I think I have this on my Current Events blog, but I wanted it here, too. It's a nice little tale, and so true.
An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
Monday, August 22, 2011
Friday, September 17, 2010
Revelation 20
(Author's note: As I did recently with a post from my New Testament Chapter Summaries, I wish to put this post on Revelation 20 on my main Bible blog so that readers who have been slow, or amiss, in reading that blog will be able to study this much-discussed Biblical chapter. Hopefully, this article will whet the appetite of more readers, who will then go to my Revelation blog and give further attention to the matters written there.)
The overthrow of Satan (vs. 1-9)--There is very little that is easy about this chapter and I won't pretend that there is. I hesitate not in saying that I do not know all of what is being conveyed here, but I do think the basic ideas are clear; let us be reminded of Revelation 1:3 which pronounces a blessing on anyone who reads the book. If total understanding of this chapter is lacking, then there could be no blessing accruing from it. So there are some wonderfully comforting thoughts here which can inspire and solace us. And while I may not know all of what this chapter means, I do know what it does NOT mean, and it does not teach that there is going to be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. This chapter says nothing about a reign of Christ on earth and, in keeping with the very nature of apocalyptic literature, the 1,000 years is almost surely symbolic as well. The whole concept of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is taken from this one passage; there is no other passage in the Bible that even remotely hints of such a thing. To build an entire system of Biblical interpretation on one passage, and one that is in the midst of the most symbolic, figurative book in Scripture, is shaky hermeneutics indeed. It should not be done. What does the Bible say, clearly, in other locations? Figurative passages should be interpreted in line with the plain passages, not visa-versa. And if the 1,000 years in this passage is literal, then why not the key to the bottomless pit, the great chain, the binding of Satan (and is he a dragon or a serpent?). To be consistent, these things should be interpreted literally as well. But no one does this.
The major thrust of this passage is the final defeat and overthrow of Satan. As I noted in the last chapter, the enemies of God and His people are introduced in chapter 12. In that chapter, Satan comes forth. In chapter 13 come the two beasts, and in chapter 17, the harlot. Then, in reverse order they are all defeated--the harlot in chapter 18, the beasts in chapter 19, and now here, in chapter 20, Satan is finally and forever conquered. That's the point of this chapter, not the 1,000 years. If verses 4-6 of Revelation 20 were not in the Bible, no one would ever have conceived of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Again, as best, it is very, very poor scholarship and handling of God's word to base a system of theology on three verses in the Bible. Yet, premillennialism is a materialistic philosophy; people love the things of this world and want God to give this earthly junk to them for as long as possible. That's just not what the Bible teachers. We are not love this world or the things thereof (I John 2:15). Our treasures are to be placed in heaven, not the earth (Matt. 6:19-20). God is spirit, not flesh, and the true reality, true happiness, eternity, lies in spiritual matters, not physical. We simply must get our minds and hearts out of this world and into the next one.
Ok, given that, what does Revelation 20 mean? As repeated ad infinitum in this blog on the book of Revelation, how would John's beleaguered readers in 95 AD understand the passage? They would see their greatest adversary, the devil, effectively stopped from deceiving the nations (via emperor worship and the Roman Empire). An angel bounds Satan with a chain (vs. 1-2) and casts him into a bottomless pit for 1,000 years (vs. 2-3). The limiting of Satan's power is obviously in view here, not his final destruction, and that's the main point. John's readers perhaps--and I have no intention of being dogmatic or absolute here--would see this as Satan no longer being able to deceive the nations through the emperor worship demanded by the Roman Empire. Frequent reference has been made in earlier chapters to the "kings" and "nations" and their obsequious obedience to Rome. That's going to end. The 1,000 years may refer to a complete period of time (10x10x10), or it may mean the completeness of the destruction of the Roman Empire and not a time period. Be that as it may, after the 1,000 years--the ability of the devil to no more "deceive the nations" (via Rome, v. 3)--he will be "released for a little while" (v. 3). The Roman Empire is not the end of the work of Satan.
But it was the problem that John's readers faced. And with Rome "bound," the oppressors are defeated and the oppressed are victorious, enjoying total victory with Christ. Who the "they" are in verse 4 is unclear; perhaps the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since the godhead ultimately works in tandem in judgment. The victory and reigning of those "who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands" (v. 4) is called "the first resurrection" (v. 5). The "rest of the dead" (v. 5) perchance refers to the faithful of God who had not lived under Roman domination. This is difficult, I make no bones about it, but I always come back to John's readers--they are the ones who need comfort here so the message applies primarily to them. They did not serve Rome, they were willing to die for the Lord, and thus they will reign with him. Over them, "the second death has no power" (v. 6). Again, this passage says nothing about a reign of Christ on earth; indeed, the martyrs were already in heaven (Rev. 6:9).
But Satan is relentless (vs. 7-10). After the Roman Empire, Satan was "released from his prison" (v. 7)--he still plagues us today, and will continue to "deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth" (v. 8). These nations are called "Gog and Magog," who have been enemies of God's people since Ezekiel 38 (the only other location in Scripture in which they are mentioned). They attempt to make war against the saints and persecute them (v. 9), but "fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them" (v. 9)--we are saved by Him, not by ourselves. Satan and his emissaries are then "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (v. 10). Folks, Satan is not in hell right now; he's on the earth. Hell is reserved for him, too. This is not just the teaching of this passage, but other, plainer, passages elsewhere (cf. I Pet. 5:8). Satan will ultimately be defeated where he can tempt us and destroy our souls no more. What greater, more comforting knowledge is there than that? Emphasizing the 1,000 reign in this chapter completely misses the magnificent promise of the final defeat of our greatest enemy.
The great white throne (vs. 11-15)--God is there on that throne (v. 11-12), and "the dead, small and great" will someday stand before Him (. 12). No escapes the final judgment. The "books" (the Bible) were opened, as well as the Book of Life; that these first books refer to the Bible is evident in that all will be judged "by the things which were written in the books" (v. 12). And we will be judged "according to [our] works" (v. 12)--there is indeed a part man plays in his own salvation. Again, all, even those who are dead at the time of the final judgment, will face God. When that judgment is over, there will be no more death, and no more Hades, which is apparently the resting place of the soul before the final judgment (v. 14). The saved will be with God (as described in the next two chapters) and the lost will be "cast into the lake of fire" (v. 15). God's people will live forever; God's enemies will live forever, too--but not in His presence.
I do believe I've captured above the general essence of Revelation 20, "general" being the point of apocalyptic literature anyway. The specifics have been debated since the book was released to the public almost 2,000 years ago. The earthly 1,000 year reign has been propagated ever since, but again, I find no warrant for such a doctrine anywhere else in the Bible. Indeed, when it speaks clearly, without a figure, inspiration tells us of heaven, not the earth. Victory, a heavenly home with God for eternity, is what we await.
The overthrow of Satan (vs. 1-9)--There is very little that is easy about this chapter and I won't pretend that there is. I hesitate not in saying that I do not know all of what is being conveyed here, but I do think the basic ideas are clear; let us be reminded of Revelation 1:3 which pronounces a blessing on anyone who reads the book. If total understanding of this chapter is lacking, then there could be no blessing accruing from it. So there are some wonderfully comforting thoughts here which can inspire and solace us. And while I may not know all of what this chapter means, I do know what it does NOT mean, and it does not teach that there is going to be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. This chapter says nothing about a reign of Christ on earth and, in keeping with the very nature of apocalyptic literature, the 1,000 years is almost surely symbolic as well. The whole concept of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is taken from this one passage; there is no other passage in the Bible that even remotely hints of such a thing. To build an entire system of Biblical interpretation on one passage, and one that is in the midst of the most symbolic, figurative book in Scripture, is shaky hermeneutics indeed. It should not be done. What does the Bible say, clearly, in other locations? Figurative passages should be interpreted in line with the plain passages, not visa-versa. And if the 1,000 years in this passage is literal, then why not the key to the bottomless pit, the great chain, the binding of Satan (and is he a dragon or a serpent?). To be consistent, these things should be interpreted literally as well. But no one does this.
The major thrust of this passage is the final defeat and overthrow of Satan. As I noted in the last chapter, the enemies of God and His people are introduced in chapter 12. In that chapter, Satan comes forth. In chapter 13 come the two beasts, and in chapter 17, the harlot. Then, in reverse order they are all defeated--the harlot in chapter 18, the beasts in chapter 19, and now here, in chapter 20, Satan is finally and forever conquered. That's the point of this chapter, not the 1,000 years. If verses 4-6 of Revelation 20 were not in the Bible, no one would ever have conceived of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Again, as best, it is very, very poor scholarship and handling of God's word to base a system of theology on three verses in the Bible. Yet, premillennialism is a materialistic philosophy; people love the things of this world and want God to give this earthly junk to them for as long as possible. That's just not what the Bible teachers. We are not love this world or the things thereof (I John 2:15). Our treasures are to be placed in heaven, not the earth (Matt. 6:19-20). God is spirit, not flesh, and the true reality, true happiness, eternity, lies in spiritual matters, not physical. We simply must get our minds and hearts out of this world and into the next one.
Ok, given that, what does Revelation 20 mean? As repeated ad infinitum in this blog on the book of Revelation, how would John's beleaguered readers in 95 AD understand the passage? They would see their greatest adversary, the devil, effectively stopped from deceiving the nations (via emperor worship and the Roman Empire). An angel bounds Satan with a chain (vs. 1-2) and casts him into a bottomless pit for 1,000 years (vs. 2-3). The limiting of Satan's power is obviously in view here, not his final destruction, and that's the main point. John's readers perhaps--and I have no intention of being dogmatic or absolute here--would see this as Satan no longer being able to deceive the nations through the emperor worship demanded by the Roman Empire. Frequent reference has been made in earlier chapters to the "kings" and "nations" and their obsequious obedience to Rome. That's going to end. The 1,000 years may refer to a complete period of time (10x10x10), or it may mean the completeness of the destruction of the Roman Empire and not a time period. Be that as it may, after the 1,000 years--the ability of the devil to no more "deceive the nations" (via Rome, v. 3)--he will be "released for a little while" (v. 3). The Roman Empire is not the end of the work of Satan.
But it was the problem that John's readers faced. And with Rome "bound," the oppressors are defeated and the oppressed are victorious, enjoying total victory with Christ. Who the "they" are in verse 4 is unclear; perhaps the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since the godhead ultimately works in tandem in judgment. The victory and reigning of those "who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands" (v. 4) is called "the first resurrection" (v. 5). The "rest of the dead" (v. 5) perchance refers to the faithful of God who had not lived under Roman domination. This is difficult, I make no bones about it, but I always come back to John's readers--they are the ones who need comfort here so the message applies primarily to them. They did not serve Rome, they were willing to die for the Lord, and thus they will reign with him. Over them, "the second death has no power" (v. 6). Again, this passage says nothing about a reign of Christ on earth; indeed, the martyrs were already in heaven (Rev. 6:9).
But Satan is relentless (vs. 7-10). After the Roman Empire, Satan was "released from his prison" (v. 7)--he still plagues us today, and will continue to "deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth" (v. 8). These nations are called "Gog and Magog," who have been enemies of God's people since Ezekiel 38 (the only other location in Scripture in which they are mentioned). They attempt to make war against the saints and persecute them (v. 9), but "fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them" (v. 9)--we are saved by Him, not by ourselves. Satan and his emissaries are then "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (v. 10). Folks, Satan is not in hell right now; he's on the earth. Hell is reserved for him, too. This is not just the teaching of this passage, but other, plainer, passages elsewhere (cf. I Pet. 5:8). Satan will ultimately be defeated where he can tempt us and destroy our souls no more. What greater, more comforting knowledge is there than that? Emphasizing the 1,000 reign in this chapter completely misses the magnificent promise of the final defeat of our greatest enemy.
The great white throne (vs. 11-15)--God is there on that throne (v. 11-12), and "the dead, small and great" will someday stand before Him (. 12). No escapes the final judgment. The "books" (the Bible) were opened, as well as the Book of Life; that these first books refer to the Bible is evident in that all will be judged "by the things which were written in the books" (v. 12). And we will be judged "according to [our] works" (v. 12)--there is indeed a part man plays in his own salvation. Again, all, even those who are dead at the time of the final judgment, will face God. When that judgment is over, there will be no more death, and no more Hades, which is apparently the resting place of the soul before the final judgment (v. 14). The saved will be with God (as described in the next two chapters) and the lost will be "cast into the lake of fire" (v. 15). God's people will live forever; God's enemies will live forever, too--but not in His presence.
I do believe I've captured above the general essence of Revelation 20, "general" being the point of apocalyptic literature anyway. The specifics have been debated since the book was released to the public almost 2,000 years ago. The earthly 1,000 year reign has been propagated ever since, but again, I find no warrant for such a doctrine anywhere else in the Bible. Indeed, when it speaks clearly, without a figure, inspiration tells us of heaven, not the earth. Victory, a heavenly home with God for eternity, is what we await.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Historical Certainty of the Gospel
(Author's note: I have just published this same article on my A Journey Through the Bible blog, but not all of my readers peruse every one of my blogs. But I want this one read by a wider audience so I wish to add it to my main Bible blog as well.)
Luke 1:1-4--"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Luke's prologue is one of the most interesting, and faith-building, paragraphs in the Bible. As an historian, Luke has been proven true on all matters of which he can be tested; historians only reject his gospel and book of Acts because of the miracles he records. This is simply prejudice, not evidence. I want to do a little word study of this section, looking at a few of the terms Luke uses and how they forcefully proclaim the historicity of his writings.
"Which have been fulfilled" (v. 1). The KJV has "most surely believed." The Greek is a form of the word plerophoreo, which is variously translated (in the KJV) as "be fully persuaded," "be fully known," and "make full proof of." In other words, there is an absoluteness of belief because the life of Jesus is something "fully known" and supported by "full proof." God never asks us to believe something without evidence.
"Eyewitnesses" (v. 2). From the Greek word autoptes. It means an eyewitness, seeing with one's own eye. The apostles didn't simply listen to tales made up by Mother Goose. They saw Jesus and everything recorded about Him in the gospels. Our English word "autopsy" derives from this Greek word. What does the doctor do in an autopsy? He sees with his own eyes the cause of death, so that there will be no doubt.
"Having had perfect understanding" (v. 3). The ASV has "having traced the course of all things accurately." The Greek word is akribos, which is variously translated "diligently, circumspectly, perfectly." The idea is exactly, accurately, diligently. Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course (that's the only way he could have truly had "perfect" understanding), but such inspiration did not preclude a Bible writer from doing research. The Lord knew that future historians would demand such, and thus Luke is at pains here to indicate that he did a thorough investigation of that which he wrote, talking to eyewitnesses, getting the facts "from the very first." What else can an historian do?
"That you may know the certainty" (v. 4). Greek, asphaleia, which is found only three times in the New Testament. The other two instances it is translated "safety." Both of those other two examples, however, also imply certainty and absoluteness (Acts 5:23; I Thess. 5:3). The word has the meaning of firmness, stability, certainty, undoubted truth, safety from one's enemies. Luke wanted Theophilus to know that his faith stood on a firm foundation, that it was true of a certainty, and that there could be no fear from enemies of the gospel.
Everything about what Luke writes in this prologue indicates the absolutely true nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no hesitancy, there is no doubt, there is no speculation--this is historical fact, Luke says, I researched it diligently from the very beginning, I talked to those who were there, I know what I'm talking about, and you can be certain of its truth. That's Christianity.
Luke 1:1-4--"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Luke's prologue is one of the most interesting, and faith-building, paragraphs in the Bible. As an historian, Luke has been proven true on all matters of which he can be tested; historians only reject his gospel and book of Acts because of the miracles he records. This is simply prejudice, not evidence. I want to do a little word study of this section, looking at a few of the terms Luke uses and how they forcefully proclaim the historicity of his writings.
"Which have been fulfilled" (v. 1). The KJV has "most surely believed." The Greek is a form of the word plerophoreo, which is variously translated (in the KJV) as "be fully persuaded," "be fully known," and "make full proof of." In other words, there is an absoluteness of belief because the life of Jesus is something "fully known" and supported by "full proof." God never asks us to believe something without evidence.
"Eyewitnesses" (v. 2). From the Greek word autoptes. It means an eyewitness, seeing with one's own eye. The apostles didn't simply listen to tales made up by Mother Goose. They saw Jesus and everything recorded about Him in the gospels. Our English word "autopsy" derives from this Greek word. What does the doctor do in an autopsy? He sees with his own eyes the cause of death, so that there will be no doubt.
"Having had perfect understanding" (v. 3). The ASV has "having traced the course of all things accurately." The Greek word is akribos, which is variously translated "diligently, circumspectly, perfectly." The idea is exactly, accurately, diligently. Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course (that's the only way he could have truly had "perfect" understanding), but such inspiration did not preclude a Bible writer from doing research. The Lord knew that future historians would demand such, and thus Luke is at pains here to indicate that he did a thorough investigation of that which he wrote, talking to eyewitnesses, getting the facts "from the very first." What else can an historian do?
"That you may know the certainty" (v. 4). Greek, asphaleia, which is found only three times in the New Testament. The other two instances it is translated "safety." Both of those other two examples, however, also imply certainty and absoluteness (Acts 5:23; I Thess. 5:3). The word has the meaning of firmness, stability, certainty, undoubted truth, safety from one's enemies. Luke wanted Theophilus to know that his faith stood on a firm foundation, that it was true of a certainty, and that there could be no fear from enemies of the gospel.
Everything about what Luke writes in this prologue indicates the absolutely true nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no hesitancy, there is no doubt, there is no speculation--this is historical fact, Luke says, I researched it diligently from the very beginning, I talked to those who were there, I know what I'm talking about, and you can be certain of its truth. That's Christianity.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Israel Has No Part In God’s Plan Today
The nation of Israel remains, and will remain, in the news today. The Near East is one of the world’s hot spots, and rightly or wrongly, Israel is one of the reasons why. It is quite common for televangelists and other preachers within Christendom today to argue that God gave the Jews the land of Palestine forever, intended for them to live in it, and thus the Jews, Biblically, have every right to that land today and Christians should support Israel. Whether Christians should support Israel can be debated politically, but the other three points are dead wrong. God did not give the Jews that land forever (or, until the end of time), He did not intend for them to live in it, at least not beyond the Christian age, and the Jews have no Biblical right to that land today.
Folks, read my next statement very carefully and let your mind wrap around it for a little while because it’s going to take some time for it to sink in. According to true, New Testament Christian theology, there shouldn’t even BE any Jews in the world today! God wants everybody to be a Christian; He doesn’t want this mass of unconverted Jews out there who still reject His Son, Jesus Christ. How can Israel today be in God’s plan if there aren’t even supposed to be any Jews left? Didn’t Jesus die to make EVERYBODY a Christian, back then and ever since?
The Old Testament prophets pointed their people to Jesus, to the spiritual Israel, the church. In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls the church the “Israel of God.” Old Testament, physical Israel was a type of New Testament, spiritual Israel, the church. The Jews were selected by God to be the people through whom the Messiah would come (Gal. 4:4). Thus, Abraham and his descendents were given the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:1-3), and God delivered a constitution to the nation of Israel through Moses (Deut. 5:1-4). This was a tremendous honor that God gave to the Jews—to be the people through whom the Savior of the world would come, and to be custodians of His word. What other peoples were granted such a great, great privilege? Obviously, none, and the Jews should have been infinitely grateful for the honor God bestowed upon them. But once they delivered the Messiah into the world, the role Jehovah intended for them to play was finished. Jesus is the Savior of all, and God wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4). And that salvation can only come through Jesus.
The Jews rejected Him. They weren’t supposed to, but they did. Ideally, every single, solitary Jew and Gentile was/is to be converted to Jesus. There should be no Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Shintoists, etc. If God had HIS way, everyone would be a Christian. So all the gifts and promises God made to the Jews were fulfilled and ended in Christ. They had the rich blessing of bringing Him into the world; they should have had the humility and thankfulness to accept Him and become Christians. They did not. But just because they didn’t, doesn’t mean God still has a plan for them. He destroyed their system of theology (as written in the law of Moses) in 70 A.D., something Jesus predicted in Matthew 24, and such destruction was a result of their mass rejection of Him (read the chapters leading up to, and including, Matthew 24). The Jews, Israel, have no more part to play in God’s designs for humanity. The only thing God wants for mankind today…is for everybody to become a Christian.
If today’s pro-Israeli televangelist today is correct, then the apostle Paul is a heretic. He wrote in Romans 10:1, “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” No, Paul, God did NOT want the Jews of your day to be saved. You see, God still has a plan for Israel 2,000 years after your time, Paul, and that means that He planned for the mass of Jews over the last 2,000 years to reject Jesus, be lost, and go to hell so that He could fulfill whatever designs He has for Israel in the 21st century. So, Paul, whatever YOUR heart’s desire was—that the Jews might be saved—was certainly not in GOD’s heart because, if you had had your way, Paul, and if all the Jews had turned to Christ, become Christians, and been saved, then there wouldn’t be any Jews left 2,000 years later to build an Israel that God could use!
I really cannot think of a more unBiblical, un-Godly doctrine than the teaching that God still has a plan for Israel today. Because if that’s true, then again, God intended for the mass majority of Jews over the last 2,000 to reject Jesus and be lost. And go to hell for eternity. That was His plan?? That, of course, makes every Biblical statement about the love of God for all of mankind and His desire for all men to be saved just so much bunkum. I would think it would be revolting to God to imply that He deliberately intended for millions of people to be lost so He could fulfill some sort of plan 2,000 years after the death of Christ.
There is no plan, in the Bible, for Israel today. Or, I’ll take that back, there IS a plan, and that is for all Israel (Jews) to be saved through Jesus Christ. But that was the plan…from the very moment man first sinned and God put a scheme of redemption into operation (Gen. 3:15). It was the plan before Abraham, to Abraham, under Moses, under the prophets, under Jesus, under Paul…and it’s the plan today. The only plan. And to say otherwise, in effect, makes God a liar by saying that He did NOT want all men to be saved.
How can so many supposed “Christians” be so pro-Jewish?
Folks, read my next statement very carefully and let your mind wrap around it for a little while because it’s going to take some time for it to sink in. According to true, New Testament Christian theology, there shouldn’t even BE any Jews in the world today! God wants everybody to be a Christian; He doesn’t want this mass of unconverted Jews out there who still reject His Son, Jesus Christ. How can Israel today be in God’s plan if there aren’t even supposed to be any Jews left? Didn’t Jesus die to make EVERYBODY a Christian, back then and ever since?
The Old Testament prophets pointed their people to Jesus, to the spiritual Israel, the church. In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls the church the “Israel of God.” Old Testament, physical Israel was a type of New Testament, spiritual Israel, the church. The Jews were selected by God to be the people through whom the Messiah would come (Gal. 4:4). Thus, Abraham and his descendents were given the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:1-3), and God delivered a constitution to the nation of Israel through Moses (Deut. 5:1-4). This was a tremendous honor that God gave to the Jews—to be the people through whom the Savior of the world would come, and to be custodians of His word. What other peoples were granted such a great, great privilege? Obviously, none, and the Jews should have been infinitely grateful for the honor God bestowed upon them. But once they delivered the Messiah into the world, the role Jehovah intended for them to play was finished. Jesus is the Savior of all, and God wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4). And that salvation can only come through Jesus.
The Jews rejected Him. They weren’t supposed to, but they did. Ideally, every single, solitary Jew and Gentile was/is to be converted to Jesus. There should be no Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Shintoists, etc. If God had HIS way, everyone would be a Christian. So all the gifts and promises God made to the Jews were fulfilled and ended in Christ. They had the rich blessing of bringing Him into the world; they should have had the humility and thankfulness to accept Him and become Christians. They did not. But just because they didn’t, doesn’t mean God still has a plan for them. He destroyed their system of theology (as written in the law of Moses) in 70 A.D., something Jesus predicted in Matthew 24, and such destruction was a result of their mass rejection of Him (read the chapters leading up to, and including, Matthew 24). The Jews, Israel, have no more part to play in God’s designs for humanity. The only thing God wants for mankind today…is for everybody to become a Christian.
If today’s pro-Israeli televangelist today is correct, then the apostle Paul is a heretic. He wrote in Romans 10:1, “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” No, Paul, God did NOT want the Jews of your day to be saved. You see, God still has a plan for Israel 2,000 years after your time, Paul, and that means that He planned for the mass of Jews over the last 2,000 years to reject Jesus, be lost, and go to hell so that He could fulfill whatever designs He has for Israel in the 21st century. So, Paul, whatever YOUR heart’s desire was—that the Jews might be saved—was certainly not in GOD’s heart because, if you had had your way, Paul, and if all the Jews had turned to Christ, become Christians, and been saved, then there wouldn’t be any Jews left 2,000 years later to build an Israel that God could use!
I really cannot think of a more unBiblical, un-Godly doctrine than the teaching that God still has a plan for Israel today. Because if that’s true, then again, God intended for the mass majority of Jews over the last 2,000 to reject Jesus and be lost. And go to hell for eternity. That was His plan?? That, of course, makes every Biblical statement about the love of God for all of mankind and His desire for all men to be saved just so much bunkum. I would think it would be revolting to God to imply that He deliberately intended for millions of people to be lost so He could fulfill some sort of plan 2,000 years after the death of Christ.
There is no plan, in the Bible, for Israel today. Or, I’ll take that back, there IS a plan, and that is for all Israel (Jews) to be saved through Jesus Christ. But that was the plan…from the very moment man first sinned and God put a scheme of redemption into operation (Gen. 3:15). It was the plan before Abraham, to Abraham, under Moses, under the prophets, under Jesus, under Paul…and it’s the plan today. The only plan. And to say otherwise, in effect, makes God a liar by saying that He did NOT want all men to be saved.
How can so many supposed “Christians” be so pro-Jewish?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Who Is, Are, Was, Were the Antichrist(s)?--I
This creature called “the Antichrist” is very popular today among those who claim to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth. As we shall see, he always has been. The modern manifestation is embodied within the premillennial theory, the “1,000 year reign” doctrine. The idea, briefly, runs something like this. Very soon, the “rapture” will take place (all the faithful will disappear from the earth to be with Christ for a while). Then there will be seven years of “tribulation,” horrors upon the earth such as there have never been before. The “Antichrist”—a human leader--will become publicly known during this period, and because of the “tribulation” and the charisma of this “future fuehrer” (as he has been called), multitudes will follow him. However, he will be a bitter enemy of Christianity, and will lead the world towards the final, great earthly struggle, the Battle of Armageddon, which will take place in the country of Israel and will involve nearly all the nations of the world. Right before the nations of the earth utterly obliterate themselves in this battle, the Lord Jesus will return with His saints, destroy the Antichrist, and inaugurate a reign of peace and tranquility that will last 1,000 years. There is much more to premillennialism than this, and there are variations upon the above scenario. But this is the basic idea, and regarding the “antichrist,” he is anticipated by nearly all to be a charismatic leader who will deceive many.
I am not among the “nearly all,” and I will demonstrate why in this series.
The “antichrist” is supposedly found in many passages in the Bible, but under a different name. The king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4), the little horn of Daniel 7:8 and 8:9, the man of sin (II Thess. 2:3), and the beast of Revelation 13:1. Matthew 24 provides the “signs” that precede the 2nd coming of Christ to set up His millennial kingdom, while the book of Revelation provides much of the detail. Check my blog on Revelation for a different perspective. Interestingly, the “antichrist” has had a long and varied history since the 2nd century. There has probably not been a single generation since the 1st century in which someone has been pegged with this title. The range of views is incredible. We will take a look at the “antichrist” down through history in part two of this series.
I am not among the “nearly all,” and I will demonstrate why in this series.
The “antichrist” is supposedly found in many passages in the Bible, but under a different name. The king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4), the little horn of Daniel 7:8 and 8:9, the man of sin (II Thess. 2:3), and the beast of Revelation 13:1. Matthew 24 provides the “signs” that precede the 2nd coming of Christ to set up His millennial kingdom, while the book of Revelation provides much of the detail. Check my blog on Revelation for a different perspective. Interestingly, the “antichrist” has had a long and varied history since the 2nd century. There has probably not been a single generation since the 1st century in which someone has been pegged with this title. The range of views is incredible. We will take a look at the “antichrist” down through history in part two of this series.
Who Is, Are, Was, Were the Antichrist(s)?--II
Regarding the “antichrist” down through history, some Bible students have maintained that there was a Jewish “antichrist” legend taken up by Christians. I have found no historical proof of this, thus the apostle John (the only biblical writer who uses the term “antichrist”) got his language from the Holy Spirit and not Jewish custom. Others have suggested that the “antichrist” is not a person, but a principle, where there has also been the idea that the “antichrist” is some historical personage. This last idea is, by far, the most popular down through the centuries.
Early references to the antichrist were to Roman emperors Caligula (37-41 A.D) or Nero (54-68). There was also the idea that Simon Magus (of Acts 8 fame) was the “antichrist”; a long, and interesting, “history” (mythical) followed Simon the sorcerer, of which it is not relevant to pursue in this series. Nero was especially popular in the early centuries following Christ (i.e., the 2nd through 4th centuries). No one knew where Nero’s grave lay, so there were occasional sporadic rumblings, especially during times of persecution, that he would imminently return from the dead. According to Augustine and Jerome, many people believed that the apostle John also was not dead, but sleeping, and would come forth at the same time as Nero and testify against the emperor, anointing him as the “antichrist.” This, obviously, never happened.
Other claims as to who the “antichrist” is were equally extraordinary. Two early Christian “fathers,” Iranaeus and Hippolytus, writing in the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries, argued that the “antichrist” would spring from the tribe of Dan—Deuteronomy 33:22 reads, “Dan is a lion’s whelp and he shall leap from Bashan,” and even Jacob, in Genesis 49:17, predicted “Dan shall be a serpent by the way…that bites the horse’s heel.” Very clear references to the “antichrist”! However, these “powerful” arguments gave way to other (equally?) weighty tomes. In the 4th century, the Arian heresy was nominated for the role of “antichrist.” Cyril of Jerusalem, a 4th century bishop) suggested that the “antichrist” was a magician who would take control of the Roman empire. Many Protestants, after the Reformation, equated the Pope with the “antichrist.” An 1864 volume of the Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell’s monthly journal, quotes an article from the Prophetic Times stating that French emperor Louis Napoleon had all the signs of becoming the “antichrist.” Not many years ago, Henry Kissinger was nominated for the role, and it is not surprising that many believers today are suspicious that Barack Obama might be this dastardly fellow. Well, Barack certainly doesn’t seem to be very interested in spreading Christianity around the world, that’s for sure.
The above is a very cursory examination of the “antichrist” down through history. And all of this is very curious, given the fact that the term “antichrist” is found in only four Scriptures in the entire Bible. Talk about building a mighty structure of a very thin foundation…Well, in our third, and final, article in this series, we will look at these four Scriptures and see if we can determine who this “antichrist” was—or actually, “antichrists”, for there were more than one.
Early references to the antichrist were to Roman emperors Caligula (37-41 A.D) or Nero (54-68). There was also the idea that Simon Magus (of Acts 8 fame) was the “antichrist”; a long, and interesting, “history” (mythical) followed Simon the sorcerer, of which it is not relevant to pursue in this series. Nero was especially popular in the early centuries following Christ (i.e., the 2nd through 4th centuries). No one knew where Nero’s grave lay, so there were occasional sporadic rumblings, especially during times of persecution, that he would imminently return from the dead. According to Augustine and Jerome, many people believed that the apostle John also was not dead, but sleeping, and would come forth at the same time as Nero and testify against the emperor, anointing him as the “antichrist.” This, obviously, never happened.
Other claims as to who the “antichrist” is were equally extraordinary. Two early Christian “fathers,” Iranaeus and Hippolytus, writing in the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries, argued that the “antichrist” would spring from the tribe of Dan—Deuteronomy 33:22 reads, “Dan is a lion’s whelp and he shall leap from Bashan,” and even Jacob, in Genesis 49:17, predicted “Dan shall be a serpent by the way…that bites the horse’s heel.” Very clear references to the “antichrist”! However, these “powerful” arguments gave way to other (equally?) weighty tomes. In the 4th century, the Arian heresy was nominated for the role of “antichrist.” Cyril of Jerusalem, a 4th century bishop) suggested that the “antichrist” was a magician who would take control of the Roman empire. Many Protestants, after the Reformation, equated the Pope with the “antichrist.” An 1864 volume of the Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell’s monthly journal, quotes an article from the Prophetic Times stating that French emperor Louis Napoleon had all the signs of becoming the “antichrist.” Not many years ago, Henry Kissinger was nominated for the role, and it is not surprising that many believers today are suspicious that Barack Obama might be this dastardly fellow. Well, Barack certainly doesn’t seem to be very interested in spreading Christianity around the world, that’s for sure.
The above is a very cursory examination of the “antichrist” down through history. And all of this is very curious, given the fact that the term “antichrist” is found in only four Scriptures in the entire Bible. Talk about building a mighty structure of a very thin foundation…Well, in our third, and final, article in this series, we will look at these four Scriptures and see if we can determine who this “antichrist” was—or actually, “antichrists”, for there were more than one.
Who Is, Are, Was, Were the Antichrist(s)?—III
The four Scriptures that use the term “antichrist” are as follows:
I John 2:18—“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
I John 2:22—“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
I John 4:3—“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world.”
II John 7—“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
That’s it, the only Scriptures that use the term “antichrist.” Please note that none of these Scriptures are in the book of Revelation, yet premillennial commentaries of that book are full of references to the “Antichrist.”
Notice some things John says about the “antichrist.” First, there are “many antichrists,” not just one. It is very important to note that the HOLY SPIRIT, the ultimate author of John’s writings, does not limit “antichrist” to just one being. Plus, they were already in the world in John’s day. Is the “future fuehrer” that old?
But who are “they,” John? Anyone “that denieth the Father and the Son,” (I John 2:22), “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (I John 4:3), “who[ever] confess[es] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (II John 7). John clearly, to his readers, identifies who these “antichrists” were. But for us to understand exactly about whom John is writing, we need some knowledge of the historical situation in the church in the late first century, when the beloved apostle was writing. Let me briefly overview the historical background behind John’s letters.
By 80 A.D., the Jewish people, as a whole, had rejected Christianity, and there were very few Jewish converts. Most of the converts to Christianity now were Gentiles. The separation between church and synagogue was complete; the controversy over justification by faith vs. the law of Moses had largely died out, and the influx of Gentiles into the church, with their heritage of philosophical thought, was beginning to affect doctrinal teaching., Thus, the later books written in the New Testament deal with this problem, after the earlier writings (especially Paul’s) had argued so vociferously about the law of Moses and its relationship to Christianity. The book of Hebrews was likely the final breaking point, along with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
These new Greek Gentile converts were interested in the person of Christ—who was He? If He was God, how could He die? And if He died, how could He be God? And thus there was a tremendous debate over the nature of Christ, which occupied the church, literally, for the next several centuries (and still exists, to a point), and gave us such interesting things as Arianism, Monothelitism, and Monophysitism. Most of the important early church “councils” were called to try and settle this problem--Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451, the final of which settled the issue—truthfully. The particular problem that the apostle John was dealing with was an early form of Gnosticism. What was Gnosticism?
Briefly, Gnosticism was built on the premise that the spirit is good and matter is evil. Salvation consists of escape from the realm of matter into the realm of spirit; the means of escape were numerous, but most needful was knowledge, by which man can rise above the earth-bound chains of matter into the heavenly apprehension of truth. This knowledge (Greek, gnosis) could be attained only by those who were initiated into the inner secrets of the group—sort of like a modern cult. Since they believed that matter (including the human flesh) was evil, some Gnostics were extreme ascetics, some extreme libertines. Both believed that the “body” was evil. Now, since matter, including the body, was evil, how could the infinite, pure spirit called God have anything to do with a material body? Gnostics, therefore, had two basic views about Christ. One, He was not really human, but only apparently so, or two, the Christ-spirit entered Jesus’ body at baptism and left Him before He died. But “God” never could have possibly “become flesh.”
The apostle John is obviously combating these ideas in his writings, especially the first one, i.e., that Jesus was not really human. In John 1:14, he plainly stated “the word became flesh and dwelt among men.” In I John 1:1, he immediately contradicted the Gnostic notion: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life”—we saw Him, we heard Him, looked upon Him, we touched Him. He who denied and “confess[ed] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh…is a deceiver and an antichrist” (II John 7). And there were “many” of them in John’s day and the coming centuries (I John 2:18). John’s strictures against “knowledge” (the Gnostic form) and their lack of love for the brethren (because of the Gnostics’ belief in their superior knowledge) are found frequently in his letters. The full development of Gnosticism was not until the 2nd century, so John was probably fighting a precursor, Docetism, which argued that Jesus only “seemed” to come in the flesh. But be that as it may, the Bible is very clear who these “antichrists” were: Gnostic or pre-Gnostic heretics who denied the true nature of the Lord Jesus. Gnosticism is not with us anymore, at least in its early forms, thus these “antichrists” do not exist today. The idea that the “Antichrist” is some future dictator or tyrant simply is not supported by the Biblical evidence. It is important, yea, essential, that we have some knowledge of ancient history and the setting in which Biblical books were written. Otherwise, we also could be swept into the errors of premillennialism and other false notions.
Let us be careful in our handling of the Biblical text that we speak only as it speaks and not be misled by claims that have no basis in Biblical truth or historical reality.
I John 2:18—“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
I John 2:22—“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
I John 4:3—“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world.”
II John 7—“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
That’s it, the only Scriptures that use the term “antichrist.” Please note that none of these Scriptures are in the book of Revelation, yet premillennial commentaries of that book are full of references to the “Antichrist.”
Notice some things John says about the “antichrist.” First, there are “many antichrists,” not just one. It is very important to note that the HOLY SPIRIT, the ultimate author of John’s writings, does not limit “antichrist” to just one being. Plus, they were already in the world in John’s day. Is the “future fuehrer” that old?
But who are “they,” John? Anyone “that denieth the Father and the Son,” (I John 2:22), “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (I John 4:3), “who[ever] confess[es] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (II John 7). John clearly, to his readers, identifies who these “antichrists” were. But for us to understand exactly about whom John is writing, we need some knowledge of the historical situation in the church in the late first century, when the beloved apostle was writing. Let me briefly overview the historical background behind John’s letters.
By 80 A.D., the Jewish people, as a whole, had rejected Christianity, and there were very few Jewish converts. Most of the converts to Christianity now were Gentiles. The separation between church and synagogue was complete; the controversy over justification by faith vs. the law of Moses had largely died out, and the influx of Gentiles into the church, with their heritage of philosophical thought, was beginning to affect doctrinal teaching., Thus, the later books written in the New Testament deal with this problem, after the earlier writings (especially Paul’s) had argued so vociferously about the law of Moses and its relationship to Christianity. The book of Hebrews was likely the final breaking point, along with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
These new Greek Gentile converts were interested in the person of Christ—who was He? If He was God, how could He die? And if He died, how could He be God? And thus there was a tremendous debate over the nature of Christ, which occupied the church, literally, for the next several centuries (and still exists, to a point), and gave us such interesting things as Arianism, Monothelitism, and Monophysitism. Most of the important early church “councils” were called to try and settle this problem--Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451, the final of which settled the issue—truthfully. The particular problem that the apostle John was dealing with was an early form of Gnosticism. What was Gnosticism?
Briefly, Gnosticism was built on the premise that the spirit is good and matter is evil. Salvation consists of escape from the realm of matter into the realm of spirit; the means of escape were numerous, but most needful was knowledge, by which man can rise above the earth-bound chains of matter into the heavenly apprehension of truth. This knowledge (Greek, gnosis) could be attained only by those who were initiated into the inner secrets of the group—sort of like a modern cult. Since they believed that matter (including the human flesh) was evil, some Gnostics were extreme ascetics, some extreme libertines. Both believed that the “body” was evil. Now, since matter, including the body, was evil, how could the infinite, pure spirit called God have anything to do with a material body? Gnostics, therefore, had two basic views about Christ. One, He was not really human, but only apparently so, or two, the Christ-spirit entered Jesus’ body at baptism and left Him before He died. But “God” never could have possibly “become flesh.”
The apostle John is obviously combating these ideas in his writings, especially the first one, i.e., that Jesus was not really human. In John 1:14, he plainly stated “the word became flesh and dwelt among men.” In I John 1:1, he immediately contradicted the Gnostic notion: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life”—we saw Him, we heard Him, looked upon Him, we touched Him. He who denied and “confess[ed] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh…is a deceiver and an antichrist” (II John 7). And there were “many” of them in John’s day and the coming centuries (I John 2:18). John’s strictures against “knowledge” (the Gnostic form) and their lack of love for the brethren (because of the Gnostics’ belief in their superior knowledge) are found frequently in his letters. The full development of Gnosticism was not until the 2nd century, so John was probably fighting a precursor, Docetism, which argued that Jesus only “seemed” to come in the flesh. But be that as it may, the Bible is very clear who these “antichrists” were: Gnostic or pre-Gnostic heretics who denied the true nature of the Lord Jesus. Gnosticism is not with us anymore, at least in its early forms, thus these “antichrists” do not exist today. The idea that the “Antichrist” is some future dictator or tyrant simply is not supported by the Biblical evidence. It is important, yea, essential, that we have some knowledge of ancient history and the setting in which Biblical books were written. Otherwise, we also could be swept into the errors of premillennialism and other false notions.
Let us be careful in our handling of the Biblical text that we speak only as it speaks and not be misled by claims that have no basis in Biblical truth or historical reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
