about God the Father to confirm His existence and involvement in our lives. It is interesting to note how the Father is described in these visions.

We read in the book of Daniel about a vision showing both God the Father and Jesus Christ. In Daniel 7, 9-10, we read about what Daniel had seen:

“I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened…”

The description of the Ancient of Days reminds us of the description of Jesus Christ, in His glory, as revealed in Revelation 1:12-16:

“Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.”

But the description of the Ancient of  Days in Daniel 7:9-10 was not that of Jesus Christ, but of God the Father, as we continue to read about Christ who was brought before the Ancient of Days (the Father) in Daniel 7:13-14:

“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.”

The similarities in the glorious appearance of the Father and Jesus Christ are understandable when we realize that Christ is the image of the Father. We read in Hebrews 1:3 that Christ is “the brightness of His [the Father’s] glory and the express image of His [the Father’s] person.” 2 Corinthians 4:4 confirms that Christ “is the image of God.”

At one time, Philip asked Christ to show him and the other disciples the Father, adding,”…and it is sufficient for us.” But Jesus responded with astonishment: “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father, so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (compare John 14:8-9).

We also read this about the glory of Jesus Christ, in Ezekiel 1:4-6,22, 26-28, showing again that Christ is the “image” of God the Father:

“Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings….

“The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads… And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.”

Ezekiel 1 describes the “glory of the LORD,” Jesus Christ, on His throne, which was transported by four living angelic creatures or Cherubim.

Stephen was allowed to see the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision, just prior to his death, as revealed in Acts 7:55-58:

“… But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him…”

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4, Paul explains that he was transferred in a vision to the third heaven where he heard unspeakable words. Even though he does not specifically say that he saw God the Father in that vision, from the context, it appears that he did.

We read in the book of Revelation that John saw God the Father in a vision. We read in Revelation 4:2-11; 5:1:

“Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

“The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!’ Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: ‘You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.’

“And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals…”

This is a description of God the Father, not of Jesus Christ, who, pictured as a Lamb, is being brought before the Father, as we read in verses 6 and 7:

“And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.”

So we note that some have seen God the Father in a vision. We also know that God’s born-again children will see Jesus Christ in His full glory, as He is, when He returns (1 John 3:1-2). We also know that they will see God the Father, when He comes down to the new earth, as we read in Revelation 22:1-4:

“And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.”

This confirms what Christ told His disciples, in Matthew 5:8: “Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.”

But will we have to wait for seeing the Father in His glory until the new heavens and the new earth are created and the Father comes down from heaven to the new earth to dwell here?

First of all, as born-again Spirit members of the God Family, we can see God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, dwelling in and emanating from us wherever He may be. God the Father and Jesus Christ can see everything through their Holy Spirit emanating from them, even though they, as Persons, are at one given “time” in one given “place.”

But will we, as born-again Spirit beings, see and meet God the Father “face to face,” from Person to Person, standing right next to Him and before Him, long before He comes down to the new earth?

We read that when Jesus Christ comes back in all His glory, a marriage supper will be held between Him and His Bride—the spirit-born members of His Church (Revelation 19:7-9). We do not read in the Bible that the marriage supper will take place in heaven; rather, Christ will return to this earth where, apparently, the marriage supper will take place.

We state in our Q&A about where the marriage supper between Christ and His Church will be held  https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-16/ :

“Christ gave a parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22, presupposing that the wedding feast or marriage supper will take place here on earth. We read in verse 11: ‘But when the king [who had arranged the marriage for his son, verse 2] came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.’ In the parable, ‘the king’ represents God the Father, and ‘the son’ represents Jesus Christ. If the marriage supper were to take place in heaven, the guest without a wedding garment could not have been there — neither as a physical being nor as a fallen spirit being. He could not have been a disqualified saint, as there are no physical beings in heaven and as the disqualified saint would not have been changed to spirit. Nor could he have been a ‘fallen’ spirit being, i.e., Satan or a demon, as by that time, Satan and his angels will have no more access to God’s throne in heaven. Revelation 12:8 speaks of a time, before the marriage supper, stating, ‘…nor was a place found for them [Satan and his demons, verse 7] in heaven any longer.’”

Even though the Bible does not say that Christ will return to take us to heaven to celebrate the marriage supper there and then return with us to the earth, the Bible does say that the Father arranges the marriage supper for His Son and comes into the marriage hall to see the guests. The guests do not refer here to born-again Spirit beings, but rather to Old Testament Israel and the religious leadership at Christ’s first coming who had been called to have a physical relationship with God (see “Are you Predestined to be Saved?”, page 53). The Father comes in to see and be seen by the guests… even though, as human beings, they will not be able to see Him in His glory. (The presence of physical guests would also prove that the marriage supper cannot be held in heaven.) We also realize, of course, that Christ is telling a parable, and the analogies only go so far.

But what can be gleaned from this parable is that the Father presents Himself to those at the wedding, including His servants (verse 13), to see them and be seen by them. If this is true for the “guests,” how much more so for His immortal sons and daughters—born-again Spirit beings in His Family? They would of course see Him at the wedding supper as He is—in His glory. This would be one passage strongly implying that we will see the Father in His full glory, face to face and from “Person to Person,” already at the time of the wedding supper.

Is there also any biblical indication that we will ascend to the third heaven and meet with the Father face to face there, from Person to Person, before new heavens and a new earth are created? The short answer is that the Bible does not tell us. What we do know is that we will not be in the third heaven to rule from there over the earth, but we will rule with and under Christ on the earth (Revelation 5:10). God promises us that we will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). We are the spiritual descendants of and co-heirs with Abraham who received the promise to be the heir of the world (Romans 4:13). We also read in Psalm 115:16: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S; But the earth He has given to the children of men.”

These passages do not prove, of course, that we could not ascend to the third heaven to “visit” the Father in person, face to face. After all, we read, for example, that God’s angels in heaven always see the face of the Father (Matthew 18:10). And we will be so much more and greater than angels.

On the other hand, nothing is revealed in the Bible that we will ascend to the third heaven, where God’s throne is; and the question as to why we might not do so is therefore moot. As we saw above, God the Father may visit us on earth, and we have pointed out that as born-again Spirit members of the God Family, we can see God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, dwelling in and emanating from us, at any “time” and wherever He may be.

IF the Bible indicates an answer to the question as to whether we will ascend to the third heaven before new heavens will be created, we might turn to John 3:13, which is translated in the Authorized Version (AV) as follows:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

The words, “which is in heaven” are not found in many old manuscripts or, if they are genuine, they would have been John’s addition who would have commented on Jesus being in heaven at the time of John’s writing (Christ would not have said that He was in heaven when He spoke the words, as He was at that time here on earth and not in heaven.) But even the remainder of the statement is odd, as worded in the AV: “…no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven.” At the time of Christ’s statement, He had not ascended up to heaven.

For this reason, the rendition in the old Luther Bible of 1891, republished in 1964, seems to make more sense, stating: “No one ascends up to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man.” With that rendering, it is clear that Jesus, after His resurrection, would ascend to heaven, but it could also follow that no one else would. If this conclusion is correct, then it might perhaps indicate that even we, after our resurrection, would still not ascend up to the third heaven. We could speculate as to whether this would indeed be so, and why that might be the case, but since the Bible does not give us any answers to these questions at this point, we will leave it there.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The question seems to make reference to an event described in Genesis 9. In verses 18-27, we read:

 (18) Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan.

(19) These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

(20) And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.

(21) Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.

(22) And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.

(23) But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

(24) So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.

(25) Then he said: “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren.”

(26) And he said: “Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant.

(27) May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant.”

A superficial reading of this passage might indeed lead to the conclusion that Noah cursed Canaan for his father Ham’s conduct. Indeed, many commentaries state this, with somewhat incredibly ridiculous arguments.

One explanation is that God foresaw Canaan’s or the Canaanites’ wicked conduct in the future, and He therefore cursed Canaan already in advance, even though Canaan had not acted wickedly towards Noah. It should be obvious that this explanation could not possibly be true. God is not condemning us for something which we have not even done yet.

Another concept is that the children have to pay for the sins of their fathers; that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation (compare Exodus 20:5; 34:6-7; Deuteronomy 5:8-10; Numbers 14:18).

However, Exodus 20:5 speaks of those “who hate [God].” Soncino points out that the phrase, “of those that hate Me,” applies to the children, i.e. God will punish the children if they [the children] hate Him. Soncino comments, too, that the punishment will be brought upon the children, “when they retain the evil deeds of their fathers.” It is true, of course, that false conduct of parents can have a detrimental influence on their children who may emulate their example and repeat such bad conduct.

Still, Deuteronomy 24:16 states that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their fathers (but only for their own sins). The same is expressed in 2 Kings 14:6 and 2 Chronicles 25:4. Also, Ezekiel 18:4, 17, 19-20 tells us, “(4) Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son are Mine; The soul who sins shall die… (17) [The righteous son] shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live… (19) Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of his father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. (20) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.’” (Compare, too, Exodus 32:31-33, as well as Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Passages such as Matthew 23:29-36; Luke 11:44-51; or Acts 7:51-52 do not teach something different. Even though all these passages speak about the sins of the fathers or previous generations, it is also emphasized that the sons or descendants committed the same sins themselves, following their forefathers’ bad example. The sins of the fathers were not imputed to the sons; rather, we read: “… as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). At first glance, it might appear that the terrible sins of the fathers might be “imputed” to their descendants who were alive at Jesus’ time, because Jesus said: “… you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets” (Matthew 23:31). But the very next verse negates this, because Jesus goes on to say: “FILL UP, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.” And even though He says in Luke 11:50-51 that the blood of the prophets “shall be required of this generation,” He condemns that very generation for their terrible deeds and actions, showing that they were sinful themselves, having followed the unrighteous deeds of their ancestors.

The opposite does not follow from Lamentations 5:7, which reads: “Our fathers sinned and are no more, But we bear their iniquities.” The entire book of Lamentations shows the recognition of personal sin (Lamentations 1:5, 18; 3:39-42). So, people bear the iniquity of their fathers because they have engaged in the same kind of conduct and thinking… not because the sins of their fathers were “imputed” to them.

This means, then, that Canaan could not have been cursed by God for the sin of his father Ham. Before we analyze what really happened causing Noah to curse Canaan, let us consider another, somewhat related concept—that of original or inherited sin. This concept was developed by Augustine, based on a wrong translation of the Greek text in Romans 5. The Broadman Bible Commentary points out, in Vol. 10, on page 195: “Augustine, who knew very little Greek, followed the Latin translation… and, on the basis of this mistranslation, developed his doctrine of original sin, understood as inherited guilt, and the result was a lurid picture of unbaptized infants in limbo. It is significant that even Roman Catholic scholars, plagued most by this disaster, are now saying bluntly the doctrine is not in Scripture.”

Simply put, the concept of the original sin holds that we all “inherited” guilt from Adam and Eve who “originally” sinned. According to that concept, we inherited eternal death–which is the penalty for sin (compare Romans 6:23)–even though we ourselves did nothing to deserve this penalty. In other words, Adam and Eve’s original sin was somehow arbitrarily transmitted to all. The argument would be that Canaan inherited “original sin,” leading to death, and God’s additional curse only emphasized and reiterated that “fact” that Canaan was guilty of sin and subject to punishment anyhow.

This concept is blatantly wrong and unbiblical.

Romans 5 does not teach the concept of inherited sin and inherited punishment. Romans 5:12 reads, in its entirety: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death [the penalty for sin] spread to all men, BECAUSE ALL SINNED…” In addition, Romans 3:23 tells us that “ALL have sinned [not just Adam] and fall short of the glory of God.”

For more information on the topic of original sin, please read our Q&As, “Would you please explain the concept of ‘original sin’ in light of Romans 5:12,19?” and, “Are Babies Guilty Because of ‘Original Sin’?”

Original sin, then, could not have been the reason why Noah cursed Canaan. Why then DID Noah curse Canaan?

First, it would be strange if Noah only cursed Canaan for a sin committed by Ham, while not cursing Ham, the perpetrator. Obviously, something is wrong with this concept.

The context of the passage shows, of course, that more was involved than the mere “nakedness” of Noah. Apparently, somebody had violated Noah, while he was drunk. But who did? We read that Noah awoke and knew what “his younger son” had done to him. This is not a reference to Noah’s son Ham, but to Ham’s son Canaan. A correct rendering of Genesis 9:24 states: “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his YOUNGEST son had done unto him.” Compare, for example, the New International Version; the Revised Standard Version; the Revised English Bible; the New American Bible; the New Jerusalem Bible; the Moffat translation; the Amplified Bible; the Tanakh—the Holy Scriptures; the Luther Bible; the Elberfelder Bible; the Menge Bible; the Schlachter Bible; and the Zuercher Bible.

But Ham was not Noah’s youngest son—Japheth was—while Canaan was the youngest son of Ham (Genesis 10:6). So it was Ham’s youngest son, Canaan, who committed the sin towards Noah. The narrative in Genesis 9 concentrates on Ham and Ham’s son Canaan (verses 18, 22), and Noah cursed Canaan when he learned what he, as Ham’s youngest son, had done to him. Verse 24 does not speak of Noah’s youngest son, but Ham’s youngest son, when it says, “ Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his [that is, Ham’s] youngest son had done to him” (RSV).

Soncino gives several “interpretations” on page 47, one of which is that “Ham saw the indignity which his son Canaan inflicted upon” Noah; and that Canaan either “castrated” Noah or that he “indulged a perverted lust upon him.” Further, that Ham saw on his uncovered father the terrible signs of Canaan’s evil deed or perverted lust, and Shem and Japheth covered Noah with a garment.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states:

“Ham had at this time four sons, and Canaan was the youngest of them; and he was grown up to an age sufficient to be concerned in this matter, of treating his grandfather in an ill way, so as to bring his curse upon him.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary states:

“… it doth not appear that [Ham] was the youngest, for wheresoever these three brethren are mentioned he is always put in the middle place, and because that addition (in verse 18, “And Ham was the father of Canaan”) seems to be unnecessary and impertinent to the present business, which if Canaan be intended, is proper and pertinent, by way of distinction, to show that [Noah] spake of his grandson, or his son’s son.”

Ellicott’s Commentary gives an additional explanation as to why Canaan, and not Ham, was the violator of Noah:

“This can only mean [Ham’s] youngest son. So it is applied to Benjamin in Genesis 42:34; Genesis 43:29, and to David in 1 Samuel 16:11, where the words literally are, there re-maineth yet the little one. Now Ham was not the youngest son, but Japheth; and it is not Ham who is cursed, but Canaan… As the son, the little one, was not Ham, so certainly it was not Japheth, but probably it was Canaan. He was the youngest son of Ham, and in Hebrew ‘son’ is occasionally used for grandson (Genesis 29:5; Genesis 31:55), and so he might be described as Noah’s youngest son, being the youngest member of his family.

“… the meaning seems to be, ‘Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what (Canaan) his youngest son (or grandson) had done unto him; and it was a deed so shameless that he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan.’”

So it was Canaan, not Ham, who perpetrated that sinful act. The reference to “his youngest son” applies to Ham’s youngest son Canaan, not to Ham who was not Noah’s youngest son.

When reading seemingly difficult passages, it is important to study the passage in context and in light of other Scriptures. It is not that uncommon throughout the biblical narrative, that subjects, objects or pronouns might be referring to another person other than what might be suspected at the first reading of a particular passage.

An additional example is Exodus 4:24-26, which refers to Moses, his wife and his son, and which reads:

“And it came to pass on the way [to Egypt], at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ [literally: his] feet, and said, ‘Surely you are a husband of blood to me!’ So He let him go. Then she said, ‘You are a husband of blood!’–because of the circumcision.”

Who was the person whom God met and sought to kill, and whom God then let go? Some say that God was determined to kill Moses. But this incident occurred after God had prophesied to Moses how Pharaoh would react to his demand to let the people of Israel go (verses 21-23). It would therefore make little sense to assume that God had changed his mind a few hours later to kill Moses. The context of the passage in Exodus 4:24-26 shows that God did not intend to kill Moses [whom He was sending to Egypt to free the Israelites], but one of Moses’ two sons, who had not been circumcised. At the time of Moses, there was in effect a temporary law that God had given to Abraham, to circumcise every male child (Genesis 17:9-13). God specifically stated that “the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people” (verse 14).

It is apparent that Moses and Zipporah had neglected to circumcise one of their sons, even though both knew better. God, true to His Word, was about to “cut off” or kill the uncircumcised son, due to Moses’ and Zipporah’s disobedience. Zipporah might have influenced Moses not to circumcise their son; so she immediately acted in obedience to God’s command, whereupon God ceased from attempting to kill the son. The point is, we read in Exodus 4:24 that “the LORD met him and sought to kill him,” and it says in verse 26 that “He let him go,” but the reference is not to Moses, but to Moses’ firstborn son, as in the previous verses (verses 22-23) the “firstborn son” was the subject matter.

Compare our Q&A, “Why did God want to slay Moses after He had commanded him to free Israel from Egypt?”

For another example, let’s consider Exodus 34:27-28 (Authorized Version):

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

The question is, Who wrote the words of the covenant on the tablets of stone? A superficial reading might suggest that it was Moses. But a study of other Scriptures reveals that it was God, not Moses.

After Moses had destroyed the first tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments, because of his anger over the sin of the Israelites who had built a golden calf, God had Moses cut two new tablets of stone (Exodus 34:1). But God also said, in the same verse: “… I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.” The fact that it was God–not Moses–who wrote the Ten Commandments a second time on the tablets of stone, is confirmed in Deuteronomy 10:4: “And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the LORD had spoken to you.. and the LORD gave them to me.” Moses did not write the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone–God did that.

Again, when we read in Exodus 34:28 that “he” wrote the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone, the reference is to God, not Moses, even though it was just said in the same verse that “he”—Moses—did not eat bread or drink water for forty days and forty nights.

Another example in this context can be seen in David’s decision to number his army. The Bible includes two accounts of this episode. One account has been recorded in 2 Samuel 24. We read in verse 1, in the Authorized Version: “And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, `Go, number Israel and Judah.’”

In the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1, we are told that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved [or provoked] David to number Israel.”

Since the Bible does not contradict itself, we must read both passages together, to harmonize the accounts. Therefore, it was actually Satan who directly influenced David to number his army, but God allowed it, as He was angry with Israel. In addition, God would not have provoked or moved David to sin, as God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). So, the passage in 2 Samuel 24:1, in reading it together with 1 Chronicles 21:1, can also be read and understood in this way: “… the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he [that is, Satan] moved David against them…”

Another misunderstood Scripture is Revelation 20:10, which reads in the Authorized Version:

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

A superficial reading, especially in many of the modern translations, might indeed lead us to conclude the existence of a never-ending torture of the beast (a military leader) and the false prophet (a religious leader) in hell. However, analyzing the Scripture carefully, a different conclusion is warranted.

Please note that the subject of the sentence is the devil. It is he who will be tormented in the lake of fire. In regard to the beast and the false prophet, note that the word, “are” is in italics, in the AV. This means that there is no verb in the Greek language, so that the translators had to ADD a verb—they ADDED the English word “are,” based on how they understood the meaning of the sentence. However, the addition of the word “are” is clearly WRONG in this context.

We read, in Revelation 19:20, that the beast and the false prophet were cast—about 1,000 years earlier, when the Millennium was about to begin—into the lake of fire, to be burned up and destroyed. Since there needs to be an addition of a word or phrase in Revelation 20:10 (“where the beast and the false prophet…”), the words to be added should be, “were cast,” so that the sentence reads: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet WERE CAST [namely, 1,000 years earlier, as reported in Revelation 19:20]…”

Most translations continue this sentence by saying: “…and THEY shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” From this rendition, commentators argue that not only the devil, but also the beast and the false prophet will be tormented for all eternity; otherwise, the sentence would have to continue to read: “…and HE (that is, the devil) shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

Not all agree. As we saw, the Authorized Version OMITS the word, “they,” and renders the continuation of the sentence: “… and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever,” indicating that the subject is the devil, and not the beast and the false prophet.

Some insist, however, that the clause “THEY shall be tormented” is correct. If so, then we must ask the question as to whom this passage refers.

When we understand for WHOM the lake of fire was prepared, the answer would be obvious. We read in Matthew 25:41 that the lake of fire was “prepared for the devil and his angels.”

 Therefore, it will be the devil and his demons who will be tormented in the lake of fire, for as long as that lake exists. Since spirit beings cannot die (compare Luke 20:36), they will be tormented—in a spiritual way—while being confined to the lake of fire, when they come to the realization that they are unable to deceive man anymore, and when they see all their “works” and evil “accomplishments” replaced by the good and prosperous ways of God. (For more information, please read chapter 23 of our booklet, “Is That in the Bible? The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation!” )

We see then that, from the context and in reviewing other Scriptures adding to Revelation 20:10, the devil was cast into the lake of fire (where, as a forerunner of the ultimate lake of fire, the beast and the false prophet had been cast 1,000 years earlier), and they—the devil and his demons—will be tormented forever and ever, showing thereby, that also the demons will be cast into the lake of fire, since the lake of fire had been prepared for the devil and his fallen angels.

In conclusion, it is important to read “difficult” Scriptures in context and in conjunction with the rest of the Bible. A correct understanding reveals that Noah did not curse Canaan for an evil deed perpetrated by Noah’s son Ham, but for an evil deed committed by Ham’s youngest son, Canaan. Also, God did not try to kill Moses, but Moses’ son, who was not circumcised. It was not Moses, but God, who wrote the Ten Commandments twice on two tablets of stone. It was not God, but Satan, who moved or tempted David to sin; and it will be the devil and his angels who will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented there for a long time.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link