March 7th, 2014 — Freedom, Politics
This is not a joke, but you have to understand Genesis to see why
What follows this introduction is a conventional op-ed-style commentary on the financial woes currently pushing Alberta Premier Alison Redford into polling hell — until you reach the conclusion, in which I take off in a direction that I realize may seem to many readers to go right off the logical rails. I don’t think my conclusion is a non-sequitur, but to help you see why permit me to give a little background from Genesis, chapter 11, where the story of the Tower of Babel is found.
A lot of people assume the tower was built as a safety measure, just in case God sent another flood. The sin, these commentators say, is that those early generations failed to trust God to keep the promise he made in Gen. 8:21-22; 9:8-17 to never again destroy the earth by a flood. Thus the tower, in case they needed to quickly flee to a high place. But that makes no sense for two reasons. 1) These people were not ignorant of God’s power to flood the tops of the mountains. No tower they could build would be higher than that. 2) The real reason for the tower’s construction is stated in Genesis 11:4, where the people say to one another, “Let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
The peoples’ sins were fourfold. 1) They wanted to build for themselves. They were not interested in building God’s kingdom. 2) The tower was an attempt to keep everyone in sight for the purpose of control. Before spy satellites were invented Big Brother had to build high towers to keep track of everyone’s whereabouts for the purpose of keeping them together, all marching to the same rhythm. This was a direct attempt at preventing people from obeying God’s command in Genesis 9:1 to “fill the earth.” 3) The tower likely became an opportunity for idolatry, not just for worshipping the stars, but for worshipping the all-powerful state in opposition to the worship of God. 4) This brings us to the root reason for the tower, found in their determination to “make for ourselves a name.” Names are derived from one’s father and are passed down through the generations. Names are indicative of heritage, and heritage influences how you see yourself. Your name strongly influences what kind of person you will be. Until Babel the people understood they had a connection with God, that they were named by Him and that they owed him worship and obedience. The leadership at Babel were insistent that they would no longer be attached to their creator by name or by obligation.
If you think I am putting too much importance on their making for themselves a name apart from God, then remember what St. Paul said in Eph. 3:14-15. “For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” — and “purpose,” is added by some translations. In spirit, the people of Babel were the opposite of the apostle, declaring emphatically that God was not their father and that they wanted nothing to do with Him or His purpose. No wonder God confounded their speech and forced the division of humanity. The human race would be spiritually wrecked forever if world unity–apart from God–could actually be accomplished.
But that has not stopped a lot of people from trying. The spirit of Babel prevails today in the movement best represented by the United Nations. It really is an attempt to create heaven on earth without reference to God (that is, if your idea of heaven is enforced equality). Like our post-flood ancestors, the progressive governments of our world, under the umbrella of the UN, are still working to achieve the same four goals as outlined above.
Believe it or not, all this is relevant to the following editorial about Alison Redford.
A premier who spends money like water
If you read the newspapers or watch the local news, you know already that Alberta Premier Alison Redford is in trouble for costing the province $45,000 to fly to South Africa to attend Nelson Mandela’s funeral. Nova Scotia’s premier made the same journey for less than $1,000.
It isn’t just the money that gives the story wings. It’s the way she pampered herself as she commandeered a provincial government jet to fly her to Ottawa, and then flew herself and an assistant home in first class accommodations, rather than coming home for free on the Prime Minister’s plane. Under pressure in the legislature, she has now promised to pay back $3,500 for some other personal expenditures she had previously charged to the province (expenditures no one even knew about until she declared she was paying them back). But as of this writing she flatly refuses to pay back any part of the $45,000 she spent on her South African jaunt.
A lot of people are scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Redford can display such arrogance with impunity. I think the answer lies in her employment background, as outlined helpfully in Wikipedia. Here’s a quick review.
“Throughout the 1990s, Redford worked as a technical adviser on constitutional and legal reform issues in various parts of Africa for the European Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Canadian Government and the Government of Australia. Her work in Africa focussed on human rights litigation, developing education programs and policy reform with respect to gender issues.
One of Redford’s most notable appointments was by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as one of the four International Election Commissioners to administer Afghanistan’s first parliamentary elections, held in September 2005. She also served as an adviser to the Privy Council Office on Canada’s future involvement in Afghanistan subsequent to the elections. Her work has included assignments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Namibia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and the Philippines. Before her most current post, Redford managed a judicial training and legal reform project for the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme People’s Court in Vietnam.”
To recap, since graduating in 1988 with a degree in law from the University of Saskatchewan, Redford has worked for governments and supra-government agencies all over the world. Her paychecks have come from all over (The European Union, British Commonwealth, the governments of Canada and Australia and the UN), which means one word can describe her basic orientation — Internationalism. She is not a Canadian or an Albertan, or anything else in particular. She is an Internationalist.
And notice the focus of her work: human rights, gender issues, education and policy reform, judicial training and legal reform. This is basically a summary of the entire progressive agenda (read left-wing agenda), and all of it done in countries whose histories and cultures she could not possibly understand. But no matter. She was never there to understand anyone. Wherever she went her purpose was to change the situation by making it the same as everywhere else in the world. Everywhere she went, her purpose was to direct things at the local level toward ends for which most citizens in those countries could have no sympathy at all. This woman has always seen herself as part of an elite intelligentsia out to fix the world according to progressive ideals and principles as outlined by the secularists and socialists whose overall aim is to complete the building of the Tower of Babel and defy the living God.
Seen in this light Redford’s arrogance is quite understandable. She doesn’t work for Alberta. She works for the spirit of the age. She works to unify the world, but not in a good way. In her mind a short stint in local government is a kind of dues she is willing to pay in order to earn the right to greater influence afterwards. If her present gig doesn’t work out, to her it’s no big deal. She’ll soon be rehired by one of the alphabet groups she used to work for and then she’ll go back to jetting all over the world to impose her progressive world view wherever she can. Where she does this matters not one whit.
February 19th, 2014 — Bible Study, Daily Devotions, Family, Theology
Matthew 18:5-6 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
What I scribbled in the margin: “Is Jesus assuming a little child will believe in Him? Is He teaching that children have a faith to be nurtured? It almost appears that Jesus assumes faith in the child and warns against the risk of tearing it down.”
It’s interesting to me that after a long absence from my blog I should return to the ministry of marginalia with this passage on Jesus and children just days after presenting two little children to Jesus at our church. For that reason alone, today’s text is especially evocative. But that is not why it jumped out at me when I read it a year or so ago. If you know anything at all about Baptists, you know that we do not baptise children. Yet for all the world it appears that Jesus is assuming faith in the heart of a child he seems to have chosen at random (see v. 2, same passage).
From what he said Jesus seems to be assuming saving faith in children, else why would he exhort the disciples to become like a child, and why would he speak of “these little ones (plural) who believe in me?” And, of course, this passage has to be connected to Christ’s admonition to “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Mt. 19:14).
So what does Jesus mean by this passage? Here are some ideas.
* We must never forget that children have deep spiritual capacities, and that it is our duty before God to nurture those capacities to the fullest extent possible. Again, in one of those strange “coincidences” that occur to Christians so often, I had the privilege of talking this week with a man over 60 years of age who told me he had received Christ at four. His pastor’s sermon on the second coming and God’s judgment left him with the distinct sense that he was unready to meet God. But he found peace when his mother suggested he could pray and invite Christ into his life. “I’ve never forgotten it,” he said. “Christ has been in my life from that day to this.”
* We had better do all we can to bring children to Jesus. There is no age when a child cannot believe in Jesus, nor is there any age at which an adult should not believe in Jesus in the very same way as a child.
* We need to read Bible stories to our children as perhaps the most important way to bring them to Jesus. When they are very young we should read the kind with pictures, and more standard translations when they grow older. We must also teach them to read the Bible for themselves.
* We must pray with our children, and teach them how to pray.
* We must help them learn how to dig into their own hearts for the purpose of discerning hidden motives. We must teach them how to understand the human heart and how it operates, and thus enable them come to an early understanding of why they behave as they do.
* We need to make Jesus live before them, showing them how we relate to the living Christ in our daily lives and encouraging them to develop a similar relationship through faith.
* In bringing children to Jesus we should realize that to some degree we will become the child-like people that Jesus wants us to be. We’ll learn to explain our faith so that a child can understand it, and that means we’ll more likely understand it ourselves.
*We must learn to live before God the same way we want our children to live before us. Our children believe us no matter what we say, and they love us, no matter what the difficulties of the moment may be. Our children need to see in us the same kind of relationship with God.
* Above all, Jesus is asking us to show our children that all human beings bear the image of God; that age and status have nothing to do with ultimate worth. We should live for the ultimate purpose of bringing the world to Christ.
December 12th, 2013 — Fun Stuff, Links to Favourite Authors, Links to Great Websites, Theology
In an outstanding article on the doctrinal richness of the great Christmas Carols, Sean Morris throws in an unexpected note about Santa Claus. I thought it was worth noting. Read the excerpt below, but then go on to read the entire article at:
In speaking of the importance of Christian doctrine, Sean says, “So what does any of this matter? Why or how should it affect our thinking? Though maligned in modernity as irrelevant, these doctrinal confessions are the stuff that split empires and spilt the blood of martyrs. There’s even a delightful old legend that tells of Saint Nicholas (yes, the Saint Nicholas) at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, having grown positively infuriated after listening to Arius deny that Jesus was divine and equal to God the Father but was merely the highest creature, strode across the room and punched Arias in the face!
“Very God of Very God”—language that can cause imperial turmoil, the death of faithful disciples, and even provoke Santa Claus to slap the face of an old Egyptian heretic!”
December 11th, 2013 — Bible Study, Daily Devotions
Matthew 17:24-27 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma (temple) tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
What I scribbled in the margin: “This casual claim that we are exempt from the temple tax is a subtle, but powerful expression of Jesus’ awareness of his own divinity.”
If you get your head into the space occupied by first-century Jews you quickly recognize that paying the temple tax was like paying taxes to God. It was instituted by God’s direct commandment back in Exodus 30:11-16, where God, speaking through Moses, says, “This half-shekel (equal to two drachmas) is an offering to the Lord.” So the temple tax was an offering, actually a ransom for one’s life, paid directly to God.
Peter is adamant, and perhaps a little defensive, in declaring that Jesus did pay the tax, although it is interesting to me that the question was even raised. I suppose Jesus had already done enough toward tearing down the Jewish ceremonial system that no one could be certain where He might stand on this particular issue. Interestingly, in discussing the matter with Peter Jesus expresses a private opinion that differs from his public action. He knows Himself to be the Great High Priest who qualifies to minister in the greater, heavenly Tabernacle, and that the temple tax is for a building that Hebrews 8:5 describes as only a “copy and shadow of what is in heaven.”
Therefore, He and his (and that includes all believers) are technically exempt from a temple tax. Except Jesus went ahead and paid the tax for himself and Peter in order to avoid offending the Jews. What Jesus did is an example of Paul’s statement in Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Which, btw, comes immediately before Paul’s exhortation to obey and pay taxes to secular governments in Romans 13.)
Jesus also demonstrates through the miracle of the money in the fish’s mouth that God stands ready to help believers avoid unnecessary offense. One commentator calls this pasage the “strangest in Matthew’s gospel” and claims it is “trivial” for God to put money in a fish’s mouth. By that standard we might write off the feeding of the five-thousand as “trivial.” After all, nobody got more than a single meal of the deal, and what’s so special about bread and fish anyway?
Here’s what’s so non-trivial about this event. Jesus is demonstrating that when we have difficulty avoiding offense for the sake of the gospel, God is prepared to step in directly to help us. If Jesus is prepared to go so far as to call for a miracle on behalf of paying a tax he did not owe, then we should be willing to go any distance possible in our efforts at avoiding hurting others, or in any way turning them away from the Lord. In other words, when Paul said we should seek to make peace “as far as it depends on you,” we should keep in mind that with God’s help we can do more than is humanly possible toward living in peace with others.
December 5th, 2013 — Freedom, Politics, pro-life, Revival, Theology
I was recently talking with a Christian leader from the Middle East. He told me that for decades Christians have prayed that God would expose the lies inherent in Islam. He believes, as do many others, that the brief Egyptian presidency of Mohamed Morsi was an answer to that prayer. After little more than a year of Morsi’s reign, Egyptians saw that Islam makes life worse, not better, and the important thing is, they saw that it was Islam itself, not Morsi, that had failed.
Since that conversation I’ve been asking myself, what are the lies that enslave North Americans? When we pray that God would open the eyes of Canadians and U.S. citizens, how should we pray? Here is a suggested list of lies that we should pray God will expose.
- That government is an adequate replacement for God.
- That forced redistribution of wealth is the equivalent of Christian charity.
- That psychology and counselling can fix a sin-broken soul.
- That mankind is primarily related downward, toward the animals, more than he is related upwards, toward God in Whose image we are created.
- The we should focus our attention and effort on success in this life, rather than laying up treasure for the life to come.
- That existence, i.e. the universe and all it contains, consists only of what we can see and measure.
- That prayer is merely a religious form of meditation and self-help.
I am sure I have missed some of the popular lies that need exposing, but this is a starting point. I ask you to join me in praying these lies be exposed nationally and personally throughout our nation, and that once people see the emptiness of the materialistic lifestyle, they will seek the true God in Jesus Christ.
Two more things. 1) If you think of more lies that need exposing, send them to me. I’ll add them to the list. And 2) If you disagree with anything in my list, let me know, and let me know why. It will be fun to hash these things out.
November 27th, 2013 — Bible Study, Daily Devotions, Prophecy, Theology
Matthew 16:27-28 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
What I scribbled in the margin: “What does Jesus have in mind? Is He thinking of the transfiguration [which follows immediately in chapter 17] or of some later date?”
The easy route is to connect these verses to the transfiguration. This seems to allow for the statement “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” But there are problems with this approach. For one thing, Jesus speaks of coming with his angels, and of a judgment. None of that relates to the Transfiguration. To arrive at a useful answer to these questions I think we need to look at the larger context, the verses that come just before and that are found in the same paragraph in the original Greek text (emphasis mine).
I emphasize this last thought because some Bible translators have been so desperate to connect these verses to the transfiguration they have actually changed the paragraphing in opposition to the Greek text. The New King James Version, for instance, places a heading above v. 28 that reads “Jesus Transfigured on the Mount,” thus connecting the last verse in chapter 16 to the topic covered in the next chapter. This is not reflected in the Greek text, which extends the paragraph beginning with v.24 to the end of the chapter. It is clear to me, at least that this is an attempt by the NKJV translators to lead the reader to a particular conclusion: that this passage has nothing to do with Jesus’ second coming. Even with such trickery the effort fails. The transfiguration does reveal Christ in his true glory, but in no way does it show him “coming in his kingdom.”
And since v.28 actually belongs to the paragraph that begins in verse 24 we are forced, I think, to conclude that Jesus is talking about his second coming. In verses 25 and 26 Jesus has just uttered his famous declaration, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” These words hint at the kind of judgment that can only be construed as final judgment, that moment when a soul stands before God with eternity hanging in the balance.
Jesus’ next statement, that “the Son of Man is going to come in His Father’s glory” to “reward each person according to what he has done,” flows logically from his previous utterance and must inescapably refer to something comparable to those Old Testament passages (the natural context for Jesus’ disciples) that speak of final judgment under the title “The Day of the Lord.” I’m thinking of such passages as Joel 2:28-32, but also Isaiah 2:12ff, 13:6ff, and multiple passages in Ezekiel, Amos, Zephaniah and Zechariah.
When connected with Jesus’ next words, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” the entire passage leads to the idea that some of his disciples would live until his second coming. If that is what Jesus is teaching then we have to conclude that his frequent prophecies regarding his “coming” must refer primarily, if not exclusively, to 70 a.d., the time when all old covenant symbols were definitively destroyed (including the temple) and the New Covenant alone prevailed. Anything later than that (for example, the still-future second coming that most Christians expect) would have been too late for any of his disciples to still be living.
Why this matters
First, it matters because Jesus’ credibility as a prophet is at stake here. You see, this passage is only one in a list of prophecies Jesus made about his coming. If he is wrong about the timing of his second coming then nothing he says can be trusted. For another example, see Matt. 10:23 where Jesus says, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” That seems to indicate a relatively short interval between his ascension and his return. Unfortunately, this verse fits so poorly with today’s prevailing ideas about prophecy that some otherwise good and great men, including Earl Radmacher, former president of Western Seminary and one of the leading theologians of our time, has raised the possibility that Jesus might have made a mistake. If it was a mistake, it is certainly one Jesus made again and again, not just in Matthew 10 and 16, but also in Matt. 24, the chapter in which Jesus’ describes the destruction of Jerusalem and his second coming as a single event. There he includes these words: “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Such passages almost demand that the Bible reader see their fulfilment in the 70 a.d. destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing before or after that date fits Jesus’ words, and anything that happened after, say 95 a.d., would have proven Jesus a false prophet because by that point all the apostles, including the apostle John, would have “tasted death.”
Correctly interpreting Matthew 16:27-28 matters for a second reason; if we misinterpret and misapply Jesus’ words then it is we who risk becoming false prophets and bad theologians. If we say, for instance, that Matthew 16 and Matthew 24 are primarily about a future that is still to come then we risk being wrong about the second coming over and over again. And, of course, this is exactly what has happened. The “futurist” approach, adopted by Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind novels, not to mention Hal Lindsey, John MacArthur and a host of other authors and television evangelists, has led to a series of failed prophecies going all the way back to William Miller in the 1830s.
As you can see from the names mentioned above, not all the exponents of Christ’s future return are shysters. Some are serious and sincere theologians. Nevertheless, the futurist approach they adopt regarding Jesus’ words have lead them to make serious mistakes. Hal Lindsey was adamant that the rapture would take place by 1988, but he was just as wrong as Miller, who said it would happen in 1843. Even John Walvoord, formerly the president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and a great scholar by everyone’s estimation, was led to a false prophecy when Saddam Hussein first invaded Kuwait back in 1990.
At that point Walvoord rushed a revised version of his book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis into print, claiming, “All these [previously listed] facts lead to a spiritual challenge. If the Rapture of the church is imminent before the Middle East ruler emerges, it is not only possible but probable that the Rapture will take place soon” (italics added). That was 23 years ago, and nothing has happened except the fall of the Soviet Union and the total defeat of Saddam Hussein. Only someone who thinks that when Jesus said “near, right at the door” (Matt. 24:33, or “soon” (Rev. 22:20) he actually meant 2,000 years or more would pass, could also continue to claim that his prophecy of the soon-coming rapture from 23 years ago is still somehow not false.
Finally, those who misinterpret and misapply Matt. 16:27-28 risk becoming bad theologians. By relegating this passage, and related passages such as Matthew 24, to the still distant future they are forced to imagine a rebuilt temple with all the sacrifices reinstituted. This is extremely problematic, and not just because the Muslims currently control the surface of the Temple Mount. No, the problem is this, to rebuild the temple goes against everything taught in Scripture. For one thing, the temple was destroyed to make it clear to all that it was no longer the way to God, that redemption was to be found in Jesus Christ alone, who “went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not manmade, that is to say, not a part of this creation” (Heb. 9:11). And in Hebrews 10 the writer states without equivocation that God “sets aside the first [physical temple] in order “to establish the second [spiritual temple].”
Paul makes clear in Ephesians 2:11-22 that the people who worshipped at the earthly temple are joined with New Testament Christians in the one body of Christ, the church. There is only one body and one building, and both are spiritual and mystical, with Christ the head of the first and the cornerstone of the latter. It breaks my heart to think that anyone who knows God through Jesus Christ would ever imagine for a moment that the Jews would be forced, even symbolically, to go back to those “weak and miserable principles” (Gal. 4:9) that “can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).
September 20th, 2013 — Uncategorized
Here’s the opening paragraph from a recent article regarding the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/09/a-bold-prediction-et-will-call-in-next-25-years.html). “Admit it, the notion that we are alone amongst the stars – all 10,000 billion billion of them – is just a little depressing. Whether we concede it or not, humanity longs for its cosmic significant other.”
Christians admit nothing of the kind, because by grace we personally have come to know the “cosmic significant other,” although I would prefer to use a capital O – or call Him by His name, Yahweh, the Creator of the earth, the stars and everything else, aka the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Sometimes we forget how blessed we are to know God, and then along comes blogger Ross Pomeroy, author of the sentence I quoted in the first paragraph, to remind us that knowing we are not alone is precious indeed. We should pray for Ross (Don’t worry about the address; God knows where he is.) And we should do what we can to give people a glimpse of the joy of our relationship with God.
September 6th, 2013 — Bible Study, Politics, Prophecy, Theology
I was made aware yesterday that prophecy-oriented websites are having a field day over something called the Isaiah 17:1 prophecy. The Scripture text reads as follows: “An oracle concerning Damascus: ‘See, Damascus will no longer be called a city but will become a heap of ruins.’” Anyone following the news these days will immediately understand why this verse is receiving so much interest.
Commenting on this passage author Jack Kinsella suggests that Biblical prophecy is unfolding before the eyes of the world. As he wrote last year, “The prophet Isaiah predicts a quick war between Israel and Damascus, culminating with the total destruction of the city in a single night. In the event of a WMD attack against Israel, the destruction of Damascus would be Israel’s only defense against potential annihilation.”
Kinsella believes the possibility of a war between Israel and Syria is good news for Christians in that it heralds the approach of the rapture. “How it will all play out depends on where we are on the Bible’s timeline,” he concludes. “If we are where it looks like we are, we’re almost within earshot of the [rapture] trumpet.” Kinsella is not alone. Dozens of bloggers and authors are writing in much the same vein.
There is almost no possibility that they are correct. For one thing, the prophecy against Damascus comes in a section of Isaiah that is very clearly rooted in known history, a section that prophesies the end of many ancient middle-eastern nations. In Isaiah 13-14:23 God prophesied the end of Babylon, and sure enough the prophecy came true in 539 b.c. In 14:24ff God prophesied the end of Assyria, which took place in 605 b.c. Then come prophecies against the Philistines and Moab in chapters 15 and 16, two peoples who were long ago conquered so thoroughly that apart from the Bible no one even remembers them. Then, immediately afterwards, Isaiah speaks of Damascus and predicts its destruction.
Here’s the question every Bible reader ought to ask: If all the prophecies surrounding the destruction of Damascus are clearly about ancient times, including nations that only existed in ancient times, why should we suddenly decide that Isaiah 17:1 is to be fulfilled nearly 3,000 years later in the 21st century a.d.? The answer is, we shouldn’t. We should accept, as Bible scholars always did prior to the 19th century, that Isaiah 17 was fulfilled by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (II Kings 16:9).
Perhaps this wouldn’t matter much, except that a great deal of damage can be done when Biblical prophecies are handled carelessly. For one thing, misapplied prophetic passages can cause unbelievers to doubt the Bible when, in fact, the only thing they should be doubting is some individual’s erroneous interpretation.
Setting dates for the rapture is an especially dangerous exercise. From William Miller in the 1840s to Harold Camping in our time, dozens, if not hundreds of men and women have stepped forward to announce a date or period of time in which the second coming is supposed to take place — all of them supposedly basing their predictions upon the Bible. The only thing these people have had in common is that they were all equally wrong. Hal Lindsey thought the rapture would come by 1988. John Walvoord suggested it could happen in the early 1990s, and so on. But it did not take place according to their timetables, and there is no reason to believe that the next would-be prophet will finally get it right, either.
Here’s my plea. Since prophecy is perhaps the most difficult issue in Biblical interpretation, let us avoid dogmatism. Over the past 2,000 years of church history several approaches have been put forward by believing Bible scholars, and it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that only the view known as dispensationalism (the view held by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and the above-mentioned Jack Kinsella) is the correct one. Let us agree to study other approaches in order to compare their underlying methods of interpretation and the long-term effect that each approach might have upon the life of the Church. Above all, let us agree to love one another as together we prepare for that great day when we see our Lord face to face.
P.S. To read Kinsella’s original article go to (http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs019/1101818841456/archive/1110485439100.html).
September 5th, 2013 — Bible Study, Daily Devotions, Theology
Matthew 16:24-26 “Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?”
What I scribbled in the margin: “The resurrection is necessary, but it is the cross that is uniquely characteristic of God. God can’t help but live, but He chooses to die.”
First, let me ask you to spend a moment of silence mourning the death, or perhaps I should say the murder, of the English language. The murderer, of course, is the spirit of political correctness that today marches across the land insisting that “he” and “him” can never stand in for human beings collectively. Thus we get the latest iteration of the NIV that makes Jesus say “themselves” and “their.” Not only is that NOT what Jesus said, it removes the immediacy of His message. The reader is no longer thinking of himself and his need to obey Christ’s call. Rather, the use of “their” makes it somewhat impersonal, as though Jesus’ words apply not so much to the reader as to somebody else. (Sigh)
To get to the point of my scribble, please note that Jesus’ call to self-denial on the part of His disciples comes immediately after the revelation of His own impending suffering and death. This revelation was quite shocking to Peter and the other disciples who, for the moment, could not get their heads around it at all. They had just confessed Jesus to be God’s Son. And from their perspective God could not die, nor should he even think of it. This, of course, is the scandal of the cross and the reason Christ is still rejected by Jews and Muslims alike. That God should willingly make Himself weak, that He should suffer and die, is from their perspective the ultimate blasphemy.
But what about us Christians? We give lip-service to the cross, but is it possible we join unbelievers in denying its power. We flock to ministries that promise us power over health and wealth, never considering for a moment that God might will us to suffer and be poor. We can be as insistent upon getting our rights as anyone else. God help us to remember that our God chooses to humble Himself, deny Himself and die to Himself. Nor can we forget that Jesus has called us to be like Him if we want to be with Him. God help us.
September 4th, 2013 — Bible Study, Daily Devotions, Theology
There’s an old joke that says: “Never trust an atom; they make up everything.” Turns out that simply isn’t true. I won’t argue that you can trust atoms, but it’s a fact they hardly make up anything. According to scientists’ latest estimates as reported in Britain’s TheGuardian website, atoms form the basic materials for everything we can see around us, but altogether they only account for about five percent of everything that exists. The rest of the universe’s mass is attributed to “dark matter” and “dark energy.” How dark is dark matter? Very dark, indeed. So dark it can’t be detected. There’s no instrument sensitive enough to measure it, and every attempt to capture even the smallest shred has failed. But scientists are adamant. It has to be there, they say. Otherwise, what is there to hold the hold the universe together? Hmmmnnnn. What indeed?
Here is one possible alternative, as offered in Colossians 1:15-17. “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Or what about Hebrews 1:3? “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Thus it seems to me that the Bible has a very logical, sensible explanation for what keeps the galaxies on course, our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The same God who created everything is also capable of holding everything together, everything visible and everything invisible.
I’m well aware that even Christian scientists try to avoid sticking the word “God” into the gaps of human knowledge. Because what happens if we later identify a “natural” process in the very gap where we once placed God? Here’s the Biblical answer to this question. “‘Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord” (Jer. 23:24). As Christians we don’t dare push God out to the edge of His universe. We freely admit there are plenty of gaps in human knowledge, but we admit no gaps at all in our God’s intimate involvement in all that is going on, whether natural or supernatural. He is between the electrons and protons of every atom and he is equally between the stars, upholding and sustaining all the universe “by His powerful Word.”
P.S. Here’s a little thought experiment. Dark matter was originally hypothesized some 80 years ago. Since then billions of dollars have been spent in a fruitless (so far, at least) effort to confirm its existence. But scientists persist in searching for it because they believe it must be there. I’m not denying the possibility that dark matter may exist (see the last paragraph of the main article), but I am asking you to consider who’s faith is more factually based, the scientist who believes in something no human has ever detected, or the Christian who believes in the Word of God, a word confirmed to us by the man who died and rose again?