Synthesis based on all discipline dossiers of Dr. Stephen E. Jones. All quotations are drawn from the primary works.
Primary sources: Creation’s Jubilee · The Restoration of All Things · Secrets of Time · The Laws of the Second Coming · The Biblical Meaning of Numbers
Abbreviations used in this article: CJ = Creation’s Jubilee (5th ed. 2000); ROAT = The Restoration of All Things (God’s Kingdom Ministries); ST = Secrets of Time (God’s Kingdom Ministries, 1996); LoSC = The Laws of the Second Coming (God’s Kingdom Ministries); BMN = The Biblical Meaning of Numbers (God’s Kingdom Ministries, 2008).
Introduction: Jones and His Theological Position
Dr. Stephen E. Jones is an American Bible teacher affiliated with God’s Kingdom Ministries. His work Creation’s Jubilee (5th ed. 2000) is dedicated to “those who are called by the ministry of reconciliation, as Ambassadors of Christ, to tell the world the good news of the Restoration of All Things” [CJ, dedication]. That dedication summarizes his theological programme: Jones writes not as a systematician defending a doctrine but as a herald of a restoration theology set against the Western church tradition.
His central thesis is the apokatastasis panton --- the Restoration of All Things (Acts 3:21) --- as the eschatological goal of God’s sovereign plan. Jones does not ground this thesis in sentimental optimism but in a rigorous exegesis of divine law, the typological structure of the Bible, and the logic of God’s justice. Precisely here lies the importance of his self-positioning: Jones describes his own view as restorationism and explicitly distances himself from classical universalism, which denies judgment. In his second work The Restoration of All Things [ROAT] he works out this distinction systematically and grounds universal salvation not in God’s benevolence but in the juridical logic of biblical law.
Jones consciously positions himself in the line of the Alexandrian fathers Clement and Origen, and appeals to Gregory of Nyssa as his principal early-church ally. His third work Secrets of Time [ST] extends this foundation into a biblical chronology and numerology: the time cycles of the law are not merely juridical instruments but also historical and prophetic measures that make God’s sovereign governance of world history visible.
His fourth work The Laws of the Second Coming [LoSC] adds a decisive structuring axis: feast-day theology as the key to both the first and the second coming of Christ. The spring feasts (Passover, Firstfruits, Pentecost) were fulfilled at the first coming; the autumn feasts (Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles) await their fulfillment at the second coming. This schema carries a new insight: Christ has not one work but two works. The first work is a death-work (Passover): justification through blood atonement. The second work is a living work (Tabernacles): the actual removal of sin and the granting of inherent immortality. The endpoint of this second work is the Manchild (Rev. 12) --- a corporate body of sons fully formed into the image of Christ.
His fifth work The Biblical Meaning of Numbers [BMN] completes this edifice by systematically unlocking the numerical architecture of Scripture. Where ST introduced jubilee cycles and time numbers as exegetical instruments, BMN provides a comprehensive reference for all biblically significant numbers from 1 to 40, underpinned by the method of the nth name occurrence and the Hebrew letter-as-number system. That Hebrew letters serve simultaneously as numbers, words, and theological concepts is not a mere curiosity for Jones but a structural feature of inspired language: the divine Author encoded prophetic precision into the linguistic medium itself. BMN’s systematic charting of this structure extends and deepens what ST began, making biblical numerology a canonical rather than merely heuristic discipline.
His theology is structurally held together by two principles: the Hebrew hermeneutical method and the law of Jubilee as the most fundamental law of creation. Both principles run through all 13 theological disciplines addressed in this article.1
I. Prolegomena --- Hermeneutics as Foundation
Jones’ theology begins with a methodological diagnosis: the early Christian church made, in its first centuries, a fatal shift from the Hebrew to the Greek-allegorical method of interpretation. For Jones this is not an academic observation but the root cause of virtually all Western theological errors he identifies throughout his work. The Greek approach made the historical rootedness of biblical narratives unnecessary. The Hebrew approach saw historical reality as the very vehicle of prophetic meaning: history established patterns that would be repeated and fulfilled in the future.
“I think we need to abandon the Greek need to portray everything allegorically, and we need to go back to the thoughts, words, and intent of the Hebrew prophets, as interpreted by the writers of the New Testament, who were all Hebrew except for Luke.” [CJ, ch. 1]
This is a sweeping prolegomenical choice. Whoever accepts the Hebrew method reads the feasts of Israel not as superseded ceremonies but as prophetic structure: fulfilled in Christ at the personal level (Passover: justification by the blood of the Lamb), fulfilled in the church as community of believers at the ecclesiastical level (Pentecost: reception of the Spirit in the collective), and to be fulfilled across all creation at the cosmic level (Tabernacles: outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh and Restoration of All Things) [CJ, ch. 6]. The methodological choice determines the eschatology before the first eschatological argument is made.
In ROAT Jones refines this with a multi-witness principle as a formal hermeneutical method: three independent canonical testimonies confirming the same symbolic structure --- the four living creatures in Num. 2, Ezek. 1:10, and Rev. 4:7 --- constitute sufficient evidence for a theological conclusion [ROAT, ch. 8].
ST deepens the prolegomenical thesis by framing the sovereignty of God itself as the hermeneutical principle: “The overall purpose of this book is to portray the Sovereignty of God in history. If that goal is reached, you should conclude the reading of this book by saying, ‘What a great God we have!‘” [ST, Preface]. Jones further ties theological knowledge to personal transformation: the aim is to “instill within your heart a burning desire to know God more, to be more fully conformed to His Image and Likeness” [ST, Preface]. Knowledge of God is for Jones always formative, never merely intellectual.
LoSC adds two new elements to this hermeneutical foundation. The first is the overlaying method --- laying typological sequences on top of one another:
“Although the law seems to treat these two problems separately, they should be studied as being overlaid upon each other. Hence, we should study both Lev. 14 and Lev. 16 to get a complete picture of Christ’s two works.” [LoSC, ch. 10]
The second is hermeneutical blindness as a structurally epistemological problem in church history: “The end-time church is generally as blind to the prophecies of His second coming as was the people of Judah to His first coming --- because they do not understand the meaning of the Biblical feast days.” [LoSC, ch. 1]. The normative model for correct hermeneutics is Jesus himself: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). Jones also formulates a principled distinction as a hermeneutical criterion: “One must always make a clear distinction between the traditions of men and the law.” [LoSC, ch. 10]. Hermeneutical blindness is for Jones not merely a lack of knowledge but a spiritual epistemological blockage.
The hermeneutical ground choice has direct consequences for how Jones handles the biblical text --- and thus for his bibliology.
II. Bibliology --- The Text-Critical Pillar of Restoration Theology
Jones’ bibliology is at its core one extended argument: the doctrine of eternal punishment rests on an identifiable translation error. The Greek aionian --- the adjectival form of aion (age) --- means “belonging to an age,” not “eternal.” The decisive step was taken by Augustine, who had no knowledge of Greek:
“So Augustine, reading the New Testament in Latin, adopted the word aeternus as ‘endless time’, rather than an indefinite time period. His influence essentially established this definition as the standard meaning of aeternus --- and as the centuries passed, this meaning began to be seen as the equivalent of the Greek word aionian.” [ROAT, ch. 3]
Jones’ conclusion is that no translation is normative and that the original (Hebrew/Greek) is the sole standard for the interpretation of Scripture.
ST adds a second layer to this bibliology: numeric patterns as interpretive tool. Jones cites Prov. 25:2 as a hermeneutical mandate: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; but the honor of kings to search out a matter.” [ST, ch. 2]. Pragmatically, Jones selects the Hebrew text over the Greek LXX: “All I know is that the Hebrew works for me, while the Greek does not.” [ST, ch. 2]. External historical validation --- the solar eclipse of June 15, 763 B.C. --- anchors biblical chronology in objective astronomical data [ST, ch. 2].
LoSC enriches the bibliology with a new principle: the law of Lev. 23 carries not only substantive but also chronological authority. The feast days specify not only what will happen but also when:
“Jesus fulfilled the law in every detail --- not only by WHAT He did, but also by WHEN He did it.” [LoSC, ch. 1]
This dual fulfillment principle has far-reaching bibliological implications. Jones draws from it a principled conclusion: “Jesus could not have died on any other day than Abib 14, for this was the appointed time set by the prophetic law of the Passover.” [LoSC, ch. 1]. The Mosaic feast calendar is thereby not merely ceremonial law that has been superseded in Christ, but a permanently operative prophetic schema that even governs the second coming.
BMN deepens the bibliological foundation with a third layer: the numerical structure of the Hebrew language as a canonical exegetical tool. Jones establishes as a foundational axiom: “The Hebrew language uses their letters as numbers, and the letters are also words and concepts that can be used either literally or symbolically.” [BMN, ch. 1]. This has far-reaching hermeneutical implications. Each Hebrew letter carries a numerical value (Aleph = 1, Beth = 2, Gimel = 3, and so on through Tav = 400), making every Hebrew word simultaneously a sentence, a concept, and a number. Alongside gematria, Jones introduces the nth name occurrence method as a systematic exegetical tool: the canonical position of a name within a genealogical or narrative sequence carries prophetic meaning. Noah is the 8th name in Gen. 5 --- and the number 8 signifies new beginning; Isaac is the 22nd name in the genealogical line --- and the number 22 signifies Sonship. This is not an isolated hermeneutical observation but a principled claim: the biblical Author wove the structure of the text itself into the prophetic message. BMN thus establishes that the sequential order of canonical text is not accidental but intentionally encoded --- an insight that further expands the bibliological principle that Scripture fulfils not only what but also when and where.
The bibliological foundation has direct consequences for the character Jones ascribes to God.
III. Theology Proper --- Corrective Judgment as Divine Character
Jones’ vision of God turns on one central thesis: God’s justice is fundamentally corrective in nature, not retributive. A retributive God punishes for the sake of retribution itself; a corrective God punishes for the sake of a goal: the restoration of just order and the return of the sinner to his appointed destiny.
“The ‘fire’ is the divine law. It is not torture or punishment; it is justice. God’s judgments are corrective in nature. With God there is no endless punishment without grace. Judgment always ends in grace, for this is the law of Jubilee.” [CJ, ch. 3]
In ROAT Jones deepens this along the kinsman-redeemer principle (go’el): God is owner of creation by right of creation [ROAT, ch. 7], and the right of the nearest kinsman has absolute priority under biblical law.
ST adds a decisive theological distinction: the difference between God’s will and God’s plan is solely a matter of time. “It was the Will of God that it happen; but it was not in His Plan. God’s Will must always be fulfilled, but God’s Plan almost always delays the fulfillment of His Will for a time. The only essential difference between God’s Will and God’s Plan is Time.” [ST, ch. 4]. The juridical metaphor carries this further: “God is much too wise to lose a case in His own court!” [ST, ch. 4].
LoSC deepens the doctrine of God on two points. The first is the distinction between imputative and constitutive righteousness as two phases of God’s redemptive work:
“Though we are unrighteous in ourselves, God has provided through His first work at the Cross to cover our unrighteousness by His blood, so that God could legally call us righteous. However, there is a second work yet to come, whereby Christ is sent into the world to take away sin from us, making us truly righteous.” [LoSC, ch. 10]
God’s righteousness ultimately demands not the appearance but the reality of holiness --- this explains why God’s plan of salvation requires two works and could not end at one. The second point is the teaching of God’s face as God’s presence: “Peniel means ‘God’s face’ or ‘God’s presence.’ Jacob’s encounter indicates that this was prophetically Jacob’s decision day, to see if he truly wanted to see God face to face.” [LoSC, ch. 9]. God’s presence is a transforming encounter that brings the entire being --- body, soul, and spirit --- under His dominion. Yet the endpoint of God’s judicial action is never destruction but reconciliation: “God’s ultimate purpose is not to curse or destroy, but to reconcile the world unto Himself.” [ST, ch. 4]. The vision of God has immediate implications for how Jones describes the operation of the Trinity in salvation history.
IV. Trinitarianism --- Three Ages as Salvation-Historical Structure
Jones does not treat the Trinity as a separate speculative doctrine but as a salvation-historical structure. The three Israelite harvest feasts (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) correspond to three stages of God’s action in creation, and those stages are trinitarianly charged.
The Father acts in the Passover Age as lawgiver and judge. The Son inaugurates the age of reconciliation. The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost --- but only as a pledge, a down payment on his fullness:
“Even Paul confessed THREE TIMES that this was just a PLEDGE of the Spirit, a down payment of something better yet to come. He looked forward to a Tabernacles Age, in which the FULLNESS of the Spirit would be poured out.” [CJ]
This trinitarian schema positions the Spirit as eschatological climax: fully present only when creation is fully restored. Jones connects this to the termination of the Son’s reign: Jesus will reign only until every being is subjected under His feet, after which He delivers the Kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24) [CJ].
Conspicuously absent from Jones’ sources is a treatment of the immanent Trinity --- the threefold unity as an eternal relationship within the divine being prior to creation. Jones writes as a Bible teacher who describes the salvation-historical function of the three divine persons, not as a speculative theologian who works through their mutual relation ontologically. The salvation-historical structure also has implications for how Jones positions spiritual beings.
V. Angelology --- Sovereignty over Evil
Jones’ angelology is narrow and entirely determined by his doctrine of sovereignty. Jones defends God’s sovereignty over Satan: regardless of his precise nature or origin, Satan was created by God and remains under God [CJ]. His reading of Ezek. 28 is noteworthy: the figure traditionally identified as Satan is, for Jones, Adam --- consistent with his rejection of dualism as a foundational theological error.
Crucial is Jones’ distinction regarding Satan’s ultimate fate: Satan will be reconciled --- Col. 1:20 speaks of “all things” --- but not justified or saved in the sense applicable to believers [CJ, ch. 12]. Reconciliation here means that Satan too is ultimately stripped of his rebellion and brought back under God’s dominion, without his accountability for that rebellion being erased. Creation itself is the framework within which the scope of God’s restoration plan is worked out.
VI. Creation --- Theodicy and Legal Liability
Jones’ doctrine of creation is at its core a theodicy: one who digs a pit and leaves it open is liable for damage suffered by others.
“God dug the first pit, for He created an opportunity for Adam to sin. God did not cover this pit… This made God legally liable by His own law, and thereby created a ‘tension’ that demanded resolution.” [CJ, ch. 13]
This locates universal salvation not in grace-as-favor but in grace-as-legal-obligation. The Jubilee as the most fundamental law of creation [CJ, ch. 7] is the demanded resolution: a cosmic cancellation of all debts accumulated throughout history. Jones’ doctrine of creation serves as a bridge between his prolegomena and his eschatology: creation began with a tension that legally demands resolution; eschatology is that resolution.
BMN deepens the doctrine of creation by uncovering the numerical infrastructure underlying it. The number 4 has been the number of material creation since the fourth day: “In biblical numerology, four is the number of the earth, or the material creation of God. On the fourth day of creation the material world was finished (Gen. 1:14-19).” [BMN, ch. 2]. The Jubilee year is thus not a fortieth year in a vacuum but the eschatological completion (5 × 8 = 40) of a creation process that began on the fourth day. Jones extends this with the number 8 as the sign of new creation: the resurrection of Jesus on the eighth day fulfils the firstfruits offering of Lev. 23:10-11, making the eighth day the calendar marker of new creation breaking into the old. Most significantly for creation theology, the number 22 appears as the numerical anchor of the Dominion Mandate: “Twenty-two is the number of Sonship, or the Sons of Light.” [BMN, ch. 3]. This links Gen. 1:28 (‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it’) directly to the 22 Hebrew letters as the complete instrument of divine speech and creation. The 22,000 Levitical priests of Num. 3, consecrated to serve in the tabernacle, represent in Jones’ typology the glorified sons in their completed creational vocation. Creation’s numerical order is not merely descriptive but teleological: the numbers 4, 8, and 22 map the movement from original creation (4) through resurrection (8) to the fullness of Sonship (22) that was always creation’s goal.
VII. Anthropology --- Mortality as Inheritance, Not Sin as Nature
Jones’ anthropology contains his most original thesis: the Fall gives the human being mortality, not a sinful nature. We are mortal because of Adam’s guilt, and because we are mortal --- vulnerable, anxious, self-protective --- we sin:
“Man did not inherit a sinful nature from Adam. He only inherited the liability for Adam’s sin. The reason we are mortal is because we are liable for the sin that Adam did… We are not mortal because we sin. We sin because we are mortal.” [CJ, ch. 9]
In ROAT Jones works this out via the Greek phrase eph’ ho in Rom. 5:12: we are born mortal before we can sin, which proves that mortality is the cause of personal sin, not its consequence [ROAT, ch. 5]. The human vocation in Jones’ system is active: believers are trained by God as judges for the coming age [ROAT, ch. 1].
LoSC deepens the anthropology along three new axes. The first is the teaching of the corporate Son as the original creative goal:
“God’s ultimate purpose in creation was to bring forth a corporate Son in His image. This was the real meaning of His mandate in Gen. 1:28: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’ If Adam had begotten children before he fell into sin, he would have brought forth children in the image of God. Instead, however, all of his children were born after he lost the glorified body.” [LoSC, ch. 14]
Adam’s fall has not eliminated this goal but deferred it: his descendants are born mortal, without the original glory that permeated Adam’s being.
The second axis is the feast days as an anthropological restoration pattern: “The feasts of Israel were designed to reveal to us the pattern of restoration to the glory that Adam had before sin entered. The feasts are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end. The feasts form a progressive pattern, a journey from the depths of bondage and sin to the heights of the glorious liberty of the children of God and the glorified body.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. Passover restores the relationship with God (justification); Pentecost begins the inward renewal (sanctification); Tabernacles completes the bodily metamorphosis (glorification).
The third axis is the metamorphosis metaphor: “When this metamorphosis is completed, and the old Adamic head falls off, we will be born as a new creation in the image of Christ.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. Restoration for Jones is not a reformation of what exists but an ontological transformation --- the human being is not gradually improved but fundamentally reborn as a new creation. The understanding of what the human being is directly determines how Jones understands sin.
VIII. Hamartiology --- Sin as Debt, Judgment as Correction
Jones’ hamartiology is a direct derivation from his theology of law: sin is understood as a juridical concept --- missing a target, incurring a debt --- and judgment as correction, not vengeance.
Jones’ definition of sin begins with etymology: the Hebrew khawtaw literally means “to miss the mark” [CJ, ch. 13]. Debt is financial-juridical in character: a debt to be repaid, not a stain to be removed.
“The law destroys sin, not the sinner, and the judgments of the law destroy the sin of the earth, rather than destroying the earth itself.” [ROAT, ch. 1]
Jubilee as the maximum of punishment is decisive here: eternal torment is not merely merciless --- it is contrary to God’s own law [ROAT, ch. 2]. Jones draws the line against classical universalism: restorationism fully acknowledges the gravity of sin, demands the full payment the law requires, but ensures that payment is finite and ends in restoration [ROAT, ch. 2].
LoSC deepens the hamartiology on two points. The first is the typological working-out of leprosy as an Old Testament image of inherited mortality: “Leprosy portrays our mortality, which we have inherited from Adam, as Paul says in Rom. 5:12: ‘and so death spread to all men.‘” [LoSC, ch. 10]. The two-birds cleansing rite of Lev. 14 provides the typological structure for Christ’s two works as the answer to the mortality problem. This is analytically important: leprosy portrays not sin but mortality, and thereby Jones underscores that the first work (blood atonement) does not yet remove mortality.
The second point is the distinction between covering (first work) and removing (second work) of sin:
“The first goat covered our sin; the second will take it away. However, there is a second work yet to come, whereby Christ is sent into the world to take away sin from us, making us truly righteous.” [LoSC, ch. 10]
The ongoing mortality of believers is therefore not a failure of faith but an eschatological matter: “Perhaps millions of Christians over the past 2,000 years have sought immortality through the first work of Christ… but they have all died without receiving the promise. Why? Because the time of Christ’s second work has not yet fully arrived.” [LoSC, ch. 10]. Moreover, Jones establishes the Jubilee as a mandatory passage: “One cannot come to the Feast of Tabernacles without first passing through the Jubilee. That is the order of the feast days, and this process cannot be bypassed.” [LoSC, ch. 3]. That hamartiological ground structure fully determines how Jones describes Christ’s redemptive work.
IX. Christology --- Christ as Jubilee Redeemer and Second Adam
Jones’ christology is the convergence of his theology of law and his eschatological perspective. Christ is simultaneously Second Adam, nearest kinsman-redeemer, and Jubilee Redeemer. The most striking christological thesis is the Adam-Christ symmetry:
“If Adam’s sin affected all men and the righteous act of Jesus affected only some, then Jesus can hardly be compared to Adam. Of course, the power of Adam is not greater than that of Jesus.” [CJ, ch. 5]
In ROAT Jones refines this with the tagma structure: the timing of salvation differs, but the fact of salvation is universal and objectively established at the cross [ROAT, ch. 5]. The juridical necessity of the Incarnation follows from the kinsman-redeemer principle: “Jesus had the MEANS to redeem all of creation, and as the nearest kinsman he also had the legal RIGHT of redemption.” [ROAT, ch. 7]
ST adds a chronological framework: Jones dates Jesus’ birth to the evening of the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashana), September 29, 2 B.C. [ST, ch. 9]. The two-phase Day of Atonement typology --- first goat (cleansing of the sanctuary) and second goat (sent into the wilderness) --- reveals Christ’s redemptive work as chronologically two-phased [ST, ch. 9].
LoSC introduces an entirely new christological structure: the two works of Christ as the core of the plan of salvation:
“The law shows that the ‘finished work of Christ’ has two phases, foreshadowed by the two birds of Lev. 14 and the two goats of Lev. 16. The first work was His death-work, and this was ‘finished’ in the sense that He need not die again. His second appearance, however, will be a living work.” [LoSC, ch. 10]
The exclamation “It is finished” (John 19:30) means for Jones the completion of the Passover work, not the end of the redemptive work: “When Jesus said on the cross, ‘It is finished,’ He meant that the Passover work was completed, for this was the purpose of His first coming.” [LoSC, ch. 10]. This is a far-reaching christological redefinition: not the cross but the Feast of Tabernacles is the endpoint of Christ’s saving work.
Jones lays out the Judah-Joseph typology as the key to Christ’s two comings: Christ was born as the Lion of Judah (scepter/dominion) for the first coming; His second coming is a Joseph work (birthright/kingdom): “What is generally not understood is that Christ must come the second time as Joseph to secure His birthright.” [LoSC, ch. 11]. The prophecy of Micah about Bethlehem-Ephrathah (Mic. 5:2) contains both comings: Bethlehem = Judah work (first coming), Ephrathah = Joseph work/Ephraim work (second coming) [LoSC, ch. 11].
Jones refines this with the sign of Jonah exegesis: Jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish typifies Jesus’ death and resurrection (Matt. 12:38-40), but also His second mission --- just as Jonah after his resurrection was sent to Nineveh, so the glorified sons after the first resurrection are sent to preach the Gospel to all nations [LoSC, ch. 12].
Finally, Jones introduces the towla worm (Ps. 22:6; Jonah 4:7) as a type of Christ’s death on the cross: the scarlet worm that nails itself to a tree so that its body protects its young is for Jones “a perfect picture of Christ, who gave His life to bring many sons to glory” [LoSC, ch. 12]. This christological thesis has immediate soteriological implications.
X. Soteriology --- Apokatastasis as a Third Way
Jones’ soteriology overcomes the impasse between Calvinism and Arminianism through predestination to universal salvation, ordered through temporal layering [CJ, ch. 11]. The central soteriological thesis is that salvation is an objective fact --- established at the cross --- and that the timing is subjectively determined by faith and obedience.
“The primary distinction between universalism and restorationism lies in the question of divine judgment. The one makes no provision for any judgment… The other acknowledges the reality and gravity of sin, pays the full penalty the law requires for the ultimate reconciliation of creation, and yet saves believers by faith and unbelievers through judgments, discipline, and spiritual growth.” [ROAT, ch. 2]
ST enriches the soteriology with a fully elaborated forensic justification framework. Jones describes justification as a literal courtroom scene before God’s throne, in which the debt is paid, the law is satisfied, and the file is closed [ST, ch. 1]. “‘Under the law’ refers to the Law’s attitude toward you, not your attitude toward the law.” [ST, ch. 1]. Grace motivates obedience to the law, not indifference toward it. The right of redemption extends to all of humanity: Christ became the nearest kinsman of all of Adam’s family [ST, ch. 1]. “This is grace at its highest level. No man can go so far into debt that he cannot be redeemed by grace in the end. The Jubilee not only allows it; it demands it.” [ST, ch. 1].
LoSC deepens the soteriology along four new lines. The first is the Day of Atonement as liberation:
“The true underlying purpose of the Day of Atonement is not so much a day of fasting from food, but a day of freeing people and feeding the hungry. In other words, it is the Jubilee --- to set the captives free.” [LoSC, ch. 3]
The second line is the temporal layering: the Pentecost period is a transitional period, not a final destination. “Jesus Christ did not immediately fulfill the work of the second bird. Instead, He sat down at the right hand of the Father to intercede for us throughout the Pentecostal Age.” [LoSC, ch. 10]. The redemptive operation is structurally incomplete as long as the second work remains outstanding.
The third line is the Manchild as the corporate soteriological endpoint: “The feasts form a progressive pattern, a journey from the depths of bondage and sin to the heights of the glorious liberty of the children of God and the glorified body.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. Salvation for Jones is not merely forensic (justification) but ontological-eschatological: the definitive restoration of the glory of God in the mortal body.
The fourth line is the differentiation of the two resurrections: “The distinction between these two resurrections in Rev. 20 points to the idea that not all Christians come to perfection at the same time.” [LoSC, ch. 13]. The Jubilee law guarantees the ultimate salvation of all; the order of the feast days determines the phasing. The Spirit plays a central role in this soteriological process.
XI. Pneumatology --- The Spirit as Engine of the Restoration Plan
Jones’ pneumatology is entirely embedded in his three-ages model. In the Passover Age the Spirit was with human beings. At Pentecost the Spirit was poured out in human beings --- but this is explicitly a down payment, not the fullness [CJ].
“Through judgment (the Flood) the Holy Spirit departed from the earth; and through judgment (the Lake of Fire) the Holy Spirit will again be poured out upon all flesh (mankind).” [CJ]
ST adds to this pneumatology a precise numerological argument: the number 120 is the biblical number of the Spirit outpouring --- 120 priests blew trumpets at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, 120 disciples were in the upper room [ST, ch. 3]. The autumn of 1986 was for Jones the 120th Jubilee as the hinge point of the beginning of the Spirit outpouring.
LoSC enriches the pneumatology on four points. The first is the structure of three baptisms: in the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14) there are three washings --- with oil (spirit), blood (soul), and water (body) --- corresponding to the three feasts:
“There are three baptisms (washings and sprinklings) in the cleansing of the leper. They relate to oil (spirit), blood (soul), and water (body).” [LoSC, ch. 10]
The Spirit works in all three dimensions of the human being, but the completed work is reserved for the Feast of Tabernacles.
The second element is the historical precision of the Spirit outpouring: “God had them wait until the appointed time --- not only the right day, but even the precise hour of the day. This shows how important timing is to God Himself.” [LoSC, ch. 1]. The Holy Spirit descended at the third hour, the exact moment when the priest in the Temple was bringing the Pentecost offering.
The third element is the eighth day of Tabernacles as the eschatological climax: “The pouring of oil foreshadows the pouring of the fullness of the Holy Spirit on the eighth day of Tabernacles, whereby we are transformed from death to life, made perfect, and brought fully into the divine presence of the Holy of Holies. This will unleash the final great revival and outpouring of the Holy Spirit that will not cease.” [LoSC, ch. 10]. The eighth day surpasses the Pentecost down payment with a definitive, permanent outpouring.
The fourth element is the Manchild as the fruit of the Spirit: “The Holy Spirit must overshadow our souls and conceive Christ within us. In the same manner as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. The Manchild is the eschatological endpoint of the Spirit’s operation: the corporate, mature Christ born into the world when the overcomers can bear the fullness of the Spirit. The degree of the Spirit’s indwelling defines which stage of the church one inhabits --- and that connects pneumatology directly to ecclesiology.
XII. Ecclesiology --- The Church as Instrument, Not Endpoint
Jones’ ecclesiology is strikingly modest for a theologian who assigns the church such a central missional role. The church is not the goal of God’s plan of salvation --- it is the instrument through which the plan is realized for the benefit of the rest of the world.
Jones distinguishes three historical churches, directly corresponding to his three-ages model: the church of the Passover Age, the church of the Pentecost Age (from Acts 2 to the present), and the church of the Tabernacles Age (still future). The current church carries the barley firstfruits alongside the wheat congregation [CJ, ch. 6].
“the seed of Abraham, first physical and then spiritual, are the ambassadors of Christ with the word of reconciliation for the rest of the world.” [ROAT, ch. 8]
LoSC extends the ecclesiology fundamentally with the Manchild teaching as the ecclesiological ground structure. Jones grounds the Manchild on the levirate law (Deut. 25:5-10): “Jesus died childless… Therefore, we --- the brethren of Jesus --- are called to raise up seed for our elder brother, that His name not be blotted out from Israel.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. The Manchild production can fail: “it was possible for the church to abort the Manchild. And indeed, Paul’s concern was well justified, for no generation of the Church has yet brought forth the Manchild.” [LoSC, ch. 14]. The ecclesiology therefore carries a risk dimension that was not present in Jones’ earlier works.
Jones also makes a three-company distinction within the church: overcomers are the barley company; the broader congregation is the wheat company; the nations are the grape company. “The overcomers, or the barley company, will have their hearts circumcised on the eighth day of Tabernacles. The Church --- that is, the wheat company --- will have their hearts circumcised after the seventh millennium. The grape company of the nations will have their hearts circumcised in the fiftieth millennium, which is the great Creation Jubilee.” [LoSC, ch. 8]. This deepens the distinction between overcomers and the general congregation into a cosmological differentiation of three eschatological companies.
Jones also redefines harpazo as a throne ascension rather than a physical removal: “The actual rapture is an ascension to the throne, a position of authority to which God has called the overcomers by His sovereign choice.” [LoSC, ch. 13]. Christ will come to earth, not the church to heaven: “It is NOT the case that the bride must leave her father and mother and go to heaven to the house of her Husband.” [LoSC, ch. 13].
The Judah-Joseph ecclesiology connects Christ’s two works to the church-Israel relationship: “Jesus Christ is ultimately the Restorer of the Breach between Judah and Israel, the King with His Kingdom, and the Head with His Body.” [LoSC, ch. 11]. The ecclesiological embeddedness of the believer determines how Jones describes the eschatological ultimate goal of all creation.
XIII. Eschatology --- Premillennial Restorationism
Jones’ eschatology is the synthesis of everything that precedes it: the Jubilee of Creation, the Adam-Christ symmetry, the corrective character of God’s judgment, and the aionian hermeneutic come together here in a coherent vision of the goal of history.
The foundation is a literal millennial reign, grounded in the grammatical analysis of chilia in Rev. 20 [CJ, ch. 1]. After the millennium follows the Great White Throne as a restoration-oriented judgment --- corrective, not condemnatory --- and finally the definitive Jubilee of Creation:
“The flood was the baptism of the earth with water; the lake of fire will be the baptism of the earth with fire. Both have the purpose of cleansing and purifying.” [CJ]
ST refines the eschatology with chronological precision: 40 Jubilees (1,960 years) from 33 A.D. to 1993 A.D. mark the Pentecost Age [ST, ch. 11].
BMN confirms this calculation and adds an explicit prophetic assessment: “The New Testament Church spent 40 Jubilees in a wilderness of its own (33-1993 A.D.).” [BMN, ch. 5]. Jones does not present this as a prophecy of the Second Coming, but he adds a carefully formulated evaluation: “Perhaps He will return some time after forty Jubilees of the Church’s wilderness time. If so, we are in that season now, for 1993 was the 40th Jubilee of the Church’s wilderness time.” [BMN, ch. 5]. This is the most concrete temporal reference in Jones’ entire corpus --- and the conditional phrasing (‘perhaps’, ‘if so’) is analytically significant: Jones does not claim prophetic certainty but interprets the jubilee number 40 as a calendrical indicator that a new era has begun. That Jones formulates this assessment in a work published in 2008, fifteen years after 1993, suggests he views the 40-jubilee threshold as having been crossed and the post-wilderness era as already underway. The number 40 thereby bridges biblical typology (Israel’s wilderness years, Jesus’ forty days) and Jones’ own chronological system: the Church, like Israel, completes its wilderness period and moves toward the Promised Land of the Tabernacles Age.
Jones calls the coming age the great Tabernacles Age, the Sabbath Millennium [ST, Preface].
LoSC gives the eschatology its richest elaboration. The autumn feast days are the prophetic schema for the second coming: Trumpets (resurrection of the dead) --- Atonement (repentance and forgiveness) --- Tabernacles (glorification of the overcomers). Jesus’ statement about “not knowing the day or the hour” (Matt. 25:13) Jones explicitly connects to the Feast of Trumpets, whose beginning was unknown until the new moon was visible [LoSC, ch. 2].
The two trumpets of Num. 10 form the numeric pattern for the two resurrections:
“The law suggests that there would be more than one resurrection. That is why God commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets. When the priest blew only one trumpet, only the leaders were to gather. When the priest blew BOTH trumpets, the whole congregation was to gather.” [LoSC, ch. 2]
The first resurrection at the Feast of Tabernacles is for the reigning overcomers; the second resurrection at the end of the millennium is for the broader congregation and the nations.
Jones explicitly rejects the dispensationalist pre-trib rapture and redefines the harpazo as a throne ascension. The meeting of the saints with Christ “in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17) is not an extraterrestrial removal but a festive welcome: apantesis is the technical term for city leaders going out to meet a distinguished guest and escorting him into their city [LoSC, ch. 13].
The sign of Jonah provides the eschatological blueprint for what follows after the first resurrection: glorified sons are sent to the nations, just as Jonah after his resurrection from the fish was sent to Nineveh. “When the world sees the manifestation of the sons of God, they will be converted in the coming age.” [LoSC, ch. 12].
Jones’ eschatology does not end at the Lake of Fire but at the cosmic Jubilee. The Jubilee law of Lev. 25:54 is an absolute, unconditional promise: every slave goes free in the Jubilee year, he and his children with him [ROAT, ch. 7]. “He is the Unifier of all peoples, the Repairer of the Breach, and the Restorer of all Creation. The day comes when He will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28).” [ST, ch. 15].
XIV. Numerology --- The Number-Language of God’s Decrees
Secrets of Time introduces a discipline that was only implicit in CJ and ROAT: a systematic biblical numerology functioning as hermeneutical and chronological instrument. For Jones, numbers are not decorative but constitutive: they are the structural language in which God’s decrees over time are encoded.
The point of departure is a hermeneutical principle: “We have found that all Scripture has its purpose, and you only need to see the Divine Mind behind the genealogies, the numbers, and the dates to bring those passages to life.” [ST, ch. 2]. The key numbers from ST’s systematic overview include: 7 (Completion), 49 (Jubilee), 50 (Holy Spirit, Pentecost), 70 (Universality), 120 (Probationary Period Awaiting Spirit Outpouring), 414 (Cursed Time), 490 (Blessed Time), and 49,000 (Creation’s Jubilee) [ST, App. E].
The number 7 --- three levels of rest. Jones situates the jubilee principle within a three-level structure: the 7th day (sabbath day), the 7th year (sabbath year), and the Jubilee (7 x 7 = 49 years). “The greatest rest is the Jubilee, when all debts are canceled and every man returns to his inheritance. The Jubilee ends all servitude.” [ST, ch. 1].
The number 490 --- Blessed Time as prophetic measure. Jones introduces “Blessed Time” as the foundational principle of long-term biblical prophecy: a period of 490 years (10 Jubilees) [ST, ch. 1]. The forgiveness of 70 x 7 that Jesus mentions (Matt. 18:22) reveals God’s national accounting cycle.
The number 414 --- Cursed Time as judgment cycle. Standing against Blessed Time is Cursed Time of 414 years [ST, ch. 4]. Jones demonstrates this with the Flood: the judgment of Gen. 3 was executed precisely 1,656 years later --- exactly 4 x 414.
LoSC enriches the numerology on three new points. The first is gematria as evidence of prophetic timing:
“The hill was called Calvary. The Greek name was Kranion, whose numeric value is 301. At 3:01 in the afternoon He said, ‘It is finished,’ and the moon began to be eclipsed. It was at 3:01 Greenwich Time that the eclipse began. The word ‘moon’ is Selene, and its gematria is 301. The Hebrew word for the Passover lambs has a numerical value of 301.” [LoSC, ch. 1]
The number 301 connects: the name of the hill, the time of Jesus’ death, the moment of the lunar eclipse, and the Hebrew word for the Passover lambs. This is analytically remarkable: Jones presents gematria not as a speculative aid but as evidence that God’s prophetic precision extends to the minute.
The second point is the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles as the numerological endpoint. The 7+1 structure recurs in the eight signs of John, the seven processions around the altar plus the eighth day as rest, and the cleansing of the leper over eight days [LoSC, ch. 7, 12]. The seventh concludes the law; the eighth begins the new creation.
The third point is Jacob’s life as a salvation-historical numerical pattern. Jones analyzes Jacob’s 20-year service to Laban, his departure in the 49th year of the 45th Jubilee, and his arrival at Mahanaim (two camps) as typological preparation for the two resurrections: “At Mahanaim Jacob divided his company into two camps (Gen. 32:7). This prophesies of two resurrections.” [LoSC, ch. 4].
The atomos argument from 1 Cor. 15:51-52 provides an additional numerological detail: Paul’s word for the moment of transformation at the last trumpet is atomos --- the Greek word for the smallest divisible unit of matter. “Paul used this word to denote an atomic change in the material body, which would allow the glory of God to be manifested.” [LoSC, ch. 12]. The resurrection is not a spiritualizing metaphor but a material-physical transformation.
BMN --- Two New Hermeneutical Instruments
BMN extends the numerological system of ST and LoSC with two new exegetical instruments that are not merely supplementary but methodologically foundational.
The first instrument is the Hebrew letter-as-number system. Jones lays out the complete table of Hebrew letter values [BMN, ch. 1]:
| Letter | Name | Value | Letter | Name | Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| א | Aleph | 1 | כ | Kaph | 20 | |
| ב | Beth | 2 | ל | Lamed | 30 | |
| ג | Gimel | 3 | מ | Mem | 40 | |
| ד | Dalet | 4 | נ | Nun | 50 | |
| ה | He | 5 | ס | Samech | 60 | |
| ו | Vav | 6 | ע | Ayin | 70 | |
| ז | Zayin | 7 | פ | Pe | 80 | |
| ח | Cheth | 8 | צ | Tsadhe | 90 | |
| ט | Teth | 9 | ק | Qoph | 100 | |
| י | Yod | 10 | ר | Resh | 200 | |
| ש | Shin | 300 | ||||
| ת | Tav | 400 |
This table is not merely a reference tool but an interpretive key: every Hebrew word in the Old Testament carries a numerical value that functions as an additional layer of meaning alongside its lexical content. Jones demonstrates this with several macro-structural examples: the gematria of the names of all kings of Judah totals 4400 = 8 × 550, while the gematria of the names of all kings of Israel totals 3900 = 13 × 300. The contrast is analytically sharp: Judah’s royal line encodes the number 8 (new creation, completion); Israel’s royal line encodes the number 13 (apostasy, rebellion). The numerical structures encode the theological verdict on these two royal lines in the fabric of the text itself.
The second instrument is the nth name occurrence method. Where letter values give the numerical weight of individual words, this method uses the canonical position of names within larger textual sequences as an exegetical key. Jones illustrates this with a series of examples from the genealogies [BMN, ch. 2-3]: Noah is the 8th name in Gen. 5:1-32 --- and the number 8 signifies new beginning, confirmed by the 8 souls on the ark and the resurrection on the 8th day; Isaac is the 22nd name in the genealogical line --- and the number 22 signifies Sonship, confirmed by his role as Son of Promise. These are not coincidences for Jones but evidence of deliberate divine authorship: the canonical position of names is as much a part of the prophetic message as the names themselves. The method establishes that the order of the canon carries exegetical weight independent of lexical content.
Two numbers from BMN function as cross-disciplinary structural anchors. The first is 17 --- victory and the sons of God. The sum of the numbers 1 through 17 is 153 --- the same value as the Hebrew beni h’elohim (sons of God), and the number of fish drawn in the unbroken net (John 21:11). Jones interprets this as a canonical promise: the harvest of the sons of God will be complete --- 153 fish, not a single one lost [BMN, ch. 3]. The second anchor is 22 --- Sonship. In addition to its role in creation theology (see Section VI), 22 = the number of Hebrew letters = the complete instrument of divine speech = the full expression of Sonship. Jones’ formulation is direct: “Twenty-two is the number of Sonship, or the Sons of Light.” [BMN, ch. 3]. The journey from Pentecost (the gift of the Spirit as down payment) to Tabernacles (the fullness of Sonship) is numerologically the journey from 50 back to 22 --- from provisional outpouring to completed vocation.
The gematria of the Greek name Lord Jesus Christ [κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] yields 3168 = 8 × 396 = 8 × (4 × 99) [BMN, ch. 4]. That the divine Name encodes the numbers of new creation (8) and material creation (4) is for Jones a confirmation that Christ is precisely what His name mathematically expresses: the One who transforms material creation (4) into new creation (8). The inner logic of the Name confirms the christological-eschatological programme of the entire system. Numerology thereby connects all other disciplines: the law (hamartiology), the chronology of redemption (soteriology/eschatology), pneumatology (120 = Spirit outpouring), and christology (the 70 weeks as the chronological framework for Christ’s work).
XV. Cross-Connections and Thematic Lines
The Law as Coherence Principle
Jones’ theology is, in its deepest structure, a developed theology of law. The law is the ordering principle that connects all other doctrines to one another: it defines what sin is (hamartiology), regulates debt and restitution (soteriology), determines God’s legal liability for the state of creation (theodicy), lays through the kinsman-redeemer right the foundation for the Incarnation (christology), and dictates through Jubilee the structure of the eschatological endpoint.
The Adam-Christ Symmetry as Logical Engine
The symmetry “all in Adam / all in Christ” (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:22) is the logical engine of the entire system, operative in anthropology, christology, soteriology, and eschatology. In ROAT Jones extends this to the cosmic dimension: not merely all human beings but the entire creation --- the full estate of Adam --- is restored.
Three Ages as the Salvation-Historical Axis
The threefold feast structure (Passover---Pentecost---Tabernacles) runs through trinitarian theology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, eschatology, and soteriology. ST adds chronological precision; LoSC completes this schema by working out the autumn feasts as the prophetic agenda for the second coming. The schema is thereby not only retrospective but also prospective: Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles are the eschatological anchor points.
The Two Works of Christ as a New Structuring Axis
LoSC adds a fourth structuring axis: Christ has two works. The death-work (Passover: first coming) brings forensic justification; the living work (Tabernacles: second coming) brings constitutive sanctification and bodily glorification. This distinction works through in hamartiology (covering vs. removing), soteriology (two resurrections), ecclesiology (Manchild teaching), pneumatology (eighth day), and eschatology (autumn feasts). The Manchild is the corporate endpoint of the second work: a body of sons fully formed into the image of Christ and the manifested sons of God for whom all creation waits (Rom. 8:19).
Sovereignty as Requirement of Universality
Jones’ core argument: God’s sovereignty requires universal reconciliation. A God who is sovereign in imputing Adam’s sin to all is morally obligated to impute Christ’s righteousness equally to all. ST adds: God’s sovereignty includes sovereignty over timing --- the will/plan distinction guarantees that no delay constitutes a definitive failure.
Numerology as the Structural Language of the Law
ST introduces a fifth connecting axis: the law reveals itself not only as a juridical system but also as a numerical structure in time. LoSC deepens this with gematria as evidence of prophetic precision, the eighth day as the numerological endpoint, and the atomos resurrection as the material-physical anchor point. BMN completes this axis by making biblical numerology a canonical method: the nth name occurrence demonstrates that the canonical order of the text itself carries prophetic content, and the letter-as-number system shows that the numerical structure of the language and the theological structure of the text are one and the same. To read the numbers is to read the law; to understand the law is to understand the numbers.
The Kinsman-Redeemer Principle as Legal Capstone
The go’el principle connects theology proper (God as owner and redeemer), christology (the Incarnation as legal precondition), soteriology (salvation as property right), and eschatology (Jubilee as definitive reclamation of ownership) in one coherent juridical line.
Concluding Assessment
The systematic theology of Stephen Jones is a successful attempt to think together three principles that are difficult to reconcile in one coherent framework: the absolute sovereignty of God, the strict justice of God’s law, and the universality of God’s redemptive plan. CJ grounds this in the jubilee framework and the Hebrew hermeneutic; ROAT deepens it with the juridical distinction between restorationism and universalism and the go’el principle; ST broadens it by letting the law function as a historical-chronological structure that makes God’s sovereign governance of world history visible; LoSC completes it by unveiling the two works of Christ --- death-work and living work --- as the central salvation-historical structure through the feast days of Lev. 23; BMN extends it by showing that the numerical structure of the Hebrew language and the canonical position of names within the text are themselves exegetical instruments, making the law readable not only juridically and typologically but also numerically.
The most significant new element of LoSC is the distinction between imputative and constitutive righteousness as salvation-historical phases. Jones’ earlier works described the apokatastasis as the universal ultimate goal but provided no detailed christology of the second coming. LoSC fills that gap: Christ’s second coming is not a repetition of His first but a qualitatively different work --- a living work that actually does what the first work only promissory covered. The Manchild is the corporate end-result of this second work: the firstfruits of a new creation that will draw the rest of creation with it into its freedom.
The most significant contribution of BMN is the introduction of the nth name occurrence as a systematic-canonical principle: it demonstrates that the divine Author wove the prophetic message into the sequential order of the text itself --- making the canon not only a repository of theological propositions but a numerically structured prophetic document. This elevates Jones’ numerology from typological observation to a structural hermeneutical method that in principle applies to every genealogy, every list, and every narrative sequence in the Old Testament.
Conspicuously absent throughout remains a working-through of the immanent Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canonical authority of Scripture as a formal-dogmatic theme. Jones’ identity typology --- his application of biblical Israel-typologies to Western nations (America as Manasseh, Britain as Ephraim) --- belongs to the Christian Identity tradition and is theologically controversial; the quotations are included as primary source materials representing the author’s position. In a theology that so carefully maps the salvation-historical movement of God, the absence of an ontological grounding of the divine persons is a significant lacuna --- not as a shortcoming of Jones’ exegetical work, but as an indication that he writes as a Bible teacher who develops a specific redemption narrative, not as a scholastic theologian who defends a complete dogmatic system.
Sources: [CJ] Creation’s Jubilee, Dr. Stephen E. Jones (5th ed. 2000, God’s Kingdom Ministries). [ROAT] The Restoration of All Things, Dr. Stephen E. Jones (God’s Kingdom Ministries). [ST] Secrets of Time, Dr. Stephen E. Jones (God’s Kingdom Ministries, 1996). [LoSC] The Laws of the Second Coming, Dr. Stephen E. Jones (God’s Kingdom Ministries). [BMN] The Biblical Meaning of Numbers, Dr. Stephen E. Jones (God’s Kingdom Ministries, 2008). No training knowledge has been used as content. Every claim is directly drawn from the dossiers compiled from these sources.
Footnotes
-
The 13 disciplines are: (I) Prolegomena, (II) Bibliology, (III) Theology Proper, (IV) Trinitarianism, (V) Angelology, (VI) Creation, (VII) Anthropology, (VIII) Hamartiology, (IX) Christology, (X) Soteriology, (XI) Pneumatology, (XII) Ecclesiology, and (XIII) Eschatology. Additionally, (XIV) Numerology is treated as a separate discipline on the basis of ST, LoSC and BMN. ↩