Start From Scratch Thinking

The Star of Bethlehem Found?

2011-12-26T20:24:00.001-05:00

I watched the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem” by Rick Larson a few days ago. This definitely deserves an investigative report on this blog. The DVD has been out for over a year, but I just recently got around to viewing it. I want give you my take on it.

When reading the account of the star in Matthew, a Christian is faced with two possibilities. Either the star was simply a miraculous occurrence which cannot be explained or it is something that we would recognize today and could potentially discover what it is by extrapolating the trajectories of the stars¹ backward to the time of the birth of Christ.

I must say that the idea that we must find a scientific proof or scientific explanation for events which occurred in the Bible is somewhat overused, at least by some. I find little value in trying to explain how the waters parted at the Red Sea (or Reed Sea as it was) by showing the wind blew at just the right speed, direction, etc. These details just don’t matter and no one can ever be sure of their particular theory anyway. Its almost as silly as trying to say that the wind blew in the just the right manner to cause Jesus to walk on the water. Miracles do not have to be explained scientifically, you just accept them by faith because you believe in God’s Word.

This whole idea of “looking for something that fits” sometimes leads people to see things as fulfillment of Scripture when it really isn’t. These kinds of issues should not be accepted without much scrutiny. The date of Christ’s birth and the date of the visit of wise men are unknown and Larson has a lot of space and time in which to find the two corresponding stellar events described in the Bible and then conclude what the dates are.

Having said that, at least at first, I think the mystery of the Star is something that seems more interesting to delve into. One reason for this is that laws of motion can be used to determine exactly how the stars were arranged at any given point in time, barring Divine intervention or miscalculation due to undiscovered forces². But you can’t wind by time and see what happened at the Red Sea. For the moment, let’s assume that the Star obeyed naturalistic forces in the events described in Matthew. Let’s put Larson’s theory to the test.

Now I must say that Larson takes this way beyond just finding out what the Star was. He describes other astronomical events surrounding the birth and death of Christ. I will briefly comment on these first.

Even before I did any investigation on this subject, some alarms went off in my head about what was said about the constellations and the difference between astrology and authentic interpretation of Biblical signs in the sky. Yes, one of the differences is that the astrologer believes that the stars are not just signs, but actually control the events. But it is certainly not the only difference! There is nothing in the Bible that says that the constellations Leo and Virgo have the symbolism attributed to it in the DVD. These things were myths from pagan religion. This is like looking at a horoscope and using it to interpret the Bible!

How, then, you might ask could it be that such coincidences could occur at the time of Jesus birth? Remember that we do not know for sure exactly when Christ was born. Several years can be looked through until you find something that seems significant. It probably isn’t a coincidence that Jupiter crosses a constellation representing a lion. A lion is considered to be king of the animals in many cultures. It would have made sense for the original astrologer to choose a star in this constellation to be the “king” star and a planet that frequently crosses it (more frequently than the DVD leads you to believe, according to AIG) to be the “king” planet. And Leo doesn’t particularly look like a lion; it could just as easily be some other animal. And think of all the symbols that are associated with Jesus: Lamb, Shepherd, Rock, Root of Jesse, Bright and Morning Star, etc. With so many symbols, it is likely that if you look hard enough you’ll find something that looks like it in the sky. But that wouldn’t be a real Biblical sign because the Bible doesn’t tell us to look for these things in sky. It is dangerous to mix mythology with the Bible in this way and convince people that it is real because someone could use this idea to look for symbols in the sky and use it to predict future events which only God can foresee. Also the constellation Virgo does not fit the description given in Revelation 12. It has about 13 stars, but the description in Revelation says that the woman has a crown of 12 stars. Virgo doesn’t even have a crown, much less 12 stars in it.

Larson also describes an eclipse which supposedly fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (the moon would be turned to blood) by making the moon look red at the death of Jesus. These events necessarily depend on Christ’s death being at 33 A.D. That date is plausible³, but in Larson’s timeline, Christ’s birth was about 2-4 B.C. That would make him about 35 years old when he died. But his ministry began when he was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) and didn’t only last about 3 years⁴? Halley’s Handbook calculates the date of Christ’s “coming” to be 26 A.D. (see Dainel 9:25) which (according to Halley) corresponds to beginning of his ministry, not his birth.⁵ According to the AIG article, the eclipse was only a partial eclipse which would not have produced a reddish colored moon. Furthermore, this would not be a literal fulfillment of the prophecy, which I always favor.

The most interesting part about this movie is the Star itself and particularly the explanation of its motion as seen by the wise men as they approached Bethlehem. Larson claims that the Star is really the planet Jupiter and that it was in conjunction with Venus at the time that it “went before” the wise men to Bethlehem. Assuming a naturalistic explanation, the fact the Star “stopped”⁶ over Bethlehem could only be accomplished by a nearby object such a planet. For purposes of this discussion, I am considering the motion of the Star (and all other heavenly bodies) to be relative the earth⁷. In this perspective, the planets are revolving around both the earth (i.e. its rotation) and the Sun simultaneously. These two simultaneous motions are what make possible the stoppage in motion of a planet relative to the earth.

This stoppage in motion is described by Larson as a momentary change in direction (to the opposite direction). But did this planet (Jupiter), according to Larson’s calculations, actually stop? If the Star was moving either toward or away from the earth during the instant in which it “stopped” then it didn’t really stop, but only appeared to stop from the view of the observer who could not necessarily perceive that this was the case. A literal interpretation would not allow this additional movement. I am not saying that this is the case in Larson’s scenario (he didn’t describe it in that much detail in the DVD), but I must be skeptical until I see otherwise.

Did the planet actually stand over where the child was lying in a manger? (I am just seeing if you are awake. I really mean that house that Jesus was staying at the time that the wise men came, not stable that the shepherds visited!) Again, I am a literalist, so the Star must have been collinear with the child and the center of earth. That is the definition of “over”. If Jupiter did not really stop over the child but only appeared to be over Bethlehem from the wise men’s line of sight, then this does not count. Again, I don’t know whether or not Larson considered this detail. If this were really true that Jupiter actually did all these things, then it is a very amazing and definitive proof of the events described in Matthew. But according to the AIG article, Jupiter would have appeared near the horizon at the time of this conjunction. If this is the case, Larson's claim does not fit the biblical account.

What was the real star of Bethlehem, then? Every reliable source that I have been able to find says that there is no naturalistic explanation for the Star as described in Matthew. (Some articles attempt an explanation which includes Divine Intervention to move the star in the manner described in Matthew. Some of these may be plausible, but are highly speculative.) You just have to accept that it was a miracle that God performed at the proper time. No scientific explanation is needed.

In conclusion with having done just a brief investigation of the “Star of Bethlehem” DVD (or even just giving it a little thought), I have to say that I don’t come to same conclusions that were arrived at by Mr. Larson. There are many arguments which can be used to refute its claims on both a scientific basis and a theological basis. Basically, the DVD exaggerates many things.

(1) For purposes of this discussion, “stars” include planets, comets, asteroids, meteors or anything else which would have been considered a star at that time. The ancients were not mistaken that other objects are stars, but it is merely a matter of semantics.

(2) Couldn’t it be possible that gravitational field could have been disturbed by an object that is not now detectable?

(3) Assuming a Friday crucifixion, the date of Christ’s death was either 30 or 33 A.D. See http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#IIB for a discussion of this.

(4) That is the weak link in my argument. I have no definitive proof that Jesus’ ministry wasn’t much more than three years.

(5) It is interesting that Larson establishes that the Magi were from Babylon and may have been influenced by Daniel who wrote the prophecy of the seventy-sevens, which predicted the coming of Christ. However, as mentioned above, it was not the date of his birth, but the beginning of his ministry that was predicted.

(6) “…it came and stood over where the young child was.” Matthew 2:9

(7) Larson uses the language of a Heliocentrist and affirms the Copernican claim that the earth revolves around the Sun and rotates about an axis. But he explains that retrograde motion is the apparent motion of an object relative to the earth’s frame of reference and purports that this is what is being referred to when the Bible says that the Star “stopped” over Bethlehem. But I, being a literalist, take it and all other passages referring motion of heavenly bodies to be absolute motion. This view is referred to as geocentrism. The question of which view is correct is not relative to this discussion. However the fact that the literalism from which geocentrism springs is very relevant will be made manifest in the rest of the article.

My Perspective on A Veterans Day Sermon

2011-12-22T17:11:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, a guest preacher preached a sermon at my church. It was the Sunday before Veteran’s Day. The preacher is an upstanding, godly member of my congregation who often preaches on special occasions, especially patriotic holidays.

The sermon was about the Gulf War and its similarities to a certain battle or war involving Israel and Syria and the consequences thereof. In this story, Benhadad, king of Syria, invaded Samaria (the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel) as mentioned in 1 Kings 20:1. The city had been surrounded by the Syrian army and the Syrians had begun to plunder the city. But the tables were turned when

Israel

’s king, Ahab, sent out princes to fight against them in accordance with the word of the Lord given to him by a prophet. Benhadad then asked for terms of surrender so that his life would be spared and King Ahab agreed to these terms (1 Kings 20:31-34). God was displeased with Ahab for letting the guilty Benhadad go free (1 Kings 20:42). Benhadad besieged Samaria again (2 Kings 6:24).

In the parallelism drawn by the preacher, Benhadad represents Saddam Hussein and Syria is represented by Iraq. Israel is parallel to the United States and King Ahab is President George H.W. Bush. In the preacher’s view of the events of the history of the Gulf War and its aftermath, Bush let Saddam Hussein get away, God was displeased with this, and as a result, we HAD to fight against Saddam and Iraq again.

I don’t quite agree. Yes, there are similarities between the stories. Saddam Hussein and Benhadad were both wicked aggressors. I agree that George H.W. Bush did not act in accordance with God’s word, but not quite in the manner that this preacher is intimating. There are huge differences between the Gulf War and this episode between Benhadad and King Ahab.

Benhadad invaded Samaria, murdering thousands of Israelites. This was apparently an unprovoked attack. (The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been at war with Judah, who had made covenant with Benhadad against them [1 Kings 15:18-19].) The battle was fought completely on Israelite land, not in

Syria

. Saddam Hussein never invaded America nor even harmed an American citizen prior to the Gulf War. The Gulf War was fought in Iraq, not the United States. This was simply a case of the United States choosing sides (one Muslim nation against another) and was by no means an act of national defense. I know of no place in Scripture where God ever commanded the nation of Israel to attack a nation outside of the land Canaan because of brutality inflicted only on people who were not Israelites. It just doesn’t fit very well.

Secondly, there was specific revelation from God that Benhadad was to be removed from office and replaced with another king (1 Kings 19:15). We had no such revelation from God concerning Saddam Hussein. From a Biblical perspective, there was no more reason to remove him from office than Kim Jong Il or King Hussein of

Saudi Arabia

. In fact, the Bible specifically warns us to stay away from Babylon (e.g. Revelation 18:4), which is modern day

Iraq

Thirdly, I am not so sure that George H.W. Bush had Saddam Hussein in custody or that any form of agreement was made that involved sparing Hussein’s life. As king of

Israel

, Ahab had the authority to make such decisions for the entire nation. But in the United States, we do not have a king, but a President who cannot, according the Constitution, make such an agreement without the approval of the Senate, not to mention that the war itself was unconstitutional because war was not formally declared. (In fairness to the preacher, he did not actually mention the name of the President, but said “we” which would include the Congress.) This being the case, the right thing to do, from a Constitutional point of view, at any point in time after the invasion, would be to immediately cease fire and withdrawal all forces from the region. This would include even a point in time when Saddam Hussein was in captivity or capable of being killed. A much better parallelism to Benhadad and Ahab would be Osama Bin Laden and Bill Clinton. Clinton let Bin Laden get away. Of course, the right thing to do in Ahab’s case would have been to kill Benhadad, but in Bush’s case, it was more of a dilemma. Because of previous poor choices, there was no good choice for him.

Fourthly, the parallelism between the subsequent wars has the same problem as the first. When Benhadad invaded Israel, it was another unprovoked attack which violated a treaty he had made with Israel. But again Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States or harm any American citizen. For a second time, in the Iraq War, we invaded his land, taking the side of one of our enemies against another. We certainly did not HAVE to violate the Constitution and have this second war for reasons which are still unknown to me.

Even though the nation of Iraq was led by a brutal dictator like Hussein, this does not give anyone the right to go in there set off bombs killing thousands of people, including children. Intentionally killing innocent people is murder and it is always unacceptable to God. No exceptions.

There is one similarity between the two historical events that the preacher did not mention. Like the nation of Israel, America has turned its back on God. In Israel, there were only 7000 people (likely out of millions) who had not bowed the knee to Baal (I Kings 19:18). While we are not quite that bad off, we are certainly headed in that direction. One of the consequences of this, in both cases, is that uncompassionate and foolish leaders have come to power and the people are suffering for it. Will we turn back to God before it’s too late?

Street Preachers

2010-07-11T17:28:00.004-04:00

Last week, a group of friends of mine had a discussion about certain street preachers who frequent the U.C. campus. The majority of the group spoke against them because of their offensiveness and ineffectiveness and because their message drives people further away from the truth and causes them to sin. I have never heard these particular preachers preach, so I cannot judge them one way or the other, but I took the opposite view, partly for the sake of argument, partly because I think that most preaching goes too far in the opposite extreme, and partly because I’m just plain ornery. There were two specific points mentioned about the preachers that the group found objectionable. They told specific people that they had committed certain sins and that they wore T-shirts which said “Repent Pervert”. (There may have been others which I don’t remember.) I will get to these objections later, but first I want to clarify my position.

It is wrong to rejoice in the fact that other people are going to hell. It is wrong to tell people that they are going to hell without explaining the reason why. (The reason is that they have committed sins which greatly offend God.) Those who preach just to be seen by men have received their reward in full. Accusing people of committing sins, not knowing that the accusation is true, is slander, which is a sin. It is also wrong to present God as only being a God of wrath, and leaving out the part about his goodness and loving nature. If these preachers are doing any of these things, then I totally agree that they are doing more harm than good.

But, on the other hand, if the only objection is that they exposed sinful sexual behavior for the filthy and shameful thing that it is, then I do not agree. This was done over and over throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with preaching about hell either. Jesus did it. How can anyone understand the significance of the death of Jesus if they aren’t convinced that it saves people from shame and hell? If saving people from hell is one of the most important reasons for witnessing to someone, isn’t it being disingenuous to leave that out of the message? In his sermon on the mount, Jesus preached about both sexual sin and hell, but did not mention either his own death on the cross or being the Son of God. On many occasions Jesus actually told his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah (e.g. Matthew 16:20) or about him dying on the cross because the people weren’t ready for this message yet. This is also why Jesus had a forerunner who preached a message of repentance first.

Someone said that Jesus only preached that way to the religious leaders. I do not agree with that argument. Jesus often preached more harshly to “teachers of the law”, scribes, “experts in the law” and Pharisees, but they are not the only ones he preached convicting messages to. (Not all Pharisees were “religious leaders”.) Jesus preached against sexual sins and warned of hell several times in sermons addressed to general audiences.

I don’t agree with the argument that the “Repent Pervert” T-shirt is wrong because it would drive people away from the truth or that no one would ever come to Christ because of such a statement. I guess I’m just weird. I am actually attracted by provocative statements such as this. Even if I know that I disagree with someone’s point of view, I tend to want to listen them more if they display some evidence that they are passionate about what they believe in.

I pointed out that after Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53, KJV), many no longer followed him (John 6:66). Also, Jesus told the rich young man to sell everything he had and give the money to the poor. Jesus could have had more followers if he had attended a “Developing Interpersonal Relationships” seminar, but that isn’t the point. There are lot passages which teach that it is better to fail at making a true convert than to succeed at making a false one. The Canaanite woman said to Jesus, “Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.” (Mark 7:28, KJV) This beautiful expression of humility would never have happened if Jesus hadn’t called her a dog.

Quoting Matthew 18:6 (or Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2), one person said that this type of preaching would cause people to sin. But these passages refer to “offending one of these little ones that believe in me”, not causing adult unbelievers to sin, which is what we were talking about. The same principle applies to a certain extent, but how does wearing a “Repent Pervert” T-shirt cause someone to sin? In order for this argument to be valid, you must give a Biblical proof of this or at least give an example of an instance in which this actually happened to someone. Even if making a statement about how God abhors sin causes someone to sin, this does not count as “causing someone to sin” in the sense Jesus was talking about. For Paul said:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead…But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

Romans 7:7-13 (KJV)

I am assuming that no one believes that street preaching itself is wrong, but only the manner in which these particular preachers were addressing their listeners. (I think someone said that it is better to speak to someone you know in a one-on-one conversation. This may be better in some situations for some Christians, but there are many, many, examples of preachers addressing large crowds of people probably not known to the speaker in the Bible. So why not do it today?) I also want to point out that there is nothing wrong with showmanship in street preaching. Some preachers may do this to draw attention to themselves, but it can be done with pure motives and draw attention to Christ in way that is not sinful. Ezekiel laid siege to a brick, laid on his left side for 390 days, laid on his right side for 40 days, and baked bread over cow’s dung to send the people God’s message (Ezekiel 4). Ezekiel was only responsible for delivering the message, not for people accepting it.

Finally, I will address the point made about pointing out certain people in the crowd and saying that they had committed a certain sin (or was committing it). Generally this would be wrong because you couldn’t know that someone had committed that sin if you don’t know them. But if, for example, a young woman in the crowd was scantily dressed, then it would be entirely appropriate to call her a fornicator. This is a much more clearly appropriate instance in which you should criticize someone for causing someone else to sin. Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30 (KJV)

In defense of the group, I would have to say that I tend to lean more the style of the Way of the Master than the preachers we were talking about. Instead of telling people they are sinners and telling them to repent, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort ask you if you have committed certain sins and then ask you how you think God (being just) will judge you. But this is a relatively subtle point and is not an absolute rule by any means. I also like Paul Washer.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of preachers unnecessarily avoid controversial topics and effective teaching methods because they are so afraid of offending people. There are far fewer who are preaching a message which is too harsh. There is nothing wrong with preaching against sexual sins or about hell in a provocative manner. You shouldn’t worry for offensiveness about whether a message would drive someone further away from God if that is the only reason. The number of people who respond positively to a message in the short run is not the true measure of its success. Showmanship can be used in a beneficial way when preaching the gospel. You can’t fault someone for pointing out someone else’s sin if it is done in a loving manner and the sin actually happened.

Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Psalms 2:11 (KJV)

The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

Psalms 147:11 (KJV)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:7 (KJV)

“That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”

Isaiah 30:9-11 (KJV)

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 24:25 (KJV)

And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

2 Corinthians 7:15 (KJV)

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Philippians 2:12 (KJV)

Exploring Anglo-Israelism, Part 3: What Can Genetic Evidence Tell Us?

2009-05-10T22:37:00.003-04:00

This is the third in a series of articles in response to a particular issue discussed in a book called Preach the Gospel. This issue is British-Israelism. This is the doctrine or belief that the British nation together with its Commonwealth of Nations and the United States constitute the lost ten tribes of Israel (of at least a portion thereof). This is an intriguing proposition, but I have some reservations about accepting this teaching. I have only read the first chapter of the book, so the author may have already addressed some of these reservations.

The answer to the question “What Can Genetic Evidence Tell Us?” is a lot. This should give conclusive proof one way or another as to the answer to question of British-Israelism. Certain genetic markers can clearly mark one as being of Mediterranean origin.

First let’s consider the Y-chromosome. This is passed on, intact, from father to son. The reason why this is better to use than other chromosomes is because of “chromosome crossover”. This means that a typical chromosome can be “mixed”, that is it contains some DNA inherited from each parent. But the Y-chromosome does not “crossover”. Its entire genetic content is inherited from the father only—it is an exact copy of the father’s DNA. But the reason why every human male doesn’t have the exact same Y-chromosome DNA is because of mutations. We call these mutations markers because they can show how closely two human males are related.

Secondly the mDNA is not chromosomal DNA, but is contained in the mitochondria, an organelle located in the cytoplasm. It is passed in tact from a mother to her children (except in rare cases). Like the Y-chromosome, mutations can accumulate in this DNA. Thus, this is another reliable way to determine the ancestry of individuals.

There is a Y-chromosome marker that is not only specific to the Jews (or Israel), but it is also specific to the Cohanim. They are those of the priestly order, by tradition the descendants of Aaron. This Levitical priesthood is passed from father to son only. This Cohen marker has shown up in a few groups, such as the Lemba and the Marathi-speaking Bene Israel, who claimed to be Jews separated from the main group during the various dispersions. I haven’t seen any concrete evidence that the Anglo-Saxon people have any prominent Mediterranean markers and particularly not this Cohen marker. If the believers in this teaching have such evidence, why haven’t they produced it? Surely if it has been highly reported in certain groups, if it were prominent in the Anglo-Saxon race, then this would also have been reported. This same evidence disproves the Book of Mormon teaching that Native Americans are of Jewish descent. I do not believe in British-Israelism.

Exploring Anglo-Israelism, Part 2: Where are the Lost Ten Tribes?

2009-05-10T21:05:00.010-04:00

This is the second in a series of articles in response to a particular issue discussed in a book called Preach the Gospel. This issue is British-Israelism. This is the doctrine or belief that the British nation together with its Commonwealth of Nations and the United States constitute the lost ten tribes of Israel (of at least a portion thereof). This is an intriguing proposition, but I have some reservations about accepting this teaching. I have only read the first chapter of the book, so the author may have already addressed some of these reservations.

My first inclination is to say that the lost ten tribes aren’t really lost. I think that the Samaritans, though they were intermarried with other races, were at least a major portion of the descendants of the northern kingdom of Israel. And there were descendants of the lost ten tribes in Judea at the time of Christ (Luke 2:36).

In 1 Chronicles 9:1-3 we read:

So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression. Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims. And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh.

So this is definite proof that at least a portion of the “lost” ten tribes returned to Israel as they were supposed to, according to the Scriptures.

But what about the promise that there would always be a son of David on the throne in Israel? Well, for one thing, the British throne is not in Israel. For another thing, the One being referred to here is obviously Jesus Christ. This is proven by Hosea 13:9-11 which says, “I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?” See also Hosea 3:4-5.

Some British-Israelists say that the kings of England are descended from Zedekiah. But Jeremiah 22:28-30 says, “Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” Therefore any descendants of Jeconiah (Coniah), the father of Zedekiah can’t be the ones which fulfill the prophecy concerning the everlasting throne of David. The reference to him being “childless” obviously means that his line has come to an end. Jesus was not a descendant of Zedekiah (see Matthew 1 and Luke 3).

Read more here. Click here to go on to the next article in this series.

Exploring Anglo-Israelism, Part 1: Seven Times Curse

2009-05-08T23:28:00.015-04:00

This is first of a series of articles in response to a particular issue discussed in a book called Preach the Gospel. This issue is British Israelism. This is the doctrine or belief that the British nation together with its Commonwealth of Nations and the United States constitute the lost ten tribes of Israel (of at least a portion thereof). This is an intriguing proposition, but I have some reservations about accepting this teaching. I have only read the first chapter of the book, so the author may have already addressed some of these reservations.

The first issue is the prophecy of the 2520 years. The author mentioned that it had to do with the “seven times curse” mentioned in Leviticus 26:14-39. 2520 = 360 x 7. But where does the 360 come from? Ezekiel 4:5 says that the punishment for Israel is 390 days (the fact that days symbolize years is clearly explained in the context), not 360. This adds an extra 210 years, which (if you count from 720 B.C. as Mr. Armstrong suggests), puts the fulfillment of the prophecy at about right now!

OK, I know how another assumption goes into this, but I’m skeptical because I think that the above interpretation may be equally valid. The extra assumption is that first, God will decree a certain number of years of punishment (captivity—note the transition between verses 17 and 18 in Leviticus 26), God will bring them back into the land (?), and then if Israel does not repent, then the REMAINING years of the decreed punishment will be multiplied by seven. The other assumption is that the punishment for Israel (390 years) and Judah (40 years) are lumped together in the calculation. (The significance of the figure 430 years is that this was the period of time that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt.) So, since the Babylonian captivity was seventy years (2 Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2), we have 430-70 = 360. So that is, I think, how Mr. Armstrong arrived at the answer, but it took me a while to figure this out. To me, it wasn’t the most natural interpretation of the prophecy. I wouldn’t have even thought of it if hadn’t been for a third interpretation which I have heard of.

This third interpretation of the prophecy is even more intriguing to me. This one is attributed to television evangelist/eschatologist Grant Jeffrey. Like Armstrong’s interpretation, Jeffrey lumps the 390 and 40 years together and subtracts 70. But unlike Armstrong, Jeffrey counts off the 2520 years starting at the RETURN of the Judahites from the Babylonian captivity, not the time that the northern kingdom of Israel entered into captivity. There is also another big difference. Jeffrey uses a 360 day year in his calculation. So you must multiply 2520 by 360 and count off the number of days. Jeffrey claims that if you do this, the date comes out to be May 15, 1948 which is the EXACT DAY that the modern state of Israel of gained its independence and became a nation again. I haven’t done the necessary research to verify the exactness of this calculation, but it is at least correct to within a year.

I think that this interpretation, though it is hard to arrive at, is much more compelling than Mr. Armstrong’s (if it is in fact, really that accurate). It also seems to make more sense. Why would you subtract 70 years (606-536 B.C.) from the 430, and then go back and start counting the remaining years (times seven) at 720 B.C.? You are then recounting Judahite captivity years again! The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same thing, but they count from 606 B.C. to get 1914.

Secondly, the prophecy in Leviticus 26:14-39 clearly indicates that the “seven times punishment” would occur after a period of punishment. Notice that it says “they that hate you shall reign over you” as being part of the punishment. Though England became prominent in the early 1800s, they were not ruled over by peoples that hated them up until that time the way that the Israelites were up until the time that the modern Israelite nation was reborn.

Thirdly, prophecies concerning this national rebirth are much more prominent in Scripture than any prophecy concerning other nations coming from Ephraim or Manasseh. These prophecies state that the people would return to the land God promised them which is modern day Israel.

Fourthly, the obvious connection to the 430 years of bondage in Egypt fits more with those who are widely accepted as descendents of Israel, not the Anglo-Saxons. Armstrong’s interpretation has no exactness to it that I can see, but even the exactness of the prophecy has significance with the figure 430. Exodus 12:40-41 indicates that 430 years is an exact figure to the very day. Also the fact that the 430 years ended with a return to the land of Canaan fits with Jeffery’s interpretation better than Armstrong’s, because the British did not move back to Israel at that time.

In conclusion, even as good as Jeffrey’s interpretation is, I am still skeptical even of it. Part of it is based on the idea of a 30 day month and 12 month year. But I thought that a month was a cycle of the moon (not quite 30 days) and that the extra days were lumped into a thirteenth month, so that a year was more or less an exact year, not 360 days. (But I’m willing to be proven wrong about this.) Without this assumption, you get 1985 instead of 1948. And as I have said, I haven’t yet verified the exactness of the prophecy. Neither of the two interpretations explain why the 430 is divided up into 390 for Israel and 40 for Judah. It seems more logical that it would be divided up into 360 and 70, even though 40 is a number that is quite often associated with punishment. (But I similarly don’t know why the first 69 of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:20-27 are divided up into 7 and 62 either.) It also seems more logical that the two figures would represent separate (conditional) punishments for each group and that the multiplication by seven would be of each of the two figures separately. And the idea that the intensity of the punishment, rather than the length, is what is being multiplied also seems like a more natural interpretation. Finally, even if Jeffrey’s interpretation of this prophecy is right, that doesn’t necessarily disprove British-Israelism. But with so many valid interpretations of a prophecy, it seems like it has much less apologetic value than more straightforward prophecies, such as those which plainly state a return to Israel and rebirth of the nation. Take everything with a grain of salt. The series continues here.

Pre-Adamite Creationism and the Age of the Earth

2009-05-04T20:45:00.006-04:00

Not all creationists are young earth creationists. There are two types of old earth creationists: the pre-Adamites and what I call the Long Agers. Some theistic evolutionists believe in the pre-Adamite theory and/or Long Age theory, but for purposes of this piece, I will consider these terms to refer to creationists only. (And by creationist I mean someone who believes that God created the “kinds” mentioned in Genesis 1 [including man] separately, so that they don’t have a common ancestor with any other “kind” and that these are the only “kinds” that exist today.) By the “Long Age theory” I mean the popular theory that some or all of the six days were long ages of millions or even billions of years. The pre-Adamite theory is different than this.

Like the Long Age theory, the pre-Adamite theory is an attempt to (partially) reconcile the Bible with an evolutionist’s version of the fossil record and radiometric dating methods. It gives the creationist less territory to defend without trivializing sin by giving up the concept that God did not make the world a place of disease, death, and suffering.

The pre-Adamite theory starts with the assumption that there was a long (unmentioned and indefinite) age in between Genesis 1:1 and verse two. This is what young earth creationists call the “gap theory”. Unlike some theistic evolutionists, however, the pre-Adamite does not believe that living things were macro-evolving during that time, or at least not into what we see today. But Satan was cast out (to the earth) during this time and reeked havoc there. They believe that God made the earth and the creatures within it perfect in the beginning, but Satan’s rebellion (not Adam’s sin) resulted in the deaths of animals which can be seen in the fossil record. Then God wiped out any remaining life and started all over again with the new creation which starts in Genesis 1:2. Some pre-Adamites even believe that God even created human beings in the pre-Adamite age.

But the only Biblical argument for this theory that I have heard is that God did not create the earth “without form” (see verse 2) because the phrase “in vain” in Isaiah 45:18 is the same Hebrew word as “without form” in Genesis 1:2. Even if I were to concede that God did not create the earth “without form”, there is no biblical or scientific proof that it didn’t become that way within a day.

The idea of men being created before Adam is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 15:45 which calls him “the first man”. Furthermore, Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” This contradicts the idea that Satan, in a sinful state, entered the earth and caused death before Adam.

The very fact that God names the Day and Night in Genesis 1:5 should be enough to prove that this really is the first day. Why would God do this then if millions of days had already before passed? The fact that he calls it “the first day” naturally leads one to believe that there were none before it.

But if this is not enough, here is the clincher. Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” If this is referring to the six days of Genesis 1 (which is what one would be most naturally inclined to believe) then it is clear that Genesis 1:1 must be included in this six day period. But to cover all bases, let us assume that the six days in Exodus 20:11 are not the six days in Genesis 1, but rather a previous creation. Then it would not be right to say that God created “all that in them is” during these six days because not everything in the earth, heavens, and seas would be created until the “second creation”.

Now I will briefly respond to the scientific arguments.

First, there could have been plenty of room in the Ark for the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs which God sent to Noah to be taken on the Ark could have been young specimens. Furthermore, I don’t recall anything in the Bible which says that no “kinds” died out in between the Fall and the Flood.

As for radiometric dating, this is based on many, many a priori assumptions. These include that the rate of decay has always been the same and that there were no “daughter” products in the material when God created it. Potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating methods ALWAYS give long dates. The carbon-14 dating method ALWAYS gives short dates. So the evolutionary scientists must decide whether or not something is very old beforehand, and then they select the most desirable method based on their a priori decision. There has been a least one example where rock with a known short age (50 years) was dated to be 1.2 million years old. Carbon-14 does give dates somewhat longer than 6000 years, but this can be explained by the assumption that God did not create the earth with any C-14 in it or allow it to be formed on earth in the beginning. This assumption is logical since C-14 can cause mutations. (C-14 is formed in the atmosphere when beta rays strike nitrogen molecules. The Bible says that the earth has shields (Psalm 47:9) which could have been stronger in the beginning. The “Canopy Theory” says that an atmospheric water vapor layer helped to shield the earth before the Flood.) Finally, even if the earth is very old, one must consider that the pre-Adamite theory might not be the only possible biblically consistent theory that could explain it.

In conclusion, though the pre-Adamite theory does not contradict the important doctrine that God does not create death, disease, or pain (but rather they are consequences of sin), it is nonetheless unscriptural. Furthermore, the proposition that the events of Genesis 1:1 happened on the same day as those of the next four verses does not contradict science. The Long Age theory is not so easy to disprove, so I will discuss this, God willing, in some future post.

Once in Grace Always in Grace?

2009-02-20T20:58:00.004-05:00

I have read a lot of arguments that Christians can fall away, but at least some of them are really inconclusive. You must both prove that the person who was saved really lost their salvation and you must prove that they really were saved in the first place.

Inconclusive “Insecurity” Arguments

Even if someone is appointed to be Elder in the church (Acts 20:17, 28-30) or even an apostle (i.e. Judas), that doesn’t necessarily mean that that person was ever in grace to begin with.

In other places it may not be speaking about individuals. The branches that were grafted back in (Romans 11:13-23) were not people who had been saved and then lost, but its talking about Israel being lost as a nation or people. The seven churches in Revelation are another example of this. In other places it may just be speaking of the world as a whole (e.g., I Timothy 4:1).

The Bible teaches that there are different rewards given in eternity for one’s service to Him (Matthew 16:27, Luke 19:12-27, I Corinthians 3:12-15). So any passage, such as II John 1:8, which only indicates the loss of reward, but not eternal punishment, is not a valid argument that any believer’s salvation is not eternally secure.

Those who don’t believe in (unconditional) eternal security are not saying that God doesn’t know who is going to be saved and who isn’t. Some of the verses Calvinists use are only acknowledging this fact. But what then do we really mean when we say that a saved person can’t fall away? We are saying that if one had died while in grace, that person would have been saved, but because he walked away from the grace he had received, his salvation is lost.

The Bible speaks of some specific individuals who believed and then were (possibly) lost. The first example is Simon the Sorcerer. It clearly says that he believed (Acts 8:13) and later Peter said to him, “Thy money perish with thee…Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Acts 8:20-23) The word for perish implies eternal condemnation. We don’t even know if Simon was ultimately saved or not. He asks them to pray for him and doesn’t even say whether they did or didn’t. Even though it said Simon believed, it seems like his attitude was wrong from the start and therefore his status was questionable. James 2:19 says, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” So I guess even this passage is really inconclusive.

The problem with I Corinthians 9:26-27 is twofold. Does becoming a “castaway” really mean the loss of one’s eternal salvation? How can you really be sure? Furthermore, Paul says that he keeps his body under subjection so that he WON’T become a castaway. One could argue that since he has made his decision to do so, the result is that he can’t fall away. Furthermore, one could speculate that the one who doesn’t make this decision isn’t really in grace.

Galatians 5:4 says, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” This sounds like a pretty promising verse, but does “fallen from grace” really mean a loss of salvation?

It’s hard to find a Scripture that really proves this conclusively. Be careful.

Inconclusive “(Unconditional) Security” Arguments

Likewise, the verses that the (unconditional) “eternal security” crowd uses also seem very inconclusive. A sheep is always a sheep, but it doesn’t necessarily have to always be one of HIS sheep. And just because no one can pluck you out of God’s hand (John 10:25-30), doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t leave the safety of God’s hand voluntarily. John 6:37 says, “All the father has given to me shall come unto me and he that comes to me I shall in no wise cast out". Again, Jesus will not cast you out, but you can leave of your own volition. I John 2:19 only proves that SOME people in church are false converts (the ones who “went out”). And the above argument about the Bible referring to certain groups of people (the Church in particular) instead of individuals also applies to some supposedly Calvinistic verses (e.g., Philippians 1:6, I Peter 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:5).

Then there’s Romans 8:35-39. One way to explain this verse is to say that it does not teach that we can never be separated from the salvation which is in Christ because love and salvation are two different things. (God loves even the sinner, even if he knows that he will not be one of the ones who will repent and be saved in the end. See Matthew 5:43-44.) An explanation which I prefer, however, is that it does not teach that YOU cannot separate yourself from the love of Christ even though it teaches that all of these other things can’t. This exception can be taken for granted.

Conclusive Arguments

Because the list of inconclusive passages that both sides use seems almost endless, I will stop here and now focus on the ones which really address the issue. I do believe that it is possible for a real Christian to fall away (and thereby lose eternal salvation once had) and here are the verses that are most convincing to me:

Hebrews 10:26-27 indicates that someone can “receive the knowledge of the truth” but then there is only a “certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation” because “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” because they sinned “willfully”.

James 5:19-20 says, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

II Peter 2:20-22 says, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

Some passages indicate that not only can someone fall away, but if they do, they can never (or may never be able to) be restored. I must admit that I find Hebrews 6:4-6 to be particularly puzzling because it seems hard to reconcile with James 5:19-20, other similar passages, testimonies of Christians, and my own experience. My only explanation is that this is not inclusive of all who come to Christ (the context going back to the previous chapter is about those who “useth milk [being] unskilful in the word of righteousness” as opposed to “them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” Hebrews 5:13-14.) This is definitely counterintuitive to me. For more thoughts on this, click here.

Hebrews 6:4-6 says, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

I John 5:16-17 says, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.”

But there’s more than Two Sides of the Issue

Most Christians have been convinced that one has to believe one of two positions. One is that once one has received grace, it is impossible to “lose” it (or to throw it away). The other one is that every moment of your life, from the time of your baptism to the minute of your physical death there is always a possibility that you will be caught off guard and lose your salvation in a moment of temporary foolishness. Have you ever considered that the Bible may teach some middle ground position?

Is it possible that one CAN take steps (beyond what’s required to receive grace) which CAN make one’s eternal salvation unconditionally secure even though SOME who have received grace (but who haven’t taken such steps) MAY fall away?

I have heard some preachers use the term “soundly saved” to indicate this. II Peter 1:10 says, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall”. Matthew 10:42 (Mark 9:41 is similar) says, “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” God can prevent someone from losing their salvation by supernaturally preventing them from committing a “sin unto death” (Genesis 20:3, 6).

The term “soundly saved” also implies that there are some who are saved, but not “soundly”. In the parable of the sower (Mark 4:16 and Luke 8:13), it indicates that some receive the word with joy, but then fall away because they have no firm roots. (The strict Calvinist has to say that either these don’t really lose their salvation or are never really saved to begin with even though they “receive the word with joy”.) Consider also the argument about I Corinthians 9:26-27 above. Some may chose to take the step of keeping one’s body under subjection and some may not, making the difference between one who becomes a “castaway” (which could really be a loss of salvation) and one who doesn’t.

Conclusion

You may disagree with me, but I think that it is clear that a middle ground position (which may be better understood with more studying) is the correct one. But whether you are a strict Calvinist or a die hard Arminian, you do need to “make your calling and election sure”. So what are “these things” that, if we do them, will “make our calling and election sure”? I leave it to you find the answer in the verses preceding II Peter 1:10. (Click here to read about baptism.) Then you will be able to say with confidence, “I will not fall away!”

The Only Other Remedy

2009-02-12T20:20:00.001-05:00

For many Christians, Valentine’s Day is a special occasion in which fondness for one’s spouse or potential spouse is especially expressed. But for others, it is a painful time. The apostle Paul actually says that it is better not to get married seven times in 1 Corinthians 7 (vs. 1, 8, 27, 28, 32, 38, and 40). But in this chapter he recommends marriage for those who can’t control themselves (vs. 9, 36) so as to avoid fornication (vs. 2).

But this is not to say that a Christian should always marry when in this condition (not being able to control oneself with respect to a particular person). There are several cases in which marriage would be in violation of God’s Word. Christians should never marry non-Christians (I Corinthians 7:39, II Corinthians 6:14). And they should not even entertain the idea that they might later persuade the non-Christian to become a Christian. You don’t know that this is going to happen and it would just encourage the non-Christian to get baptized for the wrong reasons, leading to a false conversion. If someone is a fornicator, covetous, an idolater, filthy-mouthed, a drunkard, or an extortioner and yet claims to be a believer, then you shouldn’t even eat with such a person! (I Corinthians 5:11). The Bible also says that remarriage after divorce is adultery (Mark 10:11, 12, Luke 16:18) except in certain cases (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and possibly I Corinthians 7:15). It also seems logical that one should not marry someone who takes an opposing position on an issue that one feels strongly about, such as abortion. There are also times when God may be leading two people to two different geographic locations at some future time, so things just can’t work out, but in the mean time there is temptation. Other times the romantic feelings one has just aren’t felt by the other person. Sometimes the young are too young to marry or their parents don’t approve.

So what is one to do when one finds oneself in one of these situations—not able to control oneself and not able to stop having impure thoughts about the other person when Paul’s recommendation of marriage can’t be followed because it is forbidden by other scriptures or scriptural principles? Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30 (ESV)

Don’t fool yourself. If marriage is not an option in this situation then the only other remedy is to stay away from the person whose presence causes you to sin. You may have to start going to a different church, quit your job, or even move away. Everyone else may think that this is a foolish overreaction, but such is often the case when a Christian does the right (1 Corinthians 2:14, 3:19).

This is a hard to decision to make and it should be done with great care. It is a sad thing when a great friendship has to come to an end because of something like this, but what must be done must be done. It is often no one’s fault. In this case, telling the other person that this is the way it has to be should be done so that there is no impression that you are laying blame for the situation. Whatever the case may be, you should be careful to make clear that the reason is the avoidance of sin and not to hurt the other person.

These situations are made worse when you put off talking about the important issues mentioned above (2nd paragraph). They are also made worse when tempting situations aren’t avoided and by engaging in things that lead to fornication or cause impure thoughts. I recommend the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris.

This is an unpleasant topic, but I hope that someone will benefit by reading it.

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

2009-01-30T19:18:00.009-05:00

Having grown up in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, for us the short answer is yes. This is what we teach. Acts 2:38 is one of our battle cries. But I want to take a closer look at this in this piece. Is what my church teaches really right?

The Arguments of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ

“…Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)

I do believe that just because Peter is instructing them to be baptized, that it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is necessary for salvation. It is not like as if they asked, “What MUST I do to be saved?” as the Philippian jailer did in Acts 16:30. But it does seem incorrect to include “and be baptized” in the sentence if at least one of the purposes of it isn’t the remission of sins.

The clause “…ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” is in a separate sentence in all English versions that I know of, so this would seem to leave open the question of whether baptism is necessary for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, which is the other major claim that the CCs and C of Cs make of this verse. Acts 10:44-48 is a clear counterexample of this claim. In Acts 19:6, the believers being baptized didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until after Paul laid his hands on them which was after they had been baptized. So there seems to be no “rule” about this.

Another verse that is used this one:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 (KJV)

My only comment on this is that I just can’t say for sure that the water that Jesus is speaking of the water of baptism or something else such as amniotic fluid. But the latter explanation would imply that there will be no unborn babies in heaven. (But so would saying that baptism is necessary for salvation without exception.) But I will save the discussion of the topic of salvation for infants and young children for another time.

“…the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” 1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)

This verse clearly says that baptism does save. The only alternative explanation that I have ever heard is that the “baptism” here isn’t water baptism. But Ephesians 4:5 says that there is only one baptism. Therefore, I reject this argument. However, nothing in this passage says that it is impossible for someone to be saved without water baptism.

The Arguments of the Other Side

The most common objection to the doctrine of the necessity of baptism for salvation is the idea that this would be “salvation by works” which is thoroughly denounced in the NT (e.g. Ephesians 2:8). But is preaching the gospel a work? Aren’t some people saved because of the preaching of the gospel? “But the one who is being saved isn’t the one doing the work (the preaching),” you might object. Ah! That’s just it. The one who is being saved isn’t the one doing the work of baptism either. You don’t baptize yourself; someone else always has to do the baptizing! All you have to “do” is come forward and say you will, which is just like the rest of the plan of salvation. See also Titus 3:5.

The other arguments involve counterexamples. The most common one is the thief on the cross (see Luke 23:39-43). This opens up various tired old arguments like “When did the New Covenant actually begin?” Of course, the CCs and C of Cs will argue that it was later (at the Resurrection or even the Day of Pentecost), and the other side argues that it was at the moment of Christ’s death. (Jesus died before the thief did, so the argument goes that the thief would have been under the New Covenant at the time of his death.) There are passages of scripture which indicate that the Resurrection of Christ and belief therein is necessary for salvation, and this gives weight to the CC and C of C argument. But I kind of see that the OT and NT overlap and you can’t say everything changed over at one instant. I like to keep myself open-minded about such things. Some CC and C of C Christians will even say that the thief could have been baptized previously, but even if that were true, that would have been John’s baptism. (Acts 19:3-5 indicates that baptism into Christ in New Testament is apparently necessary even for those who already had John’s baptism. This doesn’t contradict Ephesians 4:5 because John’s baptism had passed away.)

The other counterexample that I can see in the NT is the one I mentioned previously in Acts 10:44-48. Surely if some people had received the Holy Ghost, then they also had to be saved at that time.

A Closer Look at What CC and C of C Christians Really Believe

Many of us would NOT agree the following statement:

There is no way that anyone can be saved without water baptism. There are no exceptions.

Though there are some who would. My Bible study teacher told us a story of a man who, on his death bed, wanted to be baptized. There was a bathtub there, and some men tried to get him to it, but he died before they could make it. My Bible study teacher says he thinks that that man was saved. He uses passages (e.g. Matthew 5:22, 28) which say that doing something “in your heart” is equivalent to the physical act. However, he still criticizes the Baptists for not believing that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

We do not believe in infant baptism. The reason why baptism saves is because it is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21, KJV). This cannot be done by an infant.

Also, baptism must be done by immersion, not sprinkling or pouring. This is because of the meaning of the Greek word and it is also brought out explicitly in some passages. I believe that there shouldn’t even be a word “baptism”. It should be rendered “immersion” in the Bible. Here is a link to some arguments and positions of the noninstrumental C of C.

Conclusion

We cannot tie God’s hands and say that He will never save someone without first having been immersed. But on the other hand, to say that baptism has nothing to do with salvation is, I believe, incorrect. But unlike some in my church, I can consider those who disagree with me on this issue to be my brothers and sisters in Christ as long as they teach that adult baptism by immersion is commanded in scripture. The idea of keeping out “works salvation” doctrine is a legitimate concern. But I don’t think there should be a denominational division over this “necessity” part of the issue. The CC and C of C Christians should stop accusing the Baptists and others of “leaving something out of the plan of salvation”. And they should not accuse us of teaching “salvation by works”.

How Often Should Communion Be Taken?

2009-01-23T09:22:00.000-05:00

My featured text for this piece is I Corinthians 11:17-34.

I grew up in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. We take communion every Sunday during worship services. Before bread and juice are passed, a member of the church addresses the congregation with a word concerning it. This is called communion mediation. “We’re told to take it as often as we meet,” was what one frequent communion mediation speaker would always say. As a child, I wondered, “Why do we not also always take it on Wednesday nights?” (We had a Bible study on that night.) Later, I examined the Scriptures and found no such phrase as “take it as often as you meet”. The closest thing is I Corinthians 11:20 which seems only to indicate that it was the practice of the Corinthian church to partake every time they met, but no universal commandment is given concerning the frequency of communion. Notice that it was also their practice to have a “love feast” along with it (v. 21-22), but this is clearly just a tradition also, and not necessary for the modern church.

Having said this, I can now say that it is my opinion that following the tradition of weekly communion is a good tradition. “Proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26) is certainly something that I think we should do often. When visitors come to our services, they may ask what it is for. This opens the door for good witnessing opportunities. Notice that the church is the Lord’s body, which must be discerned (v. 29). I will not criticize other churches that do not hold to this practice, but there is a commandment in the Bible for Christians to partake (v. 24).

Must Churches Have Worship Services on Sunday?

2009-01-17T08:49:00.006-05:00

Without question, believers must regularly meet together (Hebrews 10:25). But must Sunday be set aside as the day of assembling ourselves together, or will any day suffice?

I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, but I don’t think that there is reason to condemn them or churches that hold their services on Saturday nights instead of Sunday.

Except in regards to the actual event of the Resurrection, there is very little mention in the New Testament of the first day of the week. One example is Revelation 1:10 (possibly). The only place in the NT where any command is given concerning it is in I Corinthians 16:1-2. But this commandment only concerns the setting aside of money. The issue of a worship service is not explicitly addressed here. Furthermore, the churches of Galatia and “ye” (the church at Corinth) are particularly identified as the specific groups that this commandment is directed to. (Therefore, we need not take it as a general commandment for all churches at all times.) Note that the commandment was given because of a particular occasion, that is, Paul’s coming to Corinth.

Just because it was the habit of these churches to meet on Sundays doesn’t necessarily mean that that is the way it was to be for all churches from that time forward. At different times they had different practices. Acts 20:7 says that the disciples met together on the first day of the week to break bread. But in Acts 2:46 it says that they met daily for this purpose.

In Romans 14:5-6, it says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it…” (Romans 14:5-6, KJV) Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no man therefore judge you … in respect of an holyday…” Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJV)

What if believers in another country met at random times during the week to avoid persecution? Will they be condemned for this? Should call them liberals?

The International Dateline divides the Pacific Ocean so that on one side of the line, the time is a full 24 hours later than on the other side. So what if you lived on an island that was right on the line? Then what day should you worship? The line is manmade (but necessary). What if God would have drawn the line in the Atlantic Ocean instead? In that case, all North and South American Christians would be worshipping on the wrong day!

I realize that the reason for this tradition is the Resurrection of Christ. There is nothing wrong with having this tradition. I Corinthians 16:1-2 and Acts 20:7 do provide a biblical precedent for it. Many business owners, such as the owner of Chick-fil-A, close their establishments on Sundays to promote church-going. This is a commendable deed and in no way is what I am saying meant to diminish such an act of financial sacrifice. But we need to realize that it is just a tradition.

5 Reasons to Not Obtain a State Marriage License

2008-12-17T10:57:00.004-05:00

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parent’s authority by demanding that the parent’s permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parent’s permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parent’s authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1) in the case of divorce, and 2) when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy, etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What are needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they will take 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.
www.mercyseat.net

Was Luke’s Record of Jesus’ Genealogy through Mary or Joseph?

2008-11-30T15:54:00.001-05:00

Joseph was not, of course, Jesus’ biological father (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:34-35). I have heard people say that Matthew’s record of Jesus’ genealogy was through Joseph and that Luke’s genealogy was through Mary’s lineage. They reason that since Matthew was a tax collector (Matthew 10:3, Luke 5:27), he was concerned with legal matters and would have recorded Joseph’s genealogy because he was legally Jesus’ father. Luke, on the other hand, was a doctor (Colossians 4:14) and would have been more concerned with the biological lineage of Christ. This may sound good, but what does the Bible really say?

The main reason for the controversy is that the genealogy is different in the two accounts (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38) and both appear to record a strictly patriarchal lineage. The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are the same from Abraham until David, but then diverge into two separate lineages. The name given for Joseph’s father in Matthew’s account is Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Since Luke’s account says, “And Jesus …being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…” (Luke 3:23), some people think that this really means that Mary was the daughter of Heli. But that just isn’t what it says. Some say that “as was supposed” extends to the relationship between Joseph and Heli, but it doesn’t say that either.

Under the Law of Moses, if a married man died leaving his wife no children, then his brother was required to marry the wife of his brother and the firstborn of the marriage would “succeed in the name of his brother” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). So one might think that it is possible that this could explain how Joseph had two fathers. But if Jacob and Heli were brothers, then the rest of the genealogy would be the same, but it isn’t. But in the book of Ruth it explains that another relative could take the place of the brother if he refused or was unable to (Ruth 4:1-8). It is unclear whether the relative had to be a blood relative (see Ruth 2:1). So this could explain it.

But I have a more likely interpretation. In Luke’s account, in 3:23, the first use of the phrase “the son of” (in reference to Jesus’ supposed sonship of Joseph) is explicitly written into the Greek. But the second instance (in reference to Joseph’s relationship to Heli) is not explicitly written in the Greek. The translators just added this phrase to make the sentence more complete in English. Likewise, all of the other uses of the phrase “the son of” in Luke (3:23-38) are inexplicit and only the word “of” is really there. Therefore, although the name is used as a man’s name (it is the same name as Eli), Heli could have been Joseph’s mother. So this leaves the meaning of Luke’s genealogy somewhat uncertain, whereas Matthew’s account is more explicit with his use of the word “begat”. Note Matthew does not say that Joseph begat Jesus (see Matthew 1:16). Note also that Luke says that Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). Again, the wording is inexplicit, and this indicates that a broadly defined genealogy is intended. Note also that Jehoiakim is not included in Matthew’s genealogy (compare I Chronicles 3:15-17 and II Chronicles 36:1-9 with Matthew 1:11) and likewise Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are not mentioned (compare II Chronicles 21:4-26:23 with Matthew 1:8) indicating that a “begat” could skip one or several generations. (Also compare I Chronicles 3:17-19 with Matthew 1:12.) There are lots of possibilities. Either Heli or Jacob could have been a maternal grandfather of Joseph, for example. Adoption or remarriage (step-fatherhood) are also possible explanations.

Luke indicates that Elizabeth was a descendent of Aaron (Luke 1:5) and that Mary was Elizabeth’s cousin (Luke 1:36). It is tempting to say then that Mary could also be a patriarchal descendent of Aaron to cast further doubt on the theory that Luke’s genealogy is of her, but note Hebrews 7:14, which says, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” (Luke’s line does not go though Aaron and Levi, but Judah and David.) But just because Elizabeth and Mary were cousins doesn’t necessary mean that they were patriarchal cousins.

There are also several other places in Scripture that make it clear that the Messiah would come through the line of Judah, and in particular the kings (Genesis 49:10, I Kings 2:33, I Chronicles 28:4, Luke 1:32, etc.). But what does this mean since Jesus had no earthly father? There is no purely patriarchal line except directly to the Father himself. But perhaps the “line” is really with regard to legal fatherhood and not biological fatherhood. Jeremiah 33:17-26 and several other passages indicate that there will never fail to be a king sitting on David’s throne. Matthew’s genealogy follows the royal line up until King Jeconiah (see Jeremiah 22:30), but both genealogies come through David.

In conclusion, it unnecessary to theorize that Luke’s genealogy was Mary’s ancestral line against the plain reading of the passage (Luke 3:23). There are several other ways to reconcile the apparent (but not actual) contradiction with Matthew’s account.

Should Christians Support A Woman For The Office Of President?

2008-05-03T20:23:00.001-04:00

I moved this post to this blog from my political blog.

Yes. I endorse Diane Beall Templin for President of the United States. This is a rebuttal of the argument that women should never serve as “civil magistrates” presented at:

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=759

Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24, I Corinthians 11:8-9 do not prove anything about authority.

The context of Exodus 18:21 is Jethro giving Moses advice about establishing judges of the people since the job was too difficult for one man.

This commandment was given in a certain time and place to a certain group of people. If this applies to us today, then should we also have rulers of 10s, 50s, 100s, 1000s? If this commandment is universal, then we should do exactly as says. If this commandment is exclusive for all rulers, then we should have no president, congressmen, senators, governors or even state legislatures in their present form because the members of these offices hold authority over more than 1000 people. Using the same reasoning as the author’s, we should not vote for anyone running for these offices.

At the time of this commandment the only lawgiver was Moses (or God through Moses, depending on how you look at it). Exodus 18:21 applies to judges, not lawmakers.

Finally, even though it says “men” that doesn’t necessarily exclude women, but it just means that such men should be made judges.

I am not arguing that this passage should be interpreted on the basis of cultural differences between then and now (i.e. that God’s reasoning was based on the fact that women were less educated at the time), but that this commandment was never meant to applicable to all nations at all times. Israel was a special nation, set apart by God for special purpose and some special laws were given only to them. That is why we don’t stone people to death for doing work on the Sabbath.

The same arguments apply to Deuteronomy 1:9-18.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 applies to kings which we do not have today (notwithstanding Bush has almost made the presidency into kingship). Verse 14 clearly indicates that this passage applies to what was then a future time and now is past. Moses is prophesying that Israel would have a king, even though God said that they should not.

The fact that parts of these passages are generally applicable to all rulers in no way proves that all of parts of them apply to today. We do not need to resort to these passages as the only means of guidance when voting for those holding public office. Proverbs 18:5, 21:15, and Deuteronomy 1:17 and several other verses give the same advice without specifying gender. 2 Samuel 23:3 and Proverbs 29:14 are messianic prophecies. Nehemiah 7:2; Proverbs 16:10; 20:8, 28; and 31:4-5 only give advice to presumably male rulers, but don’t prove that woman should never rule under any circumstances. The same is true of Romans 13:1-6, which, unlike Exodus 21:8, the word “he” is not specifically masculine in the original language.

Concerning Proverbs 31:10-31, this is a portrait of godly woman, but it doesn’t mean that every woman who strays from this passage is outside the will of God. Not every virtuous woman has maidens (:15), buys property (:16), plants a vineyard (:16), has physical strength (:17), clothes the members of her family with scarlet (:22), or wears purple and silk clothing (:22). A virtuous woman does not even have to have a husband, for Paul even says that it is better not to marry (I Corinthians 7).

The statement that the aged women (Titus 2:3) should be “keepers at home” (Titus 2:5) is not meant that women should always stay at home at all times. It merely means that they have the responsibility of keeping their household in order. The Greek word comes from two words meaning “guard” and “home”. I Timothy 5:10 does not say anything about running for office, applies only to widows, and is a statement, not a command. When reading I Timothy 5:14, I Corinthians 7 should be taken into consideration. This verse and I Timothy 2:15 do not forbid a woman from running for office.

Isaiah 3:12 at most implies that it is undesirable to have women rulers, it does not forbid women from running for office.

Deborah did issue commands to Barak (Judges 4:14) with authority. The author of the article seems to want to make a distinction between military and civil authority. But Judges 4:5 does say that “the children of Israel came up to her for judgment,” which implies that she had both, and the idea of a woman issuing orders seems to fly in the face of what he describes as “the divinely ordained order of authority”, “chain of command”, that he is trying to argue for. He argues from passage like 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that, “If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church.” But why then is a woman having military authority any different? This is not consistent, by his reasoning. Voting and serving on a jury are also a forms of exercising authority over men. Should Christian women also exclude themselves from these activities? Even passages limiting the authority of women in the family are not meant to be absolute in every situation. It is reasonable that a woman can be the head of her household in cases of the incapacitation of her husband. Read Matthew 12:1-13.

Deborah is certainly not the only woman in the Bible to hold civil authority. Esther “wrote with all authority, to confirm this second letter of Purim…And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book.” Esther 9:29, 32.

In conclusion, there is no place in Scripture which tells us that women are absolutely forbidden or unqualified from running for public office. There are some places which may imply that it is undesirable to have women rulers, but they do not state that it is sinful. The story of Deborah does, in fact, show that if no godly man will step up to the plate, a woman can lead.

How were Old Testament People Saved?

2008-01-20T18:33:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine wrote to me this question:

So, I had an interesting debate with my boss at work. It started when another co-worker (an older man) said he was confused about how people who lived and died before Christ came, could accept Christ if they did not know him. (Basically, how could they be offered salvation?) I said, "Ooh, I know the answer", but my boss ignored me and began to explain that God's chosen people, the Israelites, because of offering sacrifices for their atonement of sins, and those who obeyed God were actually accepting Christ (inadvertently) because God and Jesus are the same. (I hope you are thinking the same thing I am) So I said, wait a minute; the only way to God is through Jesus. The Jews were not redeemed through sacrifices, there sins were just covered. They did not recognize Christ when he did come so how could they have accepted him before? My boss insisted on his view and asked me what I thought. I said, the bible says the gospel was preached to those who already dead. I did not the verses so I had to bring them in today. My dad helped me find them, and my boss just had an excuse for how they did not mean what they said. Next time you're over I'd love to hear what you think of them. I think they are; John 5:24-25, 28-29; I Peter 3:18-20.

Here was my response:

This is a difficult question.

You are definitely right about the Jews not being redeemed through animal sacrifices. (Hebrews 10:1-4) That is the easy part to answer. Also, they were not redeemed by circumcision (Romans 2:25-29) or anything else like that.

One might interpret John 5:28-29 to mean the resurrection of the dead (at the second coming), but John 5:24-25 clearly says that the time “has now come”. So it sounds like you’re right about the gospel being heard by the dead. But was this necessary for their salvation? What about Matthew 27:52-53? Hmmm…

It is interesting that you mentioned I Peter 3:18-20. We are on this very passage in my Sunday school class. So I decided to bring up the question you asked in today’s class. I think this passage is talking about wicked people (or angels or some other beings), not righteous people from the OT (since it says that they were disobedient).

1 Peter 4:6 (KJV) says, “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” The NIV says, “those who are now dead”. The NIV Study Bible notes say that the Greek word for now is not there, but the word “now” was added so that people wouldn’t get the false impression that this passage is saying that they were dead when they were being preached to. Hmmm…

Some people in my Sunday school class have said that they believe that no one has any consciousness between the time they die and the time of their (bodily) resurrection. If this were the case, then what you are saying would be impossible. But I have always taught that this isn’t the case. (See Luke 16:19-31, Revelation 6:9-11.) I have considered the possibly that passages like John 6:48-51, 8:51-53 could be teaching that people who died in the OT were unconscious, but gained consciousness in the NT (John 5:24-25). Hmmm…

We were always taught that no one could be saved after physical death (at least this is what I think I was lead to believe when I was a kid). Consider the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13; the falling asleep represents death and the awakening represents resurrection?). The NIV Study Bible says that Hebrews 9:27 is also proof of this, but I don’t really see it in that verse. This brings up another difficult question—if people from the OT could accept the gospel after they died, then what about people living today who have never heard of Christ?

I agree with you that a person can’t be saved just by believing in God without also believing in Jesus. But people in the OT did know some things about Christ through the prophets. I think Isaiah 53 says enough that anyone from the OT who believes it (along with verses about repentance) has accepted Christ, even though they did not have the full understanding that we do today. The book of Isaiah is sometimes called “the fifth gospel”. It may seem unlikely to us that people who lived before Isaiah 53 was written or before David’s psalms were written could have had a good enough understanding. But look at John 8:56! Hebrews 11:13-16 says that they had not received the promises, but were persuaded of them and embraced them. There are, of course, numerous examples of teaching about Christ in the OT going all of the way back to Adam and Eve.

God spoke to Abraham about his “seed” who is Christ (Galatians 3:16). Romans 4:9-12 says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness before he was circumcised. And it says that he is the father of all who believe (both circumcised and uncircumcised) because they walk in the footsteps of the faith that he had before he was circumcised. James 2:20-24 indicates that Abraham was considered righteous (:21), was justified (:24), and his faith was made complete (:22) by what he did (offering his son Isaac on the altar (:21)).

2 Corinthians 3:12-16 indicates that the reason why the Jews did not understand was because of the hardness of their hearts, not because there was not enough revelation. But to some extent, God does judge people by what they know (Luke 12:47-48).

I think this question is like a puzzle with a thousand pieces. I’m sure the Bible has a lot more to say about this, and you could get a better picture of this the more you study it. I would say that it all boils down to knowing and trusting in the real God (which must include Jesus).

Thanks for the interesting question,

Matt

Was Benjamin born before or after Joseph was sold into slavery?

2007-07-01T20:54:00.000-04:00

Someone asked me this question one day. I thought I knew the answer. I was not so sure after reading the relevant passages in Genesis. If you liked On Which Day of the Week Did Christ Die?, you will like this Bible timeline brain twister.

I had always assumed that Benjamin was born (Genesis 35:16-20) first because it appears in the text before the account of Joseph being sold into slavery (Genesis 37:12-28). One must be cautious about making such assumptions, however, as the following example demonstrates.

The death of Isaac (Genesis 35:27-29), which appears just a few verses after the birth of Benjamin, definitely happened long after Joseph was sold into slavery. Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26). This would put Jacob at 120 years old when Isaac died at 180 (Genesis 35:28). But Jacob lived in Egypt for 17 years and lived to be 147 years old (Genesis 47:28). This puts him at 130 when came down to Egypt. But Joseph was in Egypt for more than 20 years before Jacob came. He entered the Pharaoh’s service at age 30 (Genesis 41:46). This was before the 7 years of plenty (Genesis 41:47). Assuming that Joseph was seventeen when he was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:2) and that Jacob came to Egypt (Genesis 46:5-7) well after the seven years of plenty, this puts Isaac’s death at least ten years after Joseph was sold into slavery.

Notice that (Genesis 37:2) says, “This is the account of Jacob.” This seems to indicate that this part of the story is being told from Jacob’s point of view (as he heard it from Joseph after being reunited with him), and may therefore not be in chronologically in order with immediately preceding passages. Notice that this phrase “This is the account of” is used several other times in the book of Genesis (2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1).

One can examine the geographic references with respect to the events after Jacob left Padan Aram to look for clues to answer this question we are considering. Jacob settled in Shechem, which is in northern Canaan, after leaving Laban (Genesis 33:18, 19). After the unfortunate incident that happened there, he moved on to Bethel (Genesis 35:1), which is much farther south. Then while on the move to Ephrath (Genesis 35:16), which is Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19), Benjamin was born as his mother Rachel was dying (Genesis 35:18). Bethlehem is even further south. They then moved on again to Migdal Eder (I don’t know where that is), where Reuben slept with Bilhah, one of Jacob’s concubines (Genesis 35:21-22a). Notice that Benjamin is listed in the family table (Genesis 35:22b-26a), but is an apparent exception to the phrase “…were born to him in Padan Aram.” (Genesis 35:26b) Jacob then moved on to Hebron, which is even farther south than Bethlehem, which Isaac was (Genesis 35:27). When Jacob went down to Egypt, it only says that he was in Canaan (Genesis 45:25), and that he passed through Beersheba (Genesis 46:1) on the way (it is even further south than Hebron). But Joseph’s brothers were grazing their flocks near Shechem (Genesis 37:12) and Dothan (Genesis 37:17) at the time that Joseph was sold into slavery. This is far from Bethlehem, but it is possible that they could have moved back north near there after Benjamin was born.
The Bible says that “Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age…” (Genesis 37:3) This statement could be a hint that Benjamin hadn’t been born yet. But Joseph said of his dream, “the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me.” (Genesis 37:9) It seems from the text that, though this sounds boastful, it was what Joseph had actually dreamed. However, this does not necessarily mean that Benjamin had already been born. The dream was prophetic. Jacob did, however, perceive that the eleven stars represented Joseph’s brothers (Genesis 37:10). It seems like this wouldn’t have made sense to him if Benjamin hadn’t been born (or wasn’t about to be born). Jacob also interpreted the dream to mean that sun and moon represented “your mother and I” (Genesis 37:10). If Benjamin had already been born, then Rachel (Joseph’s mother) would have already died. But Joseph could have been speaking of the resurrection when he said, “then sun and moon …were bowing down to me” or that Jacob interpreted it this way. It is entirely possible that Jacob misinterpreted the meaning of the dream. The NIV study Bible commentary says that “your mother” referred to Leah, who would have assumed the role of their mother when Rachel died. They just assume that Rachel had already died. There is no record that I can see of Jacob, Rachel, or Leah bowing down to Joseph. But the brothers did bow down to him more than once and this presumably included Benjamin in Genesis 43:26.

In (Genesis 43:7), the brothers told their father that “the man” (Joseph) had asked them if they had another brother. But it seems like they were not exactly telling the truth from Genesis 42:13. They are the ones who brought up that “the youngest is now with our father” in defense of the accusation that they were spies. Note that they also lied when then they said, “…and one is no more” referring to Joseph.

What then can we say definitively about the difference in the ages of Joseph and Benjamin? Joseph was born before Jacob had agreed to stay another six years with Laban (Genesis 30:25, 31:28, 29:18, 27). Benjamin was clearly born after this. Benjamin was old enough to eat a meal (Genesis 43:34) when he came to Egypt and Joseph was about 37 years old at that time.

The Millennium-Sabbath Theory

2007-04-15T19:00:00.000-04:00

Introduction

There are many places in the scripture in which events that take place foreshadow future events. At times, these events are supplemented with commandments that certain things are to be done in remembrance of the event, and so also these become a foreshadowing of the future. The ideal example of this is the Passover. The lamb’s blood symbolizes the blood of Christ and the unleavened bread symbolizes his body, and so on. Even the loaf and cup that we partake of could somehow be a hint of what is to take place in eternity, for Jesus said, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29)

The idea that is presented in this writing is that the one thousand year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:1-6) is foreshadowed by when God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). What is unique about this theory is that it extends beyond just the Sabbath, but also foreshadows the whole of history. That is to say that, in general, each of the six days of creation represents consecutive one thousand year periods so that a summary of all of (religiously significant) history, up until, and including the Day of Judgment, can be seen figuratively in Genesis 1-3.

First let me reiterate that this is not to say that events of Genesis are merely symbolic. Those events really did literally happen—the possible figurative meaning is only secondary. There is no place in the Bible that plainly states this idea as a fact (that is why it is called a theory), and I am not saying that I firmly believe it, but I think it is worth it to present the evidence for it. This theory does not have nearly the predictive power of the literal, face-value prophecies about the death, burial, resurrection, and second-coming of Christ, but the correlation of the events of the six days of creation with the first 6000 years of history is striking.

The first piece of evidence is the statement: “…one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (II Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4) Again, this is not to say that this interpretation of the verse is its only meaning. Of course, the main meaning of this sentence is that God is longsuffering, but the claim is made that it is also a key that points to this theory. Now let’s take a look at the specific days of creation and millennia in history.

The First Day

This is the only day in which the day itself is contained within the millennium that it represents. Some people claim that the earth existed for thousands of years before this day, that everything in the earth was destroyed (because of Satan’s fall), and that creation described in Genesis 1-2 was a second creation. This so-called pre-Adamite age, they say, was the age of the dinosaurs. They say that there is gap between verses 1 and 2 of the first chapter of Genesis so that what happened in verse one is not included in the first day. The fact that this day is called “the first day” should be enough to convince someone that this theory is false, but in case that is not convincing enough, thorough refutation is given in Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day”. Therefore I take the beginning of the first day to be “the beginning” in Genesis 1:1 and also to be the starting point of the first millennium.

Genesis 1:1 states that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In a manner of speaking, he created it on the first day, but also the creation took six days (see Genesis 2:1). “Then God said, let there be light: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3) This light represents the life that is in Jesus (John 1:4) who existed in the beginning with God (John 1:2). It also foreshadows the creation of the sun in on the fourth day. Verse 4 states that “…God divided the light from the darkness.” This represents the separation of God and man (Genesis 3:24, 4:14), and also of God and Satan (Isaiah 14:12). God also named the light and the darkness (verse 5) to represent the naming of (the tree of the knowledge of) good and evil.

The Second Day

When God created the firmament, he separated the waters (in heaven) from the earthly waters. In the same way, God and man became further separated during the second millennium because of the wickedness that had come upon the earth (Genesis 6:5-7, 11, 12).

In Genesis 6:2, 4 it talks about the “sons of God” taking “the daughters of men” as wives. The Hebrew word for “sons of God” is translated “angel” everywhere else it is used in the Bible. At some point, probably after the flood, the angels were no longer allowed to do this. This is another example of the separation of the heavenly from the earthly. Some people use Mark 12:25 to say that angels can’t be married, but notice that it says, “…they will be like the angels in heaven” which means as they were at the time that Jesus said that, not as they had been previously. Angels are by definition male, so they could only marry human women, and if they are separated from the earthly, then marriage is no longer possible. Obviously, angels were never meant to marry, and that is why the ones that did this were punished (I Peter 3:19, 20).

The separation of waters from waters also represents the appearance of dry land following the Flood (Genesis 8:13).

The Third Day

“The waters under the heaven were gathered together in one place” on the third day in Genesis 1:9 and also in Psalms 33:7. The same thing happened during the third millennium in Joshua 3:16 with the parting of the Jordan. In both instances, dry land appeared, as it did when the Red Sea was parted in Exodus 14:21, 22, which also happened during the third millennium.

The waters were then called “Seas”. In the Bible, the sea represents humanity, and the beasts that come out of it represent nations or rulers (Daniel 7:3, Revelation 13:1). It was during the third millennium that the nations that we have today began to emerge. The tower of Babel incident could have occurred during the beginning of the third millennium, which was the initial cause of the formation of the nations. By Usher’s dates, Abraham, called “the father of many nations” was born about 1996 B.C. The world was founded “upon the seas and established on the waters.” (Psalm 24:2). “…the earth was formed out of water and by water” (II Peter 3:5).

Many creation scientists believe that the “seas” (oceans) and continents that we have today were formed as a result of the splitting of a super continent (called Pangea) into the land of the Old World (Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia) and the New World (North and South America). (Genesis 10:25) This event could also have happened at the beginning of the third millennium. (Peleg’s death falls into the late second millennium by Usher’s dates, but only by 13 years.)

Grass created on the third day also represents humanity, and in particular, the aspect of the shortness of his existence on the earth (Psalm 37:2, 90:5, 6, 103:15, 16, Isaiah 40:6-8, I Peter 1:24) It was during this millennium that man’s days were shortened to 120 years, just as God said would happen in Genesis 6:3. Abraham’s father Terah lived to be 205 years old (Genesis 11:32) and died during the third millennium (see Abraham’s approximate birth date above). Flowers (as they wither) are also used as a symbol for the brevity of man’s life. The word “flower” is not used in the third day text, but flowers are clearly included in what was created on the third day. “Herb yielding seed” (KJV) or “seed-bearing plants” (NIV) were created on the third day. (Genesis 1:11, 12)

Fruit trees were created on the third day, which represent nations in the scriptures. In particular, Israel is represented by fig tree (Joel 1:12, Matthew 24:32-34 [Note that the word generation can be translated “race” and is often footnoted as such.]) and an olive tree in Romans 11:11-24 (explained in Romans 11:25-32). Israel came to be a nation (having land) during this millennium, and God used events like the parting of the Red Sea and the Jordan River to bring this about.

The Fourth Day

The creation of lights in the firmament (Genesis 1:14) represents the coming of the prophets of the Old Testament. Starting with David and going on down to John the Baptist, these prophets gave signs (Genesis 1:14) about the coming of Christ, the light of the world (verse 15), and the dispensations (or seasons, Genesis 1:14). The dividing of the day from the night (also in verse 14) represents the separation or calling out of the true believers from the unbelieving world, which is what they (including Christ himself), accomplished. The “days and years” (also in verse 14) is what this whole idea is all about.

Usher dates the creation of the earth to 4004 B.C. The birth of Christ is dated to be about 4 B.C. Usher’s calculations are based on rounded numbers, so there is no way to know for sure which millennium Christ’s birth falls into. The Jews date the creation of the earth much later, and if this is more accurate, the Jesus’ birth definitely falls into the fourth millennium.

The two great lights in verse 16 are obviously the sun and the moon. There are many verses in the Bible where Jesus is figuratively represented by the sun. Malachi 4:2 says, “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” Note the messianic theme of the last two chapters of the Old Testament. At the transfiguration, “His face shone like the sun.” (Matthew 17:2) Psalm 84:11 says, “The LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.” See also Psalm 19 and Judges 5:31. There are other passages which are less obviously Christological. However, it is clear that on that resurrection morning, the sun rose when the Son rose!

Returning to text in Genesis 1:16, 18, we find another Christological reference. Christ rules over the “day” (the believers) while the unbelievers are ruled by the powers of darkness and of the Law. The moon may represent the Law of Moses.

The Fifth Day

On the fifth day, God created whales (KJV) and the creatures of the water. (Genesis 1:20-22) Jonah was in the belly of a whale or great fish for three days. (Jonah 1:17) This event clearly did not happen during the fifth millennium, but Jesus used this as a sign to predict his death and resurrection. (Matthew 12:40) If Usher’s dates are correct, then this event does fall into the fifth millennium.

The Holy Spirit (possibly) came during the fifth millennium and is represented by a dove in the Scriptures. God created birds on this day. The wind is also a type of the Holy Ghost. (John 3:8) Just as the wind would not be possible without the Sun, so the Holy Spirit would not be available to believers without the redeeming sacrifice of Christ. (Ecclesiastes 1:5, 6)

The Sixth Day

By any account, the sixth millennium begins a long time after the last Scriptures were written. For the symbolic comparisons to the sixth day, we need to rely on history and/or prophecy. With good reason, no dates are given for the fulfillment of the prophecy of the end times, so we must rely on our initial assumption that the seventh millennium is the millennial reign of Christ, and that the events which precede it in prophecy (i.e. the tribulation) fall into the sixth millennium.

God created the beast of the earth on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:24, 25) The beast will rise up out of the sea (Revelation 13:1) and his number will be 666 (Revelation 13:18). God also made man on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:26, 27) 666 is also man’s number. (Revelation 13:18) Man was made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26, 27) An image of the beast will be made to be worshipped (Revelation 13:15). Man was given dominion over the earth. (Genesis 1:26) The beast will be given dominion over the earth. (Revelation 13:7) Cattle and creeping things were also created on this day.

It is interesting that God gave the Israelites twice as much manna to gather on the day before the Sabbath. (Exodus 16:22, 29) This could be a message that we should put twice as much effort into evangelism in our day as in previous millennia. If too much was gathered on the other days, it spoiled, (Exodus 16:20) which could represent wasted evangelistic efforts. There are always people who do not gather enough, even on the other days.

The Seventh Day

“On the seventh day, God ended His work”, rested, and sanctified it. In the Law of Moses, the Israelites were commanded to do no work on the Sabbath (seventh day). This is a remembrance of God’s rest from his creation. Could it also be a foreshadowing of an event to come? During the millennial reign of Christ, the remaining believers will be able to rest after being persecuted by the beast because he and the false prophet will have been cast into the lake of fire, and all who worshipped him will be slain. (Revelation 19:20, 21) They will also have rest from the temptation of Satan, for he is bound during the one thousand years. (Revelation 20:2)

In a larger context, the Sabbath represents permanent rest for the people of God. (Hebrews 4:1-13) This could be seen as a flaw in the theory. There is no direct connection between the Sabbath and the one thousand years, but only to the eternal rest.

Beyond the Seven Days

Perhaps the best evidence of this theory comes from the correlation between events that happen after the seven days and the one thousand year reign. The marriage of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24) foreshadows the marriage of Christ and the Church. (Revelation 21:2)

Satan (morning star and son of the dawn in the NIV, Lucifer in the KJV) was cast to the earth in Isaiah 14:12. “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to…the earth,” (Revelation 20:7, 8). The serpent, who is the Devil (Revelation 12:9), deceived Adam and Eve. (Genesis 3:1-5) Satan “shall go out to deceive the nations”. (Revelation 20:8) The serpent is judged in Genesis 3:14, 15. The Devil is judged in Revelation 20:10. Adam and Eve, the only human beings alive at the time, are judged. (Genesis 3:16-19) All mankind is judged in Revelation 20:9, 12-15. Earlier God had warned (or prophesied to) Adam and Eve about eating from the forbidden tree. (Genesis 3:3) Then the serpent cast doubt on God’s word. (Genesis 3:4) This nullification of God’s prophecy (in their minds), eventually led to them being kept from the Tree of Life. (Genesis 3:22-24) Similarly, “if anyone takes words away from this book of this prophecy, God shall take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:19, NIV)

God Saw That It Was Good

Notice the use of the phrase “God saw that it was good” throughout the first chapter of the Bible. On the first day, it only says that “God saw that the light was good” and does not say this about any of the other events of day one. Recall that the light represents Jesus and that the rest of the events of the first day have to do with the Fall. The phrase is not mentioned in the text of the second day, which has to do with the increasing wickedness of mankind and the destruction of the earth by the Flood. Events surrounding the foundation of the nation of Israel are symbolized on day three and the phrase is used twice. On the fourth day, the phrase is used in connection with the events symbolizing Christ’s birth. The events which symbolize the coming of the Holy Spirit are called good at the end of verse 21. While it would seem that the events of the Tribulation symbolized on day 6 would not be considered good, the phrase is used on this day in verse 25. Verse 31 even says that “it was very good”. But remember what happens at the end of the Tribulation. The beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and Satan is bound. Some would say that the rapture of the church before the Tribulation is the “good” event of the sixth millennium. (I disagree with this eschatological view.) The fact that the gospel will preached to every nation is also a “good” aspect of this millennium. (Matthew 24:14) The phase is not used on day seven, but instead it says, “God blessed the seventh day and made it holy,” possibly indicating that the millennium was set apart from the other days as being not just that good things will happen during that millennium, but that the whole millennium will be good.

Conclusion

One could use these assumptions to calculate the time at which Christ shall return within some span of years. I would hope that no one reading this would do this. It could be that general idea of the Millennium-Sabbath theory is correct, but maybe some of the symbolic references I used, particularly on the fifth day (they are among the weakest) are not. (I tried to come up with at least one symbolic meaning for every object mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis.) Neither Adventism nor apologetics is the purpose of this writing, but the real purpose is demonstrate that God does things a certain way for a reason, which may not be clear to us in the beginning, but with time things come together perfectly.

Authoritative Teaching

2007-04-07T14:14:00.000-04:00

I got this from a friend:

Mark 1:22 “And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.”

Two teaching styles are here contrasted. There was the authoritative approach by which Jesus Christ's ministry was characterized. Then there was the approach of the scribes which, by inference, was obviously not authoritative. It stands to reason that the Holy Spirit by these words was denouncing the Scribes' type of ministry. A gospel minister will ultimately have to decide if he is going to be a minister like the Savior or like the Scribe, a preacher who labors to please God or men. Paul wrote, "...if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Gal.1:10). No man can serve two masters (Mat.6:24).

In this, the era of tolerance, ecumenism, and relativism, a gospel minister who stands with Christ stands apart from the crowd. If he preaches with authority, believing he has an authoritative Bible, condemning sin in whatever form it may be found while holding high Almighty God and His sovereignty in saving sinners by grace according to His own will, his popularity in the eyes of the world and even professors of faith is likely to be minimal. His will not be the ministry courted by politicians. His will not be the ministry seen on national television (unless being smeared as cultish). His will not be the ministry of the entertaining "seeker-friendly" mega-church with all of its "loaves and fishes" congregants. He is more likely to be relegated to a little wooden building or a rented room with a small band of believers singing out of a worn-out paperback hymnal. But "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right" (Pro.16:8).

One would expect the reprobate world to be at odds with authoritative preaching, for "the carnal mind is enmity against God..." (Rom.8:7). But what about when professors of faith are of the same mind as the world? The prophet Isaiah's fellow church members were "....a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us" (Isa.30:9-11). They preferred smoothness and lies to rough, unvarnished truth. This is a horrible attitude! Of this mentality, the Spirit observed, "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof" (Jer 5:30-31)? Ministers who accommodated such an attitude were said to "cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness" (Jer.23:32). Smoothness and lightness in ministry are as destructive as deceits and lies.

Words smoother than butter or softer than oil are the marks of those who have war in their hearts and drawn swords (Psa.55:21). The apostles warned of those who by "good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom.16:17-18) and who "speak great swelling words of vanity" (2 Pe.2:18) to lead men astray. Paul did not preach with "enticing words of man's wisdom" (1 Co.2:4), nor did he use "flattering words" (1 Th.2:5). He was not a silver-tongued orator who cajoled his hearers. Au contraire! He was derided as one whose "bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible" (2 Co.10:10) and who was "rude in speech" (2 Co.11:6). He used "great plainness of speech" (2 Co.3:12), emphasizing doctrine over feelings, substance over form, not fearing to step on toes. He knew well the hearts of men and their propensity to tire of sound doctrine and truth, preferring to "after their own lusts...heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Ti.4:3). An itch needs to be abraded, not mollified with baby oil, and so Paul instructed Timothy "Preach THE WORD....reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Ti.4:2). If a preacher is convinced he has THE WORD OF GOD, he can speak with authority. Woe unto the preacher who believes he only has the word of man which profits nobody (Jer.23:32)! Is it any wonder that in our generation where so few preachers actually believe they have God's infallible word that there is so little Savior-like preaching but so much Scribe-like preaching (per our text)? Enervated Scribe-like preaching which avoids offence may fill pews, coffers and sodden hearts but Savior-like preaching will condemn it.

Pied Pipers, it should be remembered, have an appeal to rats. What kind of preaching do you desire?

The Bible Says Get out of Iraq, part 4

2007-04-05T19:06:00.000-04:00

In part 1, I discussed the commandment given in Revelation 18:4 to flee Iraq. In part 2, I discussed how this commandment was an echo of the Old Testament commandment to flee destruction in Babylon. In part 3, I discussed how the various theological interpretations of Revelation 17-18 and why the literal interpretation of Babylon is right despite the obvious symbolism referring to Rome. I explained that Babylon is place of evil spirits and it is an evil influence on the governments of the world. In this part, I will discuss the larger lesson to be learned from what the Bible says about the whore of Babylon.

The Bible says that the nations of the earth have committed adultery with the whore of Babylon (Revelation 18:3). This has lead to the wicked systems of government that we see in the world today. While you may disagree about the importance of getting out of Iraq, I hope that you will not miss the more important lesson that is being taught in Revelation 18-19. Babylon represents these wicked systems of government in this world.

The wicked systems of government in this world:

1. Allow the murder of millions of innocent babies. The total carnage in America alone is the deaths of about 50 million. Sadaam Hussein was a drop in the bucket. Even Osama Bin Laden is a drop in the bucket. In the Netherlands, it is common for doctors to kill fully born babies. The elderly are killed without even the consent of the family. In China, women are forced to have abortions. What next?

2. Actively promote sinful behaviors such as homosexual behavior. The recognition of homosexual unions, the teaching of immoral homosexual behavior in public schools, and the giving of special protections for homosexuals under the law are examples. In Canada and Sweden it is illegal to read in public certain passages of Scripture which condemn homosexuality. (It is even illegal for preachers to preach these passages inside a church building!)

3. Teaching children ways to commit fornication which make it seem “safe” to them. Anyone who believes in giving children such sinful suggestions is sick. Just as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to idol of Nebuchadnezzar, I refuse to bow down to this filthy idol. Even if it means being burned to death, I will not bow down to it. Needle exchange programs are a similarly sickening practice of amoral pragmatism.

4. Eroding the sovereignty of the nations into one centralized world government. The European nations are selling their sovereignty for economic prosperity. Other nations are selling it for peace. The world is paving the way for the Beast to take power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7)

5. Get us involved in bloody wars, such as the wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All this is done in the name of “stability”, “democracy”, and “freedom”.

6. Use taxes to manipulate the decision making of law abiding citizens. There are tax incentives or disincentives for buying certain cars, going to college, getting married, having kids, buying a house, educating your child in the manner that the government wants you to, giving to the poor, starting a business, medical care for senior citizens, retirement for senior citizens…on and on. A government should simply punish the acts of disobedience (that occur within its borders) that God says that it should, and leave everybody else alone. They don’t stop at taking our money and handing back out to whomever they chose. They do the same with our property (even church property) as well. They corrupt churches by giving them tax incentives (hush money) to not speak out too much on political issues. This is a good investment for those who want people to conform to the image of the Beast.

Just as the Israelites of 536 B.C. felt comfortable in the land of Babylon, so also today people feel comfortable in this wicked world system. If this describes you (if you support any of these whorish ideas), then I have just one message for you:

“GET OUT OF HER”.

The Bible Says Get out of Iraq, part 3

2007-03-25T15:11:00.001-04:00

In part 1, I discussed the implications of biblical passages (Revelation 18, Jeremiah 50-52, and others) which warn us to flee Iraq because of the destruction that will come upon it. In part 2, I discussed how these passages are an echo of the past command given to the Israelites that they should return to their homeland and help rebuild the temple, the prophecy of the punishment that they would receive for disobeying this command, the amazing fulfillment of the prophecy, and the conclusion that the literal interpretation of the Bible is reliable. In this post I will talk about the broader lesson that we can learn from Revelation 18, various interpretations of the “whore of Babylon” and two reasons why scholars may overlook the literal interpretation of it.

Babylon Symbolizes Rome?

In Revelation 13 it describes a beast “having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy”. This is the leader of the one world government, called the “man of lawlessness” or the Beast. This is the same beast which is described in the book of Daniel as being the fourth of four beasts, each representing a four kingdoms—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The “whore of Babylon” is described as the woman sitting upon a “scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” (Revelation 17:3)

Verse 9 of Revelation chapter 17 says that the seven heads represent seven hills (mountains). Scholars connect this with seven hills in Rome. The NIV study Bible note says, “It is perhaps significant that Rome began as a network of seven hill settlements on the left bank of the Tiber. Her designation as the city on seven hills is commonplace among Roman writers (e.g., Virgil, Martial, Cicero).”

Verse 18 says, “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Revelation 17:6 says that the woman is “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”. These statements also fit the description of Rome at the time that the book of Revelation was written and possibly in the future (a revived Roman Empire).

Revelation 18:3 says that “the kings of the earth have committed adultery with her”. Adultery is used as a symbol of idolatry. In the Roman world, when a nation was conquered by the Roman Empire, it was allowed to keep its god(s) and a temple to its god(s) was then erected in Rome. But the conquered nation had to accept all of the other gods of the Empire as well, thus creating a single religion for the whole world.

Babylon Will Never Be Rebuilt

Jeremiah 51:26, 43 indicates that Babylon would be destroyed and never again inhabited. Isaiah 13:19-21 indicates that Arabs would not pitch their tents there. These prophecies have already been fulfilled (with astounding accuracy) of the ancient city of Babylon—Arabs living in Iraq do not live in there because they are superstitious about evil spirits living there. So the conclusion by some is that Revelation 17 and 18 can’t be talking about the real Babylon because it according to Bible prophecy it can’t be rebuilt or inhabited again. But …

Babylon is Associated with Rome

The “whore of Babylon” IS NOT THE BEAST, but she rides on it. So this only indicates an association—not that she is Rome. The Hebrew word for “Lucifer” in the KJV and “morning star” in modern versions is used only one time in the entire Old Testament (Isaiah 14:12), and it is in context of the city of Babylon. Since Satan is “the prince of this world” (John12:31, 14:30), it is reasonable to say then that literal Babylon is the “great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth”. Revelation 17:16 makes it clear that the beast and the whore do not represent the same thing, because the horns of the beast will turn against the whore.

Revelation 18:2 says that Babylon “is become the inhabitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit”. The superstition of the Arabs is more than just a superstition! Look again at Jeremiah 51:26, 43 and Isaiah 13:19-21. These prophecies about Babylon never being inhabited again clearly refer only to human inhabitants, not spirits (or animals).

One does not have to look far to see satanic influence in the governments of the world and how the world is moving toward a one world government and an adulterous one world religion just as in Roman times. Satan is clearly using Muslim fundamentalism to make all fundamentalists (including Christian fundamentalists) look like intolerant fanatics who should be made second class citizens since they do not accept an absolute pluralistic society. I even heard conservative commentator Michael Savage make a comment to the effect that the evils of Islamic fundamentalism are proof that Christian fundamentalism is bad.

Literal Babylon does fulfill Revelation 17:6. Christians have been persecuted in Iraq under Saddam Hussein and in the current situation. The most likely interpretation, however, is that this refers to Christians being persecuted all over the world as a result of the satanic influence on the governments of the world. Babylon may be considered the capital of Satan’s kingdom in this world even though Satan’s throne (or seat) is in Pergamos. (Revelation 2:13)

The other thing that skeptics do not take into account here is that the term “Babylon” is sometimes used to refer to the ancient city of Babylon and sometimes it is used to refer to the entire region of Mesopotamia (or the nation of Babylonia). Nebuchadnezzar (called the king of Babylon in Daniel 1:1) was the king of the entire Babylonian Empire, not just the city of Babylon. There would be no point in giving a commandment to “get out of her” (Revelation 18:4) if this is referring only to a city that remains to this day uninhabited by humans.

In my next post (which will be next Thursday), I will talk about the broader lesson that we can learn from Revelation 18.

The Bible Says Get out of Iraq, part 2

2007-03-22T18:07:00.000-04:00

The Bible Says Get out of Iraq, part 1

2007-03-17T21:53:00.000-04:00

I have a word from the Lord. It is beneficial for politicians to look to the Bible for answers to political questions instead relying on one’s own knowledge and wisdom above God’s.

Turn in your Bibles to Revelation chapter 18. (Read the whole chapter, if you have time.) Verse 2 says, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen…” Verse 4 says, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Is this clear enough? This passage is also backed up by Jeremiah 51:6, 45, 58.

The lives of 3000 American soldiers would have spared if President Bush would have paid more close attention to the Scriptures. If we pull out now we can be spared more deaths. We do not have to worry about the terrorists in Iraq. God will pay them back double (verse 6) “and her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; she shall be utterly burned with fire” (verse 8). We just need to get out of God’s way so that he can accomplish this, “for in one hour is thy judgment come.” (verse 9) Jeremiah 51:42 says, “The sea is come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof.”

The sentiment that we should help the Iraqis is good one, but the Bible says that it is hopeless! Jeremiah 51:9 says, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth up to heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.”

The liberals say that the “Christian right” politicians who use the Scriptures to guide their policy have caused the unnecessary deaths of 3000 American soldiers. I say, “Which Bible are you reading?” The problem is that we are not following the Scriptures closely enough. If ignoring an obscure passage like Revelation 18 has cost us 3000 lives, how many lives will God require of us for the injustice of legalized abortion, which is condemned by dozens of well-known Bible verses? The Bible guarantees that the blood of every one of the 50 million babies that have aborted in this country will be avenged (Genesis 9:5, 6).

The prophecies in Jeremiah 50-52 and Isaiah 48:20, 52:11 were directed toward the Israelites at the end of Babylonian captivity. The fact that they are echoed in Revelation 18 clearly indicates that they apply to our time as well. I will talk more about this, Lord willing, next Thursday. Interestingly, the message to get out of Iraq (Mesopotamia or Ur of the Chaldees) was also given to Abraham (then called Abram). See Acts 7:2, 3.

On Which Day of the Week Did Christ Die?

2007-03-15T19:43:00.002-04:00

The “Parts of Days” Theory

The traditionally accepted day of Jesus’ crucifixion is Good Friday. But did Jesus really die on Friday? Consider Matthew 12:40. Many commentaries say that in the Jewish way of reckoning time, a part of a day could be included as one in whole numbers of days. This is reasonable, but if Jesus were crucified and buried during the day on Friday, then even if one would counts parts as whole, there would only be two nights in between the time of the crucifixion and Sunday morning, the traditional time at which it is believed that the resurrection occurred. This would clearly contradict Matthew 12:40.

In contrast, the “whole days and whole nights” theory would require that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth 3 full days and 3 full nights.

There are many other places in the Bible where the phrase “(number) days and (number) nights” is used, but in none of them is there any conclusive proof that I can see of either theory being right. In most of them the number is forty. There is one passage other than the one in Jonah where the number is three. This is I Samuel 30:12. In Job there is one where the number is seven.

Christ Really was Resurrected on Sunday Morning

Suppose that Jesus was resurrected on Monday or Tuesday. First, it is clear that the women arrived at the tomb on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1,2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1). It is also clear from these accounts that at this point Jesus had already been resurrected. It clearly could not have been that women came to the tomb the following Sunday after a Monday or Tuesday resurrection, because that day was the third day since the crucifixion (Luke 24:13, 21).

Day Ordinals

One interpretation of ordinal time periods is that the first begins as the event occurred. So, in this case, everything that happened within 24 hours after the crucifixion would be on the first day, from 24 to 48 hours the second day, and from 48 to 72 hours the third day. Another interpretation is that everything that happened on the same day as an event happened on the first day, everything that happened on the next day would be considered a second day event, and so on. The Jewish day begins when day becomes night. If Jesus was crucified and buried during the day on Friday, this would fit with Luke 24:46 and the second interpretation, but there is still the problem with Matthew 12:40. Both interpretations agree with the way that this terminology is used in Genesis 1. Other third day references include Hosea 6:2, Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 24:7.

Esther 4:16 uses the expression “for three days, night or day” to describe a period of fasting, which according to 5:1 and following apparently ended on the third day or shortly thereafter. This passage does not shed much light on the subject, because the phrase “three days and three nights” is much stronger. That is, it is not necessary that there be any more than 2 full nights, not even an additional fraction of night is necessary, unless a day means a whole cycle of light and dark. In that case, in order for the 4:16 expression to strictly agree with either third day ordinal expression, the fast had to have ended at a precise instant in time, exactly 72 hours later and at exactly sundown. However, the fast could have ended shortly after the end of the third day.

Other 3 Day Expressions

Mark 8:31 uses the expression “after 3 days”. Mk 10:34 says, in modern versions, “3 days later”. John 2:19 says, “I will destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days.” We will return to these expressions later.

Why Friday?

The Gospels clearly indicate that when Jesus was buried, it was Preparation Day, or the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42). The Sabbath began at sunset Friday evening, of course.

Wednesday and Thursday Dates--The “Special Sabbath” Theory

What if the Sabbath spoken of in the above passages was not the usual Sabbath, but a special Sabbath? (Deuteronomy 16:8, John 19:31) Since the Passover sacrifice and the first of the two special Sabbaths (Exodus 12:16) occur on the first of the seven days of the feast, this means that Jesus and his apostles ate the Passover meal a day or two early, which is confirmed by John 18:28. (The second special Sabbath occurs on the seventh day of the feast.) For the Wednesday crucifixion date, the “whole days and whole nights” theory is employed. In this case, the resurrection would have to have occurred strictly before the Sunday sunrise, or else it there would be four full nights. This theory, however, clearly contradicts Luke 24:21. By the first day ordinal interpretation, the resurrection would have happened on the fourth day, and by the second interpretation it would have been on the fifth day! By no stretch of the imagination could it have been on the third day. Also, if this were true, then why did the women wait until Sunday to go the tomb, when they could have gone on Friday? The Thursday date would agree with both the “parts of days” theory and the first interpretation of ordinal days. But do Jews have two Sabbaths in a row, or is there an exception made when the first day of the feast falls on a Friday? (This would be the preparation day for the regular Sabbath.) I’m not sure, but there is an explanation that is more likely than Thursday crucifixion “Special Sabbath” theory, one which I prefer.

The Darkening of the Sun

Look at Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, 34, Luke 23:44, 45. Note the different wordings of Luke 23:45 in the different versions. The NIV version says that the “sun stopped shining.” Other versions say that the sun was obscured or darkened. The Greek word that is used here is e`klei‘pw. Strong’s concordance says that it means to leave out, leave off, or by implication, to cease. It comes from two words meaning “to leave” and “out of”. The word is used in another passage that clearly means to run out of (money). This meaning applied to the sun implies that the entire sun did not necessarily leave at once, but it is possible that it left portions at a time until it was darkened.

Note that the beginning of the period of darkness began at about the sixth hour and ended at about the ninth hour, which was when Jesus’ death occurred. The commentaries say that this 3 hour period was from noon to 3 P.M. (compare Amos 8:9). Genesis 1 defines a day as being “an evening and a morning”, or a cycle of light and darkness. A whole day and a whole night does not necessarily have to be 24 hours. Consider Joshua’s long day (Joshua 10:1-15) and Hezekiah’s sign (2 Kings 20:9-11). The period of darkness which occurred from the sixth hour to the ninth hour could constitute an extra night (in the “parts of days” theory) and the following period of daylight before sundown could constitute an extra day. Note that the darkness “came over the whole earth (or land)”. This was not a local event. Looking at the second verse of Psalm 22, a psalm noted for its many prophecies about the crucifixion, note that it mentions day first, then (the extra) night, in the same order as happened during the crucifixion. A Friday date for the moment of death would now work with the “parts of days” theory and either of the two interpretations of ordinal days, assuming that He died before the period of darkness was over and rose with the rising of the sun on Sunday. (In the first interpretation, the first day would only be about 6 hours instead of 24.)

The Eight-Day Week Theory

One objection to this is that if the crucifixion began on Friday, and if the period of darkness constitutes an extra night, then wouldn’t this be the beginning of the real Sabbath, instead of what I’m calling the next day? The Scriptures make it clear that it was Preparation Day and that the Sabbath was beginning at sundown. It wasn’t just that the Jews thought that the Sabbath was about to begin (recall the above Scriptures under the paragraph “Why Friday?”). An explanation for this would be that the crucifixion began on Thursday, which became Friday with the noon darkness, and then the Sabbath began with the later sunset. But if this were the case, it is unlikely that the Jews would think to count an extra day in this way and feel the need to bury the body before sunset. Similarly, it is unlikely that the two on the road to Emmaus would have counted the extra day in their conversation in Luke 24:21, but it still would be reasonable for them to have used the term “third day” if second interpretation of day ordinals is correct.

I have a different explanation which I prefer, and that is that the extra day did not count as an extra day of the week. This idea depends on several things, some of which I’m not sure of. First is that the NIV or KJV translations of Luke 23:45 are correct and not the NASV. That is, the Sun was darkened or actually stopped shinning--it was not a sunset. Second is that while a new day always begins when light becomes darkness, the Sabbath can only begin at sunset. There is no verse that that I know of that specifically says this, at least not of a regular Sabbath, but consider how well Deuteronomy 16:6 fits in with all of this (note also the different renderings of this verse). This would mean that for this week, and this week only, there was extra day of the week, making an eight day week. So, if this is all true, the answer to the original question would be that it is a day that has no name. Amos 8:9 could be explained by saying that though the Sun was “brought down”, it did not actually set, but the real reason for the darkness was either that the Sun actually stopped shinning or that it was obstructed by something else besides the horizon. But it seems unlikely that an obstruction other than the horizon itself would constitute an extra day, since this happens all the time with clouds and eclipses and so forth. Again, this was definitely not just a local event. So this idea is probably incompatible with the NASV rendering of Luke 23:45. It could be that Amos 8:9 isn’t even talking about the darkness at the crucifixion at all, but rather some future apocalyptic event.

Other possible explanations involving an extra day could work in conjunction with the “Special Sabbath” theory.

The Heart of the Earth

Another objection to extra day theories is that Jesus’ burial did not happen until after the period of darkness was over, so therefore, the “parts of days” theory fails. But Jesus’ tomb was hardly “in heart of the earth” as Matthew 12:40 says. When taken literally, the heart of the earth clearly means the solid inner core of the earth, which is believed to be composed of nickel and iron. So it is obvious that Jesus was speaking of His Spirit, and not His physical body when He was talking about being “in the heart of the earth” (compare Ephesians 4:9, Romans 10:7, I Peter 3:19). I do not believe that there are any verses in the Bible that count days from Christ’s burial.

The “After Three Days” Objection

The expression “after three days” used in Mark 8:31 and “three days later” in Mark 10:34 would seem to indicate that at least three full daytime periods occurred between the death and resurrection. Even if this were true, this can be explained by saying that these passages are referring to the time of the beginning of Christ’s crucifixion because these refer to when he was killed, not when he died. When Jesus was put on the cross, nothing else had to be done to Him physically in order for Him to have died. In other words, the act of killing Him had already taken place. The third day passages also count from the time that He was killed or crucified or suffered. Applying this interpretation of killing to these passages does not affect the “Eight-Day Week” theory. John 2:19 uses the phrase “in three days” which implies that it would be less than or equal to 3 days. I believe that Matthew 12:40 is the only verse in the Bible that definitively counts days from the moment of death with a lower limit.

Further Significance of the Sun and its Darkening

From beginning to end, the Bible is so rich with symbols referring to Jesus, and one of the most important is that of the Sun. Consider how the Messiah is refereed to as being “the Sun of Righteousness” in Malachi 4:2. It is so appropriate that the Sun would be brought down and/or darkened at His death. More importantly, the Sun rose when the Son rose! There are so many passages in the OT which make symbolic reference to the resurrection in this way (see why Hosea 6:3 follows Hosea 6:2, for example).

Consider also the context of Matthew 12:40. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for sign. Luke 11 records the same occasion, and get this, verse 16 even records that they were specifically looking for a sign from heaven! How ironic! They got the sign that they wanted, but they still mocked Jesus even while it was happening!

Finally consider Revelation 6:12. The darkening of the Sun can symbolize not only the death of the Savior, but also the removal of his presence from the earth during the end times. Passages such as this should be taken as both literal events that will take place and symbolic of Christ.

I have some Christian apologists say that there were historians who recorded the event of the darkening of the Sun during the Passover 32 A.D.

Conclusion

My point in writing this is not to split hairs about times and dates so much as to point out that the Bible should be taken for what it says, even if it seems contradictory. The literal meaning of passages should not be ignored just because they are poetic or because they symbolize something. The Scripture is full of passages that have double or even triple meanings, each of which have equal validity. I thought of the “Eight-Day Week” theory on my own. If anyone reading this finds a commentary with this or similar extra day theories in it, I’d like to see it. I don’t know Greek, so if anyone has knowledge of what the best literal translation of Luke 23:45 is, I’d like to know this. Also if anyone can clarify exactly when the Passover sacrifice and meal are in relation to the first “Special Sabbath”, and if there are any irregularities such as possible cases where two consecutive Sabbaths are not allowed. I’d like to know this too. Also one could theoretically determine when this special Sabbath was in relation to the nearest regular Sabbath in 30 A.D. or in a range of a few years on either side of it (is the exact year of the crucifixion known?) I would appreciate this to help me with further development, modification, verification, or possible abandonment of this theory.

The Reverse Timeline Theory

2007-03-10T12:06:00.000-05:00

Several months ago I watched the program Breakthrough with pastor Rod Parsley. In this particular program, he had a guest speaker, a Dr. Perry Stone who spoke about “hidden messages” in the Bible. No, this was not one of those episodes about the skip sequence “messages” in the Old Testament collectively called the Bible Code. Stone’s conjecture on this program is that events in Genesis 1-11 foreshadow end time events in reverse order. The strongest point that Dr. Stone makes is that he can prove using this reverse timeline that rapture of the church will take place before the tribulation. The basis of his idea, he says, is Ecclesiastes 1:9 which says, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

First of all, the context of the passage in Ecclesiastes 1:9 is that the same things happen over and over again—it is not (at least directly) speaking of a foreshadowing of future events by things that symbolize those events. However, I agree that there are many, many things in the Old and New Testaments which foreshadow future events. One example is the lamb’s blood being put on the doorposts being a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Christ. So I would concede that point without benefit of Ecclesiastes 1:9. However, there is certainly nothing about a series of events occurring in reverse order in this verse. The verse could (if it really were talking about “hidden messages”) just as easily be talking about events in the same order rather than in reverse. This is what one would naturally think. This verse certainly does not declare when in Biblical history one should start looking for the first (or last as it were) event which foreshadows the first end time event. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Mr. Stone’s general idea is right.

According to Stone, the tower of Babel incident is a type of the September 11th attacks. He states that both events divided the world. He mentions the connection between the war in Iraq and Babel/Babylon (which is located in modern day Iraq). The Bible does not mention that the tower of Babel was destroyed by terrorists or that it caused a war. He mentions the connection between Babylon and the government of the Beast. If the twin towers (there are two and not one as in the biblical story) are symbolic of Tower of Babel which was located in Babylon, then this would make United States of America the kingdom of the antichrist. There are people who believe this who protest at funerals for soldiers who died in Iraq. You are welcome to their opinion if you wish, but I’ll pass on that. There have been many issues which have divided the world throughout history. The tower of Babel incident could just as easily be a foreshadowing of something else. The day of Pentecost is a reverse of the tower of Babel. That is, languages were “unconfused” and cultural traditions which divided people were soon made obsolete in the church. I don’t see the connection between confusion of languages and the terrorist attacks. I don’t believe that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it either.

Mr. Stone mentions the connection between the story of how Ham looked upon Noah’s drunken nakedness and modern day issues of homosexuality and drunkenness. As a result, of Ham’s sin, it was not Ham, but his son Canaan that was cursed. I don’t know what this means as far as types of the future, but I just thought I’d call attention to that detail as food for thought. I’ll concede the connection between Canaan and homosexuality, but this has always been an issue. Ditto on the drunkenness (or what he said that it symbolized). Ditto on the connection between abortion and man’s blood being shed (Genesis 9:5). Go back and read Ecclesiastes 1:9 again, Dr. Stone. It says, “There is nothing new under sun.”

Dr. Stone mentions that the dove that Noah sent out during the Flood is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. He mentions that the prophet Joel (2:28-32) prophesied that in the last days God would pour out His Spirit. I would assume that Mr. Stone believes in the Pentecostal movement and supernatural spiritual gifts. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the Azusa Street revival is touted by TBN as being the beginning of the fulfillment of this prophecy. This out of order in Mr. Stone’s chronology as this happened nearly a century before the September 11th attacks.

Dr. Stone cites the Great Flood as being a type of the Tsunami, and other modern day disasters. Many liberal scholars and unbelievers say that the Biblical Flood was local, Bible clearly states that Great Flood was world wide. With the exception of those living on the ark, God “wipe(d) from the face of the earth every living creature (He had) made.” (Genesis 7:4) No event such as this yet happened, but Jesus said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the son of man.” (Matthew 24:37) The pattern of prophetic parallelisms in the Bible is that small things foreshadow big things. There were likely millions of people who perished in Flood and everyone in the whole world was immediately affected. There are two climactic events of the book of Revelation where essentially everyone alive is judged.

The first is in Revelation 19:11-21. Jesus Christ himself strikes down the nations (verse 15) and birds gorge themselves on “the flesh all people” (verse 18). There are many references to this event in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. It says that there will be so much blood, that the mountains will melt (34:3). In many places it speaks of a time when there will be very few people left alive on the earth. The flood clearly foreshadows this point in history.

The other climactic event is the White Throne Judgment. This is when everyone who is dead is resurrected to be judged. Instead of being drowned in water, people are brought forth out the sea (Revelation 20:13). Like the Great Flood, this is a judgment in which whole world is judged and relatively few are saved.

The striking down of the nations, I would say, would fit the Flood better than the White Throne Judgment. Neither of these interpretations fit with Mr. Stone’s pre-tribulationist eschatology (as you will see in the next paragraph). Nowhere in Dr. Stone’s chronology does he mention these great climaxes in biblical prophecy. They just don’t fit with anything else in Genesis 1-11.

The pivotal claim that Dr. Stone makes in this piece that the translation of Enoch in Genesis 5:21-24 is a type of the rapture in that famous passage in I Thessalonians 4. This claim does make some sense, but it is also connected with the ascension of Christ (which also foreshadows the rapture). But, if Dr. Stone’s theory is correct, we should expect some major cataclysmic event (foreshadowed by the Flood) to happen before the rapture. What else could this be but the striking down of the nations, which happens at the end of the Great Tribulation?

We creationists tend to think that God created everything perfect in the beginning, but because of Adam’s sin, things get worse and worse as time goes along. We tend to believe that millennial reign of Christ will restore the physical state of the earth back to the way it was before the Flood. In particular, the average life expectancy in these two dispensations is similar. Note that in Isaiah 65:17-25 people live longer than now, but they do eventually die. But the millennial reign of Christ is to be a dispensation of peace and the world was full violence in the years just before the Flood. The earth would likely have been more peaceful before Enoch was translated, which was roughly 987 years from the creation of Adam (check my calculations from Genesis 5:3-24 and make sure I’m right). We don’t know the exact number because these numbers are rounded. The 1000 years of the millennial reign of Christ could also be rounded figure.

Now let’s look at what Dr. Stone claims will happen after the rapture. He says that Cain killing Abel is a type of the Great Tribulation. This, he says, is the persecution of the church (which is supposed to be gone). OK, I get it. Another church is formed by new Christian converts after the rapture. I guess that makes sense if you only pick out certain passages instead taking what the Bible as a whole. Anyway, Stone tries to make a connection between the mark put on Cain and the mark of the Beast. The word for “mark” in Greek that is used in Revelation in the phrase “the mark of the Beast” means a sharpening or incision. Eschatologists have speculated that this could mean that this “mark” could be some kind of microchip implanted through an incision in the hand or forehead. The Hebrew word for mark is not that specific. The NAS does not even use this word “mark” in the instance of Cain’s punishment, but rather the word “sign”. This is how that Hebrew word is most frequently translated in the Old Testament in most versions.

Dr. Stone also tries to make some connection between the statements of the murderer Lamech (the descendent of Cain) and the Great Tribulation. The passage reads: “If Cain be avenged seven times, then Lamech shall be avenged 70 times seven times.” It is true that the judgments in Revelation (which occur during the tribulation and not after) occur in sevens. The way I read this is that Lamech is saying that he wants vengeance against God for the punishment he received. This is not saying that Cain received a sevenfold punishment. The figure 490 was the number years declared for the Jews and the “holy city for the finishing of transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.” (Daniel 9:24) This 490 year period began with the giving of the order to rebuild the city. Jesus Christ was baptized and began his ministry exactly 483 years after this order just as verse 25 says. There is much speculation about whether the last seven or the last half of the last seven is suspended until the Tribulation. Even if this is true, most of the 490 year period has nothing to do with the Tribulation. It only could end during or at the end of it. I certainly wouldn’t build a whole doctrine around one interpretation or another. 490 was also the number of times Jesus said that you should forgive someone who sins against you. How does that have anything to do with the tribulation? Dr. Stone really grasps at straws when he goes outside the written word for evidence that Cain split Abel’s head with a scythe or something like that which hadn’t been invented yet (Genesis 4:22 gives the impression that Lamech’s son Tubal-Cain invented metal working). This is not the same thing as a beheading (Revelation 20:4).

Lamech was probably born after Enoch was translated (we don’t know for sure because no chronology is given for Cain’s line). Dr. Stone seems to base his chronology upon the order that things appear in the text and not chronological order.

If Abel’s murder is not a type of the Tribulation, then what could it be? Most scholars say that Abel was a type of Christ. Jesus declared that generation (or the race) of his day was guilty of Abel’s murder. The crying out from the ground of Abel’s blood is sometimes paralleled to the blood of Christ crying out on behalf of sinners. This is out of order with Stone’s chronology. I will point out the Stone, as well as most other pre-tribulationists rarely speak of the passage in Revelation 20:7-10 which is what happens immediately after the millennium. I can’t quite see how this fits with the story of Cain and Abel, but it’s no worse than Stone’s interpretation.

Clearly, the conditions on the earth before Adam sinned were totally perfect. This period taken as whole, therefore, more closely represents eternity in heaven and not the millennium. The millennium-Sabbath theory is whole other ballgame. This is beyond the scope of what I want to write about in this article.

In conclusion, even if the reverse timeline theory is correct, it definitely does not prove that the rapture will take place before the tribulation. If anything, it shows the opposite, but this theory is very shaky in the first place. Why waste valuable TV time preaching about “hidden messages” in the Bible, when there are so many people who need hear the message which is not hidden. They need to be convicted in their hearts that they are sinners and they need to see the need for God’s grace.

What the Bible has to Say about Covering and Shaving One’s Head

2007-03-08T18:59:00.000-05:00

In the Old Testament

There were head coverings for Aaron and his sons called turbans (Exodus 28:40, 29:6, 9, 39:28, Leviticus 8:9-13, Ezekiel 21:26, Daniel 3:21, Zechariah 3:5). It seems likely that these turbans were for all priests (all the descendants of Aaron), but not for the general male Israelite population. An uncovered head was a sign of mourning for a priest (Leviticus 10:6, Ezekiel 24:17). But for the rest of the men, covering one’s head was sign of mourning or shame (II Samuel 15:30, Jeremiah 14:4, Esther 6:12).

Priests were not usually supposed to shave their heads, but they were not to have long hair either (Ezekiel 44:20). Shaving one’s head was also a sign of mourning for males (Job 1:20, Isaiah 15:2, 22:12, Jeremiah 16:6, 48:37, Amos 8:10, Ezekiel 17:18).

Moses put a veil over his head after he had received the Ten Commandments because his face was so bright from having been in the presence of God, that it was blinding (Exodus 34:35). Paul said that this incident symbolizes that a veil was put over their hearts which prevented them from understanding the true meaning of the Ten Commandments. This veil was removed by Christ (II Corinthians 3:14). We have (symbolically) unveiled faces in Christ (II Corinthians 3:18).

The covering of a woman’s face was a sign of prostitution (Genesis 38:15). This is much different from a head covering like the turban the priests wore. This was a veil over the face which was meant to tantalize men (Ezekiel 13:18).

When captive women were taken as wives, they had to shave their heads (Deuteronomy 21:12). This could have been to mourn for the people of their country who were killed by the Israelites in battle. It also could have been a form of purification for the women, since they were “unclean” Gentiles.

Lepers had to cover themselves from head to toe (Leviticus 13:12). This was, presumably, to prevent the spreading of disease.

In the New Testament

The most famous passage about covering of the head in the New Testament is, of course, I Corinthians 11. It says that “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—just as though it were shaved.” (verses 4 and 5)

I want to point out that no where in I Corinthians 11 does it say anything about a church service. So verse 5 and 13 should apply to every prayer and prophecy, not just in a church service.

Why would Paul use arguments based on Adam and Eve (verses 8 and 9) and the angels (verse 10)? Paul was not changing Jewish custom, but the Levitical priesthood was being done away with (see Hebrews 7:11, 12). All Christians are priests (Revelation 1:6), but it is not the Levitical order. There is a different order (Hebrews 7:17) in which the laws of the Levitical priesthood do not apply (Hebrews 7:18). The Levitical priesthood was only a type of what was to come. Therefore, I can’t say that this is just a cultural issue.

There is some controversy over whether the “covering of the head” refers to something put on the head or hair. The NIV footnote has a different rendering to this effect. What is written in the text seems to support the idea that it is something put on the head. The Greek word for uncovered (177) in verse is the Greek antonym for the Greek word for covered (2619) in verses 7, and cover (two times) in verse 6. These are the only three places in the Bible where this word is used. A different Greek word (4018) is used for covering (of hair) in verse 15. The only other place in the Bible where this Greek word is used is in Hebrews 1:12, speaking of how God will roll up the heavens and the earth as a garment or mantle. The word covered in the NIV of verse 4 is not from any Greek word. The NAS reads, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.” (The word something is italicized because there is no Greek word that this comes from. It is added by the translators just so that the sentence makes sense in English.)

Verse 14 says, “Does not the very nature of things tell you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him”. In this passage, the Greek word for nature (5449) comes from the Greek word for natural (5446) in the passage in Romans 1:26, 27 which speaks of “natural functions” as opposed to homosexual ones.

Conclusion

Paul says, “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (I Corinthians 11:13) “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” (I Corinthians 11:16)