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.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)