Once Saved Always Saved? Part 2 of 2

(Continued)

Now, concerning Heb 6:4-8, there are different interpretations. The main ones include:

1. Those in Heb 6:4-8 are Christians who have fallen away and lost their salvation;
2. They are Jews who have tried Christianity but returned to Judaism;
3. This passage talks about the loss of rewards for backsliders but not the loss of salvation;
4. This is a hypothetical case to warn Christians about the dangers of apostasy, but it did not happen.

I will discuss each briefly and then tell my position:

Saved and then lost. This assumes that Christians are preserved by their perseverance. If they endure, they are saved. If they don’t, they will be lost. But according to:

• 1 Pet 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Christians are protected by God’s power, not the strength of their perseverance. So, this interpretation is not valid.

Jews who are not yet Christians. According to this view, these are seekers who tasted the goodness of the gospel but never embraced it and returned to the law when they faced trials. Let’s check what they have experienced to see if they are believers:

Enlightened. To give light, to shine, light up, or illumine. The same Greek verb phōtizō occurs one more time in Heb 10:32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings.

So, the group in Heb 6 enjoyed the same enlightenment as the Christians in Heb 10.

Tasted of the heavenly gift (v 4), tasted the good word of God (v 5), tasted the powers of the age to come (v 5). Tasted translates the Greek verb geuomai, which means to try the flavor of, partake of, or enjoy. Heavenly gift is not further defined. Some suggest it to be the free “gift of God” (Rom 6:23) or eternal life. Others believe the gift is grace (Eph 2:8). Some interpret “the word of God” as the Scriptures or the gospel. Some equate “the powers of the age to come” to be “signs and wonders and various miracles” (Heb 2:4). This school contends that since the Heb 6 group only “tasted” the benefits of belief but did not swallow them, they were only seekers but not yet believers. However, besides Heb 6:4 and 5, tasted also occurs in Heb 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Jesus did not just “taste” death partially. He died the most cruel death invented by men, for men! Hence, the premise that “tasted” falls short of full participation is not substantiated.

Partakers of the Holy Spirit. Greek adjective metochos. Sharing in, or a partner in a work or office. Some interpret this to be sharing or having fellowship with the Holy Spirit. Again, this word’s other usage in Heb indicates otherwise:

• Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle, and High Priest of our confession;
• Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
• Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

If a person shares in the heavenly calling, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s discipline, having a part with all three Persons of the Trinity, he is an insider, not an outsider! Heb 6:4 is particularly relevant because of Rom 8:9b, “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

My conclusion based on the evidence is that these are not just Jews but Christians.

Lose rewards but not salvation. Proponents claim that the writer of Hebrews is not talking about losing salvation in chapter 6, only the rewards of salvation. What does the text say? We have already examined what these people experienced in v 4-5 to be part of the salvation process. What about v 6? Fallen away translates the Greek verb parapiptō, which means to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander, to error. It occurs only once in the NT in Heb 6:6. What is the outcome of this falling away from true faith? It is impossible to renew them again to repentance. They have repented before. If they fall away, they cannot renew their repentance again. Repentance from what? The word repentance is the Greek noun metanoia, translated uniformly as repentance in the KJV, a change of mind or reversal of decision. Of particular interest is its occurrence in Hebrews besides v 6:

• Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
• Heb 12:17 For you know that even afterward when he (Esau) desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

Both were genuine repentance, not false. I conclude that Heb 6:6 is about the consequence of falling away from faith in God, not just rewards not even specified in the entire paragraph.

Hypothetical for warning. This school contends that this verse presents a hypothetical case based on KJV (NKJV, RSV):

• Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

They believe the “if” in “if they shall fall away” is a matter of possibility, but had not happened. Opponents point out that the premise does not stand, as there is no “if” in Greek. The phrase is a participle and can be translated as “having fallen away” (see Interlinear). Another objection is, “If this were hypothetical, why bother warning someone against something that can’t happen?”

Nevertheless, there is some merit in this interpretation given:

• Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

My view is that of the four common interpretations, the first three have serious difficulties. I am not fully satisfied with the fourth, but the problems are less serious than the others. My interpretation principles are to start with exegesis instead of imposing a theological system to explain an idea, and to use clear passages to clarify more obscure verses.

On balance, I believe the “once saved, always saved” view to be valid, as this article tried to demonstrate.

Once Saved Always Saved? Part 1 of 2

Q. Heb 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

Can you explain “Once Saved, Always Saved”? Can a truly born-again Christian walk away from God and lose his position as God’s child?

I will answer the primary question before addressing Heb 6:4-8. The primary issue is whether our salvation ultimately depends on God’s promise or on us. My position is it depends on God, not our ability to hang on. Let us review two passages of what God promised:

• John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
• Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The conclusion is no enemy is greater than God to snatch us out of the Lord’s and the Father’s hands. Nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. The natural question is, “OK, no one is greater than God, but can’t we walk away from God ourselves?”

My response depends on whether that person is really a born-again Christian. If he is a genuine Christian, then God will discipline a wayward child to bring him back:

• Heb 12:5  and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; 6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.” 7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

However, if he is a counterfeit Christian, then his walking away from God is a case of:

• 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

They are Christians in name only, but their lack of perseverance shows that they do not have saving faith and were not truly born-again.

Books have been written by both proponents and opponents of eternal security to support their position. Space does not allow me to address their arguments in this short article, but the above sums up my view.

(To be continued)

Fruit

Fruit-bearing

Q. In John 15, what does Jesus mean by “fruit”? Can it mean making disciples?

A. The word “fruit” occurs 10 times in 7 verses in John’s writings:

• John 4:36 Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
• John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
• John 15:2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
• John 15:4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
• John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
• John 15:8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
• John 15:16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

Many commentators relate fruit qualitatively as the “fruit of the Spirit” in Gal 5:22-23. This is certainly true in the sense that a disciple cannot bear the Spirit’s fruit unless he abides in Christ. However, I believe we can also interpret fruit quantitatively as “making disciples,” for two reasons:

1. The word “fruit” itself implies reproduction, in the sense of “fruitful and multiply,” which occurs 11 times in the Bible (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; Lev 26:9; Jer 23:3; Ezk 36:11).
2. As John used the word in his gospel, he used it quantitatively (much fruit in Jn 12:24, 15:5, 8; more fruit in Jn 15:2).

No one can make disciples unless he/she abides in Christ, and the Father is glorified when we reproduce many disciples.

So my conclusion is that the Lord meant fruit in both a qualitative and quantitative sense, as in Christian character and making disciples.

Imminence Part 2

Q. I find it illogical reasoning. Pre-tribulation believers say that the word Church is not mentioned after Revelations chapter 3, which means the Church won’t be on earth (raptured out). Jesus was giving messages to the churches, so naturally, the word church was no longer mentioned subsequently. But what about the words “the saints” and “God’s people”?

Pre-tribulation supporters say the rapture is secret. How could it be secret when suddenly millions or billions of people disappear and accidents everywhere (driverless cars), missing family members, and children orphaned?

They say Rev. 3:10 means to take out of (raptured), but the original text means to protect. If Rev. 3:10 means raptured out, then no need for verses 11 and 12 as they won’t be on earth!

The problem may arise from a mindset that prioritizes ease and comfort. When someone with that mentality reads a verse such as:

1 Thes 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come,

the interpretation would focus on being delivered from trouble altogether.

However, historically, that had not been God’s way. For example, He kept Noah’s family safe through the Flood. He did not whisk them away before the Flood came. When God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, He delivered them through the Red Sea. God did not “rapture” them to safety. Throughout Israel’s history, He kept the nation as He promised the patriarchs but allowed them to suffer the consequences of their sins so that they would learn to follow Him. The same is true throughout church history. Why would He change His method to favor the last generation of Christians when most people’s love has grown cold (Mt 24:12)? So they won’t face trouble and learn? Hardly!

To justify their assertion, pre-tribulation proponents use circumstantial “evidence.” For instance,

• Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

They claimed that “keep you from the hour of testing” means “keep you from the time of trouble,” i.e., take or rapture you away to avoid that period altogether. You pointed out that the New Living Translation is:

• NLT Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world.

But what is God’s method of protection? Remember the Ten Plagues?

• Ex 9:6 So the Lord did this thing on the next day, and all the livestock of Egypt died; but of the livestock of the sons of Israel, not one died.
• Ex 9:26 Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were, there was no hail.
• Ex 10:23 They did not see one another, nor did anyone rise from his place for three days, but all the sons of Israel had light in their dwellings.
• Ex 12:23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.

God’s way has always been to protect through the time of testing, not avoiding it. So, the argument based on the wording “hour” or “time” is not supported by actual examples.

What about the absence of the word “church” after Rev 3? Does that mean the Church has been raptured and is no longer on earth? Some even suggest that Rev 4:1’s “come up here” refers to the rapture:

• Rev 4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.”

This misinterprets Scripture as the phrase applies strictly to John, not the Church.

The above is an example of an “argument from silence,” a weak form of evidence. Borrowing from forensic investigations, direct physical, written, or verbal evidence is needed to “prove” a case. Circumstantial evidence can support an argument but is insufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Your observations of “the saints” and “God’s people” are direct evidence in referencing the Church. But of course, pre-tribulation supporters claim that these apply only to the Jews or Christians saved after the rapture. If the mind is closed, you can find all kinds of excuses to justify yourself, which is sad!

Imminence

Q. People who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture claim that the Bible says the rapture will happen at any time, and we won’t know when. So, this is possible only if the rapture is pre-tribulation. If the rapture is post-tribulation, we would know it is after the 7-year tribulation. What is your view?

A. First, let us start with what the Bible says about rapture, imminent, and imminence, not what people say. While the concept of rapture or translation of Christians to meet the Lord is well-known, the word “rapture” itself does not appear in most English translations in use today. [It appeared once in DBY (Darby Translation, Songs 2:3) and four times in BBE (Bible in Basic English, Ps 28:7, 45:15, 51:8, and Prov 5:19). However, in these cases it is used in the sense of being rapturous, ecstatic, or extreme excitement. This is NOT “a seizing by violence; a hurrying along; rapidity with violence,” which is Webster’s definition and what most Christians understand rapture to mean.]

The adjective “imminent” appeared once in the NASB (New American Standard Bible), AMP (Amplified Bible), and LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) – 2 Pet 1:14, and three times in the NET (New English Translation) – Ps 27:3, Prov 10:14, and Hos 9:7. The noun “imminence” does not appear in contemporary English versions at all. The Greek word for imminent in 2 Pet 1:14 is transliterated tachinos, which means “swift, quick” of events soon to come or impending. Tachinos appeared twice in the Greek NT:

• 2 Pet 1:14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
• 2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

In 2 Pet 1:14, Peter was talking about his impending death, while in 2 Pet 2:1, he was referring to punishment that will quickly fall upon the false prophets and teachers. In neither case was he referring to the rapture of the Church.

So, what do pre-tribulation proponents base their claim that “the rapture is imminent” on? They based it on deductions from their interpretation of certain verses, not on direct biblical statements.

Second, let’s review the two primary passages that describe the rapture:

• 1 Thes 4:16-17 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
• 1 Co 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Note the following:

• The rapture – the resurrection of the dead in Christ followed by those alive being caught up together to meet the Lord – will happen when the Lord descends from heaven. It will be a public event with loud sounds, not a secret rapture. Even pre-tribulation supporters agree that the Lord’s return will be after the tribulation and not before it.
• It will take place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet of God. That is, it will happen very quickly. The text did not say at any moment or imminent, as pre-tribulation proponents claimed.

Then where does the idea of imminence come from? Let me quote a few verses cited by the pre-tribulation school to support their argument:

• Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
• Mt 24: 42, 44 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. For this reason, you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
• Mt 25:13 13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
• See also the parallel passage Mk 13:32-37

Their reasoning is since no one knows, not even the Son, the only conclusion is that it could happen at any moment or at any time. If something else needed to happen before the rapture, for example, the great tribulation, then that would be a sign, and we would know. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But is that the only solution?

When the day or the hour of an event is not known, at any moment is one possible solution. Another possibility is that it is in the future, for which timing is indefinite, with or without signs. For example, when a child is born, the day or the hour of his (or her) death is unknown. Under normal circumstances, the current life expectancy for Canada in 2024 is 83 years. If he (she) has a fatal disease (with signs) or an accident (without signs), the life span would be cut short. The death may be imminent, but not necessarily. The timing of the death is unknown but need not be imminent. Similarly, the rapture’s timing is unknown but need not be imminent. This is simply logic.

Third, any Bible passage’s interpretation must be consistent with the context. What does the context of the quoted passages say?

• The immediate context of Mt 24:36 is the parable of the Fig Tree (Mt 24:32-41), which follows Christ’s glorious return in v 29-30, “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” It refers to Christ’s Second Coming after the tribulation, not a pre-tribulation rapture.
• Mt 24:42’s context follows the parable of the Fig Tree, with the Lord warning His disciples to be ready for His coming. The subject has not changed. It is still after the tribulation.
• Mt 25:13’s context is the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13). In Mt 25, the Lord taught two parables, the Ten Virgins followed by the parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30), before describing the Final Judgment (Mt 25:31-46). The entire chapter teaches about Judgment after the tribulation. It is not talking about a pre-tribulation rapture.

You can search other verses cited by pre-tribulation proponents to see whether they support their premise. But my bottom line is: how can we legitimately apply Bible passages describing post-tribulation events to justify a pre-tribulation and imminent rapture? We can’t! Period.

Fourth, one well-known author explained “imminence” as follows:

• Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before an event can happen, then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency.

Unfortunately, his definition is what destroys their understanding of imminency.

Let me cite two examples in which the biblical characters involved did not expect an imminent rapture would derail what they thought would happen:

• Jn 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!” The Lord was prophesying how Peter would die. Remember, according to pre-tribulation supporters, He did not know the day and hour of the rapture. Did He assume an imminent rapture, which could occur before Peter’s death, to nullify His prophecy? I don’t think so.
• What about Paul? Was he an advocate of an imminent rapture by which God would deliver him out of his trials and tribulations? No. When he bid farewell to the Ephesian elders, he said in Acts 20:22-23, 25 And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. Paul did not know what would happen to him except that imprisonment and persecution awaited him in Jerusalem. He will not see the elders from Ephesus again. He also knew he would testify in Rome because the Lord told him. Acts 23:11 But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.”  This must occur before the rapture because the Lord said so, which destroys imminency according to the pre-tribulation school’s definition.

I can continue to provide a rebuttal for other points raised, but this is a short article, and I have written enough to show you my train of thought. If there are issues you want me to address, please specify them, and I would be glad to discuss them when I have time.

Why 40 days?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Moses on Mt. Sinai
* Elijah on Mt. Horeb
* Jesus in the wilderness

Q. Why fast 40 days? How did the ancients know that 40 days was the threshold? And if they didn’t, why would God ask for 40? Why and how was it relevant at the time it was done, and why the number was repeated throughout Scripture? Did God like this number? Why 40?

A. First of all, in none of the 3 cases did God asked for 40 days. It was a narrative. The Bible simply recorded what they did. It wasn’t a didactic passage, so there was no explanation of why 40, and not any other number.

Why did Moses, Elijah and Jesus zeroed in 40 days? I can only give you my guess, because the Bible was silent as to why:
* Moses went up Mt Sinai 40 days and 40 nights to receive not just the 10 commandments, but the entire law code, including sacrificial system, labor law, personal injuries, protection of property, social responsibility, justice and mercy, Sabbath laws, annual festivals, instructions for the construction of the tabernacle, etc. It just took that long, which was also a testing time for the Israelites to see what would they naturally do.
* Elijah went from Beersheba (1 Kg 19:3) to Horeb (1 Kg 19:8), another name for Mt Sinai, a distance of about 250 miles (400 km). If he walked 10 km a day over the rugged desert terrain, that would take 40 days for a man in his weakened condition.
* Jesus was tempted 40 days in the desert by the devil. This time I think it was intentional. Just as Israel explored Canaan for 40 days but failed, Jesus put Himself to the same test but under much severe conditions and won, demonstrating that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Why did God like 40? I don’t know. He didn’t say why in the Bible. All I know is that by deduction, 40 is a number that represents testing. I’m not interested in the speculations of mystic religions that propose wild ideas. To me, such have no biblical basis and I have no interest to pursue further.

The Mathematics of Fasting

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Fasting 101
* Fasting – A Spiritual Discipline
* Fasting – Mt. 6:16-18

Q. I am unsure whether to accept the 40 days fasting as literal. Does the number 40 carry some cultural significance for the Jews at that time? Is there any scientific basis for our physiological limits of surviving 40 days without food? What about 40 days in the desert where conditions are extreme and likely more taxing on the human body?

A. As far as I know, 40 days wasn’t a cultural custom with the Jews, but it was for Egyptians:
* Gen 50:3 taking a full forty days, for that was the time required for embalming. And the Egyptians mourned for him (Joseph) seventy days.
But these 40 days have nothing to do with fasting; it’s about preparation for the afterlife.

With respect to our physiological limits, I first heard about this from a naturopathic doctor. He said depending on gender, height, weight, age, and level of activity, the average person would need between 2100 to 2500 calories per day (average 2300) to maintain their weight. Human fat is valued at 3500 calories per pound. So each pound of fat consumed would fuel about 1.5 days of normal activity. People can be classified all the way from obese, overweight, normal, underweight, to starvation. Assuming they are healthy to begin with, people can go from overweight (which many are) to underweight without harming themselves. Again a lot of averaging comes into play, but a person of average height and build can lose 25 lbs. (say from 170 lbs. down to 145 lbs.) without harm. That’s a fast of 25 X 3500 / 2300 = 38 days (range 35 – 42 days). My friend just used 40 days as a round number, because there are so many factors.

As for extreme conditions, all 3 cases in Scripture had supernatural involvement:
* Ex 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant–the Ten Commandments. If God didn’t preserve him, no one can survive 40 days without water.
* 1 Kings 19:8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God. Elijah walked 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness on 1 meal. That’s strenuous, not taking it easy.
* Mk 1:13 and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. Angels attended Jesus in the desert.

My conclusion is that these are extreme, not normal, circumstances, sustained with divine enablement.

(To be continued)