Rosh HaShanah 5771

The LORD spoke to Moshe, saying, "Speak to the children of Yisra'el, saying, 'In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest to you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.'" Leviticus 23:23-25

Rosh HaShanah 5771, the Jewish New Year (according to the Jewish civil calendar) begins on the sunset of Wednesday, the 8th of September, 2010.

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the chief angel, and with God's shofar. The dead in Messiah will rise first, then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore comfort one another with these words." I Thessalonians 4:16-18

End Time Cosmic Blackouts/Signs

This article, like the previous one, is seeking to illustrate the possible danger of "over-cross-referencing", or turning passages into "parallel passages" on the basis of appearance only without contextual support.

Like the problem with the "general judgment theory" in the previous article, passages containing references to cosmic displays and blackouts are often assumed to be speaking of the same event. The cross-reference column in the margin of study Bibles is sufficient to show that the passages involved are assumed to be cross-references on the basis of similarity of words only without regard to context or usage. This problem seems to run across the various viewpoints on end-time chronology.

Here is a list of twelve such passages (not an exhaustive list) in a suggested sequence . . .

Isaiah 50:3
Joel 2:31; cp.Acts 2:16-21
Revelation 6:9-11
Isaiah 34:4
Revelation 8:12
Joel 2:10
Revelation 9:1-11
Revelation 16:10-11
Joel 3:12-17
Matthew 24:29
Isaiah 24:23
Isaiah 13:9-10.

I would suggest that there are at least ten different prophesied cosmic events spoken of in these passages, if not twelve! Just allow the passages in context to speak for themselves before attempting to correlate them. Trying to make them fit into a presupposed "system" will only produce great frustration. I would also suggest that some of the wording concerning end-time cosmic events is so broad that we may conclude that there will be a constant barrage of cosmic disturbances before and throughout the Day of the Lord.

General Judgment Theory or Various End-Time Judgments?

This article is an example of the danger discussed in the previous article concerning the potential misuse of cross-referencing and the parallel passage approach.

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology (Volume Three, Eerdmans, 1975, pp.844-850), advocates what has been called "the general judgment theory", that is to say that there is one general end-time judgment at which everything that must be determined is determined. Hodge's approach is built on the notion of a "general resurrection" (p.847), a topic which I will not deal with here except to say that the same danger of forcing resurrection passages to all be parallel is involved with Hodge's assumption. In the pages cited, Hodge lists many Bible verses that contain the word "judgment" or some form of it. His assumption is that any verse that contains this word (and is not already completed historically) must be a parallel referring to one single event. His presentation does not prove his point, it merely presupposes it. The same approach would apply to his treatment of the concept of resurrection. I am only citing Hodge because his approach is illustrative of that of many, if not most, preachers and theologians who in turn influence many people with this teaching.

But, if we look at the Bible itself and allow each passage to make its own contribution before we start trying to systematize, we see a different picture. Please note, I am not saying that we should not systematize, I am saying that Bible passages should not be systematized until we have allowed them to speak for themselves in context according to authorial intent.

For example, the "Great White Throne Judgment" of Revelation 20:11-15 is presented as taking place after the 1,000 reign of Christ and the throwing of Satan into the Lake of Fire (v.1-10). The judgment of Satan, therefore, is a distinct event from the Great White Throne. The location of the Great White Throne Judgment is only specified as being at "a great white throne", but other than that it does not say where this happens. It will not be on earth or in the first heaven, for they have passed away (v.11, and 21:1). We might assume this will only leave the second and third heavens as possible locations, and the third heaven is not likely because only unsaved people are being judged at the Great White Throne and they will not enter in to the third heaven. This leaves outer space or some dimension currently unknown to us for whatever reason/s. The purpose of this judgment is to assess the works of the unsaved dead whose names are not written in the book of life (v.12,15). Their works do not determine their lostness, which of course was already determined in that they did not receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:36). Rather their works determine the measure of their experience of torment in the Lake of Fire forever, as illustrated in Luke 12:47-48.

The "Judgment Seat of Christ" is a judgment for believers in Christ (Second Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10-12). Some have even suggested that the "judgment seat of Christ" in Second Corinthians 5:10 is a different judgment than the "judgment seat of God" in Romans 14:10, even though I would actually see these two as valid parallels proving the deity of Christ. The basis of this judgment is the works of the believer, and the purpose is that the believer will receive reward or loss of reward (First Corinthians 3:9-15) in heaven and the coming Kingdom. This judgment must take place by Revelation chapter four, because reward crowns (Revelation 2:10) already appear on the heads of believers in heaven by Revelation 4:4 and beyond. While much more can and should be said about this judgment, this data suffices to show that the Judgment Seat of Christ does not occur at the same time, place, or for the same purpose as the Great White Throne Judgment, so they cannot be the same event.

Revelation 20:4-5 and Daniel 12:1-2 describe a different resurrection and judgment that take place after "the time of distress" for Israel (Dan.12:2) and before the start of the 1,000 year Kingdom (Rev.20:4). This is a reward judgment of believers also, but a different one from the Judgment Seat of Christ as that takes place by Revelation chapter four and this does not take place until chapter twenty.

Other judgments could be mentioned. Alva J. McLain included a listing of eleven different end time judgments in his class notes. Others have observed even more. But these are sufficient to show that "the general judgment theory" cannot be true because it has yielded to the temptation of forcing Bible passages to be parallel when they are not. The danger in this is that it robs the church of greater precision in preaching that in turn robs individual believers of insight, joy, assurance, and motivation for sanctification.

Dangers of the Parallel Passage Approach

The observation and utilization of cross-references in the Bible is a valid and necessary principle of biblical interpretation. Some cross-references may be verbal, others conceptual, and still others because of extended parallel accounts. When used correctly, cross-references can properly inform one another.

There can be a danger, however, in turning the use of cross-references or parallel-passages into its own interpretive approach, or at least in exaggerating it.

Consider these possible dangers of turning this principle into an entire approach.

(1) It is often assumed that this is a biblical method even though the Bible itself never speaks of it.

(2) It can overlook other important interpretive principles that are more primary, such as observing context or grammar.

(3) There is a danger of reading into a text an interpretation drawn from another text. It may even tend to foist some preconceived interpretation from one passage upon another.

(4) It forgets that every passage makes its own contribution first, before it can be correlated with other passages.

(5) It falls prey to the fallacy that similarities must be parallels (Ocam's razor). Interpreters must not assume that because two or more things look similar that they are parallel, or identical.

(6) It wrongly presupposes that the natural reading of a passage is the one that fits best with other passages. It is more correct to conclude that the natural reading of a passage is what fits best with its own context.

(7) It seems to compel interpreters to force scriptural details to fit together rather than to allow each passage to make its own contribution. The systematizing of biblical truth must not be the imposition of a system over the Bible in order to make things fit. Systematic Theology must have large enough categories to allow passages to teach their own truth. This requires new categories to be considered in the compilation of Systematic Theology (for example, "Gentile-ology" and "Israelology" in addition to "Ecclesiology").

Daniel's People...Daniel 9:24

I want first to refer readers back to two previous articles. On December 11, 2009 I wrote about the dangers of "reinterpreting" Old Testament passages rather than "interpreting" them according to their own intention. In that article we clarified that New Testament writers do not deny, contradict, or change ("reinterpret") the intended meaning of Old Testament texts. On December 21, 2009 I used Isaiah 7:14 as an illustrative test case, showing that Matthew used this passage in the same way Isaiah intended it - Matthew did not "reinterpret" Isaiah.

Now, from Daniel 9:24, we observe the introduction to Daniel's record of the prophecy of the "70 Weeks". Daniel 9:24 records, "Seventy weeks have been decreed FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY". Daniel's "holy city" is Jerusalem. Attempts to make this a "heavenly" or "spiritual" Jerusalem do not work for the entire context through Daniel 9:27 specifies the city of Jerusalem. New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 12:22 do not change or reinterpret Daniel 9:24.

Daniel's "people" are in particular the people of the house of Judah, i.e. the Jewish people. Daniel was taken into Babylonian captivity as one of them. Daniel's prayer and resultant prophecy of chapter nine are in the context of praying according to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the end of the 70 years of captivity for the Jews (9:2). There is no shift in the identity of Daniel's people as we come to 9:24. The 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy are for the Jewish people, Daniel's people. Attempts to reinterpret "Daniel's people" to include the Church are improper attempts change the intent of Daniel's prophecy. New Testament passages like Romans 2:28-29, Romans 11:17ff., Second Corinthians 3:6 and others indicate that Church-age believers are grafted into (joined to and participate in) Israel's covenant promises. Such passages do not redefine Israel as the Church (nor does Galatians 6:16). Neither are such passages reinterpreting "Daniel's people" to include Church-age believers in the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy.

So, Daniel's people are the Jews and his prophecy centers on Jerusalem. The details of all 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, including the 70th Week (9:27), pertain to Daniel's people - not to the Church.

Iranian "Harsh Blow" on February 11?

This just in today . . . "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejead says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to 'global arrogance' on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution." This would be February 11.

See http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/

From London with Love??

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during
their recent "Religion of PEACE Demonstration" !!

Date-Setting Example

In light of my previous post,you may want to look at this article http://www.americanvision.org/article/harold-camping-will-go-mad-on-may-11-2011.

Date-Setting?

The New Year often brings with it questions about whether or not this could be the year of Christ's appearing in the air to rapture His church. Well, of course it could!!

But, other questions get confused with this. The film "2012" and conversations about the Mayan calendar have caused some to ask the question this way - "Could this be the end of the world?". Let me give a guarantee - neither this year nor 2012 will be the end of the world. From today, there will at least be the seventieth week of Daniel (7 years) plus the millennial kingdom of Messiah (1,000 years) before the world will end. In addition to that 1007 years, there will be whatever time between now and when the 70th week begins, which is unknown, plus at least a 75 day interval between the 70th week and the millennial kingdom (compare Revelation 13:6 with Daniel 12:11-12). Revelation 20:11 and Second Peter 3:10 describe "the end of the world" as the supernatural judgment of God rather than man-made self-destruction.

Another confusion is demonstrated when the question is phrased, "Will Jesus return this year?". We should ask, "Could He?". But, "will He?" or "must He"? We do not know. Be suspicious of anyone who "sets" a date or says this "must" be the time - he/she may be guilty of the sin of presumption/false prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:22). Setting a date is very specific, measurable, and, if wrong, tends to put a "black eye" on the face of all believers in Christ. There is no biblical command against date-setting, but there are abundant warnings against foolishness and presumption.

Matthew 24:42-44 is not a prohibition of wondering, guessing, or even date-setting. It is a statement of the reality that no one knows the day of Christ's return ending the 70th week of Daniel (cp. Daniel 9:27 with Revelation 19:20). It is not a reference to the rapture of the church, although the principle of not knowing can be indirectly applied to the rapture of the church if one just tries to do the math from an unknown reference point.

First Thessalonians 5:2ff. is not a prohibition either. Nor are Matthew 24:42-44 and First Thessalonians 5:2ff. valid cross-references to one another. Jesus and Paul are talking about different, though not unrelated, issues. Paul is asserting that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly on the unsaved world, but not on believers who should constantly be living in expectation of the rapture (cp. 4:16-18 with 5:4-11) and therefore are not surprised. This is further evidence that the "day" of Revelation 6:17 must already be taking place prior to the statement in 6:17, because the unsaved of the earth are hiding in caves expecting the wrath of Christ upon them, but when the Day of the Lord begins it comes upon the lost as a "thief" according to First Thessalonians 5:2ff., not while they are hiding in the mountains, but while they are saying "peace and safety".

Guesses or desires are not in themselves bad things. What can become a problem is one asserting too definitively what one does not in fact know. Rather than mocking guessers, believers would do well to take these conversations as Gospel opportunities.

May this New Year be one for each of us who knows Jesus Christ, of "fighting the good fight", "finishing the course", "keeping the faith", and "loving His appearing" (Second Timothy 4:7-8).

Isaiah 7:14...Christmas Hermeneutics

The "Jewish Study Bible" (Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.798) makes this comment on Isaiah 7:14 : "Young woman (Heb "almah"). The Septuagint translates as 'virgin', leading ancient and medieval Christians to connect this verse with the New Testament figure of Mary. All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not."

This comment completely ignores the New Testament, as might be expected in a Jewish commentary. It overlooks the fact that not only did "ancient and medieval Christians" make this connection to the virgin birth of Jesus, but that the New Testament itself does so in Matthew 1:23, which is why Christians have followed the teaching. The implication of this statement from the Jewish commentators is that the New Testament is wrong in Matthew 1:23, because it makes an invalid connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, Matthew "reinterpreted" Isaiah 7:14 to fit his "Christian" purposes.
There are at least three more things wrong with the "Jewish Study Bible" (JSB) comment. (1) The Hebrew word "almah" is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to an unmarried virgin (Genesis 24:23, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8), not merely "a young woman of marriageable age". (2) The comment implies that the Septuagint translation had to be wrong. (3) To state that "all modern scholars" agree on this is simply not true, in fact would not be true of "all modern scholars" on anything! It does allow the Jewish Study Bible commentators to call anyone who disagrees with them "ancient" or "medieval", that is, out of touch with current scholarship and reality.


But, the sadder issue is that there are Christian commentators who have done exactly what the JSB has accused them of doing. Trying to acknowledge the historic setting of this section of Isaiah, it is insisted that the virgin is Isaiah's wife (see 8:1-2), and the son is Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz of his prophetess wife (see 8:3), and that Isaiah's son is called Immanuel (8:8,10). In doing this, as for example Herbert M. Wolf does in "Interpreting Isaiah" (Zondervan, 1985, p.91), it becomes necessary for such commentators to conclude that Matthew has used a "reinterpreting" kind of hermeneutic when referring to Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23. Wolf puts it this way, "In the New Testament, Isaiah 7:14 was used in a fuller sense and applied to Mary and Jesus. Mary, unlike the virgin in Isaiah's day, was still a virgin even after becoming pregnant." Did you hear it? Wolf is saying that Matthew is giving a "fuller" meaning to Isaiah 7:14 than what was actually present in the text. Thus, he is implying that New Testament writers can treat Old Testament texts in a different way than the Old Testament writers intended them, as long as the treatment is filtered through the grid of their Christian purposes (Jesus and the Gospel). If you take this approach, I suspect the JSB commentators have just had you for lunch.

It would be much better to recognize Isaiah's actual intent in Isaiah 7, and realize that Matthew is using Isaiah 7:14 in exactly the same way that Isaiah intended it to be used. When Ahaz rejected any sign from the Lord through Isaiah (7:11-12), the Lord by-passed Ahaz and gave the sign to the "House of David" (7:13). The prophesied son is not the son of Isaiah, but a royal son, in accordance with the theme of Yahweh's faithfulness to Zion and David, and fitting with the idiom "curds and honey" as royal food (7:15,22). While Isaiah's son in chapter 8 may be seen as typologically portraying to some extent the meaning of Immanuel in 7:14, the son of 7:14 is in fact the Messiah, Israel's King, not Isaiah's son. As Andrew H. Bartelt points out ("The Book Around Immanuel", Eisenbrauns, 1996, pp.115-117), "The consequences of this message, however, as they were to be played out in the subsequent history of Judah are perceived by Isaiah himself to be long-range rather than immediate." I would add for the sake of the JSB guys, that Bartelt represents some of the very latest scholarship, so "all modern scholars" are not on their side.
An excellent survey of various "evangelical" approaches to the New Testament use of the Old Testament can be seen at http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt1.htm, and http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt2.htm in an article by Darrell Bock. Elliot Johnson, S.Lewis Johnson, and Walt Kaiser all represent the authorial intent/single meaning hermeneutic. Though Bock distinguishes between the approach of the Johnsons and the approach of Kaiser, there is in fact little difference between them. Concerning Isaiah 7:14, they would all agree that Matthew is using the text exactly as Isaiah intended. It is edifying to read their articles, footnoted in Bock's article (Bock disagrees with them, by the way). Kaiser's article, "The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic" can also be found in an appendix of John Ankerberg's "The Case For Jesus The Messiah" (Harvest House, 1989).


What value is this discussion to us? Precisely this - the prophet Isaiah intentionally and accurately predicted the virgin birth of Jesus Christ more than seven hundred years in advance. Matthew 1:23 accurately records the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. This is not a mere Christian "reinterpretation", this is historical fact. This is truth. Our sovereign God, Who alone knows the end from the beginning, has worked out the details of His plan in His Word in such a way that the proof is documented. Let us worship Him in wonder at the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, Who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Incorrect Hermeneutics Lead to the Denouncement of Israel

In todays news from Israel is an amazingly clear illustration of the impact of one's interpretation of the Bible on world politics.

Those of us who acknowledge the importance of agreeing with the author's intent for a Bible passage as a principle of assessing validity in interpretation (as in E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, Yale, 1967) just took a major hit today from some Palestinians who think of themselves as Christians. These Palestinians do not consider it acceptable to allow the Old Testament to speak for itself with its own intent.

Note their position on hermeneutics, clearly stated in the article " 'Christians' of the Holy Land Denounce Israel " (found at http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=79) . . . "The (Palestinian "Christian') leaders then took aim at Evangelical Christians around the world that support Israel based on biblical precepts. 'Jesus came with a new teaching (Mk.1:27), casting a new light on the Old Testament on the themes that relate to our Christian faith and our daily lives, themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God, and the land. For this reason it is unacceptable to transform the Word of God into letters of stone. This is the precise error in fundamentalist biblical interpretation that brings us death and destruction when the Word of God is petrified and transmitted from generation to generation as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land."

Observe that Mark 1:27 does not illustrate, support, or teach the concept that they seem to be trying to derive from it.

The hermeneutical approach they use to justify denouncing Israel is this - Jesus cast "a new light on the Old Testament". This is the same dangerous hermeneutic as proposed by George Eldon Ladd years ago within evangelical, "covenant" premillenialism, namely, "But precisely here is our basic hermeneutic. Jesus, and the apostles after Him, REINTERPRETED the Old Testament prophecies in light of Jesus' person and mission" (see Ladd, "The Last Things", Eerdmans, 1978, p.17).

Those of us who have the principle of authorial intent/single intent in our hermeneutical understanding of the Old Testament find the notion of the New Testament "reinterpreting" the Old to be inaccurate and dangerous. Does the New Testament give further information and clarity of Old Testament passages in light of the progress of divine revelation? Of course. But does the New Testament change the intended meaning of any Old Testament passage into a different meaning, i.e. "reinterpretation"? Absolutely not. For New Testament writers to do so would be to deny or contradict the intended meaning of the Old Testament, which is to say that they would have gotten it wrong, because they would have been using an invalid hermeneutic. Such would, by the model of New Testament writers, set all meaning in any text into a sea of interpretive relativity.

In the Israel Today news article, the result of this "reinterpretation" is for Palestinians to change the meaning of "Israel" to something else (or someone else, namely themselves), and to change the meaning of the land of Israel into something else (namely, "our rights in our own land"). Such "reinterpretation" of the meaning of Israel is the same thing that Ladd designed his hermeneutic to do (see chapter of "The Last Things" entitled "What About Israel?").

Do sound hermeneutics matter? In the world scene of today, more than ever. For both Jews and Christians in Israel today, their lives depend on it.

BATTLE INTENSIFIES TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM

This news just came in from Joel Rosenberg, and I thought readers should see it and pray.

(WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2009) -- The battle to divide Jerusalem is intensifying this week. Sweden is pushing hard to pass an initiative this coming Sunday to persuade 27 foreign ministers of European Union states to endorse a plan to recognize unilaterally East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian State. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is doing everything he can to counter the Swedish effort.

The Bible teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves Israel's neighbors, but has specifically chosen Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish people and His own prized possession. It is not to be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

In Psalm 132:13-16, we read, "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. 'This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her with bread."

The Bible also teaches that the Lord will judge the nations who seek to divide Israel and Jerusalem. In Joel 3:1-2, we read, "When I restore the fortunes of Jerusalem [in the last days] I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance Israel whom they have scattered among the nations and they have divided up My land."

Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.


By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

***********************************************************************************
Join us for one hour of prayer on Thursday, November 26,2009 from 11am until 12 noon at the building of the New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church, Myerstown, PA.

Some Reflections

The previous two articles on Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 attracted considerable interest, both via blog comments and private emails. Permit me, please, just two reflections.

When it is all evaluated, there was no disagreement over the two pertinent verses themselves. All of the disagreement related to the application of those verses, especially regarding Revelation 6. While not wanting to minimize at all the importance of the Revelation 6 discussion (there are real issues involved), I do want to point out that the discussion only strengthened the concept that the use of Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 in the FGBC Statement of Faith is valid. Further, the discussion proved that the conclusions are not arrived at by the imposition of a pre-supposed system upon the biblical text, but through an honest attempt to understand the verses themselves. I do still wish that the FGBC Statement did not use the word "tribulation", but instead used "the 70th Week of Daniel", but that is another discussion.

I want to thank David Mohler for his extended explanation of the sovereign grace of God in Revelation 6. I agree that Revelation 6 is a vivid display of the grace of God. There will be a great number of people saved (at first primarily Gentiles, Rev.7:9, Mt.24:14) during the time of the first six seals - some of them will be martyred (Rev.6:9-11) and others will be raptured as part of the 6th seal (Rev.7:14). David applies this to the past and present age, while I put it in the future, so we would have interpretive differences on the meaning of the six seals, but we agree that there is great grace. I would further say that this does not negate the beginning of wrath, sovereign wrath, in the first six seals, but is fulfilling Habakkuk 3:2, "In wrath remember mercy". I trust that I will never be found disagreeing with the sovereign grace of God whenever or wherever it is displayed.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

In the previous article I sought to defend the use of Revelation 3:10 as exegetically valid in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith. The other verse in the Statement which has been challenged is First Thessalonians 1:10 - "and to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, Who rescues us from the wrath to come."

Granted, genuine believers from varying eschatological viewpoints will either claim this verse as a proof-text or at least a text that fits within their approach. The critical discussion pivots around the extent of the meaning of the phrase "the wrath to come".

Is "the wrath to come" the "second death/lake of fire" poured out on unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:12-15)? Probably all believers would say "Yes", that Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath of Hell. Those who are amillennial, postmillennial, or non-"tribulational"-premillennial would probably limit the extent of the meaning of "the wrath to come" to that. Of course, believers are already rescued from any present experience of God's wrath (John 3:36, Romans 8:1), but the issue in First Thessalonians 1:10 is future wrath, not present.

But, does the "wrath to come" only refer to the believer's rescue from Hell (and perhaps some pre-realized deliverance from present wrath), or does "wrath to come" include more? Those who understand Revelation chs 6-18 as describing a yet future sequence of events, see Revelation 6:17 as a crucial verse for this discussion - "the great day of their wrath has come". There will be a future time of God's wrath on earth, and it will happen during the six seals of Revelation 6 and extend beyond that. The verb "has come" (elthen) is aorist indicative, "referring to the previous arrival of the wrath, not something that is about to take place" (from Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary, Moody, 1992, p.457). Any attempts to make elthen into a futuristic aorist, draining any wrath out of the first six seals of Revelation 6, does so quite unnaturally, unusually, and incorrectly.

Thus, the entirety of the seven years of Revelation 6-18 contains the wrath of God. The "pre-wrath" deliverance from future wrath promised in First Thessalonians 1:10 includes deliverance from the wrath of God that will come within the first six seals of Revelation 6. Comparing this discussion with the one in the previous article indicates that what is being spoken of in Revelation 3:10 is also being spoken of in First Thessalonians 1:10.

Therefore, the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith has used First Thessalonians 1:10 properly, as it has Revelation 3:10.

Revelation 3:10

Before I took a much needed blogging break, I was asked to deal with the passages that are listed in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith concerning the Rapture of the Church. I had made a comment to the effect that these are valid passages to use, even though they may not be the only or even strongest ones. (As an aside, I am in favor of a revision of the Statement of Faith if the revision strengthens or adds to what is already there in order to communicate more clearly to our present generation, but not if it reduces the content or intent of the Statement of Faith.) Those who raised questions about my statement were suggesting that one could not infer a Pre-Tribulational Rapture view from these verses.

What I am trying to do in this article is to demonstrate what one may know from a few exegetical observations of Revelation 3:10 and how such knowledge applies to the Statement of Faith. By no means am I attempting to be exhaustive in this brief article.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

- The Philadelphia church is recognized as a solidarity, as are the other churches of Revelation 2-3. The "you" of verse 10 is singular.

- The statement "have kept the word of My perseverance" is a beautiful statement of the eternal security of the believer. The church had kept/preserved/guarded/protected this word, a description of her continuance in faith. The word she believed was concerning Christ's perseverance in keeping His own. Both the "perseverance of the saints" and the "perseverance of the Savior" are here, and you do not have one without the other.

- The promise of Christ to "keep" the Philadelphia church cannot be separated from the church's faith, she having "kept" the truth of His perseverance.

- The promise that the church will be kept "from" this time of trial does not mean kept "through" the time of trial. See John A. Sproule, "In Defense of Pre-Tribulationism" (BMH Books, 1980).

- The verse predicts a specific time of testing that was yet future to the Philadelphia church. The definite article with the word "hour" indicates that this is not trial or testing as a generalization or principle, but rather a specific, coming time of trial.

- The predicted time of trial is said to be global, upon the "whole world". No global trial like this happened during the first century experience of the Philadelphia church. The statement does not compare to the one in Revelation 2:10 concerning the church at Smyrna where the language indicates something localized and limited. Any attempts to fit this verse into an "already" model of fulfillment fail before the term "whole world". There is no history to substantiate that there has been any such time of trial like this since Jesus gave this prediction to John. Localized experiences of trial (Roman persecution, AD 70, some unknown persecution upon Philadelphia, etc.) cannot qualify as fulfillment of Jesus' prediction in this verse. Therefore, Jesus' intent of this statement to John could not have been been limited in scope of application of the promise or the prediction merely to the Philadelphia church. The fulfillment is not "already" but "not yet".

- The description of predicted future global events in Revelation chapter 6 and beyond does match the description of the global trial predicted by Christ in Revelation 3:10. Context would determine for the reader that the events of chapter 6 are what Jesus intended by His prediction in 3:10.


APPLICATION

- It is therefore valid to conclude that those who read and believe the Book of Revelation, and meet the condition of faith described in Revelation 3:10, may also appropriate the promise of Revelation 3:10.

- It is therefore also valid for the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith to use this verse in the manner it has.

Systematic Theology or Theological System?

Should we, in fact must we, seek to organize the results of our Bible study into a form that provides answers for the culture in which we live? Yes!! We should and must systematize our biblical theology. But, should we assume or impose a theological system over our Bible study, which then makes verses read in a particular way that fits the system? No!! We must allow each passage in its context to speak for itself. This must always come first. I hope we can all see and appreciate the difference in these two approaches.

One way some superimpose systems onto our Bibles, on ourselves, and on others, is by turning otherwise helpful tools or observations into "isms". So adherence to biblical fundamentals gets expanded into "fundamentalism" (which historically I thought was a very good thing, but now it is a liable to have the label). Utilization of the observation of historical divine stewardships or dispensations throughout Scripture gets expanded into "dispensationalism" by both friends and foes. This becomes something some feel the need to attack and others feel the need to propagate. The observation that the Bible operates in a covenantal framework gets expanded into "covenantalism", or "covenant theology".

The same can happen with the contributions of individuals, which are then turned into systems or creedal groups. Such is evidenced when a group is named after a person. I appreciate a very significant amount of the work of John Calvin (much celebrated in this memorial year), but far from all (especially considering the implications of his eschatology on his failed Geneva experiment, and the imposition of theocracy even to the point of murder), so I could not be considered a "Calvinist" (even though my "Arminian" friends persist in calling me one anyway). I appreciate Martin Luther's work on justification by faith alone and his theology of the cross (catching up with some of our pre-Reformation primitive Church brethren who believed it all along and were never part of the Catholic system), but certainly disdain Luther's hatred of the Jews, so I could not be a "Lutheran". While I enjoy some of the influence of Menno Simons on the anabaptist development of the believers' church concept, I point out the error in his Christology as it relates to the humanity of Christ, so I could not be a "Mennonite". I am "soteriologically reformed", but not "reformed" in my ecclesiology nor my eschatology, so the "reformed" won't let me use the name "reformed" because I don't believe they "reformed" enough (whew!).

Or, a doctrine can be elevated to an entire system or denomination. I believe in baptism, but I cannot be a "Baptist", elevating that one doctrine into the central one. I believe in the rule of the local church by Elders, but I cannot make that the main identifier of the Church and become a "Presbyterian" or "Episcopalian". Emerging has become "emergent".

The truly sad part of all of this is that it is almost impossible anymore to have a genuinely biblical, spiritual conversation or even do some significant Bible teaching without a high number of people assuming that they already know where you are coming from, because they have already put you into a "system" in their minds.

Let's get back to "living in the world of the Bible" and bringing it to bear on our culture. Brethren, "we have the mind of Christ" (First Corinthians 2:16). Let's keep going back to the Word of God afresh and finding the answers we need to systematize in order to defend the Gospel in our day.

Signs??

As a result of communicating the information you can read in the posts "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY", I have been asked, "Are these events 'signs' that the rapture is soon?"

The question requires a careful answer.

There are no Scripture texts that teach that there are or will be any "signs" leading up to the rapture of the Church. The rapture of the Church is a "signless" event. Since the birth of the Church the expectation has been that Christ could return for His Church at any moment (for example, James 5:9, Second Timothy 4:8). No "signs" or intermediate events are required to happen before the rapture of the Church.

There are, however, "signs" that occur pointing to the coming time of Tribulation on the earth and beyond to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. For example, Jesus Himself discusses "signs" of His Second Coming and the importance of knowing how to recognize them (Matthew 24:32-35). Some events that will take place during the coming time of Tribulation are already beginning to "line up" (the one-world political authority and currency for example, or the nations who will come against Israel at the "Gog from Magog Battle" of Ezekiel 38 for another, and more). These are "signs" that the Tribulation period is soon.

While there are no "signs" pertaining to the rapture of the Church (I use the phrase "rapture of the Church" to distinguish it from other "raptures" throughout the Bible), there is prophetic value to the Church of the "signs" pertaining to the Tribulation and Second Coming. Why? Allow me to illustrate.

Suppose you are driving on an interstate highway. Your know your destination, but there are no "signs" telling you that your destination will be reached in a certain number of miles/kilometers. But there are "signs" for a major city that is beyond your destination. As you observe the distance to that major city diminishing according to the "signs", you know that your destination is even closer than the "signs" indicate.

If there are "signs" for events (the Tribulation and Second Coming) that are beyond the rapture of the Church, that only increases our expectation that the rapture of the Church must be even sooner.

The focus of the Church is not to be on "signs", rather on the destination. Consider Colossians 3:1-2, "Therefore, since you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth."

"Signs" are on earth. Christ is coming from heaven for His Church. We must keep our focus upon Him. His appearing is our Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13). Or consider First Corinthians 1:22-23a, "For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified". We are not looking for "signs", we are looking for Christ. Along the way, if we do happen to observe "signs", we rejoice because Christ's appearing for us is that much closer.

When some of you hear about the "signs", a sense of fear comes over you. Maybe this is because you are not prepared for the unfolding of end-time events. You have never personally and specifically trusted in The God-Man, Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and eternal life. Observe First Peter 3:18, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit." Trust in Christ as your Sinbearer, your Eternal Savior, your Life. When you do, this means that God by His grace has put you in the category of those who have "turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God" (First Thessalonians 1:9). You will experience a new joy and freedom that empowers you "to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, Who rescues us from the wrath to come (First Thessalonians 1:10).

It is possible that some of you do not look forward to seeing Christ because you are more attached to your sin and the present world than you are to Christ. If you are in reality a believer who has trusted Christ for salvation, this is not to be so. And, if you are not even concerned about your sin and attachment to the world-system, you may not have ever become a genuine believer at all. As a believer, you have the privilege of this promise and instruction - "See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are the children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure (First John 3:1-3)."

Genuine believers are being transformed into a greater reflection of Christ's glory every day as we focus upon Him in His Word (Second Corinthians 3:18). We will instantaneously be completely changed into the likeness of His glory at the rapture of the Church (First Corinthians 15:51-52), when we will "see Him just as He is" (First John 3:2).

Do not let a focus on "signs" rob you of hope today. The destination is what is vital, not the "signs". May nothing stand between you and seeing Christ today. He is the joy and hope of life.

Theology And The News

Sometimes when one lets news be known in the way I have attempted in the posts "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY", the criticism of engaging in "newspaper theology" comes fairly quickly.

"Newspaper theology" is not a correct approach to interpreting the Bible. At least it is not a correct approach to anyone who believes that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient authority for faith, life, theology, worldview, etc. We should not, having seen something interesting in the news, cram the news into the meaning of a Bible verse, or determine the meaning of a Bible passage by what we see in the news. We should also be cautious about saying that "this" in the news is the "fulfillment of that" in the Bible.

We should, however, learn to evaluate the news in light of the Bible. No, We should not evaluate the meaning of Scripture by the news, but we should evaluate the meaning of the news by the Bible. We should not do "newspaper theology", but we should do "theology newspaper".

Everything in the Word of God will come to pass, including the details of Revelation 13:3-4, 16-17. What the news in "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY" points out is that the world is being set up for these future events in an unprecedented way.

"Let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober" (First Thessalonians 5:6).

The Dream of a Single, Global Currency

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a "united future world currency." http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com
"Here it is," Medveded told reporters on July 10, 2009 in L'Aquila, Italy, after the international G-8 summit, "You can see it and touch it." www.bloomberg.com.


The coin, which bears the words "unity in diversity", was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of the G-8 delegations. Medveded said, "The question of a supranational currency concerns everyone now, even the mints. The test coin means they're getting ready." Medveded has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the US dollar's future as a global reserve currency. Russia's proposals at the G-20 meeting in London back in April, 2009 included the creation of a supranational currency. China also has been a vocal proponent of the global currency system, taking influence away from the US dollar which has dominated global finance and commerce since the end of World War 2. French President Nicolas Sarkozy also joined the band at the G-8 summit in favor of dumping the dollar. www.breitbart.com


This issue is alerting to those who believe the Bible, especially the warning that the whole world will be forced to use a unified economic system under the domination of a wicked, global leader during the future time of world crisis known in the Bible as "the 70th week of Daniel", the "indignation", et.al. (see Revelation 13:16-17). Suspicions are aroused even further when coupled with the release of the encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI calling for a one-world-government, only three days earlier, July 7, 2009 from nearby Rome.