"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. See also Mark 13:26 ("And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.") and Luke 21:27 ("And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."). What are the clouds of heaven? Literal clouds? Clouds of angels? Clouds of other believers already in heaven? Why clouds? Why not groups, if he's writing about groups of people? Why not armies? Why is the word cloud important?
Compare the following, David's words, with Christ's words: "In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." Psalm 18:6-11. Did David mean that hills literally moved, that fire literally came out of God's mouth, that God literally came down in thick clouds of the skies?
See also Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Even they also which pierced Him. Your Jewish neighbor didn't pierce Christ, unless you believe in some form of generational or racial guilt perpetually poured out on the Jewish people throughout history, but that would be contrary to what the scripture says. It's speaking about God exposing the guilt of those who falsely accused Christ while He walked on the earth. And about God justifying His Son, showing to the world that He in fact reigns . . . "at the right hand of the power." If that event was supposed to happen sometime centuries or millennia in the future, it would defeat that purpose.
Remember Christ's words to the High Priest and His accusers, those who were opposing God. Do you think Christ deserves less consideration from God, His Father, than David did when He was opposed unjustly? "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:" Psalm 104:1-3. So God needs a chariot . . . of clouds, no less?
Really, Jesus will return again in literal clouds? Does He really need a chariot of insubstantial water vapor? What is He really meaning? In his prophecy of judgment upon Egypt, Isaiah proclaimed: "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." Isaiah 19:1. "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD." Exekiel 32:7-8. God was proclaiming through His prophets, Isaiah and Ezekiel, impending doom for sins of that time and that the judgment would occur soon. God doesn't impose punishment indiscriminately; He's a careful district attorney. Does anyone argue that those events won't happen to those nations until Christ returns? If they do, they're taking their theology to an extreme, and they're not letting the scripture speak for itself.
Peter explained it to us: "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:16-21, explicating Joel 2:28-31. Peter didn't stop with the prophesying and dreaming; he continued in his quote and included the part about the clouds of smoke and darkening of the sun. He said that what was happening in Acts 2 was the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy of judgment. The question is: Are you going to dispute Peter?! And the rest of scripture and claim that it hasn't happened yet?
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Back to Acts - Stephen, the 1st martyr & most visionary of the early Christians
Stephen, above all others in the New Testament Church, even the apostles, understood the timing issue. See Acts chapters 6 and 7.
What was the faithful Israelite’s attitude at the time of the coming of Christ? He believed the law of Moses, the prophets, the histories, and the Psalms of David. He had a view of Israel as the premier nation, the nation God had chosen for a special purpose. I like to imagine that the 12 were that type; with all their failings, they were hoping for God’s promises of a kingdom to come true and to be a part of it.
Stephen was not one of the 12. We don’t know, but he might have been a follower in the crowds around Jesus, or he might have been someone who while visiting during the Feast of Pentecost, was such an Israelite like the Apostles. He caught the vision of the Kingdom, but Stephen was amazing. He had a better understanding of where Christ wanted His Kingdom heading than the apostles had when Jesus ascended to heaven. He understood the bringing in of the Gentiles, he understood grace but not just the grace of salvation/forgiveness but grace as it continued and was enhanced after Christ’s death. He understood there was a new high priest who had radically changed not just Israel, but the world. And he understood that Jerusalem was doomed, and the gospel would expand into the entire world.
Acts 6:3-5 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts 6:8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” My pastor called him gifted like an elder, not just a deacon. However, these words indicate giftings like an apostle. What wonders and miracles? Did the sun turn dark at noonday? Did the moon turn to blood at night? Were cripples jumping up at his word or touch? Luke doesn’t tell us, but these words are unique and indicate something beyond the normal ministry of healing even.
Notice that he didn’t go looking for controversy. He wasn’t going out and debating his opponents; he was doing Christ’s ministry, and they came after him. But like Jesus, he could handle a good debate. Remember how Jesus would embarrass those who tried to trick him? Think also of the movie Braveheart. I remember when I first watched it, I listened as character after character would give him sound, reasonable advice. I would listen and think, “That sounds like pretty good advice,” and then William Wallace, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, would respond with unassailable strength and conviction for his country and for freedom and for courage. He was a man on a mission. So was Stephen. But what mission.
Lev. 18:1-4: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”
I believe Stephen and the apostles believed in the mission of the Kingdom of God and that Israel was supposed to fulfill that mission. But what did it look like? Was it the nations flooding into a physical temple? Was it a David becoming King and taking over from Caesar the control of the known world? Stephen tells us what it looked like, partly through the eyes of his enemies.
Why did the apostles pick him? An honest man, full of faith and the Holy Spirit, a man committed to this new way of advancing the Kingdom – thru Christ not the priesthood of old, through Christ as King in heaven and over the earth, not by an earthly king; through preaching and wonders not through military power. Imagine Stephen in a prayer or worship meeting with a fellow Jew who was wavering in his faith, who maybe wondered whether it was true that God had chosen a new way through this crucified Christ instead of a powerful king, like King David of old? How would Stephen have spoken to him? A man full of faith! He would have warned and exhorted and encouraged:
"Don’t go back. This is God’s way now. He’s chosen our King, a King who cannot be destroyed, who conquered death. And He will conquer our enemies now! See these people who claim to be God’s people, who claim to rule in God’s name? They are hypocrites who reject God’s chosen King. Those who rejected King David were destroyed for rejecting the anointed one. His progeny went on to rule, and so will we. We are following in the footsteps of Christ the King, and we and our children and our grandchildren will not fail. Even if Jerusalem is destroyed, His Kingdom will go on throughout the whole world! We are a part of that, and we will not back down from the God of all grace who upholds His faithful. We have been chosen for this purpose, don’t you know."
He would have stood head and shoulders above all in his faith in this new way, and the apostles would have seen it. That’s why they picked him to be a deacon to wait on tables.
Notice the accusation his enemies made against him: “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God. . . . And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” As a former prosecutor in the Air Force, we had charges we brought against criminals. If we made a mistake, some of the charges may be correct, some not. In the case of Stephen, even the false accusers, I believe, got it right . . . in part. Even a false accusation should have some truth in fact. In Stephen’s case, he’s accused of serious crimes for that day – blasphemy against Moses, the law, this holy place (the temple), and even God. They were untrue and incorrect (there was no Mosaic law condemning saying the temple would be destroyed), as shown in his defense. However, the factual accusation that he said “that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” was correct. Let me show you why.
Jesus in Mt. 24:2 said the temple would be destroyed within the period of the generation to which he was talking – “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Jesus did change the customs Moses passed down. Heb. 7:11-2 speaks of Jesus fulfilling the Melchizedek priesthood instead of the Levitical: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Stephen was more committed to God’s Kingdom than he was to the priesthood he and dozens of generations grew up with, the temple built by Solomon, even his own people and nation. Are you more loyal to God’s Kingdom than to the good ole US of A? Isn’t it ironic that Stephen was honored by God with the shining face of an angel in the same way Moses was, the one his accusers said he blasphemed!?
In his masterful defense in chap. 7, he spends 50 verses summarizing the history of Israel. During his speech, every head in the room was nodding in agreement, none of those Israelite enemies ever heard a more orthodox exposition of their history. He spoke of Abraham and the patriarchs and the promises, of the going to Egypt and the deliverance by Moses, the Israelites’ opposition to Joseph and later to Moses, their turning from God to a golden calf, King David and Solomon and the building of the temple, how the temple cannot contain the God of heavens and earth, the giving of the law, and the building of the temple. Some of his enemies were probably thinking, “Hey, this guy isn’t so bad after all.” He explained the appropriate view of the temple, even the view Solomon, the builder, held: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?”
Then he might have escaped if he had stopped there, but the indicted turned and leveled the indictment on his accusers: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Following in the footsteps of the disobedient, the unfaithful, the killers of the prophets, they receive his accusation. And he accuses them of not keeping the law. He knew that Israel and the temple were not the end game for God and His goal of the Kingdom. He knew that they had hypocritically put their hope in a building, which was built for the King of the Universe and was intended to be temporary, while denying the very King who created all things. He held a high view of the law, just as Jesus did, and he knew that in denying and killing the Messiah, they had committed the greatest sin of history. Which, of course, would result in the greatest judgment of history – the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, yet at the same time, the escape of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem for Stephen, a loyal Jew, was not a disaster; it was the sign of the greatest change in history, the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile, the opening of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles and the Jews, the undoing of the restriction of man from God's holy of holies.
So he was awarded with the vision of the Son of God at the right hand of God. Like Joseph speaking of his dreams, he was not afraid or ashamed to speak of what he saw. He knew the timing - it was now time for the kingdom, incubated in Israel's time from Moses to Christ, to move on - to the whole world, the footstool of God. Jerusalem, the rejector of Christ, was doomed, and so was the temporary temple that had been stationed there. Now those who worship God would worship Him in spirit and in truth from anywhere in the world and based on faith in Christ not physical descent from Abraham. Compared to Stephen, even Peter was slow in his understanding of God's purpose in and for the New Covenant.
What was the faithful Israelite’s attitude at the time of the coming of Christ? He believed the law of Moses, the prophets, the histories, and the Psalms of David. He had a view of Israel as the premier nation, the nation God had chosen for a special purpose. I like to imagine that the 12 were that type; with all their failings, they were hoping for God’s promises of a kingdom to come true and to be a part of it.
Stephen was not one of the 12. We don’t know, but he might have been a follower in the crowds around Jesus, or he might have been someone who while visiting during the Feast of Pentecost, was such an Israelite like the Apostles. He caught the vision of the Kingdom, but Stephen was amazing. He had a better understanding of where Christ wanted His Kingdom heading than the apostles had when Jesus ascended to heaven. He understood the bringing in of the Gentiles, he understood grace but not just the grace of salvation/forgiveness but grace as it continued and was enhanced after Christ’s death. He understood there was a new high priest who had radically changed not just Israel, but the world. And he understood that Jerusalem was doomed, and the gospel would expand into the entire world.
Acts 6:3-5 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts 6:8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” My pastor called him gifted like an elder, not just a deacon. However, these words indicate giftings like an apostle. What wonders and miracles? Did the sun turn dark at noonday? Did the moon turn to blood at night? Were cripples jumping up at his word or touch? Luke doesn’t tell us, but these words are unique and indicate something beyond the normal ministry of healing even.
Notice that he didn’t go looking for controversy. He wasn’t going out and debating his opponents; he was doing Christ’s ministry, and they came after him. But like Jesus, he could handle a good debate. Remember how Jesus would embarrass those who tried to trick him? Think also of the movie Braveheart. I remember when I first watched it, I listened as character after character would give him sound, reasonable advice. I would listen and think, “That sounds like pretty good advice,” and then William Wallace, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, would respond with unassailable strength and conviction for his country and for freedom and for courage. He was a man on a mission. So was Stephen. But what mission.
Lev. 18:1-4: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”
I believe Stephen and the apostles believed in the mission of the Kingdom of God and that Israel was supposed to fulfill that mission. But what did it look like? Was it the nations flooding into a physical temple? Was it a David becoming King and taking over from Caesar the control of the known world? Stephen tells us what it looked like, partly through the eyes of his enemies.
Why did the apostles pick him? An honest man, full of faith and the Holy Spirit, a man committed to this new way of advancing the Kingdom – thru Christ not the priesthood of old, through Christ as King in heaven and over the earth, not by an earthly king; through preaching and wonders not through military power. Imagine Stephen in a prayer or worship meeting with a fellow Jew who was wavering in his faith, who maybe wondered whether it was true that God had chosen a new way through this crucified Christ instead of a powerful king, like King David of old? How would Stephen have spoken to him? A man full of faith! He would have warned and exhorted and encouraged:
"Don’t go back. This is God’s way now. He’s chosen our King, a King who cannot be destroyed, who conquered death. And He will conquer our enemies now! See these people who claim to be God’s people, who claim to rule in God’s name? They are hypocrites who reject God’s chosen King. Those who rejected King David were destroyed for rejecting the anointed one. His progeny went on to rule, and so will we. We are following in the footsteps of Christ the King, and we and our children and our grandchildren will not fail. Even if Jerusalem is destroyed, His Kingdom will go on throughout the whole world! We are a part of that, and we will not back down from the God of all grace who upholds His faithful. We have been chosen for this purpose, don’t you know."
He would have stood head and shoulders above all in his faith in this new way, and the apostles would have seen it. That’s why they picked him to be a deacon to wait on tables.
Notice the accusation his enemies made against him: “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God. . . . And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” As a former prosecutor in the Air Force, we had charges we brought against criminals. If we made a mistake, some of the charges may be correct, some not. In the case of Stephen, even the false accusers, I believe, got it right . . . in part. Even a false accusation should have some truth in fact. In Stephen’s case, he’s accused of serious crimes for that day – blasphemy against Moses, the law, this holy place (the temple), and even God. They were untrue and incorrect (there was no Mosaic law condemning saying the temple would be destroyed), as shown in his defense. However, the factual accusation that he said “that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” was correct. Let me show you why.
Jesus in Mt. 24:2 said the temple would be destroyed within the period of the generation to which he was talking – “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Jesus did change the customs Moses passed down. Heb. 7:11-2 speaks of Jesus fulfilling the Melchizedek priesthood instead of the Levitical: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Stephen was more committed to God’s Kingdom than he was to the priesthood he and dozens of generations grew up with, the temple built by Solomon, even his own people and nation. Are you more loyal to God’s Kingdom than to the good ole US of A? Isn’t it ironic that Stephen was honored by God with the shining face of an angel in the same way Moses was, the one his accusers said he blasphemed!?
In his masterful defense in chap. 7, he spends 50 verses summarizing the history of Israel. During his speech, every head in the room was nodding in agreement, none of those Israelite enemies ever heard a more orthodox exposition of their history. He spoke of Abraham and the patriarchs and the promises, of the going to Egypt and the deliverance by Moses, the Israelites’ opposition to Joseph and later to Moses, their turning from God to a golden calf, King David and Solomon and the building of the temple, how the temple cannot contain the God of heavens and earth, the giving of the law, and the building of the temple. Some of his enemies were probably thinking, “Hey, this guy isn’t so bad after all.” He explained the appropriate view of the temple, even the view Solomon, the builder, held: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?”
Then he might have escaped if he had stopped there, but the indicted turned and leveled the indictment on his accusers: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Following in the footsteps of the disobedient, the unfaithful, the killers of the prophets, they receive his accusation. And he accuses them of not keeping the law. He knew that Israel and the temple were not the end game for God and His goal of the Kingdom. He knew that they had hypocritically put their hope in a building, which was built for the King of the Universe and was intended to be temporary, while denying the very King who created all things. He held a high view of the law, just as Jesus did, and he knew that in denying and killing the Messiah, they had committed the greatest sin of history. Which, of course, would result in the greatest judgment of history – the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, yet at the same time, the escape of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem for Stephen, a loyal Jew, was not a disaster; it was the sign of the greatest change in history, the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile, the opening of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles and the Jews, the undoing of the restriction of man from God's holy of holies.
So he was awarded with the vision of the Son of God at the right hand of God. Like Joseph speaking of his dreams, he was not afraid or ashamed to speak of what he saw. He knew the timing - it was now time for the kingdom, incubated in Israel's time from Moses to Christ, to move on - to the whole world, the footstool of God. Jerusalem, the rejector of Christ, was doomed, and so was the temporary temple that had been stationed there. Now those who worship God would worship Him in spirit and in truth from anywhere in the world and based on faith in Christ not physical descent from Abraham. Compared to Stephen, even Peter was slow in his understanding of God's purpose in and for the New Covenant.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Matthew 26:64 - The Right Hand of Power
There is much to be said about the right hand of God, some of which I've mentioned in another post about the throne of David. In Matthew 26:64, and after being silent before the High Priest and others at His trial, Jesus responds to the High Priest's legal challenge: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matthew 26:63. His response is singular in the words He uses in the New Testament. "Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64. See also Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69 also.
There are many ways to look at and study this statement, but I want to focus on one aspect of it. Here's a question: With respect to speaking about who He is, when do you remember Jesus ever saying anything like that? He referred to Himself as the Son of Man often, and throughout the gospel of John, He emphasized His relationship to the Father as the explanation of His identity. However, I don't remember Him ever referring to Himself as sitting on the right hand of God or the power of heaven. He references Psalm 2 in Matthew 22:44: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" He said this just a few days before He answered the High Priest about sitting on the right hand of God. The author of Acts records messages referring to Christ a couple of times as being at the right hand of God, and normally as proof of His messiahship and in the face of challenge to that fact by unbelievers. Acts 2:33; 7:55-6. And why does He say "the right hand of power" instead of the right hand of the Father or of God?
In another part of the gospel story, again taking place in the week before His death, a portion of his reply to the High Priest appears: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. The Matthew 24 prophecy by the Prophet, Jesus Christ, is worthy of its own discussion in another post. It would require too much to discuss all of it in this post. It seems that the closer He approached His unjust death, Christ used this reference to refer to Himself. And His followers used the reference when facing opposition from unbelievers.
If this reference to the right hand of Power and His coming in the clouds of heaven is such an important explanation of His identity and justification for His claim to the premier position in the universe, why does it appear only in the last week of His life? Jesus tells the High Priest that he will see this. Yes, I suppose the High Priest and the other persecutors of Christ would see it is true when he stands before God at the final judgment. I suppose "you" can mean a general "you," as in the whole world one day, but Jesus used this fact of His coronation and ascension to the throne of God as the proof needed by those challenging His identity; it was apparently not for His followers. But as opposed to seeing Christ sitting at God's right hand at the Judgment Day or the general "you" seeing that also, if the High Priest would see Him coming with the clouds of heaven on earth, then it had to happen before the High Priest's death.
Why was it in the last week of Christ's life that He used this phrase? Why did He refer to "the power" instead of God or the Father? I have to accept Christ's words at face value - that the High Priest and the other persecutors would see that Jesus was exalted and coming with the clouds of heaven. So how did they see it?
There are many ways to look at and study this statement, but I want to focus on one aspect of it. Here's a question: With respect to speaking about who He is, when do you remember Jesus ever saying anything like that? He referred to Himself as the Son of Man often, and throughout the gospel of John, He emphasized His relationship to the Father as the explanation of His identity. However, I don't remember Him ever referring to Himself as sitting on the right hand of God or the power of heaven. He references Psalm 2 in Matthew 22:44: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" He said this just a few days before He answered the High Priest about sitting on the right hand of God. The author of Acts records messages referring to Christ a couple of times as being at the right hand of God, and normally as proof of His messiahship and in the face of challenge to that fact by unbelievers. Acts 2:33; 7:55-6. And why does He say "the right hand of power" instead of the right hand of the Father or of God?
In another part of the gospel story, again taking place in the week before His death, a portion of his reply to the High Priest appears: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. The Matthew 24 prophecy by the Prophet, Jesus Christ, is worthy of its own discussion in another post. It would require too much to discuss all of it in this post. It seems that the closer He approached His unjust death, Christ used this reference to refer to Himself. And His followers used the reference when facing opposition from unbelievers.
If this reference to the right hand of Power and His coming in the clouds of heaven is such an important explanation of His identity and justification for His claim to the premier position in the universe, why does it appear only in the last week of His life? Jesus tells the High Priest that he will see this. Yes, I suppose the High Priest and the other persecutors of Christ would see it is true when he stands before God at the final judgment. I suppose "you" can mean a general "you," as in the whole world one day, but Jesus used this fact of His coronation and ascension to the throne of God as the proof needed by those challenging His identity; it was apparently not for His followers. But as opposed to seeing Christ sitting at God's right hand at the Judgment Day or the general "you" seeing that also, if the High Priest would see Him coming with the clouds of heaven on earth, then it had to happen before the High Priest's death.
Why was it in the last week of Christ's life that He used this phrase? Why did He refer to "the power" instead of God or the Father? I have to accept Christ's words at face value - that the High Priest and the other persecutors would see that Jesus was exalted and coming with the clouds of heaven. So how did they see it?
Monday, December 9, 2013
Dominion - Whose? When?
"For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:5-10.
Who's it talking about? Depends on when you read it. Before Christ, it's talking about man, humanity, the Adamic creation, but after Christ, it's clearly talking about Christ. But it couldn't do away with the general reference to man, could it? No, it also refers to man in Christ, the new creation, the second Adam. Those who believe in Christ rule and reign with Him, who is above all rule and authority and to whom has been given the entire creation. Of course, the Hebrews 2 passage was always speaking of Christ, for He was the One to come, the King to whom all kings should bow, the Messiah to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets looked forward.
When did Christ become King of the universe? Never. He always was King of the universe. So why did He come to earth? To become man and become King of the universe and adopt the rest of us into His family - to rule and reign with Him, the second Adam, the new man. To lead us by example. So suffering does not indicate you are not the reigning King. Jesus suffered, was humiliated, died a horrifying death that no King should have to suffer. It was not the evidence He was not King; it lead to the resurrection, the evidence He is King.
We are blessed if we suffer for His name's sake. So how can suffering be an indication of something bad to happen, of the end of all of God's world He created?
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26-8. So if suffering leads to rule, and if Christ the King of the universe suffered before being given the highest kingship of all, why do we plan on Christ's earth being ruled by the evil one?
If God intended man to take dominion, how can that plan and intention fail? How can Satan get what he wants - the thwarting of God's plan for man to rule the earth? That is what those demand when they say that Christ's rule must await His second coming, that Christ must return for Christ and His followers to experience victory and rule.
Who's it talking about? Depends on when you read it. Before Christ, it's talking about man, humanity, the Adamic creation, but after Christ, it's clearly talking about Christ. But it couldn't do away with the general reference to man, could it? No, it also refers to man in Christ, the new creation, the second Adam. Those who believe in Christ rule and reign with Him, who is above all rule and authority and to whom has been given the entire creation. Of course, the Hebrews 2 passage was always speaking of Christ, for He was the One to come, the King to whom all kings should bow, the Messiah to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets looked forward.
When did Christ become King of the universe? Never. He always was King of the universe. So why did He come to earth? To become man and become King of the universe and adopt the rest of us into His family - to rule and reign with Him, the second Adam, the new man. To lead us by example. So suffering does not indicate you are not the reigning King. Jesus suffered, was humiliated, died a horrifying death that no King should have to suffer. It was not the evidence He was not King; it lead to the resurrection, the evidence He is King.
We are blessed if we suffer for His name's sake. So how can suffering be an indication of something bad to happen, of the end of all of God's world He created?
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26-8. So if suffering leads to rule, and if Christ the King of the universe suffered before being given the highest kingship of all, why do we plan on Christ's earth being ruled by the evil one?
If God intended man to take dominion, how can that plan and intention fail? How can Satan get what he wants - the thwarting of God's plan for man to rule the earth? That is what those demand when they say that Christ's rule must await His second coming, that Christ must return for Christ and His followers to experience victory and rule.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Daniel - The Key Timing Prophecy
I'd like to take a break and talk about Daniel, a key timing book in the Old Testament. So many get Daniel wrong, yet it is so simple. Think about Daniel 2 and the simplicity of the history predicted: There will be 4 kingdoms, Babylon through Rome, and then the kingdom of God shall replace all of them and grow to fill the earth. So simple. Yet, the so-called literalists do all they can to obscure the meaning by claiming its fulfillment is yet future. So futile, so overly complicated, so un-literal, so unfaithful, so perverse. Yet they claim to be the ones faithful to scripture. Yet, they deny Daniel his due. Nay, more importantly, they deny Christ, the stone the builders rejected, the stone cut out without hands, the stone that is the foundation, the cornerstone of God's kingdom, His due. They deny Him His great work on the cross. They deny its full efficacy, they deny Him the full honor of His first coming and what He accomplished.
Notice the timing so clearly stated, yet overlooked by the interpreters:
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." Daniel 2:44-5. "In the days of those kings" not in days thousands of years later.
Have you ever wondered why there were people expecting the Messiah at the time Jesus showed up? Remember Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. Have you ever wondered why wise men came from Persia to find Him? Why were they looking for a star? Were they diviners? Or were they heirs of Daniel, who spent part of his senior years in Persia? Remember the Lions' Den; that was in Persia. Have you ever wondered why so many false Christs/Messiahs were wondering around Judea? They had read Daniel.
"At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:23-7.
Interesting that the greatly beloved prophet is the one who receives the most explicit timing of the coming of the Messiah. The weeks in Daniel 9 are commonly interpreted by most bibilical scholars as weeks of years. At least, I've never read anyone say otherwise, and I understand that is how the Jews of that time interpreted the words also. 70 weeks would therefore equal 490 years. When did Daniel prophecy this? That's subject to historical debate. The possibilities range from 537 BC to 444 BC. But no matter how you slice it, figure it, calculate it, estimate it, it all comes down to the first century in which Christ the apostles lived and ministered. Isn't that a funny coincidence. The twisters of scripture who want some of the prophecy to apply to our future, then break off a portion of the years - the last week. They say those seven years didn't happen in the first century. So, I have to ask, What part of the prophecy do they not think, or not want, to have already been fulfilled?
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:24-7.
Which parts did Christ not accomplish with His death, resurrection, and ascension to the most powerful position of rulership - the right hand of God? Did he fail to make an end of sins? Did he fail to make reconciliation for iniquity? Did he fail to bring in everlasting righteousness? Did he, as the final prophet and God's final Word to man, fail to seal up vision and prophecy? Did he fail to anoint the most Holy? Was he not cut off? Did the city and sanctuary not get destroyed? Did he not cause sacrifice and the oblation to cease? Did he not make Jerusalem and its temple desolate? These types of questions are answered elsewhere quite clearly in the scripture, particularly in the book of Hebrews.
Notice the timing so clearly stated, yet overlooked by the interpreters:
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." Daniel 2:44-5. "In the days of those kings" not in days thousands of years later.
Have you ever wondered why there were people expecting the Messiah at the time Jesus showed up? Remember Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. Have you ever wondered why wise men came from Persia to find Him? Why were they looking for a star? Were they diviners? Or were they heirs of Daniel, who spent part of his senior years in Persia? Remember the Lions' Den; that was in Persia. Have you ever wondered why so many false Christs/Messiahs were wondering around Judea? They had read Daniel.
"At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:23-7.
Interesting that the greatly beloved prophet is the one who receives the most explicit timing of the coming of the Messiah. The weeks in Daniel 9 are commonly interpreted by most bibilical scholars as weeks of years. At least, I've never read anyone say otherwise, and I understand that is how the Jews of that time interpreted the words also. 70 weeks would therefore equal 490 years. When did Daniel prophecy this? That's subject to historical debate. The possibilities range from 537 BC to 444 BC. But no matter how you slice it, figure it, calculate it, estimate it, it all comes down to the first century in which Christ the apostles lived and ministered. Isn't that a funny coincidence. The twisters of scripture who want some of the prophecy to apply to our future, then break off a portion of the years - the last week. They say those seven years didn't happen in the first century. So, I have to ask, What part of the prophecy do they not think, or not want, to have already been fulfilled?
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:24-7.
Which parts did Christ not accomplish with His death, resurrection, and ascension to the most powerful position of rulership - the right hand of God? Did he fail to make an end of sins? Did he fail to make reconciliation for iniquity? Did he fail to bring in everlasting righteousness? Did he, as the final prophet and God's final Word to man, fail to seal up vision and prophecy? Did he fail to anoint the most Holy? Was he not cut off? Did the city and sanctuary not get destroyed? Did he not cause sacrifice and the oblation to cease? Did he not make Jerusalem and its temple desolate? These types of questions are answered elsewhere quite clearly in the scripture, particularly in the book of Hebrews.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Acts Chapter 3
In another message in Act, Peter seems to say that the new is still to come.
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:19-21.
But does this "restitution of all things" occur in one event at the end of the world or in a process that begins at the second coming? "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." Acts 3:24. These days, not those, days are foretold. The restitution has already begun. God is not going one day in one act make Christ's enemies his footstool; He has been and is making all Christ's enemies a footstool for his feet now. Psalm 110. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Hebrews 10:12-13.
That still leaves open the questions, Was there a special transition time in the first century that proved the coronation of Christ? Does it distinguish that time as the last days of the old covenant and separate it from our time? Are those last days over?
Notice also that in the book of Acts, Peter, a Jew, and Paul, also a Jew, state their messages differently based on whether they're speaking to a Gentile or a Jewish audience. It's the same gospel message, except that with the Jewish audience, they almost always throw in the fact of the rejection of their Messiah by the Jews. That' adds to their guilt, and it indicates an even more desperate need for repentance - to avoid the inevitable consequences of that rejection.
Then there's the great man Stephen, the man who perhaps saw farther even than Peter and the Apostles and understood so clearly just what God was doing with his generation. I'll write about Stephen next time. I look forward to that.
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:19-21.
But does this "restitution of all things" occur in one event at the end of the world or in a process that begins at the second coming? "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." Acts 3:24. These days, not those, days are foretold. The restitution has already begun. God is not going one day in one act make Christ's enemies his footstool; He has been and is making all Christ's enemies a footstool for his feet now. Psalm 110. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Hebrews 10:12-13.
That still leaves open the questions, Was there a special transition time in the first century that proved the coronation of Christ? Does it distinguish that time as the last days of the old covenant and separate it from our time? Are those last days over?
Notice also that in the book of Acts, Peter, a Jew, and Paul, also a Jew, state their messages differently based on whether they're speaking to a Gentile or a Jewish audience. It's the same gospel message, except that with the Jewish audience, they almost always throw in the fact of the rejection of their Messiah by the Jews. That' adds to their guilt, and it indicates an even more desperate need for repentance - to avoid the inevitable consequences of that rejection.
Then there's the great man Stephen, the man who perhaps saw farther even than Peter and the Apostles and understood so clearly just what God was doing with his generation. I'll write about Stephen next time. I look forward to that.
Acts Chapter 2
Consider the book of Acts. In Acts 2, after the crowd made comments about the disciples appearing drunk, Peter preaches and quotes from the prophet Joel:
"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'" Acts 2:15-21.
I heard a message on this passage about 33 years ago, and the preacher was attempting to explain that part of the passage didn't apply. He took the phrase "this is that which" and said that because "this" was applied to "that" meant the passage wasn't referring to this event. And this, no pun intended, was a charismatic preacher, so you'd think he'd try to show it did apply - Peter and the disciples were speaking in tongues. It was a very hard to follow sermon, and I never did figure out how he concluded that part of the passage didn't apply. Maybe Peter just quoted too much. You know how excited he could get and just do something. Maybe he should have just quoted the first part about prophesying and visions. No, that would not give the Holy Spirit the due respect He deserves as the author of the words used by Peter and by Joel.
You may do the same thing, I bet, when you read it. You say, "Hmm, some parts apply and some parts don't seem to." Or you say, "It all applies, but some parts are delayed . . . for about 2,000 years." But does this thinking really satisfy you as giving justice to the inspired, inerrant word of God? If the apostle Peter interpreted this event in Acts 2 was "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," and if the prophet Joel put all these events - prophesying and blood and fire and the moon turning into blood - into one event, why do we have such a problem with it?
It's the strange signs that trouble us. Are they literal happenings or symbols?
Again, the timing of the decisive event of history - Christ's first coming. Peter explains the culminating event of the process of changing from the old to the new - Christ's coronation on the right hand of God.
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." Acts 2:33-5.
The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God, the most powerful seat in the universe (Psalm 110), and as a result, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit so that the kingdom of Christ may advance on earth - that has and will change history, that made assured the victory of Christ on earth and in heaven. Yet, there are those who are jealous to have the world end in our day, who say that God is planning on giving His Son a throne in Jerusalem, and this will be the culmination. This interpretation of the throne of David being the culminating event is like saying that the Queen of England is looking forward to going to sit on a throne in the Falklands, that she cannot rule the Falklands from Buckingham Palace, and that Christ cannot rule the earth from heaven's throne. This is stupid, this is a denial of Christ's victory over the key enemy, His victory in time and on earth since His victory over His enemy, and it is a going backwards from the change from the old to the new, something that can never happen.
The throne of David, like the land (earth) promised to Abraham, is much more than a physical throne in Jerusalem. The right hand of God's throne is above all thrones and includes the throne of David, the throne that God chose for His chosen King. Again, the literal is not in view; it is the symbolism of David's throne. The scripture never makes much of any physical throne that David sat on when he was king of Israel. It's the anointed position that counts, and can anyone allege that Christ's position is less than that of David's. Great David's Greater Son is the phrase. Mark 12:35-6.
At the end of his message in Acts 2, what does Peter exhort his hearers to do? "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." Acts 2:40. During that generation, not just repentance in general, but specifically that time of history needed special attention from the Jewish people that they might escape the coming judgment upon the old.
"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'" Acts 2:15-21.
I heard a message on this passage about 33 years ago, and the preacher was attempting to explain that part of the passage didn't apply. He took the phrase "this is that which" and said that because "this" was applied to "that" meant the passage wasn't referring to this event. And this, no pun intended, was a charismatic preacher, so you'd think he'd try to show it did apply - Peter and the disciples were speaking in tongues. It was a very hard to follow sermon, and I never did figure out how he concluded that part of the passage didn't apply. Maybe Peter just quoted too much. You know how excited he could get and just do something. Maybe he should have just quoted the first part about prophesying and visions. No, that would not give the Holy Spirit the due respect He deserves as the author of the words used by Peter and by Joel.
You may do the same thing, I bet, when you read it. You say, "Hmm, some parts apply and some parts don't seem to." Or you say, "It all applies, but some parts are delayed . . . for about 2,000 years." But does this thinking really satisfy you as giving justice to the inspired, inerrant word of God? If the apostle Peter interpreted this event in Acts 2 was "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," and if the prophet Joel put all these events - prophesying and blood and fire and the moon turning into blood - into one event, why do we have such a problem with it?
It's the strange signs that trouble us. Are they literal happenings or symbols?
Again, the timing of the decisive event of history - Christ's first coming. Peter explains the culminating event of the process of changing from the old to the new - Christ's coronation on the right hand of God.
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." Acts 2:33-5.
The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God, the most powerful seat in the universe (Psalm 110), and as a result, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit so that the kingdom of Christ may advance on earth - that has and will change history, that made assured the victory of Christ on earth and in heaven. Yet, there are those who are jealous to have the world end in our day, who say that God is planning on giving His Son a throne in Jerusalem, and this will be the culmination. This interpretation of the throne of David being the culminating event is like saying that the Queen of England is looking forward to going to sit on a throne in the Falklands, that she cannot rule the Falklands from Buckingham Palace, and that Christ cannot rule the earth from heaven's throne. This is stupid, this is a denial of Christ's victory over the key enemy, His victory in time and on earth since His victory over His enemy, and it is a going backwards from the change from the old to the new, something that can never happen.
The throne of David, like the land (earth) promised to Abraham, is much more than a physical throne in Jerusalem. The right hand of God's throne is above all thrones and includes the throne of David, the throne that God chose for His chosen King. Again, the literal is not in view; it is the symbolism of David's throne. The scripture never makes much of any physical throne that David sat on when he was king of Israel. It's the anointed position that counts, and can anyone allege that Christ's position is less than that of David's. Great David's Greater Son is the phrase. Mark 12:35-6.
At the end of his message in Acts 2, what does Peter exhort his hearers to do? "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." Acts 2:40. During that generation, not just repentance in general, but specifically that time of history needed special attention from the Jewish people that they might escape the coming judgment upon the old.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Matthew 24, Part I
Let's get one thing out of the way. When you encounter a scripture passage with clearly literal elements mixed with symbolic or allegorical elements, you interpret the literal parts literally and the allegorical parts allegorically, not the other way around. Second, everyone recognizes symbols in scripture, including those who shout the loudest about not interpreting the scripture symbolically. Third, you interpret the bible's symbols using the bible's symbols, not your modern spin on those symbols. These three points will take you a long way toward interpreting the bible, not only correctly, but also much more intelligibly.
At the beginning of the chapter, Jesus makes a very concrete predictive statement about a physical building, a statement which was fulfilled historically only a few decades later. Why we would ever think that he could possibly mean something that would happen thousands of years later is beyond me. But we do it anyway. In verse 1, Jesus' disciples comment about buildings of the temple, to which He replies: "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24:2.
First, we need to understand how radical and final a statement this was to the Jewish mind. Jesus not only foretold to his disciples the destruction of the center of the worship of the true God, the most revered physical manifestation of their national and religious existence, the thing that distinguished the Israelites most visibly from the Gentile world, and the building that they would defend above all others against any attack. The loss of the temple in the Jewish mind was an event that the loss of the U.S. Capitol could not even approximate. It was not just the physical and religious center of the nation, it was the hope of the world to them. The physical and national calamity such destruction represented is incalculable. And what about the psychic effect? The Jewish psyche thought of the temple lasting forever. They'd lost the temple once in the Babylonian captivity. Never again? They counted on the prophecies that the temple was eternal. And what about the human toll? The loss of the temple would mean the loss of the nation, the loss of many lives, the loss of their society as they knew it.
Second, don't focus only on the humanistic view of this predicted event. The City of Jerusalem and its associated temple was truly God's chosen center. It was the only place to which the Israelites were to come to sacrifice. Deuteronomy 12:5-14. For centuries, it had been a house of prayer for all nations, the location to which the Jews and even those from the Gentile nations could pray. Isa. 56:7; I Kings 8:41-3. The predicted destruction was not spoken by a Gentile ruler or an enemy of the Jews; it was spoken by Christ, a Jew Himself. Therefore, Christ, God's representative and prophet on the earth, was speaking a judgment upon His own people of momentous proportions.
Third, He spoke it with great finality - "one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." He didn't make the statement in any way that would allow for hope, as if there were some prophesied method of avoiding it. There was no "except they repent" or "if they continue in unbelief." No, this event was set in stone so completely that Jesus the compassionate left no wiggle room for anything but total annihilation by His Father in heaven of His chosen people on earth. What hypocrisy, what crime, what idolatry could create an even greater disaster than that experienced when Nebuchadnezzar had invaded a few hundred years before and destroyed Solomon's temple?
Notice the disciples' first question. Timing. "Tell us when shall these things be?" Matthew 24:3. They wanted to know the timing. Did Jesus tell them? Or did he fool them by referring to something that would happen thousands of years later when answering their question? If He wanted to prophesy about something to occur so much later, why didn't He just do that at another time? He'd had three years with them. It's not as if He had had no time to make such points. Of course, the question would also arise about a prediction of events millennia away - why would they care? Why would He pick this particular time to deceive them, to lead them on with a particularly cruel statement about their beloved temple?
All the above questions point out the absurdity of the futurist view. Of course, He didn't want to trick them or deceive them. Of course, a prediction about events thousands of years later would mean little or nothing to these disciples in the first century. He wasn't speaking about the long distant future. He was telling them what was coming in their generation. Would knowing that this disaster was coming soon, was right at hand, even right at the door, change the disciples behavior? You betcha. In several ways as you read the book of Acts. So what about Acts?
At the beginning of the chapter, Jesus makes a very concrete predictive statement about a physical building, a statement which was fulfilled historically only a few decades later. Why we would ever think that he could possibly mean something that would happen thousands of years later is beyond me. But we do it anyway. In verse 1, Jesus' disciples comment about buildings of the temple, to which He replies: "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24:2.
First, we need to understand how radical and final a statement this was to the Jewish mind. Jesus not only foretold to his disciples the destruction of the center of the worship of the true God, the most revered physical manifestation of their national and religious existence, the thing that distinguished the Israelites most visibly from the Gentile world, and the building that they would defend above all others against any attack. The loss of the temple in the Jewish mind was an event that the loss of the U.S. Capitol could not even approximate. It was not just the physical and religious center of the nation, it was the hope of the world to them. The physical and national calamity such destruction represented is incalculable. And what about the psychic effect? The Jewish psyche thought of the temple lasting forever. They'd lost the temple once in the Babylonian captivity. Never again? They counted on the prophecies that the temple was eternal. And what about the human toll? The loss of the temple would mean the loss of the nation, the loss of many lives, the loss of their society as they knew it.
Second, don't focus only on the humanistic view of this predicted event. The City of Jerusalem and its associated temple was truly God's chosen center. It was the only place to which the Israelites were to come to sacrifice. Deuteronomy 12:5-14. For centuries, it had been a house of prayer for all nations, the location to which the Jews and even those from the Gentile nations could pray. Isa. 56:7; I Kings 8:41-3. The predicted destruction was not spoken by a Gentile ruler or an enemy of the Jews; it was spoken by Christ, a Jew Himself. Therefore, Christ, God's representative and prophet on the earth, was speaking a judgment upon His own people of momentous proportions.
Third, He spoke it with great finality - "one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." He didn't make the statement in any way that would allow for hope, as if there were some prophesied method of avoiding it. There was no "except they repent" or "if they continue in unbelief." No, this event was set in stone so completely that Jesus the compassionate left no wiggle room for anything but total annihilation by His Father in heaven of His chosen people on earth. What hypocrisy, what crime, what idolatry could create an even greater disaster than that experienced when Nebuchadnezzar had invaded a few hundred years before and destroyed Solomon's temple?
Notice the disciples' first question. Timing. "Tell us when shall these things be?" Matthew 24:3. They wanted to know the timing. Did Jesus tell them? Or did he fool them by referring to something that would happen thousands of years later when answering their question? If He wanted to prophesy about something to occur so much later, why didn't He just do that at another time? He'd had three years with them. It's not as if He had had no time to make such points. Of course, the question would also arise about a prediction of events millennia away - why would they care? Why would He pick this particular time to deceive them, to lead them on with a particularly cruel statement about their beloved temple?
All the above questions point out the absurdity of the futurist view. Of course, He didn't want to trick them or deceive them. Of course, a prediction about events thousands of years later would mean little or nothing to these disciples in the first century. He wasn't speaking about the long distant future. He was telling them what was coming in their generation. Would knowing that this disaster was coming soon, was right at hand, even right at the door, change the disciples behavior? You betcha. In several ways as you read the book of Acts. So what about Acts?
Monday, November 11, 2013
Timing Still Matters
Acts 10 describes Peter having a vision about unclean animals and the Lord telling him to eat them. Directly after those visions in a dream appeared at the door men from the Centurion Cornelius, who had seen a vision telling him to send for Peter. Even though Jesus had told his disciples that what goes into the mouth and belly does not make them "unclean" and even though he told them to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:), Peter still didn't fully understand what the point was. He still wanted to be a "good" Jew and not associate with the "unclean" Gentiles, and that was good Jewish living . . . before Jesus Christ came to earth and broke down the dividing wall.
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Ephesians 2:11-18.
Even Jesus followed this rule. "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:22-4.
So, what had happened? Why was it wrong for Peter to eat with Gentiles before Christ came but right for him to do so afterward? Clearly Christ, in His first coming, unleashed something incomparably great in the history of God's world. It was so great that He was called the 2nd Adam, the new man who would bring about a new creation. This is why it was so important for the Jews of the 1st century to repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. If they didn't, if they clung to the old way and didn't follow the prophets of their day - John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, as the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to do - they would be swept away in a new flood of judgment, a very carefully targeted flood of judgment, which I'll discuss in a later post.
It was the end of the age, the last days of Jewish covenantal dominance of the world. And no matter how small a nation or how tiny or even non-existent their army or civil government or economy, they were the covenantally dominant, chosen sons of God, that is, before Christ, the only begotten came. They were dominant because God saw them, heard them, dealt with them, differently from "the nations." See Genesis 15; 17; 21; Lev 18:1-5; Deut 14. No longer would God use the Jewish nation to represent Him to the rest of the world. Now his new covenant people in the Church, both Jew and Gentile, would be that. And this was no minor change; it was a massive change, so massive that Jesus would call the transition period like birth pangs - the birthing of something wholly new - and that the upheaval occurring would create tribulation unlike anything before or after those days.
And that leads us to a discussion of the timing of Matthew 24.
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Ephesians 2:11-18.
Even Jesus followed this rule. "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:22-4.
So, what had happened? Why was it wrong for Peter to eat with Gentiles before Christ came but right for him to do so afterward? Clearly Christ, in His first coming, unleashed something incomparably great in the history of God's world. It was so great that He was called the 2nd Adam, the new man who would bring about a new creation. This is why it was so important for the Jews of the 1st century to repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. If they didn't, if they clung to the old way and didn't follow the prophets of their day - John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, as the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to do - they would be swept away in a new flood of judgment, a very carefully targeted flood of judgment, which I'll discuss in a later post.
It was the end of the age, the last days of Jewish covenantal dominance of the world. And no matter how small a nation or how tiny or even non-existent their army or civil government or economy, they were the covenantally dominant, chosen sons of God, that is, before Christ, the only begotten came. They were dominant because God saw them, heard them, dealt with them, differently from "the nations." See Genesis 15; 17; 21; Lev 18:1-5; Deut 14. No longer would God use the Jewish nation to represent Him to the rest of the world. Now his new covenant people in the Church, both Jew and Gentile, would be that. And this was no minor change; it was a massive change, so massive that Jesus would call the transition period like birth pangs - the birthing of something wholly new - and that the upheaval occurring would create tribulation unlike anything before or after those days.
And that leads us to a discussion of the timing of Matthew 24.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
A Little Detour - Why It's Important
So why is it important? Why does it matter which interpretation is correct? Why should you try to prove that those who advocate a continuous "last days" are wrong? 1st, it's very important that we take the word of God at face value, that we accept it as reliable and not confusing.
2nd, it's very important to pray and work with the correct goal in mind. If you're still waiting for the something that would replace the old that was vanishing away, then you're off the mark. You're late. You missed the boat. You're thinking Jesus Christ will come back a second time to accomplish what He has already accomplished. Prayer, along with the word of God, is the offensive weaponry of the Church, the Christian. Through prayer anything within God's will can be accomplished. Why would you pray for the victory of God's new covenant and all its promises and reigning of that kingdom over all, if you thought it couldn't happen until later, until Christ's return, until thousands of years from when you live? You'd think you were praying against God's will.
3rd, you would utterly change the author's intended meaning, which is that the greatest transition of all time was happening during the author's life time. It was the transition from the old to the new, from restrictive dispensation of God's grace to expansive dispensation of God's grace, from the exclusiveness of Israel as the center of God's purposes to the saved peoples of the world, from the reign of sinful men to the reign of Christ. Are you still waiting for this transition? No? Then you cannot believe that the "last days" continues forever, or at least till Christ returns. Without an ending of these last days, there can be no beginning of the new day. And you would be living still in the old day, the old covenant. And the author would be making a point that was no point at all at best, and something that was a fraud, a deception, at worst.
The author used the word "last" to demonstrate something was ending, and the interpretation that says it's still ending 2 thousand years later asserts no ending at all. And by implication denies the change from the old to the new. 4th, the interpretation that denies the ending occurred in the author's life time denies the change from the old to the new, the victory of Christ, the reign of Christ, and the expansion of the gospel to the entire world. There had to be an end before there could be a new beginning.
2nd, it's very important to pray and work with the correct goal in mind. If you're still waiting for the something that would replace the old that was vanishing away, then you're off the mark. You're late. You missed the boat. You're thinking Jesus Christ will come back a second time to accomplish what He has already accomplished. Prayer, along with the word of God, is the offensive weaponry of the Church, the Christian. Through prayer anything within God's will can be accomplished. Why would you pray for the victory of God's new covenant and all its promises and reigning of that kingdom over all, if you thought it couldn't happen until later, until Christ's return, until thousands of years from when you live? You'd think you were praying against God's will.
3rd, you would utterly change the author's intended meaning, which is that the greatest transition of all time was happening during the author's life time. It was the transition from the old to the new, from restrictive dispensation of God's grace to expansive dispensation of God's grace, from the exclusiveness of Israel as the center of God's purposes to the saved peoples of the world, from the reign of sinful men to the reign of Christ. Are you still waiting for this transition? No? Then you cannot believe that the "last days" continues forever, or at least till Christ returns. Without an ending of these last days, there can be no beginning of the new day. And you would be living still in the old day, the old covenant. And the author would be making a point that was no point at all at best, and something that was a fraud, a deception, at worst.
The author used the word "last" to demonstrate something was ending, and the interpretation that says it's still ending 2 thousand years later asserts no ending at all. And by implication denies the change from the old to the new. 4th, the interpretation that denies the ending occurred in the author's life time denies the change from the old to the new, the victory of Christ, the reign of Christ, and the expansion of the gospel to the entire world. There had to be an end before there could be a new beginning.
Monday, November 4, 2013
A Never Ending "Last Days?"
We also use the word "last" to describe days past, not future. "In the last few days" would be an example. But that would be stretching the meaning of "last" too far in the Hebrews passage. Clearly, the author is speaking of the end of something because he warns people about something passing away and of something else appearing and that they should view those "last" days in faith, as if they're headed toward a destination, a goal, a finish. But the finish is something better than what was past, not something worse. Those who suffered in the past were giving their lives for us, for something to come, for something better. Hebrews 11. The Israelites who left Egypt were headed somewhere; they wandered because of disobedience, not because the goal could not be accomplished. The "last" days refers to the time just before the accomplishment of the mission or goal for which the faithful saints gave their lives.
But what about those preachers who talk about the last days starting at that time and continuing until our time? Are they wrong? Of course, they're wrong. They're expanding the meaning of "last" to the point of meaninglessness. If there's no real end until thousands of years later when Jesus returns, then it really has no meaning. At least, such an interpretation would have had no meaning for the people living in the author's time. Worse, it's a deception for those readers because they're given a false impression of something ending, which is not really ending. God's word is not a deception. It's an encouragement, a reliable guide. And for these readers, who appear to have been of the Hebrew faith before becoming Christians, they need to know that the upheaval being experienced, the loss of their nation right before their eyes, the nation chosen by God to transmit His truth, has meaning and hope. The author says more than that; he tells them that the very upheaval that the Jewish nation is experiencing is the ultimate sign of the hope they need.
They had forsaken the Judaism of the Pharisees to follow the Judaism of Christ and his apostles. They had left the shadows and precursors contained in sacrifices of sheep and goats and a physical temple for the reality of Christ's sacrifice and the church of Christ. Hebrews 8:2; 9:11; 13:10. But the suffering they were experiencing - exclusion from the "elect" of Israel, the economic deprivation caused by that exclusion, and even physical persecution - caused them to question their status, just as the chosen in Moses' day doubted their status as the elect, when they faced the difficulties of the wilderness after leaving Egypt. What physical reality could they see in their day that would show them they had chosen the correct path, the path to God's Kingdom, the path God had chosen versus the path of the mislead followers of some dead Jewish rabbi accused of blasphemy?
Interestingly, the author of Hebrews doesn't refer to the temple as the "temple," but as a tabernacle, a temporary building. Whereas the Jews of that day who clung to the hold considered it the epitome of the history of Israel. It was a huge building project, taking over 50 years to finish. It was massive and beautiful. As the traveler approached Jerusalem, the whiteness of the stone of Herod's temple dazzled the eye. Yet, the author of Hebrews writes that:
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:8-10.
His view is that Herod's temple is not the second temple (after Solomon's) but merely another manifestation of the first tabernacle, the temporary physical one. The second final temple is where Christ, the true High Priest, has entered with His own blood, not the blood of bulls and goats. It is where His elect enjoy the relationship with their high priest, truly forgiven and adopted into God's family by the true Son. Notice the words he uses to describe the time when only the high priest could enter the holiest place -- "while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." The author uses another phrase that indicates that they're waiting during the last days, and that waiting has a goal, a finish, and that it is in their day: "the time of reformation."
If there's a time when the physical earthly tabernacle will not be, and that will be the time of reformation, then the readers of Hebrews are being encouraged to have hope that they will see that time arrive. How will they know that the time of reformation, the time of Christ's High Priesthood, has fully arrived? Could it be when the earthly tabernacle is no more? If so, then why do some prophecy buffs look forward to a time when the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Wouldn't that symbolize the return to the old shadows, the days when no one but the High Priest could enter the holiest place? How could that be the sign that Jesus has conquered His enemies, that His Priesthood is the true, final, eternal priesthood?
It couldn't be; it would symbolize the opposite. It will not happen.
But what about those preachers who talk about the last days starting at that time and continuing until our time? Are they wrong? Of course, they're wrong. They're expanding the meaning of "last" to the point of meaninglessness. If there's no real end until thousands of years later when Jesus returns, then it really has no meaning. At least, such an interpretation would have had no meaning for the people living in the author's time. Worse, it's a deception for those readers because they're given a false impression of something ending, which is not really ending. God's word is not a deception. It's an encouragement, a reliable guide. And for these readers, who appear to have been of the Hebrew faith before becoming Christians, they need to know that the upheaval being experienced, the loss of their nation right before their eyes, the nation chosen by God to transmit His truth, has meaning and hope. The author says more than that; he tells them that the very upheaval that the Jewish nation is experiencing is the ultimate sign of the hope they need.
They had forsaken the Judaism of the Pharisees to follow the Judaism of Christ and his apostles. They had left the shadows and precursors contained in sacrifices of sheep and goats and a physical temple for the reality of Christ's sacrifice and the church of Christ. Hebrews 8:2; 9:11; 13:10. But the suffering they were experiencing - exclusion from the "elect" of Israel, the economic deprivation caused by that exclusion, and even physical persecution - caused them to question their status, just as the chosen in Moses' day doubted their status as the elect, when they faced the difficulties of the wilderness after leaving Egypt. What physical reality could they see in their day that would show them they had chosen the correct path, the path to God's Kingdom, the path God had chosen versus the path of the mislead followers of some dead Jewish rabbi accused of blasphemy?
Interestingly, the author of Hebrews doesn't refer to the temple as the "temple," but as a tabernacle, a temporary building. Whereas the Jews of that day who clung to the hold considered it the epitome of the history of Israel. It was a huge building project, taking over 50 years to finish. It was massive and beautiful. As the traveler approached Jerusalem, the whiteness of the stone of Herod's temple dazzled the eye. Yet, the author of Hebrews writes that:
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:8-10.
His view is that Herod's temple is not the second temple (after Solomon's) but merely another manifestation of the first tabernacle, the temporary physical one. The second final temple is where Christ, the true High Priest, has entered with His own blood, not the blood of bulls and goats. It is where His elect enjoy the relationship with their high priest, truly forgiven and adopted into God's family by the true Son. Notice the words he uses to describe the time when only the high priest could enter the holiest place -- "while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." The author uses another phrase that indicates that they're waiting during the last days, and that waiting has a goal, a finish, and that it is in their day: "the time of reformation."
If there's a time when the physical earthly tabernacle will not be, and that will be the time of reformation, then the readers of Hebrews are being encouraged to have hope that they will see that time arrive. How will they know that the time of reformation, the time of Christ's High Priesthood, has fully arrived? Could it be when the earthly tabernacle is no more? If so, then why do some prophecy buffs look forward to a time when the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Wouldn't that symbolize the return to the old shadows, the days when no one but the High Priest could enter the holiest place? How could that be the sign that Jesus has conquered His enemies, that His Priesthood is the true, final, eternal priesthood?
It couldn't be; it would symbolize the opposite. It will not happen.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
The Double Meaning & Continual Ending Tricks
For most difficult passages using words like "last" and "end," these interpreters use a double meaning interpretation: It applies to the time of the apostles and the present day (or future day, if they're feeling generous to another generation). Remember that for these interpreters "last" and "end" have to mean the absolute end of the earth. It can't refer to some other end. They still want the end or last to also apply to a future time. I'll discuss the double meaning trick more in another post, but the continual end trick is what is used for Hebrews 1:2.
The reason the continual end meaning is applied to the Hebrews passage is because of the word "these." It's simply too clearly applicable to the author's contemporary time period - the 1st century. But because the words "last days" are also in the passage, they have to explain that away or risk allowing the scriptures appear in error. Why in error? Because the end of the world didn't happen. And last days, in their mind, can refer to no other time but the end of the world and 2nd coming of Christ.
But this is where we must think biblically, using scripture to interpret scripture instead of out own personal interpretation. What is the book of Hebrews about? Perhaps more than any other new testament book, it's about the change from the old covenant to the new covenant. Perhaps we need to better understand the continuity between the old and new covenants, which it also explains. However, it's also clear in Hebrews that something drastic has occurred to the Jewish religion.
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Hebrews 7:18-9. "By so much [the oath of an eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek] was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Heb. 7:22.
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Heb. 7:26-8.
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Heb. 8:5-7
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.
The author is exhorting them to stay true to the faith in which they can enter into the true temple, not one made with hands, like those adhering to the old levitical priesthood and the accompanying rites for entering a physical temple. These were the mere shadows of the reality to come, no, had come. And the Christians were enjoying that reality. Why go back? Back to what? Back to that which is "ready to vanish away."
Therefore, if this old, these shadows, are ready to vanish away, could they be experiencing the last days of what is vanishing away? What would be the event or sign that would indicate the period of vanishing away, the last days, are over? There's no reason to think that these days the author speaks of will go on for centuries. The old covenant vanished away, the new covenant replaced it. What would there be a period during which it was vanishing away? Why would it still be vanishing away today? I'll consider these questions in the next post.
The reason the continual end meaning is applied to the Hebrews passage is because of the word "these." It's simply too clearly applicable to the author's contemporary time period - the 1st century. But because the words "last days" are also in the passage, they have to explain that away or risk allowing the scriptures appear in error. Why in error? Because the end of the world didn't happen. And last days, in their mind, can refer to no other time but the end of the world and 2nd coming of Christ.
But this is where we must think biblically, using scripture to interpret scripture instead of out own personal interpretation. What is the book of Hebrews about? Perhaps more than any other new testament book, it's about the change from the old covenant to the new covenant. Perhaps we need to better understand the continuity between the old and new covenants, which it also explains. However, it's also clear in Hebrews that something drastic has occurred to the Jewish religion.
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Hebrews 7:18-9. "By so much [the oath of an eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek] was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Heb. 7:22.
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Heb. 7:26-8.
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Heb. 8:5-7
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.
The author is exhorting them to stay true to the faith in which they can enter into the true temple, not one made with hands, like those adhering to the old levitical priesthood and the accompanying rites for entering a physical temple. These were the mere shadows of the reality to come, no, had come. And the Christians were enjoying that reality. Why go back? Back to what? Back to that which is "ready to vanish away."
Therefore, if this old, these shadows, are ready to vanish away, could they be experiencing the last days of what is vanishing away? What would be the event or sign that would indicate the period of vanishing away, the last days, are over? There's no reason to think that these days the author speaks of will go on for centuries. The old covenant vanished away, the new covenant replaced it. What would there be a period during which it was vanishing away? Why would it still be vanishing away today? I'll consider these questions in the next post.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Last means last, right?
We could talk about the fact that the Hebrew and Greek can mean "last," as in "final." Same for the word "end." But is that the way to study scripture? Or does scripture interpreter scripture? Is the context more important? By the way, that last question is really important. Did I just use the word "last" in a different way than last? The last question I asked was not the last question of this post or this blog or in history. It was simply the most recent sequential question before I said it was really important.
Also, the word "end." To what end would we be headed in defining that word? Did I just use the word "end" to mean something different than final, chronological time of "the end?" I used it as a synonym for purpose. The word used for end in the Hebrew in key passages like Daniel 8:19 (about knowing "what shall be in the last end"), Deuteronomy 32:20 (about seeing "what their end shall be"), and all the Proverbs passages using the same Hebrew word (like "the end thereof being death").
Therefore, if the words used for end and last in the bible can mean purpose, final, end of an age, etc., we'll need to get our honest interpretive hats on. A text without a context is a pretext. In other words, if I take one verse and focus on that one verse, I can pick and choose what I want it to mean. In other words, it's a pretext for getting the meaning I want out of it. And the meaning most interpreters seem to want from the words "end" and "last days" seems to be the final end of all things, when Jesus Christ returns to judge the entire world in the final judgment. Why would they want that?
It appears that every generation of Christians has wanted to be the "last" generation, the generation during which Jesus returns. You can find interpretations of the bible going back centuries and interpreting various scriptures to prove the "obvious" conclusion that their generation is the final generation. Is it genuinely the return of Christ they want? Or is it some form of generational chauvinism? (I got the term "generational chauvinism" from one of Gary North's writings.)
Let's look at one passage for a moment. Hebrews 1:1-2 states: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . . ." How can anyone confuse that passage? When speaking of "these last days" in the past tense about God speaking through Jesus Chris, the author of Hebrews is clearly writing about the day he lived in, right? And it's hard to make it mean some future time centuries later. However, interpreters have a way around that inconvenient interpretation. Let's talk about that in the next post.
Also, the word "end." To what end would we be headed in defining that word? Did I just use the word "end" to mean something different than final, chronological time of "the end?" I used it as a synonym for purpose. The word used for end in the Hebrew in key passages like Daniel 8:19 (about knowing "what shall be in the last end"), Deuteronomy 32:20 (about seeing "what their end shall be"), and all the Proverbs passages using the same Hebrew word (like "the end thereof being death").
Therefore, if the words used for end and last in the bible can mean purpose, final, end of an age, etc., we'll need to get our honest interpretive hats on. A text without a context is a pretext. In other words, if I take one verse and focus on that one verse, I can pick and choose what I want it to mean. In other words, it's a pretext for getting the meaning I want out of it. And the meaning most interpreters seem to want from the words "end" and "last days" seems to be the final end of all things, when Jesus Christ returns to judge the entire world in the final judgment. Why would they want that?
It appears that every generation of Christians has wanted to be the "last" generation, the generation during which Jesus returns. You can find interpretations of the bible going back centuries and interpreting various scriptures to prove the "obvious" conclusion that their generation is the final generation. Is it genuinely the return of Christ they want? Or is it some form of generational chauvinism? (I got the term "generational chauvinism" from one of Gary North's writings.)
Let's look at one passage for a moment. Hebrews 1:1-2 states: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . . ." How can anyone confuse that passage? When speaking of "these last days" in the past tense about God speaking through Jesus Chris, the author of Hebrews is clearly writing about the day he lived in, right? And it's hard to make it mean some future time centuries later. However, interpreters have a way around that inconvenient interpretation. Let's talk about that in the next post.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The timing matters to your confidence
Timing is very important to your view of the last days or end times. My view is very different from most of the popularizations of these terms. Imagine, if you will, that you're a player on a football team, and you show up for the game after it's over but don't know it. You might go out on the field to do battle for your school with no other team mates. You might end up playing for another team whose game was scheduled after yours. If you lost because you played another team all by yourself, having missed the game, you would go to school the next day and report your bad news. Your school mates might tell you, "Hey, we won, don't be so down. But where were you?" You might be happy to know your team won but sad to know you weren't part of the effort. What if no one told you and let you go away thinking you had lost the game? What if it were the championship game and ruined your entire year? You get the point. Timing is not everything, but it can sure mess alot of things up.
Notice that both John the Baptist and Christ tie repentance to the coming of the kingdom of God/heaven and the timing of its coming.
John: "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mt. 3:2.
Jesus: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17.
Jesus: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mk 1:25.
Obviously, both Jesus and John equated the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven, so we can dispense with the foolishness of vainly trying to distinguish between them. Why do they consider the coming of God's kingdom important in their message? First, because it is true; it was coming. As opposed to the past, there apparently was coming a change in the authoritative ordering of things for human beings on earth. Even though God had always been king of the universe, of heaven and earth, there was coming a time when His kingship would be manifest in such a signficant and palpable way that all men must order their lives to accord with that kingdom, before it arrives.
Recognizing the timing was important. Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that they had missed the timing profoundly. They had not listened to John's message and, according to Jesus, had thereby showed themselves not just apathetic but arrayed in opposition to that kingdom. There was still hope for them, for Jesus told them he spoke as he did in order that they might believe, but apparently the hour was getting very late as the hour of Christ's death approached. Mt. 24.
What of the timing? Why did both John and Jesus emphasize the timing? Why not just say, "God rules over all the universe, including you; therefore, you should repent?" Isn't that always the case for humans? They owe their lives and being to Him and should honor Him with their obedience. So what's up with the timing portion of the message?
Mt. 24 is Jesus acting in his prophetic office. He brings the indictment against his own people, the people of Israel, and predicts the coming disaster, like nothing they'd seen before, as a consequence of their rejection of their true king, Jesus Christ. Jesus made the timing of that event very clear - "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mt. 24:34. Any attempt to get around the plain meaning of Jesus' words of timing in this passage are worse than dishonest; they are silly. Typically, these attempts to change the timing to a later generation cut out the meaning Jesus intended for his disciples who asked the question as to the timing of Jerusalem's destruction after Jesus told them that the temple would be utterly demolished. We even have the indisputable history of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD, thereby fulfilling his prophesy within about 40 years after he uttered it.
"At hand." What does that phrase mean to you? How close is your hand to you? What did the people listening think? Did they think, "Oh, he must be talking about the 2nd coming of Christ?" "He must be talking about death and our meeting God in heaven." No, the plain meaning was that the kingdom (in its new presentation) was imminent; therefore, repent or you'll miss out. What was new about it? First, the king himself came to earth to proclaim its arrival. In fact, he was its arrival. That's why Christ went around "doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil." Acts 10:38. He as king over all had power over all and expressed it in goodness to humanity, also showing his good and kind nature as king. He showed he was sovereign and good. With his prediction in Mt. 24 of Israel's destruction he showed that a new order and people were going to continue the covenant election/choosing of those to represent Him on earth. They were heirs by faith of Abraham, Gal. 3, but they need not be physical descendants (they actually never needed to be; remember Rahab, the Canaanite; Ruth, the Moabitess; etc.)
What about the disciples, after the resurrection and during the events in the Book of Acts? Would they have thought, "Oh, remember what Jesus and John said about the kingdom being at hand? We think they meant a kingdom in the sky after our death or some long time into the future." Really? Is that what they would think as they opposed the entire Jewish nation, as they faced up to the mightiest empire on earth, the culmination of Daniel's prophecies of coming kingdoms, the kingdom of iron and clay that would cruelly tread down all in its path? And during which another kingdom would be set up, not made with hands? Do you think there might be a parallel between what Jesus claimed upon the imminence of the kingdom and Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 2? Weren't they presenting a new kingdom, for the present and not future, to replace the old ones? Weren't they emissaries for their King?
Do you still think Jesus and John were not talking about something to happen in their day or at least the days of their followers? I'd like to know why you believe that and how you justify it biblically?
Notice that both John the Baptist and Christ tie repentance to the coming of the kingdom of God/heaven and the timing of its coming.
John: "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mt. 3:2.
Jesus: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17.
Jesus: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mk 1:25.
Obviously, both Jesus and John equated the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven, so we can dispense with the foolishness of vainly trying to distinguish between them. Why do they consider the coming of God's kingdom important in their message? First, because it is true; it was coming. As opposed to the past, there apparently was coming a change in the authoritative ordering of things for human beings on earth. Even though God had always been king of the universe, of heaven and earth, there was coming a time when His kingship would be manifest in such a signficant and palpable way that all men must order their lives to accord with that kingdom, before it arrives.
Recognizing the timing was important. Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that they had missed the timing profoundly. They had not listened to John's message and, according to Jesus, had thereby showed themselves not just apathetic but arrayed in opposition to that kingdom. There was still hope for them, for Jesus told them he spoke as he did in order that they might believe, but apparently the hour was getting very late as the hour of Christ's death approached. Mt. 24.
What of the timing? Why did both John and Jesus emphasize the timing? Why not just say, "God rules over all the universe, including you; therefore, you should repent?" Isn't that always the case for humans? They owe their lives and being to Him and should honor Him with their obedience. So what's up with the timing portion of the message?
Mt. 24 is Jesus acting in his prophetic office. He brings the indictment against his own people, the people of Israel, and predicts the coming disaster, like nothing they'd seen before, as a consequence of their rejection of their true king, Jesus Christ. Jesus made the timing of that event very clear - "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mt. 24:34. Any attempt to get around the plain meaning of Jesus' words of timing in this passage are worse than dishonest; they are silly. Typically, these attempts to change the timing to a later generation cut out the meaning Jesus intended for his disciples who asked the question as to the timing of Jerusalem's destruction after Jesus told them that the temple would be utterly demolished. We even have the indisputable history of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD, thereby fulfilling his prophesy within about 40 years after he uttered it.
"At hand." What does that phrase mean to you? How close is your hand to you? What did the people listening think? Did they think, "Oh, he must be talking about the 2nd coming of Christ?" "He must be talking about death and our meeting God in heaven." No, the plain meaning was that the kingdom (in its new presentation) was imminent; therefore, repent or you'll miss out. What was new about it? First, the king himself came to earth to proclaim its arrival. In fact, he was its arrival. That's why Christ went around "doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil." Acts 10:38. He as king over all had power over all and expressed it in goodness to humanity, also showing his good and kind nature as king. He showed he was sovereign and good. With his prediction in Mt. 24 of Israel's destruction he showed that a new order and people were going to continue the covenant election/choosing of those to represent Him on earth. They were heirs by faith of Abraham, Gal. 3, but they need not be physical descendants (they actually never needed to be; remember Rahab, the Canaanite; Ruth, the Moabitess; etc.)
What about the disciples, after the resurrection and during the events in the Book of Acts? Would they have thought, "Oh, remember what Jesus and John said about the kingdom being at hand? We think they meant a kingdom in the sky after our death or some long time into the future." Really? Is that what they would think as they opposed the entire Jewish nation, as they faced up to the mightiest empire on earth, the culmination of Daniel's prophecies of coming kingdoms, the kingdom of iron and clay that would cruelly tread down all in its path? And during which another kingdom would be set up, not made with hands? Do you think there might be a parallel between what Jesus claimed upon the imminence of the kingdom and Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 2? Weren't they presenting a new kingdom, for the present and not future, to replace the old ones? Weren't they emissaries for their King?
Do you still think Jesus and John were not talking about something to happen in their day or at least the days of their followers? I'd like to know why you believe that and how you justify it biblically?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)