Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Prophecy Series Part 1: Introduction
Given the interest in Bible Prophecy that was both evidenced and revealed by the popularity of the Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins I thought it might be helpful to take some time in a forum like this to do a series explaining and discussing certain aspects of what are called End Times Prophecies.
Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, are interested in the subject. I know that as a young person long before I was ever a believer in Christ as I am today, I was fascinated with the Book of Revelation with its cryptic phrases and comments about the coming end of the age. I was unaware of passages in Daniel and Isaiah and 1 Corinthians etc., that also talked of such things.
And yet as interested as I was I didn’t have anyone to help me unravel its meaning. The Book of Revelation was a mystery to me.
Certainly it is not the case today that we don’t have a great deal of help in unraveling the mysteries of Revelation and the subject of Eschatology, which is the technical name for the subject of End Times Prophecy. There are many books written on the subjects.
However what I often find as I read, is that certain aspects of Bible prophecy are not presented as clearly as they could be, and frequently writers have missed key passages in their explanations that would help their readers connect the dots of End Times prophecy more effectively. Moreover, I have often found that passages that clearly speak of one event in Prophecy are being attached to another, confusing the reader and misapplying the passages.
It should be said at the beginning of this series that no one has completely figured out this subject of Prophecy, as I’ll call it for short. There are a variety of “positions” on both the timelines and the meanings of several of the aspects of End Times prophecy. So while I will clearly present my own views on the subject, know that there are others that are held by people of equal or more likely, greater scholarship on the subject.
Having differing views on this subject should not be a polarizing thing. To cite one example, and I’ll explain more about this in another entry, while I hold what is called a “Mid-Tribulation” view of the Rapture of the Church, I am rooting like crazy for the “Pre-Tribulation” crowd to be right!
For those of you who don’t know what those terms mean, relax, I will explain them as we go along. For those who do know what the terms mean I am sure you see my point and are laughing your heads off in agreement with the philosophy if not the position!
What I hope to show during this series on Prophecy, is that Bible Prophecy is in great measure knowable. The mysteries have been greatly revealed by the scholarship of many over the years, and I believe by the progressive unveiling of the truth by the Lord through his Word, the Bible.
I will also show that there is strong agreement in the Bible believing world about the events that yet lay before us in Bible Prophecy, events that seem to be unfolding right before our eyes.
Whatever differences we may have in terms of our varying views of Prophecy, those differences are related more to the timing of events, rather than whether such events will take place. Or those differences relate more toward “who” the players will be in the unfolding drama, rather than whether the drama will unfold in a certain way.
So there is strong agreement on the major outline of what we are about to discuss. Make no mistake about that.
For that reason I can repeat my comment both with humor and with sincerity that while I hold a Mid-Tribulation view of the Rapture, I am rooting like crazy for the Pre-Tribulationists to be right and for me to be wrong! In other words, having a differing view as to a "Pre-Mid-Post Tribulation" Rapture doesn't have to be a dividing point.
We agree that the Rapture is going to take place and I am hoping like crazy that I have misunderstood the Scriptures and that the Pre-Tribbers are right. You might say I’m on their side. In my view that unites us, not divides us.
So I hope that as we go through this series, seeing the large number of things Bible believing Christians agree on, that your approach to Bible Prophecy likewise will be that of a uniter not a divider.
Far too often nuances of this subject have divided people. Rather than focusing in on our clear agreements, people have allowed the minor points of difference to become litmus tests of “Biblical Correctness.” Brothers and sisters, if I might address the believers who are reading, it ought not be so.
So tune in over the next while and I’ll do my best to open up some of the fascinating aspects that make up the subject of Bible Prophecy relating to the End Times. And if you have questions or if I have not explained something clearly enough, please e-mail in your questions/comments so I can address them.
And if the Rapture happens before I am able to finish the series, we’ll discuss this in heaven! (Of course if the Rapture does happen before I finish the series, it will mean that the Pre-Tribber’s were right! Would that it were so!)
More to come in the next entry as I provide a glossary of terms so we can talk short-hand in the articles to come.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Is it wrong to "use a fleece" in determining God's will for decisions in my life?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Is it wrong to "use a fleece" in determining God's will for decisions in my life?
DC
ATP: A great question and one that I learned something about in doing the research to provide the answer.
A little background first for those who may not know what a "fleece" is in this context. Here's the Biblical text from the story of Gideon in Judges 6:-40.
36 Then Gideon said to God, "If Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken, 37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel 1through me, as Thou hast spoken." 38 And it was so.
When he arose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece, he drained the dew from the fleece, a bowl full of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not let Thine anger burn against me that I may speak once more; please let me make a test once more with the fleece, let it now be dry only on the fleece, and let there be dew on all the ground." 40 And God did so that night; for it was dry only on the fleece, and dew was on all the ground.
(The New American Standard Bible: The Lockman Foundation)
From this example of Gideon using a "fleece" in his discussion with the Lord, people have looked to apply the principle of receiving a sign from the Lord to help make decisions in life.
Others have looked at the same text and commented that it was only because of Gideon's weak faith that he used a fleece, and thus this is not a good example to follow in making decisions as to whether a "go left or go right" or "yes or no" are from the Lord.
There is a third and better way to look at this passage, as I discovered in reading some commentaries about the above passage.
The fact of Gideon's "decision making by fleece" method is that this wasn't about making a decision at all. Reread the passage carefully. Gideon had already decided to go ahead with his army in helping protect Israel from the Midianites. In the earlier verses of the same chapter in Judges we read:
33 Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the sons of the east assembled themselves; and they crossed over and camped in the valley of Jezreel.
34 So the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon; and he blew a trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called together to follow him. 35 And he sent messengers throughout Manasseh, and they also were called together to follow him; and he sent messengers to Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they came up to meet them.
Gideon had already assembled his army. He was moving ahead. What is discovered in a careful reading of verse 36-40 above, is that he was asking the Lord whether he would be successful or not! So the original "Gideon's fleece" much to my own surprise as I took a new look at this, wasn't about decision making at all. Gideon's fleece incident was triggered by an understandable curiosity on Gideon's part about the success of what he had already been led to do by the Spirit of the Lord.
So the answer to the question, "Is it wrong to use a fleece in determining God's will?" is probably "yes." In the New Testament we are told that we are to walk by faith, not sight. Having a supernatural sign be our guide is not acting in faith, but rather is acting by sight.
We are also told that it is an evil and faithless generation that seeks a sign. Mind you that comment is made in a different context, but it would seem that the principle of not being "sign seekers" applies.
Last, if we were to use a "Gideon fleece principle" in order to make decisions, we would have to ask for a supernatural sign, something that could not be naturally fulfilled. Most often when people attempt to "put out a fleece" they do so asking for natural things to occur that will cue them as to God's leading.
That is inconsistent with what Gideon did. He asked for something that couldn't happen naturally.
In the end, the "fleece" question is made clearer when we see that Gideon wasn't asking for direction about what to do. He was asking whether what he had already decided to do and had been led to do by the Lord would be a success. Was he right to do that? That's hard to say.
What isn't hard to say however is this: there is no Gideon's fleece example in the Bible where a fleece was put out to help make a decision. That alone is perhaps the answer to the question.
So how do we make decisions and know with confidence that we are being led of the Lord? Good question, but one for another installment at another time.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Is it wrong to "use a fleece" in determining God's will for decisions in my life?
DC
ATP: A great question and one that I learned something about in doing the research to provide the answer.
A little background first for those who may not know what a "fleece" is in this context. Here's the Biblical text from the story of Gideon in Judges 6:-40.
36 Then Gideon said to God, "If Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken, 37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel 1through me, as Thou hast spoken." 38 And it was so.
When he arose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece, he drained the dew from the fleece, a bowl full of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not let Thine anger burn against me that I may speak once more; please let me make a test once more with the fleece, let it now be dry only on the fleece, and let there be dew on all the ground." 40 And God did so that night; for it was dry only on the fleece, and dew was on all the ground.
(The New American Standard Bible: The Lockman Foundation)
From this example of Gideon using a "fleece" in his discussion with the Lord, people have looked to apply the principle of receiving a sign from the Lord to help make decisions in life.
Others have looked at the same text and commented that it was only because of Gideon's weak faith that he used a fleece, and thus this is not a good example to follow in making decisions as to whether a "go left or go right" or "yes or no" are from the Lord.
There is a third and better way to look at this passage, as I discovered in reading some commentaries about the above passage.
The fact of Gideon's "decision making by fleece" method is that this wasn't about making a decision at all. Reread the passage carefully. Gideon had already decided to go ahead with his army in helping protect Israel from the Midianites. In the earlier verses of the same chapter in Judges we read:
33 Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the sons of the east assembled themselves; and they crossed over and camped in the valley of Jezreel.
34 So the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon; and he blew a trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called together to follow him. 35 And he sent messengers throughout Manasseh, and they also were called together to follow him; and he sent messengers to Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they came up to meet them.
Gideon had already assembled his army. He was moving ahead. What is discovered in a careful reading of verse 36-40 above, is that he was asking the Lord whether he would be successful or not! So the original "Gideon's fleece" much to my own surprise as I took a new look at this, wasn't about decision making at all. Gideon's fleece incident was triggered by an understandable curiosity on Gideon's part about the success of what he had already been led to do by the Spirit of the Lord.
So the answer to the question, "Is it wrong to use a fleece in determining God's will?" is probably "yes." In the New Testament we are told that we are to walk by faith, not sight. Having a supernatural sign be our guide is not acting in faith, but rather is acting by sight.
We are also told that it is an evil and faithless generation that seeks a sign. Mind you that comment is made in a different context, but it would seem that the principle of not being "sign seekers" applies.
Last, if we were to use a "Gideon fleece principle" in order to make decisions, we would have to ask for a supernatural sign, something that could not be naturally fulfilled. Most often when people attempt to "put out a fleece" they do so asking for natural things to occur that will cue them as to God's leading.
That is inconsistent with what Gideon did. He asked for something that couldn't happen naturally.
In the end, the "fleece" question is made clearer when we see that Gideon wasn't asking for direction about what to do. He was asking whether what he had already decided to do and had been led to do by the Lord would be a success. Was he right to do that? That's hard to say.
What isn't hard to say however is this: there is no Gideon's fleece example in the Bible where a fleece was put out to help make a decision. That alone is perhaps the answer to the question.
So how do we make decisions and know with confidence that we are being led of the Lord? Good question, but one for another installment at another time.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Does God speak to people audibly or give instructions in such a way that a person might describe them by saying, “God told me to…” or “God said to?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Does God speak to people audibly or give instructions in such a way that a person might describe them by saying, "God told me to…" or "God said to me…"?
ATP: It nearly always raises a red flag with me when I hear some one say, “God told me…” or “God said to me…”
It isn’t that I don’t believe that God is capable of speaking to us this way or that this doesn't happen. It is just that if this does happen it seems to me that it is rare in the extreme. The Bible warns us repeatedly regarding the deceitfulness of the human mind. We can fool ourselves into thinking that God is speaking to us.
Jeremiah 23:16 says,
Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.
In Jeremiah 14:14 God was even stronger saying,
The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.
In the New Testament we find the same warning in Colossians 2:18:
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...
A person's mind can run away with them. And when they say, God told me to do such and so, who can argue with "God"?!
But we are told that when people speak we are to weigh what is said. (1 Cor. 14:29) That is, we are to use the written Word of God to measure what has been communicated when some one is claiming to speak from or for the Lord. If what they say doesn’t fit with the Bible their communication is to be rejected.
To be fair, there clearly are times and regularly so, when God is communicating to us, leading us in a specific direction. So how would we communicate that leading of the Lord in a legitimate way and in a way that does not intentionally or unintentionally mislead a listener into thinking that we have heard an audible voice from God, or that God has spoken to us in specific sentences as it seems people want to claim?
When a person feels strongly that the Lord is moving them to do a certain thing, it is much healthier and reasonable for them to say, “I believe the Lord is leading me to...”. Words like "believe" and "leading" leave room for human error, Biblical evaluation and discussion all of which are critical acknowledgments in determining whether God is leading us or our leading is coming merely from our own imaginations.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Does God speak to people audibly or give instructions in such a way that a person might describe them by saying, "God told me to…" or "God said to me…"?
ATP: It nearly always raises a red flag with me when I hear some one say, “God told me…” or “God said to me…”
It isn’t that I don’t believe that God is capable of speaking to us this way or that this doesn't happen. It is just that if this does happen it seems to me that it is rare in the extreme. The Bible warns us repeatedly regarding the deceitfulness of the human mind. We can fool ourselves into thinking that God is speaking to us.
Jeremiah 23:16 says,
Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.
In Jeremiah 14:14 God was even stronger saying,
The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.
In the New Testament we find the same warning in Colossians 2:18:
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...
A person's mind can run away with them. And when they say, God told me to do such and so, who can argue with "God"?!
But we are told that when people speak we are to weigh what is said. (1 Cor. 14:29) That is, we are to use the written Word of God to measure what has been communicated when some one is claiming to speak from or for the Lord. If what they say doesn’t fit with the Bible their communication is to be rejected.
To be fair, there clearly are times and regularly so, when God is communicating to us, leading us in a specific direction. So how would we communicate that leading of the Lord in a legitimate way and in a way that does not intentionally or unintentionally mislead a listener into thinking that we have heard an audible voice from God, or that God has spoken to us in specific sentences as it seems people want to claim?
When a person feels strongly that the Lord is moving them to do a certain thing, it is much healthier and reasonable for them to say, “I believe the Lord is leading me to...”. Words like "believe" and "leading" leave room for human error, Biblical evaluation and discussion all of which are critical acknowledgments in determining whether God is leading us or our leading is coming merely from our own imaginations.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Could you explain further your statement that "hermeneunitics" is a bad Bible Study method?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Could you explain further your statement that "hermeneutics" is a bad Bible Study method?
DC
ATP: Great question DC, and I'm glad you asked. For those who wonder where this question came from it is from a line in yesterday's blog where I said:
There are those who have taken part of a passage in Jude 9 and with good intentions, but bad Bible study methods, (also called "hermeneutics") come up with the idea that there was a special resurrection of Moses.
I have since deleted the portion in parentheses to eliminate any confusion about this, because hermeneutics aren't bad Bible study methods, they are just Bible study methods. Hermeneutics can be either good or bad. My wording yesterday was the problem.
And let me be clearer on the general definition on hermeneutics I used yesterday and in the above paragraph. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, and is most often connected with the science of Bible interpretation. I described it as "Bible study method" which is technically correct, but perhaps not as clear as it could have been.
You have often heard it said, no doubt, and most often by skeptics, that "the Bible is open to interpretation, so you can't really know what it means." The first half of that statement is correct, but not the last half, with some exceptions.
Yes there are passages in the Bible the meaning of which we struggle to unravel. It will always be so. But those passages are the exception rather than the rule.
And while the Bible is "open to interpretation", it is not "open to interpretation" in the sense that is usually meant, which is "one interpretation is a good as the next." One interpretation is not as good as the next.
Let me explain.
When I was in college right out of high school, I took a communications class from a professor at the University of Northern Iowa who made a great point regarding interpreting word meaning. He asked the class,
"If I say to you that Larry here, your fellow student, is a 'roughneck,' what do you think I mean?"
Interesting question, but simple we thought.
"Prof, you mean that Larry is a tough guy, maybe even a bully; a rugged kind of person. You probably mean that he is a bit uncouth."
"Not at all," the prof said. "You see what you don't know that I know, is that Larry is from Oklahoma. In Oklahoma if you call some one a roughneck, you most likely mean that he is a person who works in the 'oil patch,' that is the oil fields."
He went on to say that while we as listeners may attach our own meaning to the word roughneck, that does not make our interpretation of the term the correct one. Words mean what their speaker/writer intends for them to mean.
In the same way if we are to interpret the Bible correctly, we must do all we can to discover what the writer intended to communicate, rather than read into the text our 21st century perceptions.
How do we do that? The same way we would do so with any document: understand the historical setting, understand the cultural setting; know who the author is and who they are writing to. We need to find out if there is a specific purpose for the writing of a document. Was it written to answer a question? What is the relationship between the writer and the receiver of the message, and so on.
In addition we need to understand the language the document is written in. That is particularly important for those of us in the English speaking world as we try to interpret the Bible. The Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in languages of the Middle East: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
We need to know the rules that these languages follow to communicate their meaning. We need to know vocabulary, word tenses, syntax and so on.
And in interpreting we need to keep words and passages in their context. In other words to interpret passages properly we must recognize that words are in specific sentences and sentences are in specific paragraphs and paragraphs are in specific chapters, and that chapters are in specific books; all of these working together to communicate specific things.
To interpret any document properly, we are not at liberty to view sentences as stand alones. Their meaning is attached to the words and structure around them. This may not be obvious to everyone so let me give you an example.
If while praising the great football legend Dick Butkus I were to say:
"Dick Butkus was a great linebacker for the Chicago Bears, probably the greatest who ever played the game. Butkus was a beast of a man. When it came to playing the game he was amazing. In fact Butkus was a monster. Maybe that is why they called the Bears 'the Monsters of the Midway.'"
what I mean by that is entirely a compliment to Butkus. There is nothing derogatory intended. As I noted, these words are in the context of praise.
That being the case, it would be inappropriate and an error for some one to take two of the sentences out of context and turn them into criticisms of Butkus, by interpreting them to mean,
"Gordon really ripped Dick Butkus to shreds! He said, 'Butkus was a beast of a man.' Worse than that he also said, 'In fact Butkus was a monster.'
Did I say those things? Of course. But what did I mean by them? I meant the exact opposite of the out-of-context interpretation.
As a friend of mine likes to say, "Some truth isn't true." What he means is what I have pointed out: Did I say those things about Butkus? Yes. It is true that I said he was a beast and monster. Did I criticize him? Absolutely not. When taken in context my words were praise, not criticism. Sometimes truth isn't true.
What we learn from this about Bible interpretation is what we already know, but that some have a hard time accepting: One interpretation is not as good as another. There are logical, common sense rules for Bible interpretation, the same ones that you use with your own speech.
Most often it is the ill-informed critic of the Bible that chooses to use the "one interpretation is as good as another" argument. They don't accept that kind of thinking with their own speech but they kind of like it as an approach to the Bible because they think it absolves them from responsibility and consequences. It doesn't.
A person may choose to look at the flashing lights and the lowered bar of a railroad crossing, and say, "I interpret that to mean that no train is coming." No problem. They have the perfect right to interpret those signals any way they would like to.
But believe me, one interpretation of what those signals mean is NOT as good as another! The person communicating through the flashing lights and the lowered bar, has a very specific message in mind, and one that ought to be heeded.
The same is true with the Bible. It is crystal clear that putting one's faith is Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is required to enter heaven. Jesus himself said, "You must be born again." John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
We are quite free to ignore the "must" and ignore the injunction that believing in Christ is how we avoid perishing. No problem. Its a free world and no one can stop us from interpreting things that way. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that one interpretation is as good as another.
That doesn't work with railroad crossing signals and it doesn't work with the Bible either.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Could you explain further your statement that "hermeneutics" is a bad Bible Study method?
DC
ATP: Great question DC, and I'm glad you asked. For those who wonder where this question came from it is from a line in yesterday's blog where I said:
There are those who have taken part of a passage in Jude 9 and with good intentions, but bad Bible study methods, (also called "hermeneutics") come up with the idea that there was a special resurrection of Moses.
I have since deleted the portion in parentheses to eliminate any confusion about this, because hermeneutics aren't bad Bible study methods, they are just Bible study methods. Hermeneutics can be either good or bad. My wording yesterday was the problem.
And let me be clearer on the general definition on hermeneutics I used yesterday and in the above paragraph. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, and is most often connected with the science of Bible interpretation. I described it as "Bible study method" which is technically correct, but perhaps not as clear as it could have been.
You have often heard it said, no doubt, and most often by skeptics, that "the Bible is open to interpretation, so you can't really know what it means." The first half of that statement is correct, but not the last half, with some exceptions.
Yes there are passages in the Bible the meaning of which we struggle to unravel. It will always be so. But those passages are the exception rather than the rule.
And while the Bible is "open to interpretation", it is not "open to interpretation" in the sense that is usually meant, which is "one interpretation is a good as the next." One interpretation is not as good as the next.
Let me explain.
When I was in college right out of high school, I took a communications class from a professor at the University of Northern Iowa who made a great point regarding interpreting word meaning. He asked the class,
"If I say to you that Larry here, your fellow student, is a 'roughneck,' what do you think I mean?"
Interesting question, but simple we thought.
"Prof, you mean that Larry is a tough guy, maybe even a bully; a rugged kind of person. You probably mean that he is a bit uncouth."
"Not at all," the prof said. "You see what you don't know that I know, is that Larry is from Oklahoma. In Oklahoma if you call some one a roughneck, you most likely mean that he is a person who works in the 'oil patch,' that is the oil fields."
He went on to say that while we as listeners may attach our own meaning to the word roughneck, that does not make our interpretation of the term the correct one. Words mean what their speaker/writer intends for them to mean.
In the same way if we are to interpret the Bible correctly, we must do all we can to discover what the writer intended to communicate, rather than read into the text our 21st century perceptions.
How do we do that? The same way we would do so with any document: understand the historical setting, understand the cultural setting; know who the author is and who they are writing to. We need to find out if there is a specific purpose for the writing of a document. Was it written to answer a question? What is the relationship between the writer and the receiver of the message, and so on.
In addition we need to understand the language the document is written in. That is particularly important for those of us in the English speaking world as we try to interpret the Bible. The Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in languages of the Middle East: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
We need to know the rules that these languages follow to communicate their meaning. We need to know vocabulary, word tenses, syntax and so on.
And in interpreting we need to keep words and passages in their context. In other words to interpret passages properly we must recognize that words are in specific sentences and sentences are in specific paragraphs and paragraphs are in specific chapters, and that chapters are in specific books; all of these working together to communicate specific things.
To interpret any document properly, we are not at liberty to view sentences as stand alones. Their meaning is attached to the words and structure around them. This may not be obvious to everyone so let me give you an example.
If while praising the great football legend Dick Butkus I were to say:
"Dick Butkus was a great linebacker for the Chicago Bears, probably the greatest who ever played the game. Butkus was a beast of a man. When it came to playing the game he was amazing. In fact Butkus was a monster. Maybe that is why they called the Bears 'the Monsters of the Midway.'"
what I mean by that is entirely a compliment to Butkus. There is nothing derogatory intended. As I noted, these words are in the context of praise.
That being the case, it would be inappropriate and an error for some one to take two of the sentences out of context and turn them into criticisms of Butkus, by interpreting them to mean,
"Gordon really ripped Dick Butkus to shreds! He said, 'Butkus was a beast of a man.' Worse than that he also said, 'In fact Butkus was a monster.'
Did I say those things? Of course. But what did I mean by them? I meant the exact opposite of the out-of-context interpretation.
As a friend of mine likes to say, "Some truth isn't true." What he means is what I have pointed out: Did I say those things about Butkus? Yes. It is true that I said he was a beast and monster. Did I criticize him? Absolutely not. When taken in context my words were praise, not criticism. Sometimes truth isn't true.
What we learn from this about Bible interpretation is what we already know, but that some have a hard time accepting: One interpretation is not as good as another. There are logical, common sense rules for Bible interpretation, the same ones that you use with your own speech.
Most often it is the ill-informed critic of the Bible that chooses to use the "one interpretation is as good as another" argument. They don't accept that kind of thinking with their own speech but they kind of like it as an approach to the Bible because they think it absolves them from responsibility and consequences. It doesn't.
A person may choose to look at the flashing lights and the lowered bar of a railroad crossing, and say, "I interpret that to mean that no train is coming." No problem. They have the perfect right to interpret those signals any way they would like to.
But believe me, one interpretation of what those signals mean is NOT as good as another! The person communicating through the flashing lights and the lowered bar, has a very specific message in mind, and one that ought to be heeded.
The same is true with the Bible. It is crystal clear that putting one's faith is Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is required to enter heaven. Jesus himself said, "You must be born again." John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
We are quite free to ignore the "must" and ignore the injunction that believing in Christ is how we avoid perishing. No problem. Its a free world and no one can stop us from interpreting things that way. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that one interpretation is as good as another.
That doesn't work with railroad crossing signals and it doesn't work with the Bible either.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Was there a special "resurrection of Moses" as some 7th Day Adventists believe?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Recently I spoke with a relative who is a Seventh Day Adventist. He referred me to Mark 4:13 and asked me, "where does it refer to the special resurrection of Moses?" I told him I was going to go to your website to ask the question.
JB
ATP: JB, the short answer to the question is that there is no mention of a special resurrection of Moses anywhere in the Bible. But your Seventh Day Adventist family member was not asking a trick question. There are those who have taken part of a passage in Jude 9 and with good intentions, but bad Bible study methods, come up with the idea that there was a special resurrection of Moses.
The passage in Jude 9 reads:
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the Devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he (Michael) did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him (the Devil), but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
The mistaken logic behind their position is as stated here by one who holds the same position:
According to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 it is the "voice of the archangel" which opens the graves of the righteous dead when Jesus comes at the end of the world. We have to conclude that this Angel by the side of Moses’ grave, contending with Satan over the body of Moses, had to be there for one purpose only—to resurrect Moses.
What's the problem with that interpretation? Simply that the clear and simple explanation of the text--that the Devil and Michael contended over the dead body of Moses--has to be ignored, and then great assumptions made about the intent of the archangel in the dispute.
The writer to the Hebrews also tells us in chapter 11, verses 39-40, as he speaks of people of faith--a list of whom includes Moses, And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
The point here is that when we are "made perfect" at the resurrection from the dead it will happen for all at the same time. This echoes perfectly what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15 verses 22- 23, as he speaks directly about the resurrection to come and how God planned resurrection, beginning with Christ, and then later with us.
He said, For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming, those who belong to Christ.
So the first to be permanently resurrected was Christ himself. That alone negates any special resurrection of Moses back in Old Testament days. Second, the resurrection of those who belong to Christ--and that absolutely includes Moses in that Moses looked for the Messiah to come, whom Jesus is, and thus Moses "belonged to Christ" the same as you and I--will not be resurrected until Jesus comes! And then, as I noted, that resurrection will happen for all at once.
So there is no special resurrection of Moses mentioned in the Bible, and Mark 9 where Moses appeared with Elijah and Jesus in a glorified state, had nothing to do with resurrection.
The Mark 4:13 passage that your friend refers to speaks of parables. But the issue of Moses' supposed resurrection in Jude 9, is not spoken of in parable form. A parable is a figurative story that carries a spiritual meaning or application. It is a metaphor or an illustration, a teaching method. When parables were used by Jesus there was no doubt that they were parables.
In the same chapter, Mark 4, this is crystal clear as Jesus says in verses 30-31:
With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we used for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown into the ground is the smallest of the seeds.....
You get the idea: a parable is a comparative, where a known thing, like mustard seeds, is used as a comparative metaphor to explain something less known, like the kingdom of God.
It is easy to see for anyone willing to be objective, that in the Jude 9 passage that speaks of Michael--a known archangel, and the Devil--the known adversary of God, and Moses--a known follower of God, a parable is not in play.
Parables never use known names of individuals. Places yes, generalities yes, like the Good Samaritan on the road to Jericho, but never specific names of specific individuals, otherwise what you have isn't a parable, but the explaining of a real event.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Recently I spoke with a relative who is a Seventh Day Adventist. He referred me to Mark 4:13 and asked me, "where does it refer to the special resurrection of Moses?" I told him I was going to go to your website to ask the question.
JB
ATP: JB, the short answer to the question is that there is no mention of a special resurrection of Moses anywhere in the Bible. But your Seventh Day Adventist family member was not asking a trick question. There are those who have taken part of a passage in Jude 9 and with good intentions, but bad Bible study methods, come up with the idea that there was a special resurrection of Moses.
The passage in Jude 9 reads:
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the Devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he (Michael) did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him (the Devil), but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
The mistaken logic behind their position is as stated here by one who holds the same position:
According to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 it is the "voice of the archangel" which opens the graves of the righteous dead when Jesus comes at the end of the world. We have to conclude that this Angel by the side of Moses’ grave, contending with Satan over the body of Moses, had to be there for one purpose only—to resurrect Moses.
What's the problem with that interpretation? Simply that the clear and simple explanation of the text--that the Devil and Michael contended over the dead body of Moses--has to be ignored, and then great assumptions made about the intent of the archangel in the dispute.
The writer to the Hebrews also tells us in chapter 11, verses 39-40, as he speaks of people of faith--a list of whom includes Moses, And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
The point here is that when we are "made perfect" at the resurrection from the dead it will happen for all at the same time. This echoes perfectly what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15 verses 22- 23, as he speaks directly about the resurrection to come and how God planned resurrection, beginning with Christ, and then later with us.
He said, For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming, those who belong to Christ.
So the first to be permanently resurrected was Christ himself. That alone negates any special resurrection of Moses back in Old Testament days. Second, the resurrection of those who belong to Christ--and that absolutely includes Moses in that Moses looked for the Messiah to come, whom Jesus is, and thus Moses "belonged to Christ" the same as you and I--will not be resurrected until Jesus comes! And then, as I noted, that resurrection will happen for all at once.
So there is no special resurrection of Moses mentioned in the Bible, and Mark 9 where Moses appeared with Elijah and Jesus in a glorified state, had nothing to do with resurrection.
The Mark 4:13 passage that your friend refers to speaks of parables. But the issue of Moses' supposed resurrection in Jude 9, is not spoken of in parable form. A parable is a figurative story that carries a spiritual meaning or application. It is a metaphor or an illustration, a teaching method. When parables were used by Jesus there was no doubt that they were parables.
In the same chapter, Mark 4, this is crystal clear as Jesus says in verses 30-31:
With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we used for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown into the ground is the smallest of the seeds.....
You get the idea: a parable is a comparative, where a known thing, like mustard seeds, is used as a comparative metaphor to explain something less known, like the kingdom of God.
It is easy to see for anyone willing to be objective, that in the Jude 9 passage that speaks of Michael--a known archangel, and the Devil--the known adversary of God, and Moses--a known follower of God, a parable is not in play.
Parables never use known names of individuals. Places yes, generalities yes, like the Good Samaritan on the road to Jericho, but never specific names of specific individuals, otherwise what you have isn't a parable, but the explaining of a real event.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Busy Days....and the Rapture of the Church
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
My apology for not getting out a daily blog lately. I was recently promoted to be the head of Internet Marketing and Analysis for the company I work for, and so have had a few extra things on my plate.
That and having a new grandbaby born a week and half ago have kept me hopping.
I'll try to do better!
I'm thinking of doing a series here on Prophecy, but I don't want to bore those who may be in a searching process and looking for subjects other than things like the End Times.
Any thoughts on that? If so, give me a shout.
Just a teaser as to some of the things we might cover: Did you know that contrary to popular belief there isn't a single passage in the Bible that tell us we won't know the day of the Rapture? No, I'm not kidding.
Here's a beginning assignment for you: go read Matthew 24, and ask yourself just one question: When Jesus says that we won't know the day or hour of his coming, (with all that language about a "thief" coming at an unknown time, and one being taken and one being left etc.) what "coming" is he speaking of? (The answer is in the chapter by the way....check out verses 29-31)
If the light bulb goes on, you may find yourself taking in a deep breath of shock, so go back and read it again and again just to be sure. Be like the Bereans who "searched the Scriptures" (not the bookstores) "to see if these things were so." (Just kidding on the book stores...we need all the help we can get from each other and books are a huge and important part of that! But you get my point.)
Have a good one folks. More later.
Gordon
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
My apology for not getting out a daily blog lately. I was recently promoted to be the head of Internet Marketing and Analysis for the company I work for, and so have had a few extra things on my plate.
That and having a new grandbaby born a week and half ago have kept me hopping.
I'll try to do better!
I'm thinking of doing a series here on Prophecy, but I don't want to bore those who may be in a searching process and looking for subjects other than things like the End Times.
Any thoughts on that? If so, give me a shout.
Just a teaser as to some of the things we might cover: Did you know that contrary to popular belief there isn't a single passage in the Bible that tell us we won't know the day of the Rapture? No, I'm not kidding.
Here's a beginning assignment for you: go read Matthew 24, and ask yourself just one question: When Jesus says that we won't know the day or hour of his coming, (with all that language about a "thief" coming at an unknown time, and one being taken and one being left etc.) what "coming" is he speaking of? (The answer is in the chapter by the way....check out verses 29-31)
If the light bulb goes on, you may find yourself taking in a deep breath of shock, so go back and read it again and again just to be sure. Be like the Bereans who "searched the Scriptures" (not the bookstores) "to see if these things were so." (Just kidding on the book stores...we need all the help we can get from each other and books are a huge and important part of that! But you get my point.)
Have a good one folks. More later.
Gordon
Monday, February 14, 2005
God shaped assignments: What's yours?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Have you ever wondered if what you are doing "fit" with what God's assignments look like?
Are we doing enough? What if we stop serving in the youth program or in the choir, will that be showing a lack of faithfulness? God wants people who stick with things, so perhaps we should keep on going.
Have we done things the right way? Whenever we evangelize there should always be follow up shouldn't there? After all how will people grow in the Lord? We wouldn't just abandon a new born baby would we, so how can we lead some one to the Lord, helping them to be born again, without taking on the personal responsibility of discipling that person? That wouldn't seem right.
These are examples of the kinds of questions that come to our minds as we evaluate our service for the Lord. And there is a sense in which these are healthy questions. But unfortunately many of us fall into bad thinking patterns, thinking that the implication in the question provides its own answer, and that isn't necessarily the case.
Take the example of Philip from Acts chapter 8. Philip is preaching to multitudes of people in Samaria. Verse 25 says that he was ...preaching the Gospel to many vilages of the Samaritans.
A great ministry going on, not one a person would think it right to be leaving to go to a "smaller" assignment. And yet in the next verses we read:
But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road) And he arose and went; and behold there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.
Can you imagine leaving the multitudes in the villages of Samaria to find yourself led of God to a desert road? Our first thought might be,
"Lord, I think I took a wrong turn somewhere. There's no one here, well no one except one person I see going down the road. So I've got a problem: I think I goofed up. Perhaps I didn't hear you correctly. Am I in the right place out here in the middle of nowhere?"
Been there? Are you there today? I know the feeling.
And yet Philip was precisely where God wanted him to be. Thankfully Philip hadn't had any evangelism training. He just did what the Lord led him to do. (I'm all for evangelism training by the way. I'm just making a point.)
Philip leads the Ethiopian to the Lord, even baptizes him and then poof!, Philip is whisked away by his own desires to avoid the hard work of follow up and his irresponsbible fear of not being a good teacher. No, it doesn't say that does it. It was the Spirit of God that snatched Philip away.
Verse 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went his way rejoicing.
Funny thing that. Didn't the Spirit of God know that follow up was going to be needed for the Ethiopian? Didn't the Spirit of God know that the Ethiopian needed to find a good church to go to? You get the idea.
Of course the Spirit of God knew these things. But the Spirit of God had another assignment for Philip right then. The giving of assignments was and is the Spirit of God's responsibility, not ours.
Don't get confused when God gives you a temporary assignment that doesn't fit the size of the one you have just come from or the one you think you should be going to. God is the assignment giver, both in terms of what the assignment is and how long we are in our assignment.
You might call our assignments God shaped. He molds the clay of the shape of our role, not us.
So relax! Follow God's leading and don't let yourself be squeezed into some pre-conceived mould, not even by your pastor. Your number one responsibility is to the Lord. Yes there are human beings we are to answer to, and rightly so, but only in order of priority, and God comes first. Be at peace about that.
And be at peace in your own skin, even if you find yourself on a desert road when others think you should be in the villages somewhere. You may discover that your greatest assignment in life is just up ahead in the life of a person whose path may intersect yours for only a few minutes.
With them like a brand picked from the burning, you may be God's set of "tongs" to pull them out of a firey eternity.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Have you ever wondered if what you are doing "fit" with what God's assignments look like?
Are we doing enough? What if we stop serving in the youth program or in the choir, will that be showing a lack of faithfulness? God wants people who stick with things, so perhaps we should keep on going.
Have we done things the right way? Whenever we evangelize there should always be follow up shouldn't there? After all how will people grow in the Lord? We wouldn't just abandon a new born baby would we, so how can we lead some one to the Lord, helping them to be born again, without taking on the personal responsibility of discipling that person? That wouldn't seem right.
These are examples of the kinds of questions that come to our minds as we evaluate our service for the Lord. And there is a sense in which these are healthy questions. But unfortunately many of us fall into bad thinking patterns, thinking that the implication in the question provides its own answer, and that isn't necessarily the case.
Take the example of Philip from Acts chapter 8. Philip is preaching to multitudes of people in Samaria. Verse 25 says that he was ...preaching the Gospel to many vilages of the Samaritans.
A great ministry going on, not one a person would think it right to be leaving to go to a "smaller" assignment. And yet in the next verses we read:
But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road) And he arose and went; and behold there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.
Can you imagine leaving the multitudes in the villages of Samaria to find yourself led of God to a desert road? Our first thought might be,
"Lord, I think I took a wrong turn somewhere. There's no one here, well no one except one person I see going down the road. So I've got a problem: I think I goofed up. Perhaps I didn't hear you correctly. Am I in the right place out here in the middle of nowhere?"
Been there? Are you there today? I know the feeling.
And yet Philip was precisely where God wanted him to be. Thankfully Philip hadn't had any evangelism training. He just did what the Lord led him to do. (I'm all for evangelism training by the way. I'm just making a point.)
Philip leads the Ethiopian to the Lord, even baptizes him and then poof!, Philip is whisked away by his own desires to avoid the hard work of follow up and his irresponsbible fear of not being a good teacher. No, it doesn't say that does it. It was the Spirit of God that snatched Philip away.
Verse 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went his way rejoicing.
Funny thing that. Didn't the Spirit of God know that follow up was going to be needed for the Ethiopian? Didn't the Spirit of God know that the Ethiopian needed to find a good church to go to? You get the idea.
Of course the Spirit of God knew these things. But the Spirit of God had another assignment for Philip right then. The giving of assignments was and is the Spirit of God's responsibility, not ours.
Don't get confused when God gives you a temporary assignment that doesn't fit the size of the one you have just come from or the one you think you should be going to. God is the assignment giver, both in terms of what the assignment is and how long we are in our assignment.
You might call our assignments God shaped. He molds the clay of the shape of our role, not us.
So relax! Follow God's leading and don't let yourself be squeezed into some pre-conceived mould, not even by your pastor. Your number one responsibility is to the Lord. Yes there are human beings we are to answer to, and rightly so, but only in order of priority, and God comes first. Be at peace about that.
And be at peace in your own skin, even if you find yourself on a desert road when others think you should be in the villages somewhere. You may discover that your greatest assignment in life is just up ahead in the life of a person whose path may intersect yours for only a few minutes.
With them like a brand picked from the burning, you may be God's set of "tongs" to pull them out of a firey eternity.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Could you explain the book of Revelation in 200 words or less?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Could you explain the book of Revelation in 200 words or less?
PK
ATP: An interesting challenge, but I'll give it a try.
The book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, is a book of prophecy about what will happen at the end of the age. It describes in some detail the events that will occur just prior to a final judgment from God on humanity and on Satan, the final judgement and what is in store for the world afer the final judgement.
Hows that? 64 words! Just kidding. I suspect you knew that much already, so let me go further, and way past the 200 word limit.
The book of Revelation is John's recording of a vision he was given by the Lord. That vision was given to the world and to the church through John, both as a warning of what is to come and as a word of peace about what is to come.
In chapter 1 verses 3 and 4 John says:
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come...."
The message of the book for believers is to be one of grace and peace in knowing the outcome of history. God wins and even though terrible judgments will fall on the world because of its sin, those who have put their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, will one day spend a joyful and peaceful eternity with God. The words of Revelation are not written to scare believers, but rather to be our assurance when troubles do come at the end of the age, that in the final chapter all is made well and we are secure.
But for unbelievers listen to Revelation 20:
Verse 12 And I saw the dead, the great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books according to their deeds.
Verse 15 And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Obviously having one's name in the Book of Life will be a good idea when the judgement comes! Several passages in the Bible refer to the Book of Life, making it clear that the book contains the names of believers in Christ. (Phil. 4:3; Rev.3:5; Rev. 13:8; Rev. 17:8)
It is also possible that at one time everyone's name was written in the Book of Life. Christ died for the sins of the entire world and the Bible tells us that whosoever will may come to the Lord and be forgiven. Yet many, actually most, refuse that offer.
Evidence that every name may have been in the Book of Life at the beginning is seen in the request of Moses in Exodus 32:32 where he offers to have his name blotted out of the book of God if it would save his people Israel. So it would appear that his name was already in the book. In Psalm 69 David, speaking prophetically of those who reject the Messiah, said: Let them be blotted out of the book of the living...
Again, the appearance is that all names are in the book, covered by the salvation provided by the Messiah. But when the Messiah's offer of forgiveness is rejected, the names are blotted out.
In the end, then, there are names that will be blotted out of the Book of Life. We know that God in his mercy and love intended for all to be "saved" from their sins. Is it the case that so true is this fact, that all names were once in the Book of Life? It would appear that way.
But when people refuse God's offer, he has no choice. Being the just God that he is and the righteous God that he is, he requires that sin's penalty be paid. His preference is that it be paid by Christ's death and resurrection. But those who refuse God's "payment plan" must pay for their own sins. Thus there is a judgement to come, and those who have not received God's offer will have their names blotted from the Book of Life.
This may sound strange to those who don't "get it", but the Book of Revelation is an extraordinary act of loving communication to the world. It is God telling the world what is going to happen if they do not repent of sin.
The disasters that will befall the world which are recorded in the early portion of the book, are clearly God in his mercy allowing time for people to turn to him before it is too late. They are the effect of thunder on the horizon, warning us to take cover before the storm comes.
What is stunning to read in chapter 9 of Revelation, verses 20 and 21, is most will not head his warning, even when half the world's population has been wiped out, as God a step at a time brings his judgments rather than dropping judgment in one fell swoop:
Rev. 9:20-21 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues did not repent of the work of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and of wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk; nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts.
In a nutshell, that is the story of the book of Revelation: In the beginning a word that the book is for grace and peace to believers. In the middle, a pivot point where the world still refuses to repent. In the end, judgement for those who have refused to repent, and joy for those who have repented and put their faith in Christ.
There's much more of course, but I'm waaay over my 200 word limit. If there are more specific questions about the book of Revelation or the end of the age, I would be glad to address them. Drop me a line.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Could you explain the book of Revelation in 200 words or less?
PK
ATP: An interesting challenge, but I'll give it a try.
The book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, is a book of prophecy about what will happen at the end of the age. It describes in some detail the events that will occur just prior to a final judgment from God on humanity and on Satan, the final judgement and what is in store for the world afer the final judgement.
Hows that? 64 words! Just kidding. I suspect you knew that much already, so let me go further, and way past the 200 word limit.
The book of Revelation is John's recording of a vision he was given by the Lord. That vision was given to the world and to the church through John, both as a warning of what is to come and as a word of peace about what is to come.
In chapter 1 verses 3 and 4 John says:
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come...."
The message of the book for believers is to be one of grace and peace in knowing the outcome of history. God wins and even though terrible judgments will fall on the world because of its sin, those who have put their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, will one day spend a joyful and peaceful eternity with God. The words of Revelation are not written to scare believers, but rather to be our assurance when troubles do come at the end of the age, that in the final chapter all is made well and we are secure.
But for unbelievers listen to Revelation 20:
Verse 12 And I saw the dead, the great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books according to their deeds.
Verse 15 And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Obviously having one's name in the Book of Life will be a good idea when the judgement comes! Several passages in the Bible refer to the Book of Life, making it clear that the book contains the names of believers in Christ. (Phil. 4:3; Rev.3:5; Rev. 13:8; Rev. 17:8)
It is also possible that at one time everyone's name was written in the Book of Life. Christ died for the sins of the entire world and the Bible tells us that whosoever will may come to the Lord and be forgiven. Yet many, actually most, refuse that offer.
Evidence that every name may have been in the Book of Life at the beginning is seen in the request of Moses in Exodus 32:32 where he offers to have his name blotted out of the book of God if it would save his people Israel. So it would appear that his name was already in the book. In Psalm 69 David, speaking prophetically of those who reject the Messiah, said: Let them be blotted out of the book of the living...
Again, the appearance is that all names are in the book, covered by the salvation provided by the Messiah. But when the Messiah's offer of forgiveness is rejected, the names are blotted out.
In the end, then, there are names that will be blotted out of the Book of Life. We know that God in his mercy and love intended for all to be "saved" from their sins. Is it the case that so true is this fact, that all names were once in the Book of Life? It would appear that way.
But when people refuse God's offer, he has no choice. Being the just God that he is and the righteous God that he is, he requires that sin's penalty be paid. His preference is that it be paid by Christ's death and resurrection. But those who refuse God's "payment plan" must pay for their own sins. Thus there is a judgement to come, and those who have not received God's offer will have their names blotted from the Book of Life.
This may sound strange to those who don't "get it", but the Book of Revelation is an extraordinary act of loving communication to the world. It is God telling the world what is going to happen if they do not repent of sin.
The disasters that will befall the world which are recorded in the early portion of the book, are clearly God in his mercy allowing time for people to turn to him before it is too late. They are the effect of thunder on the horizon, warning us to take cover before the storm comes.
What is stunning to read in chapter 9 of Revelation, verses 20 and 21, is most will not head his warning, even when half the world's population has been wiped out, as God a step at a time brings his judgments rather than dropping judgment in one fell swoop:
Rev. 9:20-21 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues did not repent of the work of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and of wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk; nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts.
In a nutshell, that is the story of the book of Revelation: In the beginning a word that the book is for grace and peace to believers. In the middle, a pivot point where the world still refuses to repent. In the end, judgement for those who have refused to repent, and joy for those who have repented and put their faith in Christ.
There's much more of course, but I'm waaay over my 200 word limit. If there are more specific questions about the book of Revelation or the end of the age, I would be glad to address them. Drop me a line.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
I've gone through some tough times and have read the book of Job many times, but can't comprehend it's lessons. Can you explain what we should learn?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Having gone through some tough times over the last 15 years, I've read the book of Job many times but haven't been able to comprehend what Job did to change his situation. His faith never seemed to be in question but he suffered great hardship. Can you explain what we should learn from Job?
PP
ATP: The book of Job is a complex book, the context of which must be understood to avoid great misunderstandings. Yet even when one understands the context of what happened to Job, it is difficult to be sure of what we should take away from certain passages of the book. I did not say it was impossible to be sure, only difficult.
Without rehashing the whole story let me lead in to an explanation of what I mean in order to answer your question.
Job goes through some of most difficult times a human being can face: the loss of his children, the loss of his finances and the loss of the respect of his wife. Outside his family circumstances, his friends who initially had come to comfort him, turned on him and began to blame him for his problems, saying in a variety of ways that such things as those that Job had faced, do not happen to righteous people. Their opinion was that Job must have done something to anger God and was only getting what he deserved.
Although Job initially handled the tragedies that came upon him with a grace that is hard to comprehend, in time he did begin to develop "an attitude" toward God and why these things had happened to him.
In the end God chastises Job’s "friends" for their bad counsel and for their inaccurate understanding of the purposes of God. So far off base are they that God requires them to repent by making a sacrifice and by going to Job apparently to personally apologize. Job is to pray for them that God not pour his wrath on them for their folly, and they get what they deserve for what they have said about God’s purposes!
If a person were to simply flop open the book of Job and begin reading the counsel given to Job by his well intentioned but badly mistaken friends, it would be easy to think that their counsel to Job was correct. It wasn’t, as God himself pointed out. And yet though the larger theme of their counsel is rejected by God, there is “truth” mixed in.
Job 5:17 So do not despise the discipline of the Almighty, is quoted in Hebrews 12:5 as being a truth we are to remember. Yet Job 5:17 is spoken by Eliphaz whom God chastised for not speaking truthfully. How do we sort out such things? Answer: very carefully.
My point here is that reading Job is not an exercise in simplicity and easy answers as to what the book means are often badly mistaken.
That may well be the point of the book of Job: To show us that God’s purposes are complicated and that we should not quickly judge the appearances of what is happening in a person’s life including our own. There may be a larger purpose involved that we will never understand this side of heaven.
Job was never told why he experienced all the trouble that came his way. He never knew that what he experienced would be a help to thousands and thousands over the centuries. He just had to trust. And that is another of the lessons in the book: We should trust God even when nothing around us makes sense. God is always up to something good.
There is a third lesson from the book of Job, and we need to be careful on this one so as not to misunderstand it or become stubborn when God may be trying to get our attention. The lesson is that there are hard times that happen in our lives that have nothing to do with anything we have done wrong or that God is trying to teach us.
There are those who mistakenly say that the reason Job faced the things he did was because God was trying to teach him something. That is flatly false. Did Job learn some things? Yes. And did Job eventually need to be taught some things because of the attitude he developed later? Yes.
But the evils that befell Job had nothing to do with any lesson God was trying to teach him. If you have been telling people otherwise, stop it. It’s a lie.
And if you are going through terrible times, yes it may be true that God is trying to teach you something, but as the song from Porgy and Bess said, It ain’t necessarily so. In other words, it doesn’t have to be the case, and don’t let anyone tell you differently.
The reality is that you may be going through hard times for the same reason Job did: because by God’s grace and to God’s glory, you have been doing things RIGHT!!!
It makes me angry when I hear of people who have told others, "You are going through this hard time because God wanted to change some things in your life." How dare they say that! They are no better than Job’s poorly informed friends whom God chastised. What do they know about God’s purpose in someone’s life?
Job did not face what he went through because God wanted to change some things in Job’s life!! Yes later on, as Job developed the bad attitude, God did want to change Job. But that is not how the story started. Don’t ever forget that. When you are going through hard times, if you have honestly examined your heart for a season, and God has not revealed to you some issue that he is addressing through the trial, then let that thought go. Don’t beat yourself up looking for some way that you caused your own hardships by offending God in some way.
Just trust God that he knows what he is doing, even if you never get to find out what it was. And be strong enough in such circumstances to ignore the "blaming counsel" of well intentioned friends who want to lay guilt at your feet. And do so without debating things with them. That is what did get Job in trouble with God. Job’s defense and defensiveness led him into pride, which God did correct in his life.
Trust God, live righteously and be at peace, even when the waves are crashing in around you. God is not unjust. In the end, in heaven, when all the accounts are balanced, God will make things right. Count on it, even when you don’t understand it. That’s the lesson of Job.
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Having gone through some tough times over the last 15 years, I've read the book of Job many times but haven't been able to comprehend what Job did to change his situation. His faith never seemed to be in question but he suffered great hardship. Can you explain what we should learn from Job?
PP
ATP: The book of Job is a complex book, the context of which must be understood to avoid great misunderstandings. Yet even when one understands the context of what happened to Job, it is difficult to be sure of what we should take away from certain passages of the book. I did not say it was impossible to be sure, only difficult.
Without rehashing the whole story let me lead in to an explanation of what I mean in order to answer your question.
Job goes through some of most difficult times a human being can face: the loss of his children, the loss of his finances and the loss of the respect of his wife. Outside his family circumstances, his friends who initially had come to comfort him, turned on him and began to blame him for his problems, saying in a variety of ways that such things as those that Job had faced, do not happen to righteous people. Their opinion was that Job must have done something to anger God and was only getting what he deserved.
Although Job initially handled the tragedies that came upon him with a grace that is hard to comprehend, in time he did begin to develop "an attitude" toward God and why these things had happened to him.
In the end God chastises Job’s "friends" for their bad counsel and for their inaccurate understanding of the purposes of God. So far off base are they that God requires them to repent by making a sacrifice and by going to Job apparently to personally apologize. Job is to pray for them that God not pour his wrath on them for their folly, and they get what they deserve for what they have said about God’s purposes!
If a person were to simply flop open the book of Job and begin reading the counsel given to Job by his well intentioned but badly mistaken friends, it would be easy to think that their counsel to Job was correct. It wasn’t, as God himself pointed out. And yet though the larger theme of their counsel is rejected by God, there is “truth” mixed in.
Job 5:17 So do not despise the discipline of the Almighty, is quoted in Hebrews 12:5 as being a truth we are to remember. Yet Job 5:17 is spoken by Eliphaz whom God chastised for not speaking truthfully. How do we sort out such things? Answer: very carefully.
My point here is that reading Job is not an exercise in simplicity and easy answers as to what the book means are often badly mistaken.
That may well be the point of the book of Job: To show us that God’s purposes are complicated and that we should not quickly judge the appearances of what is happening in a person’s life including our own. There may be a larger purpose involved that we will never understand this side of heaven.
Job was never told why he experienced all the trouble that came his way. He never knew that what he experienced would be a help to thousands and thousands over the centuries. He just had to trust. And that is another of the lessons in the book: We should trust God even when nothing around us makes sense. God is always up to something good.
There is a third lesson from the book of Job, and we need to be careful on this one so as not to misunderstand it or become stubborn when God may be trying to get our attention. The lesson is that there are hard times that happen in our lives that have nothing to do with anything we have done wrong or that God is trying to teach us.
There are those who mistakenly say that the reason Job faced the things he did was because God was trying to teach him something. That is flatly false. Did Job learn some things? Yes. And did Job eventually need to be taught some things because of the attitude he developed later? Yes.
But the evils that befell Job had nothing to do with any lesson God was trying to teach him. If you have been telling people otherwise, stop it. It’s a lie.
And if you are going through terrible times, yes it may be true that God is trying to teach you something, but as the song from Porgy and Bess said, It ain’t necessarily so. In other words, it doesn’t have to be the case, and don’t let anyone tell you differently.
The reality is that you may be going through hard times for the same reason Job did: because by God’s grace and to God’s glory, you have been doing things RIGHT!!!
It makes me angry when I hear of people who have told others, "You are going through this hard time because God wanted to change some things in your life." How dare they say that! They are no better than Job’s poorly informed friends whom God chastised. What do they know about God’s purpose in someone’s life?
Job did not face what he went through because God wanted to change some things in Job’s life!! Yes later on, as Job developed the bad attitude, God did want to change Job. But that is not how the story started. Don’t ever forget that. When you are going through hard times, if you have honestly examined your heart for a season, and God has not revealed to you some issue that he is addressing through the trial, then let that thought go. Don’t beat yourself up looking for some way that you caused your own hardships by offending God in some way.
Just trust God that he knows what he is doing, even if you never get to find out what it was. And be strong enough in such circumstances to ignore the "blaming counsel" of well intentioned friends who want to lay guilt at your feet. And do so without debating things with them. That is what did get Job in trouble with God. Job’s defense and defensiveness led him into pride, which God did correct in his life.
Trust God, live righteously and be at peace, even when the waves are crashing in around you. God is not unjust. In the end, in heaven, when all the accounts are balanced, God will make things right. Count on it, even when you don’t understand it. That’s the lesson of Job.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Why do people not read or trust the Bible? Part 2
The Isaiah Scroll
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: Why do people not read or trust the Bible? (Part 2)
ATP: One of the great and unfortunate reasons that people do not trust the Bible is because they have been misinformed.
There is a myth out there in the general population that "because the Bible was copied and recopied over the years, it is unreliable." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take the lesson learned from the discovery of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls fame.
Although I am on the Board of Governors of a university that houses a world renowned institute for the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I am no expert or even a novice researcher when it comes to these documents. However those who are experts tell us that the Isaiah Scroll discovered near Qumran, within sight of the Dead Sea, hence the name "Dead Sea Scrolls," puts to rest the argument I mention above.
Dating nearly one thousand years older than any other previous copy, the Isaiah Scroll is for all practical purposes, identical to the later manuscripts. For a thousand years the text was copied and re-copied by hand, but the functional result was not changes and unreliability as the critics would have us believe.
Rather what we have is the ancient equivalent of a Xeroxed copy, fully attesting to the veracity of the document's internal integrity.
That of course, says nothing of the truthfulness of the document or the historical accuracy of what is contained in it. Those are separate--and easily answerable by the way--arguments.
But what we have for all who are intellectually honest and willing to face facts, is an archaeological/historical piece of evidence the weight of which cannot be denied: the Biblical documents have not been adulterated over time by bad copy methods.
Yes there are ancient manuscripts that differ slightly from other manuscripts. But in no case are any of these differences such that any major doctrine is affected in any way.
So don't be led astray by intellectual sounding arguments that suggest that the Biblical documents are an internal mess because copyists over the years didn't do their job well. That is a fallacy.
Biblical documents are the most studied and verified documents of antiquity. If you can't trust them, you can't trust any ancient document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)