Samuel Sandmel wrote this about man and the Bible: "There are more people who have a Bible than those who read it. There are more people who read it than those who understand it. And there are more people who understand it than those who follow it." This author is pointing out three different problem areas in relation to man and his salvation. In this message, I want to focus on the second of these; that is, understanding the nature of the Bible.

All of us have been taught to regard highly God’s written word, and rightfully so. It has significance and power precisely because it is God’s word. The prophets of old would begin their oracles by saying, "Thus saith the Lord." Religious differences exist in large measure due to the various approaches to the Bible. How one begins his Bible study will directly affect the conclusions one draws from his study. Religious people even within the same church may have vastly different views of Scripture. We think about the Bible in different ways.

We have also been taught about the significance of the Bible, the Church, and the Lord (including the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). In fact, these three play an important part in our salvation. Their roles often overlap in the redemption of mankind. But they also perform a special, separate function as well. Some of the major mistakes in biblical interpretation confuse the roles of the church, the Bible and the Savior. In some religions, their message is church-centered to the neglect of the Bible and Jesus. In others, their message is Bible-centered to the neglect of the church and Jesus. Our message must be Christ-centered, giving proper respect to the role of Scripture and the Church. But Jesus is pre-eminent above all, so says Paul. (Col. 1:18.)

Someone might ask, But how do we know how to regard Scripture, the Church and Jesus? That is a good question. We learn how to properly view these within Scripture itself. For example, Paul wrote to Corinth, "For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2.) The heart of the Gospel is the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:1-4.) Paul wrote that if he were going to glory or boast, it would be in the cross of Jesus Christ by whom he was crucified unto the world and the world unto him. (Gal. 6:14.) Other passages likewise will be reviewed as we seek an understanding of our redemption and the proper perspective of the role of Scripture.

As we will see, it is possible to view the role of Scripture too highly as well as too lowly. Likewise, the same could be said of the church and Jesus. Some also speak so much of the church that they say little about the Kingdom or the King. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath! (Mark 2:28.) The Pharisees were trying to put Jesus under the power of the law of the Sabbath. Jesus is the head of the Church. He is author and finisher of our faith. He is the King of kings. Everything has been made subject unto him. Jesus is not subject to the church; the church must be in subjection to him. (Eph. 5:24.)

I have a wonderful poem titled "The Bible Man." Since we considering how we should regard the Bible, listen to the words of the poem with that in mind.

He stands behind the sacred desk

A book held in his hand

And as he speaks his brethren know

He is a Bible man

Upon the Scriptures, right and true

He ever takes his stand

To make the Gospel clear and plain

He is a Bible man

He loves the grand old Book divine

He loves to preach the plan

He loves the lost its message saves

He is a Bible man

Let skeptics doubt and heathen rage

And build their hopes on sand

He loves and lives and teaches God’s book

He is a Bible man

When worlds shall end and stars shall fall

And at the throne we stand

How sweet to hear the King’s command

Come home---you Bible man

By Carl H. Bates

This poem brings up the question of emphasis and interpretation of Scripture again. Should we be a Bible-centered man, a church-centered man, or a Christian (a Christ-centered man)? Jesus is the Head of the church and the Savior named in Scripture. Therefore, Jesus is greater than the church and the Bible. The word, better, is the key word describing Jesus in the book of Hebrews. The poem repeatedly mentions the Bible. I have heard young men pray in the worship assemblies that they are thankful that they could come and worship thy word. I wondered where they got such an idea. Maybe they just were not concentrating very well, but what a mistaken notion. We must worship God and Him only! (Rev. 19:10.) It is bibliolatry to place the Bible too highly in our thinking, and especially to attempt to worship the word.

It is difficult to say all that needs to be said in describing the Bible. But we could summarize by saying that it is: 1) an ancient book, 2) a collection of books, 3) a Greek and Hebrew (also Aramaic) book, 4) a religious book, 5) a Christian book, 6) a decision-making book, 7) a book that reveals truth, absolute truth, from God.

One of the most common mistakes students of the Scriptures make is to take a statement out of its original context. The may seem to make perfect sense the way we are using it, but it may not be what the author intended. We must always seek for the author’s intent, if not we will be misusing what he wrote.

Preachers have often told audiences the following story. They said that there was a man trying to understand the Bible for the first time. He just opened the Bible and began to read the first passages that he saw. The passage this man found was: "Judas went and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5.) He did not like the sound of that, so he turned to another passage. It read: "Go and do thou likewise." (Luke 10:37.) This shocked him, so he turned to another passage. It said, "What thou doest, do quickly!" (John 13:27.) Obviously, context is very important. It is an easy thing to take individual passages, chapters, books, and even covenants out of context.

Here are some examples of taking passages out of context.

1. "Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8.) This belongs to the first covenant and is not found in the new covenant. This is a mistake to take things that belong to the Law of Moses and try to apply it to Christians today. The command of the tithe is another example that belongs to the Jewish covenant.
2. "Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life." (Rev. 2:10b.) This passage in Revelation means that Christians should remain faithful even in the face of death. It does not mean until you die, though that is a true statement. Later in the book, John wrote that they overcame the red dragon by the blood of the Lamb, by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death." (12:11.) That’s the meaning of Revelation 2:10.
3. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20.) The context is not worship, but rather how to settle a dispute between two Christians. Note the passages 18:15-20. Instead of justifying a husband and wife for staying home to worship because of a dispute, this passage tells how to solve the conflict so that they might gather together with the whole church. The two or three under consideration are not worshippers, but rather they are witnesses.
4. "The fruit of the righteous is the tree of life and he that winneth souls is wise." (Prov. 11:30.) A good question to ask is, How does this statement about winning souls fit in with the Jewish covenant. The Jews were not commanded to go and proselyte Gentiles. That statement is not a parallel statement to the Great Commission of the New Testament. What does it mean? The context of the verse is wisdom and how to save yourself and others from temporal and eternal destruction. "Souls" would be better understood in this context as human beings, like eight souls were saved by water. If the young and old to whom Solomon was writing would seek wisdom in their lives, they would save themselves and others from ruin.

Often in search for commands, we take passages that may rightfully serve as good examples and make out of them commandments. A good example is Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. He said that they should lay aside their gifts on the first day of the week so that there would be no gatherings when he came. (1 Cor. 16:1-2.) We do not expect Paul to come by Hopewell and pick up our gifts. They gave their gifts on the first day of the week due to convenience; they were already meeting on that day to worship God.

We should also note that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus were written by Paul to young preachers. Some of the things said to them do not apply to every Christian. He wrote to these ministers about how they should conduct themselves so that they would be good ministers of the word. (1 Tim. 4:6.) They had spiritual gifts. (1 Tim. 4:14.) Titus was told to set things in order in the church at Crete. (1:5.) Both were told to give attention to their studies so that their profiting might appear to all. They were given specific instructions about the appointment of elders in the churches. These ministers had a significant role in that process. Many of these things do not apply directly to us. There are always good applications that can be made. A good process is to first ask, What do these words mean when originally written. The ask, What do they mean in application to us today?

There are so many other examples of taking passages out of context. We all have been guilty of doing this. Some entire chapters taken out of context are Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, 1 Cor. 12-14, and Mark 16:16-20. Whole letters like Revelation have been abused. We abuse the whole new covenant when we approach it as if it is another law like the Law of Moses.

There are some who do not regard the Bible on any higher level than Webster’s Dictionary or The Britannica Encyclopedia or some writing by Shakespeare. They see it as a production of human beings. Some even speak of Shakespeare as being "inspired." This is an abuse of the word, inspired. Yet the Scriptures claim that they came into being as holy men were guided by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 2:13.) The Bible affirms that both man and God were involved in the writing of Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided man; God breathed it forth. Eyewit-nesses and ear witnesses gave their testimony of what they saw and heard.

Our President Thomas Jefferson did not believe in any divine element in Scripture. That is the admitted and well-known view of Deists. Deism is a natural religion based upon human reason; it does not accept the view of divine revelation. George Washington and many of the founding fathers of the United States were Deists. Jefferson cut up different versions and languages of the Bible and made his own that was void of miracles and divine inspiration. His production during the last decade of his life is called The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. What a sight to imagine our third President sitting in his study at Monticello cutting the Bible into pieces, accepting some things and rejecting others.

Earlier in the seventeenth century in England, Hobbes, a Deist, wrote an introduction to the Old Testament in which supernaturalism was denounced. Spinoza and Wellhausen continued to promote the liberal view of Scripture. Historically, we must understand how the word, liberal, was used. It does not refer to one who eats in a fellowship hall or has multiple cups in the communion. It does not refer to a Christian woman who wears earrings and cuts her hair. Rather, a liberal was one who did not agree with the divine authorship of Scripture, the reality of miracles, the Virgin birth of our Lord, the resurrection, etc.

It is easy to see how such a view of Scripture would affect one’s conclusions concerning religious questions. No one could appeal to the Scriptures as God’s final word given the liberal view. No one could say as the prophets of old, Thus saith the Lord. I once referred to what Paul said concerning a subject that another person and I was discussing. She asked, Who is Paul? She meant, What does it matter what he said? She obviously did not see Paul as an inspired apostle and one who wrote by divine inspiration. But you and I do. Therefore, our conclusions on religious questions are going to be vastly different.

A third major mistake in biblical interpretation is an appeal to the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. There was, of course, a time in the first century when holy apostles and prophets were guided directly by the Spirit. They wrote and preached as they were guided by God. During this time the New Covenant had not been completed. Their messages to the churches were being written one by one. To claim today that one obtains one’s messages directly from God by the Spirit makes the Bible of little value. There is a special problem when a conflict arises between what Scripture says and what someone claims that the Spirit revealed.

A woman once wrote the following to John MacArthur after hearing him denounce personal revelations of the Spirit to individuals today. She wrote, "You resort to Greek translations and fancy words to explain away what the Holy Spirit is doing in the church today. Let me give you a piece of advice that might just save you from the wrath of Almighty God: Put away your Bible and your books and stop studying. Ask the Holy Ghost to come upon you and give you the gift of tongues. You have no right to question something you have never experienced." (Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur, Jr., 25.)

A charismatic minister once said, "I don’t need that book anymore. I am beyond that." Then he threw the Bible on the floor. "I have the Holy Ghost. I am a prophet. God sends my instructions direct." (The Gift of Prophecy, Kenneth Hagin ministries, 1969, 24.)

Another who disregards a central role for Scripture wrote, "God has given us no means by which the conversion of sinners or the general revival of religion can be affected, irrespective of the direct agency of the Spirit. The Gospel will not do it." (From a sermon titled, "The Baptist Pulpit," by J. W. Hayhurst.)

Charismatics often refer to the Bible as a dead letter. It is not difficult to see how such subjective claims and blatant disregard for Scripture would lead one far away from revealed truth. Once the Bible is viewed as a dead letter, then its message will not be heeded. Its truths will be rejected and replaced by what they suppose the Holy Spirit has revealed to them personally and directly. This is a major blunder in Biblical interpretation.

Some of the Jews under the Law believed that traditions accumulated over the years were just as authoritative as the Law and prophets. In fact, they collected those traditions and taught them as part of the duty of all Israelites. This same blunder has continued by some believers under the New Testament. The Catholic Church believes in an ongoing revelation of the Spirit through the leaders of the Church. Therefore, you might find some things believed or done today very different, even opposite, of what was done in the first century. When asked about these conflicts, their reply is that traditions change as time goes by and new decisions have been made. These decisions are not about the basic issues of the Gospel---the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, etc., but about other very important matters nonetheless.

If church leaders have the right to change some things that are found in Scripture, then the Bible is secondary in importance to the approved traditions of the church. Some examples of these changes are: conducting of mass in other languages beside Latin, allowing black priests, accepting the title of Father as a religious position, etc. This view seriously affects one’s view of the Bible. Does the church have a teaching office with the authority to approve or disapprove what is taught? Does this office have the power to change things found in Scripture? What issues are important and central to the Gospel, and which are just matters of customs and traditions? Western Christians certainly have many customs that differ from the early Church. Do we have significant religious traditions, whether written or unwritten, that conflict with those of Scripture? These are important questions.

Another difficulty facing us is the long-standing discussion over what should be considered literal and what is metaphorical in the Bible. The Alexanderian School (300 AD) trained its students in the allegorical method of biblical interpretation. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, his student, were fierce representatives of this school. They believed that "all Scripture must be understood allegorically." This method had been used for years by students of Plato who sought to harmonize philosophy and religion by using allegories. They believed that the literal method of interpretation produced only an elementary faith, but the allegorical produces a much deeper faith. They saw hidden meanings behind every bush! Nothing was what it first appeared to be. Fantastic interpretations came out of this school. Once a student was trained in this school, he could find things that no one else could. There was more in the story of the Good Samaritan than you could imagine. (Luke 10.) Even the donkey stood for something spiritual and important! The oil and wine represent the Holy Spirit. The inn stood for the church.

It is true, of course, that there are many symbolic, parabolic, meta-phorical, allegorical and spiritual things in the Bible. In fact, we could say that all of our language about God and His Kingdom and heaven must necessarily be appropriated language that humans use to talk about heavenly things. Listen to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus:

"If I have told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12.)

Parables were used by Jesus to teach about divine things. Jesus used earthly stories and laid them alongside the spiritual so that we could grasp the truths about the spiritual kingdom. But the allegorical school of interpretation went far beyond this thought.

We should not think that it takes some special inspiration to understand the Bible. The same rules for interpreting the Bible are used in every day language and circumstances. Paul wrote, "Whereby, when you read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:4.)

You and I have been trained rigorously in the literal school of inter-pretation. That is the reason why we have such a difficult time with books like Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and others. If they cannot be interpreted literally, we do not want to read them. Language in Scripture is the same as our everyday language, with the exception of apocalyptic. It contains all the variety of language tools. It contains both literal and symbolic language. It uses hyperbole, symbols, exaggeration, similes, metaphors, etc. The Bible should not be approached with the thought that all of the language is one way or the other. The context itself will reveal what the speaker has in mind.

Jesus said that he was the Good Shepherd and the door of the sheep. (John 10:7, 11.) Jesus did not tend to sheep literally or physically. He was not that kind of shepherd; he was a carpenter. He is not a physical door. Therefore, the language must be interpreted spiritually or symbolically. Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." "(Luke 9:60.) Obviously, literally dead people cannot bury dead people. Here is an example of where the same word is used twice in a passage and it means two different things. The first, dead, means spiritually dead; the second means physically dead.

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Scripture should not be understood literally. There is no tree that we know about that can give life or knowledge. Spiritual life is found in the Son. This is appropriated or symbolic language. Another example is: "This is my body; this is my blood of the New Testament." (Matt. 26:26-28.) We rightfully understand this to mean, This represents my body and blood. "The cup" does not mean a literal cup, but rather the contents and what it represents. What useless wrangling over the number of cups in the communion!

How do we know what is symbolic or literal? The context will reveal how it should be understood. Seek the understanding of the author, just as we do when we speak to one another.

Jesus pointed out another major mistake in understanding the role of Scripture.

He said to the Pharisees: "(You) search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify of me. But you will not come to me that you might have life." (John 5:39-40.)

But listen to John, "This is the record that God hath given to us eternal life and this life in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:11-12.)

Spiritual and eternal life is found in Jesus the Savior. The Jews rejected Jesus thinking that they could have eternal life in Scripture without Him. Since life comes from life, we should not think that life could come from a book. The Book, the Bible, can tell you where it is found, but it alone cannot give life. The Book, in fact, tells us that life is found in Jesus Christ.

Another closely related mistake is to take the authority that belongs to Jesus and transfer that authority to Scripture. It is not uncommon to hear speakers say that all authority was given to Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18) and then say that he has placed that authority in the Bible since it is His word to us today. It is true that the Bible has authority over us because of whose word it is. But the authority, like eternal life, belongs to Jesus and Him alone.

Think about all the ways in which the King of kings can act today with full authority. These things are not accomplished by the word, but by the Lord. He can act in raising up a king and putting down kingdoms. He can act in judgement against a nation or city or individuals. He has divine prerogatives as Judge. He acts in answering prayers and providing for his people and saving the lost. Jesus said, "My Father works until now and I work." (John 5:17.)

It is a grave mistake to place all divine authority and spiritual life in the Bible by transferring it from Jesus to the Scriptures. This is the ultimate in a word only doctrine in salvation and sanctification. It removes the need for the Holy Spirit and the Savior beyond what they have already done. This doctrine of word only is the basis for legalism. You have crossed a deep chasm when you accept this view of Scripture. It is one of the major reasons for the divisions in the church today.

It is true that we have "the perfect law of liberty." (James 1:25.) We are not without law to God; we are under the law of Christ. (1 Cor. 9:21.) By bearing one another’s burdens, we fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2.) Yet, we make a grievous mistake if we think of the Gospel of Christ as another law in the likeness of the Law of Moses.

Why is it that we know what law is under discussion when the New Testament repeatedly just says "the law." That means that there is just one and we know the one the writers are talking about. There has been only one law in Scripture; the only one that will ever exist. It is the Law of Moses. If there were two laws in Scripture, the writers could not speak of "the law." The Old Testament is often referred to as the law; the New Testament is described by faith. (Gal. 3:24-25.) The law brought us to Christ, but after that faith came.

In other passages, the New Covenant is described by the words, grace and truth. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17.) According to this passage, there is a noted difference between the Law of Moses and the Gospel. But if we say, "Moses had a law and Christ has a law," then we are not making the distinction that we should between them.

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace?" (Rom. 6:15.) Sounds like Paul was arguing that we are not under the law, but under something else. In chapter seven, he compared our relationship to God as a woman to her husband. He said that as a husband must die before the wife can marry another, so believers must be dead to the law before they can be married to Christ. Paul speaks of this in a positive light as if it is good for the woman that the first husband died. This is because the law made known our sins and weaknesses. By the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20.) But the new husband does not just point out our sins, but he does something about them. He frees us from the law of sin and death. (Rom. 8:2.) In Romans 10, Paul points out the difference between the effort to obtain righteousness by the deeds of the law and by faith.

No one could ever be justified under a law system. (Gal. 2:16.) It is a colossal mistake to envision the Gospel as another law by which man struggles to justify himself. To do so is to frustrate the grace of God and to make vain the death of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 2:21.) Paul said that to preach that is to preach another gospel which is not another. (Gal. 1:6-9.)

In Romans 10, Paul makes a sharp distinction between the righteousness which comes by law and that which comes by faith. (verses 5-8.) The first is based upon doing all the things in the law; the second is based upon faith in the accomplished work of the Lord.

When Biblical conflicts arise and differences over interpretations are debated, invariably some will seek to bypass this confusion by turning toward religious piety as their point of emphasis. Recently, a minister said to me that he thought the real need in the church is a return to personal piety. Of course, there is always a need for integrity in our lives and as much as lies within us to live according the righteousness of faith. The Restoration Movement should not be just an effort to restore what we teach, but also how we live.

But we must be careful here. If we turn away from the challenges of Biblical interpretation and turn to a single emphasis upon piety, we might conclude that it does not matter so much what we believe but how we live. It does not matter whether Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week, but whether Jesus lives in your heart. It does not matter what you teach about the Lord’s Supper and when you commune, but the condition of your heart. Basically, piety rejects the rigorous and often divisiveness in biblical studies for something less divisive. However, it is not that simple.

Piety has the danger of rejecting the righteousness which comes by faith that is attributed to the believer and in its place putting one’s own righteousness for one’s salvation. That is exacting what happened in the Pietist Movement led by the Wesley brothers and the Methodists. Personal piety made unnecessary the doctrine of imputed righteousness. If we can reach perfection by our efforts (John Wesley so taught and believed the doctrine of perfection), then we do not need the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is a major mistake in biblical interpretation.

Most believers in the Lord and Bible students accept the completeness of the Bible as it is with 66 books and two testaments. But one religious body believes that there is another testament in addition to these two. The subtitle on the book is "Another Testament of Jesus." (The Book of Mormon.) This is a serious matter. Is there another part of the Bible that most of us do not read or accept? Is it possible that God has given another testament in addition to the first and second covenants? The Mormons call themselves "The Latter Day Saints" because they think that God has given latter day revelations to Joseph Smith.

There is a very simply way to dispose of this confusing disagreement. If there is another testament, it should be in harmony with the unfolding revelations of God already given. If it is not in harmony, then the ones we have are not true or the new one is a false claim. The new covenant says this,

"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator lives. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood." (Heb. 9:16-18.)

The first testament was dedicated by the blood of animals, which was a shadow of the real dedication by the blood of Jesus for the New Testament. But what blood sanctified and dedicated this "other testament of Jesus"? Is it the blood of Joseph Smith? Whose blood dedicated the third testament? If there is another such dedication by someone’s blood, then the blood of Jesus is declared insufficient for our salvation.

Secondly, what priesthood serves under the third testament? A covenant is always given under some priesthood. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek and not be called after the order of Aaron. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Heb. 7:14.) A priesthood and a covenant work together. You cannot have one without the other. If we need another priesthood and covenant beyond what we presently have, then it means that the blood of Jesus and his priesthood based after Melchizedek was not sufficient or perfect for our salvation.

Thirdly, Paul proclaimed to the Galatians, "But though we or an angel (Mormons believe that an angel reveals things to Joseph Smith) from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8.) The New Testament, unlike the Old, does not point to another testament to follow this one. In fact, it denounces any such claim that another is needed.

Other religious bodies (Jews and Muslims) make the fatal mistake of beginning with Abraham, but rejecting the Christ to whom the promises made to Abraham point. The Bible’s scheme of redemption begins with three promises made to Abraham and end with them being fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We are all familiar with those promises. (Genesis 12, Gal. 3, Acts 2, Acts 3, etc.) The repeated theme of New Testament preaching was to show by the prophets that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the very promised of God made to the fathers.

It is a major mistake in biblical studies to deny this promise-fulfillment from Abraham to Christ. Two world religions do just that. They are the Jews who stop after the Old Testament and do not accept a Messiah. Their prophets and Scripture point to one, but they do not have one after thousands of years. They, in fact, have denied that they need anyone beyond the Law of Moses for their salvation. Jesus pointed out this error in his day. (John 5:39-40.) The Muslims argue that the promises made to Abraham point to Muhammad instead of Jesus of Nazareth.

Following the points in the sermons of New Testament preachers, we could ask the following questions. 1) Was Muhammad from the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? No, they do not follow the lineage of Isaac and Jacob. They take off on another trail from Abraham through the child of bondage. 2) Was Muhammad born in Bethlehem of Judae? No. 3) Did Muhammad make his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death? (Isa. 53:9.) No. 4) Was he born of a virgin? 5) Was he the Son of David? 6) Was Muhammad from the tribe of Judah? 7) Was he pure in his life so that his blood can atone for our sins? Hardly, he was a very sinful man who had many wives, one of whom was a child under age. 8) Did he become the head of God’s Kingdom established during the days of the Roman Empire, according to Daniel 2 and 7? No, Muhammad was born after the fall of Rome, in the sixth century AD.

Muhammad was at the wrong time and wrong place to be the one to whom the Old Testament pointed. So was King Salasie of Africa. He is not the Christ, notwithstanding the claims of the Rastafarians. Only Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph, fulfills the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament.