Sunday, September 11, 2011

God's Megaphone

[This was the first "Arrows of Truth" - a weekly e-mail column I wrote for about five years. The message, though written almost 10 years ago is still true today. Read it and pray for our nation.]

The events of September 11, 2001 remain very much in our thoughts as a nation. It appears, at least for the moment, God has gotten our attention. As C.S. Lewis remarked, "Pain is God's megaphone." Prayer, Bible reading, and even theological discussion has found its way into the public arena once again. At the same time a new wave of patriotism has swept over our nation, as we unite together against the "forces of evil" embodied in Islamic terrorism.

In the midst of this I have sought to find Heaven’s perspective. I want to see the events of the day not from a loyal American perspective, but from the perspective of one whose primary citizenship is in Christ's Kingdom. To this end, the Old Testament prophets have come to my aid. Habakkuk, in particular, has been most helpful. I would encourage you to read the book of Habakkuk, and see the prophetic perspective God gave him regarding the Chaldean invasion of the Southern Kingdom (Judah). The Chaldeans who were a wicked, violent people were God’s instrument to judge His people. Could God being doing a similar thing through Osama bin Laden?

Billy Graham has been quoted as saying many years ago; “If God does not judge the United States, He will have to resurrect Sodom and Gomorrah and apologize.” Could this latest incident be a sign of His judgment? One thing is for certain; this event did not take our sovereign God by surprise. It is difficult to envision the God who has so richly blessed and protected our nation setting His face against our land for judgment. If we think it couldn’t happen, we need only to look at God’s dealings with Israel, His chosen nation, who suffered some of His most severe discipline. I believe that our inability to face the reality of God’s harsh dealings with us is born out of our loyalty, love, and patriotism toward our country. In addition, we have been told that “love” means tolerance and acceptance of ungodly behavior, which the “God of love” must overlook. Yet, the Bible teaches, “whom the Lord loves He disciplines” (Heb.12:6; Rev. 3:19).

Are there nations much more wicked than the U.S.? In comparison with the heathen, paganistic nations that govern much of the world, we look pretty good. We abort babies, but not as many as China or Russia. We restrain sexual immorality from being broadcast over television, more than the Europeans. We still “tip our hat” toward God on occasion and have churches on almost “every street corner.” If God grades on the curve, we’re at the top of the class. We need to understand, however, that the standard by which God judges men and nations is not always the same. To whom much is given, much is required.

The origin of the U.S. is that of a Covenant nation. Our founding fathers, which were in reality the Puritans, understood the unique purpose for which God had chosen this nation. They envisioned that this nation was to be a “city set on a hill” and thus covenanted with God to see His purposes fulfilled. The earliest governmental document in our heritage, the Mayflower compact states:

“Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith, and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic.”

The Lord has blessed our nation with unbelievable wealth in natural and human resources. He has blessed us with the highest standard of living in the world. Throughout our history, He has protected our nation because of the covenant entered into by our founding fathers. But sadly, we have over the years moved further, and further from the covenant. The sanctions of the covenant appear to be coming upon us.

At whose doorstep does the responsibility for this departure lie? Is it the homosexuals, the feminists, the pornographers, and the abortionists who are to blame?  No— it lies at the doorstep of the Church, who has failed our nation. We have failed to be the salt and light God has called us to be. We have failed to function as the ekklesia (those who are “called out to rule”) and be servants to the people of our nation. We have been more concerned with getting out of here (and not being “left behind”), than we have been about God’s purposes. We have failed to fulfill our role as prophet and priest to our country. Sadly, there is little fear of God in the Church, so how can we expect any in the world?

George Barna recently completed a poll entitled, “A Look at Morality and the Church.” Its findings are quite revealing. For instance, 45% of those in mainline Christian churches said abortion was morally acceptable. (The general population figure is 36%). In addition, 20% of born again Christians agreed.

In response to the question “Is homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle?” 49% of mainline Christian answered yes, and 27% of born again believers agreed. Premarital sex was seen as fine by 54% of mainliners and by 36% of the born-againers. If I’m not mistaken we have a problem here.

The “wake up” call, which sounded in our nation on September 11th, must first be heard in the Church. The Bible tells us that, “judgment begins in the household of God” (I Peter 4:17). II Chronicles 7:14 declares that “If My people who are called by name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and heal their land.” It is my prayer that God will grant to us the grace to repent and return to Him, lest what we saw at the World Trade Center be only a beginning. It is a serious hour for the Church in America.




Friday, August 5, 2011

What Ticks God Off?

“Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22)
 
Our tendency is to read with the Bible with a certain personal bias that chooses to remember the things that the Bible says “for” me, and ignoring those things that the Bible speaks “against” me. Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this tendency in 1932 at a conference in Switzerland, where in reference to the Bible, he made the following observation:

“ . . . the great concern which has been bearing down on me with growing heaviness throughout the whole conference; has it not become terrifyingly clear again and again, in everything that we have said here to one another, that we are no longer obedient to the Bible? We are more fond of our own thoughts than the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously, we no longer read the Bible against ourselves, but for ourselves. If the whole of our conference here is to have great significance, it may be perhaps that of showing us that we must read the Bible in quite a different way, until we find ourselves again.”

Paul tells us to “behold” (Greek meaning “fix your gaze”) on both the “kindness” (KJV –goodness) and the severity (Greek meaning “against severely”) of God. Both are to be given our attention. While we recognize the importance of understanding God’s kindness toward us, we must equally affirm the truth that God does become angry. A.W. Pink in his book, The Attributes of God, points out that; “A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness.” 

Some contend that there is a difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. They say in essence that. “The God of the old covenant was characterized by wrath and judgment, while Jesus is the “expressed image” of God and characterized by love and mercy. This of course, creates a dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. It actually creates two different “Gods.” On the contrary, the God of the Old and the God of the New are one in being, nature, and personality. Although God did inaugurate a new “administration” (Ephes. 1:10) with the coming of His Son, God Himself remains unchanged (Mal. 3:6). In pre-Christian times God was angry with those who rejected His revealed will. This did not change with the advent of Christ. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). Jesus actually said more about God’s wrath than did any other New Testament person. God’s displeasure with the Pharisees is seen in Jesus’ denunciation recounted in Matthew 23. “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?” (Matt. 23:33).

John the Baptist warned the Pharisees and the Saducees of the “wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7) and this was not necessarily solely in reference to the final judgment. I believe he was speaking of the destruction that was to come upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning this judgment, Jesus warned, “there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people” (Luke 21:23). Paul, referring to this judgment on that generation of ethnic Israel declared, “wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (I Thess. 2:16).

Paul speaks clearly about the wrath of God throughout his epistles (Ephes. 2:3, 5:6; Col. 3:6; I Thess. 1:10, 5:9). There are approximately 500 references to God’s anger in the Bible. All of the New Testament writers refer to the judgments rendered in the Old Testament as recurring in the New for similar offenses. These New Testament references should be sufficient scriptural evidence to demonstrate the unchanging character of God and that the wrath of God is a reality in the New Covenant era.

With that as my introduction, allow me to address the question posed by my title: What Ticks God Off? In answering that question I could be overly general, or I could be overly specific, in which case I could attempt to comment on all 500 references to God’s anger. Instead, I will speak to the major reasons for His anger, recognizing that they are same in both old and new economies. Paul establishes this principle in his letter to the Corinthians (See I Cor. 10:1-11).

Paul shows in this passage that the exodus under Moses was typical of the deliverance of the Christian community by Christ (Heb. 3:14-16; Acts 7:37-38). We can not help but see the parallel between these two great historical redemptive acts. But immediately following Paul’s comparison of the two; he writes something that is quite solemn in its message. He says, “But with many [The Amplified Version says “the great majority”] God was not well pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness” (I Cor. 10:5). Heb. 3:11 speaks of this episode with God saying, “I swore in My wrath.” In Psalm 106 we are told by the psalmist that, “They provoked Him to anger with their deeds . . . Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against His people” (Ps. 106:29,40).

This is not Paul simply drawing an object lesson from history, because he then makes the direct analogy to the Corinthians by stating: “Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things, as they also craved.” He then lists four things that “tick God off.” These things are idolatry, immorality, impatience with God, and grumbling (I Cor. 10:7-9). These are obviously four things God doesn’t like. I don’t necessarily believe that this list is all-inclusive of God’s dislikes, but Paul does present us with a good start.

The writer to the Hebrews uses the same illustration of Israel’s disobedience to warn his readers. He quotes the psalmist’s account of God’s punishment of the rebellious and disobedient nation (Heb. 3:7-11; Ps. 95:8-11). Then follows a warning to the Christian community that they not follow the same path (Heb. 3:12). The warning is clear, God’s anger can be manifested toward the new covenant community as well as it was toward the old – and we must take seriously the issue of disobedience. Both God’s anger and His love and mercy should motivate and monitor our attitudes and actions.


Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Was it God, Satan, or Man?

[I wrote almost 10 years ago (October 14, 2001) when I was publishing an e-mail teaching letter entitled "Arrows of Truth." But the message concerning the providence of God is timeless.| 

When we find ourselves stricken with a tragedy of the magnitude which occurred on September 11th, the inevitable question which arises in the minds of believers is: Was it God, Satan, or Man?

I have heard this question answered in recent weeks by theologians, preachers, philosophers, and the “man on the street.”  Some have said it was the Devil, others have said it was God, while others have ascribed it to “an act of wicked men.” Well, which is it? How should we, as Bible believing Christians, respond to this question?

I find the book of Job helpful in addressing this perplexing issue. In the very beginning of the book, we find the blameless and upright Job stricken with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Satan, eager to attack Job’s integrity, manages to wreck havoc upon all of Job’s possessions, ruining all that he owns, driving the Chaldeans to steal his flocks, even killing his children. In the midst of this crisis, which suddenly “slammed” into Job’s life, he makes a surprising statement.   Job’s response was one of faith in a sovereign God, and his instinctive declaration is one of worship and adoration. He exclaimed, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21).

It would be hard to find a more striking affirmation of trust in the utter sovereignty of Almighty God than this – especially in a moment of such extreme devastating loss. John Calvin, commenting on this incident, asked the question: How may we attribute this same work to God, to Satan, and to man as author, without excusing Satan as associated with God, or making God the author of evil?” Calvin’s answer to this question is quite simple.
Calvin points out that there are three different purposes involved in Job’s trial. God’s purpose was to exercise Job’s patience; Satan’s purpose was to cause Job to curse God and cast away his faith; and the Chaldeans were simply out for Job’s property.

Calvin also noted that there is a difference in the manner of the actors in this drama. The Lord sovereignly allowed Satan to afflict His servant, demonstrating that believers are not exempt from Satan’s attacks. God then handed over the Chaldeans to be driven by Satan, having chosen them as his instrument to accomplish this task. Satan then stirred the wicked minds of the Chaldeans, who went forth to commit the criminal deed. They therefore are fully responsible for their evil actions, and come under God’s judgment. In another sense, we can see how Satan acted in the minds of the Chaldeans, and he bears eternal responsibility for his actions
.
God, on the other hand, is also said to act in His own way. Satan, who is the unwilling instrument of God, is used to test Job according to God’s eternal purpose. As John Calvin stated, “We see no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, Satan, and man; but the distinction in purpose and manner causes God’s righteousness to shine forth blamelessly, while the wickedness of Satan and man betrays itself by its own disgrace.”
Calvin made the observation that “certainty about God’s providence helps us in all adversities.” It has been said that, “God’s providence is our confidence.” Remember the example of Joseph, who was betrayed and sold into slavery by his brothers, but saw the hand of God in this event and all that followed. He remarked to his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Likewise, Job recognized the providential work of God in the acts of the Chaldeans. In same manner, we must look beyond the terrorists and their dastardly deeds, to see the God of eternal purposes.
Benjamin B. Warfield, a premier theologian of the 19th century, wrote in his classic Biblical and Theological Studies: “In the infinite wisdom of our Lord of all the earth, each event falls with exact precision into its proper place in the unfolding of His eternal plan; nothing, however small, however strange, occurs without His ordering, or without its peculiar fitness in the working out of His purpose; and the end of all shall be the manifestation of His glory, and the accumulation of His praise.”
If we look only at the acts of men, or ascribe to the Devil the ability to operate outside of God’s control, we may easily give into despair. But if we keep in mind that even the worst acts of sinful men are completely under our sovereign, loving God, we will never give into despair. Even the worst sin ever committed against God in human history was done entirely according to God’s predetermined plan (Acts 2:23)
May God enable us, amidst all the acts of sinful men, and all the frustrations of life, to keep our confidence in His providence. Remember that nothing touches your life, or my life, unless it passes through the hand of God.


Friday, June 17, 2011

Partakers of His Divine Nature

“For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become the partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.” (II Peter 1:4)

Theologians since the time of the early Church fathers have attempted to explain the nature of the believer’s relationship with God. Through the centuries this issue has produced a broad spectrum of ideas. In our attempt to define and bring depth of understanding to God’s revealed truth we must take care to remain within the biblical boundaries. Some have taken the extreme position that believers are, by partaking of the divine nature, brought into a position of virtual equality with God. This view fails to adequately see the scriptural distinction between their union with God, in the divine life and nature, and the unique status of the Godhead possessed by the Trinity alone. They erroneously portray believers as in some way co-equal with God, assuming on some level His divine headship and authority. This appears to be the view of at least some in the “Word of Faith” movement. Their overreaching imprecise statements imply that “union with God” suggests equality with God, an absolute parity with God, and thus, some manner of participation in the Godhead and in those attributes of God which are incommunicable. [In fairness to these brothers, I do not believe they are trying to actually lay claim to a co-equal status with God. These men are not trained theologically and thus in “stretching” to express a truth that they believe they see in the Scriptures; they appear to violate orthodox theological boundaries. They do not place sufficient “fences” around some of their statements. In addition to that, they seem to lack a clear understanding of the sovereignty of God.]

On the other end of the spectrum we have those who only recognize the believer’s judicial relationship with God. This view holds that believers primarily imitate God’s divine communicable attributes rather than partake of them. They deny or dismiss any organic relationship between the Triune God and His redeemed. This teaching minimizes the relationship of the believer to the Father to mere legal status of adoption, wherein the adopted child imitates the adoptive parent’s behavior. I believe that this position is an over-reaction to the apparently extreme view they see as being perpetuated by the Word of Faith teachers. I believe that the Biblical truth lies between these two extremes, embracing the judicial aspect of the believer’s relationship to God and at the same time affirming his union with God in Christ. The Bible never elevates man to the status of equality with God. Even prior to the fall Adam was under God’s direction and authority. God is man’s Creator, and the Potter has non-negotiable power over the clay (Rom. 9:20-21).

A number of authors, in reaction to the exaggeration, confusion, and the error of the Word of Faith teachers, end up throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. These authors have also rejected a number of essential biblical truths concerning the believer’s vital union and identification with God in life and nature. The believer’s relationship with God is more than legal, forensic, and outward. It is more than “union of fellowship,” as one author has called it. This is a limited view of our salvation. The Bible stresses that we are regenerated. According to I Corinthians 6:17: “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” It is more than an “adoptive” status. God Himself indwells us (Rom. 8:9; Ephes. 4:6; Col. 1:27). Jesus told His disciples to expect the Spirit of the Father to be in them (Matt. 10:20). He declared that both He and the Father would be in His believers (John 17:21). It is true that the incommunicable attributes of God are not possessed by the believer – these being self-existence, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, and absolute sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Bible shows us that God has chosen to impart to believers His communicable attributes – these being compassion, graciousness, mercy, slowness to anger, truth, faithfulness, and forgiveness. [See Exodus 34:6-7.] It is incorrect to teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwell the believer apart from the divine life and nature; this would fragment the essence of God. God’s life and nature are received at the moment of regeneration. God brings about the transformation of believers into His image by causing His indwelling life and nature to grow and mature within them (II Cor. 3:17-18). Ultimately, at His return even the physical bodies of believers will be transformed to a glorified state reflectng the glory of Christ (II Thess. 1:10; I John 3:2).

It is scriptural to assert that believers participate in the divine nature, as long as it is made clear that we never become part of the Godhead and never evolve from creature to Creator. (This is the error of Mormonism, which teaches: “As man is, God once was; as God is, men may be.”) What did Peter mean by the statement, “You may become partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4)? Many of the early church fathers saw Peter’s statement as actual union and participation by believers in the divine nature. Origen equated this fellowship of the Spirit with our partaking of the divine nature. He stated, “What is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit? Peter describes this by calling it ‘sharing in the divine nature.’” Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Novatian all said similar things commenting on II Peter 1:4. (See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol.11.) The Venerable Bede commented: “When God blesses us, He changes our very being so that whatever we were by nature is transformed by the gift of the Holy Spirit, so that we may truly become partakers of His nature.”

Many modern Bible scholars have asserted in their writings that partaking of the divine nature is something real and inward. For example, Kenneth S. Wuest states, “The believer is made a partaker of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4). The life of God, surging through His being, causes him to hate sin and love holiness, and produces in him both the desire and the power to do God’s will.” A.T. Robertson considers regeneration as a partaking of the divine nature, as he says concerning II Peter 1:4, “Peter is referring to the new birth as I Peter 1:23.” Henry Alford goes so far to say that the perfect divine nature abides in the believer. He writes that believers are “partakers of the divine nature (i.e. of that holiness, and truth, and love, and, in a word, perfection), which dwells in God, and in you, by God dwelling in you.” I believe that I can say with certainty that none of these men would argue that believers are equal with God, but they have clearly affirmed that God dwells in the believer, bringing His divine nature into their being. God’s purpose in salvation was never to merely grant the forgiveness of sin. God’s purpose is to live in and through His redeemed community.

The whole redemptive work of Christ, from the Incarnation to the Resurrection and Ascension, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit culminate with the believer becoming a partaker of His divine nature as the completion of our salvation.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Ministry of Reconciliation

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the ministry of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor. 5:18-21)

A.W. Tozer stated that, "The cross of Christ is the most revolutionary thing to ever appear among men." I find that as we grow in Christ our understanding of the cross continues to evolve and we find more and more how revolutionary the cross truly is. I am confident that my knowledge of what Christ has accomplished through the cross is incomplete, true but limited, correct, but not grasping the fullness of the truth. The cross of Christ is simple but complex. It is simple enough for a child to understand, yet complex enough for the greatest theological minds to “swim” in the depth of its meaning. I have “swam” in various theological streams as my understanding of the cross has grown and evolved. As I have come more and more to see the agape love of the Father demonstrated through the cross, I have begun to see how revolutionary the cross truly is.

Paul tells us that through the cross, “God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” Does this not mean that we can declare to the vilest sinner that “God is not holding your sins against you?” Is Jesus, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)? Has a pardon has been issued to all of humanity? Has mercy triumphed over judgment (James 2:13)? Is Christ the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2)?

Paul tells that the ministry of reconciliation that has been given to us, as believers, is the proclamation of this message of God’s grace and mercy. God has, through Christ, reconciled the world to Himself. This is not universalism, but rather it is a declaration of the Father embracing all of fallen humanity. It is not inclusivism, which is the view that “all paths lead to God,” but rather it proclaims Christ, as the exclusive mediator, that reconciles fallen humanity to the Father. The cross of Christ is therefore, embracing, but exclusive.

The gospel is not about moralism. Sin and moral behavior is not the issue, God’s grace is. There is nobody in heaven but forgiven sinners, because there was nobody available to go to heaven except forgiven sinners, and there is nobody in hell except forgiven sinners. The difference is that in heaven they accept the forgiveness, in hell they reject it. That's it.

Another important text in this regard is found in Colossians 1:19-20, where Paul says:

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

What does it mean to "reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven" through the cross?

Some have interpreted it to mean that all be saved. This is the universalist interpretation. But because of the way Jesus spoke specifically about judgment, and because of the way the Bible generally treats the subject this interpretation would be in conflict with the whole of Scripture. But what is the text saying? The implications of what Paul says here in Colossians go beyond fallen humanity, but it undoubtedly must include it.

Oswald Chambers had a great deal to say in his writings on the cross. The following quote of his helped me to understand what Paul must be saying here:

“There is nothing more certain in Time or Eternity than what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. He switched the whole human race back into right relationship to God and made the basis of human life Redemptive; consequently any member of the human race can get into touch with God now. It means not simply that men are saved from hell and put right for heaven, but that they are freed from the wrong disposition and can have imparted to them the very disposition of the Son of God, viz., Holy Spirit. . . .On that basis I can be forgiven, and through the forgiveness I can be turned into another man” (Biblical Ethics, 109).

Regarding Colossians 1:19-20, Oswald Chambers states, "We do not worship an austere, remote God; He is here in the thick of it. The Cross is a Reality, not a symbol--at the wall of the world stands God with His arms outstretched" (Biblical Ethics, 109).

I believe that Chambers phrase, "he switched the whole human race back into right relationship with God" gets very close to the point Paul making. It means there is a proper “universalism” in the New Testament even though judgment of faith in Christ is a fearful reality. If we viewed ourselves, and others, as living in a world in which the human race has been "switched" I wonder what this would mean in our dealings with others? How does this effect the way I view my fellow human beings? What does this do to the “us against them” mentality that permeates much of present-day evangelical Christianity. Of this I am certain - any kind of Christianity that roots its doctrine of Christ and the cross in the condemnation of people and the world is not the Christianity of the New Testament.

Ask yourself: Do I believe Jesus came into this world to save it or to condemn it (John 3:17)?

The Glorious Inheritance in Suffering

“The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Rom. 8:16-17)

Suffering is a very tough subject, yet one we are all called to face at some point in our lives. The problem of pain has spawned reams of material by Christian authors, from St. Augustine to C.S. Lewis.

In Romans 8, Paul encourages his fellow believers to persevere in their suffering. This would have meant a great deal coming from Paul because he knew what it was like to suffer. He had been beaten, stoned, thrown in prison, shipwrecked, rejected by his people. He knew hunger and thirst, exhaustion and poverty. He suffered some kind of thorn in his flesh, which might have been a painful illness or disability. Because he was a man who knew suffering in a personal way, each of us can find great encouragement by his letter.

What is suffering? Suffering is quite simply: What I don’t like. That’s all. It may be physical suffering or it may be mental/emotional suffering, but it is suffering because I don’t like it. If I liked it, it really wouldn’t be suffering. I don’t like suffering because it is suffering. But the Bible tells us that suffering is a necessary quality, and you can’t have “glory” without it.

If suffering is the means by which God brings us into His glory, we must ask the next question: What is God’s glory? I have heard people talk all my Christian life about the glory of God, and that God wants to manifest His glory in His people. But when the question is asked: What does the manifested glory of God look like? You generally get a blank stare. The reason being, we have made the “Glory of God” a far more abstract idea than the Bible shows it to be.

In Exodus 33:18, Moses asks to see God’s glory. God says to Moses, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion. But He said ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen’ (Exodus 33:19-23).

In Exodus 34 this comes to pass, and we are told in verse 6 a very interesting thing that gives us a particular understanding of God’s glory. “Then the Lord passed in front of him and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate, and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished . . . ‘ (Exodus 34:6-7). Here we have God’s description of Himself, by His listing seven characteristics:

1) Compassionate
2) Gracious
3) Slow to anger
4) Lovingkindness
5) Truth
6) Forgiveness
7) Justice

God revealed His glory in His character. It’s not all that mystical. And if the Church is to manifest God’s glory this is what it will manifest - these seven characteristics. Manifesting God’s glory is not about lightning coming off the tips of our fingers. It is about reflecting the character of God. When Paul tells us in Romans 3:23 that, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” what is it that he is referring to? He is declaring that we have failed to rise to the standard of these seven characteristics that reveal God’s nature.

For us as believers, that “glory” has already been given to us by Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 17:22), but we, both corporately and individually, often fail to manifest that glory. As Paul tells us, “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (II Cor. 4:7). But like the “vessels” carried by Gideon’s 300, they had to be broken for the light contained inside to shine forth. This is where suffering comes in. Suffering is a means by which God “breaks the vessel,” so that His glory might be revealed, if we respond to it in a proper way. Paul Billheimer, in his book Don’t Waste Your Sorrows: A Study in Sainthood and Suffering, makes this statement, “No one ever becomes a saint without suffering because suffering, properly accepted, is the pathway to glory.”

Peter, I believe speaks to this very thing in his first epistle, when he states, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you” (I Peter 4:12-14). Peter, later in this same epistle, speaks of himself as a “witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed” (I Peter 5:1).

In Romans 8:18 Paul says, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us.” (NAS uses “to” rather than “in.”) Second Corinthians 4:17 states: “For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.” Second Timothy 2:12 says, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.” Why is this important? Because according to Romans 5:3-5 suffering results in godly character and character is a prerequisite for rulership. Since there is no character development without suffering, suffering is a necessary preparation for rulership.

May God enable us to embrace suffering that the character of Christ (God’s glory) might be revealed in us.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

What the Left Behind Series Left Behind (Part II)

In my previous blog, I addressed some of the Biblical interpretation issues raised by the extremely popular Left Behind novels. Though these books are fictional, they nevertheless represent a certain theological approach to the book of the Revelation, and other apocalyptic texts in the Scriptures. This particular view is known as “Dispensationalism.” This view first emerged in the in the 1830’s, and is therefore relatively a “new” interpretative method. As I pointed out in reference to its approach to Revelation, it ignores the intended first century audience and the relevance of this book to them. It insists that this book had little purpose for the first century churches in Asia Minor, to whom it was explicitly written and only has true relevance for those of us living in the present day. For you more scholarly types, this means that the historical-grammatical principle of hermeneutics is ignored. Please understand I do believe that the book of the Revelation has relevance for us today, but we cannot forget that it was written to the seven churches located in Asia Minor, and what it would have meant to them. We apply this principle to interpreting Galatians, the Corinthian letters, Ephesians, etc.; why ignore it when we come to Revelation?

As I pointed out in the previous blog, Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 both show us that the intended audience in the first century was to expect the events described in the book to “soon take place” (Rev. 1:1), for the time was “near” (Rev. 1:3). These “time” words cannot be ignored or “spiritualized.” Philip Mauro, who once held to the prophetic system advocated by Tim LaHaye, but later abandoned it after a thorough study of the Bible, said this: “The very first verse [in Revelation] states that God’s purpose in giving the revelation to Jesus Christ was that he might ‘show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass.’ These words are not at all ambiguous, and the simple minded would never suspect that they could have been intended to convey any other than their ordinary and apparent meaning, namely, that the things foretold in ‘this prophecy’ were to happen in the era that was just then beginning. The word here rendered ‘shortly’ means just that. It is variously translated in other Scriptures by the words quickly, speedily, soon. Thus in Acts 25:4, Festus, after commanding that Paul be kept at Caesarea, said that ‘he himself would depart shortly thither.’ In Philippians 2:19 Paul writes, “I trust to send Timotheus unto you shortly.’ And so also in I Timothy 3:14; Hebrews 13:23; and 2 Peter 1:14. In Galatians 1:6 we have, ‘so soon removed’; in Philippians 2:33, ‘so soon as I shall see how it will go with’; and in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, ‘That ye be not soon shaken in mind.’” [Taken from Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Philip Mauro, (Swengel,PA: Reiner Publications, 1925) pages 24-25] As Philip Mauro has shown by comparing Scripture with Scripture, this word (Greek word -tachos translated as “soon” in the NAS) places the prophecy in a certain time frame, one that was about to occur.

Another issue “left behind” by Tim LaHaye and others, who hold to this dispensationalistic view of prophecy, are the “time frame reference” passages. This are the prophetic passages were Jesus, or others state that certain events will occur within a certain “time frame.” For instance, Jesus said that his disciples “would not finish going through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt. 10:23). Elsewhere, Jesus said: ”Truly, I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). In the Olivet discourse, that section of Scripture many Christians build there understanding of Bible prophecy around, Jesus says; “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). All of these point to a certain time frame in which these prophecies must be fulfilled, in order to be shown to be true. It is passages such as these, which cause the critics of the Bible to charge that Jesus was wrong. The critics, like many believers, mistakenly think that Jesus was speaking of the "Second Coming.” If it was the Second Coming that Jesus was referring to then He is a “false prophet,” which He most certainly is not.

Jesus was not prophesying His return at the end of history in these passages. Instead, He was prophesying His coming in judgment on Jerusalem, which occurred 40 years later in A.D. 70. This significant event, which included the destruction of the temple (Matt.24:2), brought an end to the Old Testament sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. The Lord gave Israel one generation (40 years) in which to repent and accept their Messiah, before judgment would fall. This judgment plays a prominent place in the prophecies of our Lord, yet seemingly many Christians are not aware of that fact. It was the major focus of the Olivet discourse (Matt. 24:3-34), and Jesus referred to this event quite often (Matt. 10:23, 16:27-28, 23:36-38, 26:63-64; Mark 13:3-37; Luke 21:8-28, 23:31). His “coming “ was a coming in judgment, and His use of the phrase “coming on the clouds” (Matt. 24:30) was Old Testament prophetic imagery for His presence, judgment, and salvation (Ps.104:3; Isa. 19:1; Nahum 1:3).

Matthew 24:1-34 is not about a future event for us living in the 21st century, it is about a past event, which occurred in A.D. 70. Gary DeMar in his book entitled Last Days Madness says this, “Of course, a first-century, in contrast to a yet future, fulfillment changes the entire prophetic landscape cultivated by numerous contemporary date setters. Much of contemporary last days madness would be eliminated if Christians could be convinced, through a thorough study of Scripture, that Matthew 24:1-34 is a prophecy that was fulfilled in A.D. 70.”

If all this sounds strange to you, I suggest you read what such men as Matthew Henry, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and Charles Spurgeon had to say about Matthew 24:1-34. You will find it much different than what Tim LaHaye has to say on the matter. You will find that Brother Tim is expressing a view that these historical theologians and Bible commentators know nothing about.

Eusebius, one of the earliest historians in the Church, in his Ecclesiastical History, quotes from Matthew 24:19-21 and states: “These things took place under Vespasian in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists.” What statement of the holy evangelists? Eusebius quotes from Luke’s description of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 19:42-44, 21:20, 23-24). The passages in Luke 21 parallel those in Matthew 24:1-34.

It has been my purpose in this edition to show that there is an alternate view to the one presented in the Left Behind novels. Allow me to recommend some books that will enable you to examine more deeply this subject:

The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul (ISBN: 0-8010-1171-X)

Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar (ISBN: 1-56121-081-1)

An Eschatology of Victory by J. Marcellus Kik (ISBN: 0-87552-313-7)


Originally written in 2002

Friday, May 20, 2011

What the "Left Behind" Series Left Behind

Probably the most amazing phenomena of recent Christian publishing history has been the remarkable success of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Left Behind book series. These novels have been outselling all other Christian literature, with the possible exception of the Bible itself.

It isn’t all that difficult to understand the popularity of this series. We live in uncertain times, a time of rapid change and considerable chaos. The Left Behind novels tap into the curiosity that many have about what the future holds, and what forces are controlling the course of world events. They present an apocalyptic worldview that many Christians have been indoctrinated in due to the influence of what is known as “dispensationalism.” Thirty years ago it was Hal Lindsey with his book, The Late Great Planet Earth, brought dispensational theology with its view of the events surrounding the Second Coming, to the top of The New York Times bestsellers list.

A very central feature of dispensational theology is the belief that Christians will be raptured (“Beamed up” for you Star Trek fans) to heaven, while the earth will undergo seven years of tremendous conflict and turmoil (known as “The Great Tribulation”). Following this time of tribulation Jesus will return. This scheme of Biblical interpretation is relatively new. It first emerged on the scene in the 1830’s, but did not experience wide acceptance until the early 1900’s with the spread of the Scofield Bible. This was not the view of the early Church fathers, it was not the view of the Protestant Reformers, nor was it the view of the Puritans. It was not the view of John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, or Charles Spurgeon (just to name a few). But it is the view of Tim LaHaye, who is advancing it through the fictional Left Behind novels.

The Left Behind series borrows its title from passages like Luke 17:35, in which makes a prophetic statement about two women grinding meal at a mill. Jesus states that on the day that the “Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:30), one woman will be taken and the other left behind. A first-century audience would have understood this to mean one will be taken away in judgment, while the other will escape judgment by remaining where she is. This is clear from the context, which is about a coming judgment—a judgment that, in Jewish literature, everyone is expected to face. This is very different from saying one will be raptured and the other judged.

Of course, those who hold to this dispensational/Left Behind theology claim to base their thinking on the book of the Revelation, and other apocalyptic portions of both the Old and New Testaments. But I would argue that they have failed to take several things into account, in other words they have left some things behind.

For instance, they have left behind the historical context in which these books were written. It ignores the audience to whom these books were initially intended. This by no means negates their significance for future generations, but the intended audience was first of all, believers living in the first century. They understood it as written to them, addressing issues and situations they were facing. The idea that John, the author of Revelation, intended his message to be understood only by a late 20th or 21st century Western Christian audience is both arrogant and ignorant. It flies in the face of what John writes himself in Revelation 2-3. John states quite clearly that his intended audience is to be Christians living in Asia Minor in the first century. To ignore this is a hermeneutical injustice.

Take note of John’s words in the very first verse of the book of the Revelation. He writes: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place . . .” (Rev.1:1). The Revelation, therefore, is primarily concerned with the events that were in the near future for John and his initial readers. It must be stressed that the phrase “soon take place ” (KJV says “shortly take place ”) is the Greek word “tachos” (used in Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7, 22:18, 25:4; Rom. 16:20; Rev.22:6), which would not have been understood by a first century reader to mean anything but soon. The common futurist interpretation of Revelation is refuted in the very first verse.

In Revelation 1:3, to further amplify the issue of the nearness of time, we have John’s use of the phrase “for the time is near” (Greek word – eggus). This word is at times translated as “at hand” (John 2:13, 6:4, 7:2, 11:55). John is emphasizing to his first century audience the need to heed and obey the instructions of this book because the crisis was upon them.

The Left Behind novels, though they are not written as theology, represent a particular theological perspective. This perspective ignores the original historical context and distorts the book of the Revelation in to a cryptical message that could only be understood by a generation that was 1,900 years in the future after its writing. The idea, for example, that the book of Revelation has coded references to people, places, and events that where hundreds of years in the future (Saddam Hussein, Iraq, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden) would have made no sense at all to the original audience to whom it was written. All that this dispensationalist perspective proves is the old adage that “a text taken out of context can be a pretext for anything.” (Why are these dispensationalist interpreters always shown to be wrong in their predictions, yet there is never any public repentance for their “false prophecies”?)

One of the primary rules in interpreting the Scriptures, including the book of the Revelation, is “What it meant to the original audience is still what it means today.” It was God’s revelation to them first. It is our job to do the best we can to read such words in their original historical and theological context.

Originally written in 2002

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Playing the Eschatological Guessing Game

I have not written as much on my blog as I intended to this year. Nevertheless, I do want to post something that I wrote back in 2001. With Harold Camping announcing that the rapture of the Church will take place this Saturday (May 21st), we are reminded once again of the ridiculousness that Christians often engage in trying to predict the future based upon their eschatological interpretation. Harold Camping is an extreme example of this, but there have been many attempts to do similiar things.

There seems to an irresistible urge among many preachers to engage in a prophetic “guessing game” regarding current events. This desire apparently strikes the strongest when a national or world crisis occurs. Like the political pundits who rush forward to express their opinions on domestic, foreign or military policy; these prophetic pundits rush forward to show how the current events fit into an apocalyptic scenario. Immediately books are written, tapes are produced, and charts are revised to interpret the crisis, and where it fits in the eschatological puzzle. New candidates for the Antichrist emerge, the harlot of Babylon is re-examined, and the timetable for Armageddon re-written.

For those of us who have been around awhile, we’ve seen this before. The names of the players change, but the game remains. Yes prophecy fans, it’s “guessing time” again. Another opportunity to lose credibility. Fortunately, the pain of past losses are soon forgotten when a new season begins. The scars of past seasons have healed over and hope springs eternal that, “this time we’ve got it right.” The veterans of this game know the fans have a very short memory, and the rookies are fearless in their proclamation of “truth.” Money can be made: write a novel, produce a movie, start a TV program. Truly the opportunities are endless.

Undoubtedly, we will once again hear that familiar cry, “The Lord told me” coming forth from the charismatic players. While on the other side of the field our evangelical and fundamentalist brethren will declare “The Bible says.” The fans will line up behind their favorite players and debates will rage. The word “heretic” will fill the air, along with such terms as “scoffer” and “false prophet.” Too bad Ol’ Edgar “88 Reasons” Whisenant seems to have retired. Players like that only come along once in a lifetime. There was a player who was not afraid to “swing for the fences,” and even though he struck out, he refused to leave the batter’s box. His sequel “89 Reasons” was a revisionist classic, truly a hallmark of Christian literature.

This all would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. It is not only the cults who have erroneously issued apocalyptic warnings. Christian leaders have time and time again, thrown away their credibility by playing this game. Unfortunately, the events of September 11th have kicked off a new round of speculations. I am not questioning the sincerity of the prognosticators, only their wisdom. Time has shown that there have been many sincere, God-loving, men and women who predicted future events based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures and been wrong. In fact, many times over the past one hundred years evangelical leaders have cried, “Wolf,” regarding Armageddon, the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, and various other so-called “end-time” events. I suggest we call for a moratorium on such declarations.

Dwight Wilson, (a premillennial, Assemblies of God minister and professor of history), has written an important book entitled Armageddon Now. He has chronicled the failed prophetic predictions of many well-known leaders since the turn of the last century. In writing this book he hoped to sound a warning to preachers, to avoid making the same mistake. Nevertheless, many of his peers seem to ignore such warnings and march in “where angels fear to tread.”

One of the best known forecasters stated in 1975 with great certainty, “The Soviet flag will fly over Independence Hall in Philadelphia by 1976.” Another popular preacher virtually guaranteed that the Tribulation would begin in 1982 following a Russian invasion of Israel. Still another prophecy teacher wrote, “ I am convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before 1981.” All of these men are well-recognized leaders, and to my knowledge have never publicly repented for their “false prophecy.” In addition, it appears that these statements are quickly forgotten, or excused by most of the Body of Christ. We certainly were not so generous when the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Herbert W. Armstrong missed it.

But what is more harmful than simply the failed forecasts, is the way this causes the Bible to be viewed. The Bible is not a collection of predictions, like the writings of Nostradamus. It is not a “code book” through which we are to ascertain the future. Such an approach lowers the Bible from the place and purpose for which it was given. It is the record of God’s Covenant. The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical history. The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical law. The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical prophecy. The Old Testament prophets were not into “foretelling” the future as their primary task. Their task was to call Man back to the Covenant. The purpose of prophecy is not “prediction,” but evaluation of man’s response to the Covenant. Because the covenantal context of the Bible has been ignored; it has been reduced in the minds of many, to being nothing more than the basis for speculations. It is seen as an interesting book, in which many mysteries are hidden concerning the future of mankind, not unlike the Great Pyramid of Cheops.

Alas, I suppose the “eschatological guessing game” will continue. It’s become a pretty big business you know. Maybe someday soon we will be able to buy our “prophecy books” at the supermarket checkout counter, along with The National Inquirer.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Prayer and the Prophethood of the Believer

Seldom have I met a believer that has not struggled maintaining a consistent, disciplined prayer life. I know this has been a challenge in my own spiritual journey. I have found it easier to study the Bible, meditate, worship, tithe, and exercise almost all the other disciplines of the Christian life, than it has been to pray.

How can we overcome this lack of prayerfulness? Why do we have this “mass discipline problem” when it comes to pray? Do we not love God and want to spend time in His presence? Why then is our prayer life so far from what we know it should be?

Is the issue lack of discipline? Certainly, a consistent prayer life takes discipline; there is no way around that fact. But, the lack of discipline is rooted in a lack of vision. True vision is what motivates us to be disciplined. Proverbs 29:18 says, “Where there is no vision the people are unrestrained”. In other words, vision causes people to be restrained, i.e.; disciplined. Our vision of prayer has not been adequate to produce discipline.

It is my purpose in this teaching, to increase our vision as to what prayer is all about. Prayer is not a game or a religious exercise. It is the means by which God has chosen to engage us in the “running” of His universe.

One commonly neglected aspect of prayer is its prophetic character. We generally think of a prophet as one who speaks to people on behalf of God. This true of the prophetic role, but it is also inadequate. The Biblical concept of the prophet is much greater. Scripture shows us that the prophet can speak to man because he has first listened, and spoken to God.

The prophet in the Old Testament was one who had been granted the unique privilege of entering the very presence of God, and His angels, to witness the deliberations of the heavenly council (Psalm 89:7). Not only was he allowed access to these discussions, he was also a participant (See I Kings 22:19-22, Isaiah 6:1-8, Ezekiel 1-3, 10).

The Bible reveals that God does nothing without consulting with His servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7). An example of this is God coming down to meet with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33). It was on the basis of having “stood in the council of the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:18) that distinguished the true prophet from the false (Jeremiah 23:22).

The very first occurrence of the word “prophet” in the Bible is not in connection with “prophesying.” Instead, it is in connection with the prophet Abraham interceding for someone who is suffering under the judgment of God (Gen. 20:7). The characteristic activity of a prophet is intercession. This is shown to us concerning Abraham and his role in interceding for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33). Here he actually “argues” with God, attempting to get God to change His mind. Some have seen this as presumptuous, but that is not the case. The Biblical prophet is on such close terms with God that he can argue his case before Him (See Job 13:3-15). In the Old Testament, we find the prophets engaging God in debate, interceding, and mediating for others (Exod. 32:7-14; Amos 7:1-6). God and His prophets can speak frank and openly with one another (Gen. 18:17; Exod. 33:11). Take note of the prayers of the great prophets recorded in Scripture – Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, and David. They were strong personalities who were so confident in their relationship with God that they actually debated with Him and tried to change His mind – and were often successful.

Under the Old Covenant this prophetic privilege of intercession was limited to a select few. No one could appoint himself as a prophet. One had to be chosen by God. One had to be spoken to by God. One had to be empowered by the Holy Spirit. This did not happen to everyone. The prophets were a special group.

Certainly it is true that all of God’s people could pray under the Old Covenant. But it was God’s prophets, who were given a special place of access to the “heavenly council” that meets around the throne of God (See I Kings 22:19-23). Being a prophet was not merely being God’s messenger, but being a member of God’s Divine Council. Abraham Heschel, in his book The Prophets, has written:

“The prophet claims to be far more than a messenger. He is a person who stands in the presence of God (Jeremiah 15:19), who stands ‘in the council of the Lord’ (Jeremiah 23:18), who is a participant, as it were, in the council of God, not a bearer of dispatches whose function is limited to being sent on errands. He is a counselor as well as a messenger.”

The theological scholar, George Vandervelde stated it in this manner:

“[The prophets] are not only privy to the divine council (I Kings 22:19-23; Isaiah 6:1-5), they were participants in God’s plans. When God announces judgment, the prophet is not afraid to challenge God. Amos asks God to forgive Israel, because Jacob is so small (Amos 7:2). As Heschel aptly puts it, Amos does not say, ‘Thy will be done,’ but ‘Thy will be changed.’ And in the case of Amos the Lord concedes. He repents: ‘It shall not be, said the Lord’ (Amos 7:3). The pivotal role of the prophet as one who stands in the council of the Lord and who becomes a partner in the unfolding of God’s covenant plans of judgment and salvation is crucial for understanding the way in which the New Testament people as a whole may be considered prophetic people.”

Moses longed to see the day when this blessing of intimate fellowship would be available to all of God’s people. “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them” (Num. 11:29). The cry of Moses’ heart was fulfilled in Christ’s institution of the New Covenant. Jesus’ parting instructions to His disciples reflect the transformation about to take place with the Church. He taught them about the Holy Spirit and prayer (John 14-16). He then revealed the intimacy of relationship, like that of the prophets, they were being brought into. He says to them: “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15).

We are called as followers of our Lord Jesus Christ to be His friends. We are friends of the King. The King’s Friend was his closest counselor ((I Kings 4:5; II Sam. 15:32-17:15; I Chron. 27:33), which helps explain the depth of the statement that Abraham was God’s Friend (James 2:23; II Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; Gen. 18:17). In the New Covenant we all have become the King’s Friends. If we truly saw this truth, it would motivate us toward more intimate fellowship with the Lord in prayer. To quote from George Vandervelde once again: “Through the Spirit every believer is taken into God’s confidence. God’s basic plans regarding the world and His means of accomplishing those plans are disclosed in Christ through the Spirit. We are far more privileged ‘friends of Christ’ than Abraham ever was, for we know what the Father is doing.”

John the Baptist was the greatest prophet of the Old Covenant, according to Jesus, yet through the New Covenant, the least in the Kingdom of God is greater (Matt. 11:7-14). Those of us living under the New Covenant often fail to recognize the tremendous privilege that we have. With the establishment of the New Covenant through His blood, His resurrection, His ascension into the presence of God as the covenantal head of His people, and the outpouring of the Spirit, things have dramatically changed. The Church has access to the throne of God in Jesus’ name. We are to come into His presence with confidence (Heb. 4:16). [The Greek word parrhesia, translated as “confidence,” means: freedom in speaking, unreserved, open and frank, without concealment, ambiguity or circumlocution, free and fearless, cheerful courage, and boldness.]

Let us not miss the significant miracle at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), which was that the believers were speaking in other tongues. Peter declared that this was the sign that the Spirit had been poured out upon the Church, and that all had become prophets (Acts 2:16-18). Moses’ desire to see “the prophethood of all believers” was now beginning to be fulfilled. Christians are prophets (as well as priests) individually and corporately. This does not mean that we all stand in the office of the prophet (Ephes. 4:11), but it does mean that we called to speak God’s Word to our culture, and most importantly we are given the privilege of intercession.

We must also recognize that there is tremendous power in the corporate prayer of God’s people. The Church meets as the heavenly council before God’s throne, one great assembly united in prayer (Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24). When the King’s Friends agree together, their influence upon decisions is multiplied (Matt. 18:19-20). If we saw that in our gathering together to pray we involved in shaping the future of the world (Rev. 8:3-5), it would transform the “weakly” prayer meeting.

We, like the prophets under the Old Covenant, have been brought before the heavenly council that meets before God’s throne. We are not only privileged to listen to the discussion, as Micaiah did, (See I Kings 22:19-23) but to actually enter into the deliberation – like Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, and Amos did. Undoubtedly, we must remember that God is God, He is the Sovereign Lord and does as He pleases (Ps. 115:3). He does not have to take our advice; but Jesus said that He often will (John 14:13-14). In fact, we are told to expect affirmative answers to our prayers (Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13), and that we should keep asking until we get the answers we want (Luke 11:5-8; 18:1-8). James 4:2 tells us that “you do not have because you do not ask.”

In the New Covenant, Christ refers to His people as the “ekklesia” (Matt. 16:19, 18:17). The word ekklesia, which is translated as church or assembly in the English Bible, was a Greek political term denoting those within the citizenry who were “called out to rule.” It was the ekklesia who made fundamental political and judicial decisions. We, as believers, are “called out to rule” with Christ (Rom. 5:17). Like the Old Testament prophets, who were brought into His council we as the ekklesia of God have conferred on us that privilege, I believe that this is what Paul means in Ephesians 2:6, when he states that “we are seated in heavenly places?” It is in the “heavenly places” that decisions are made. What was, under the Old Covenant, limited to a select few has, under the New Covenant, been made available to us all. We are “seated in the heavenly council.” Unfortunately, some of us have vacated our seat.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

The Resurrection of the Body

It has only occurred to me recently the importance that the New Testament places on the resurrection of the body. The focus of the New Testament is resurrection, not immortality. The great hope of Christians is the resurrection of the body. When we are converted, God places within us His Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:11). Paul tells us that the Spirit Who quickened (or enlivened or resurrected) Christ’s mortal body will resurrect ours also. In other words, immortality is a gift of God fully secured by our future bodily resurrection. We presently possess eternal life because of the Holy Spirit residing within us Who will one day raise us up, just as He raised up our Lord. In the Bible, immortality is not the state of the soul — it is the condition of the whole man at the resurrection. Jesus as much as says this in Luke 20:36 — deathlessness is the benefit of the resurrection, not of disembodiment. In fact, immortality is the resurrection.

Millard Erickson wrote in his Christian Theology: “The liberal who wished to maintain some sort of continuing life after death replaced the idea of the resurrection of the body with the immortality of the soul. Although the body may die and decompose, the soul, being immortal, lives on.”

Dr. N.T. Wright in his book entitled Following Jesus makes this observation:

“Most Christians, if pressed, would express their future hope in terms of leaving this world and going to another one, called ‘heaven’. But here, at the climactic moment of one of the greatest New Testament books, the heavenly city comes down to earth. To be sure, God’s people go to heaven when they die; they pass into God’s dimension of reality, and we see them no more. But Easter unveils the truth beyond the truth of mere ‘survival’, beyond the truth even of ‘heaven’; the truth that God’s kingdom shall come, and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Our ultimate destiny is not a disembodied heaven, just as the ultimate destiny of this created world is not to be thrown away, abandoned as secondary or shabby. It’s the tyrants who want to blow the world to bits. God wants to re-create it.”

Oscar Cullmann’s classic, stunning contrast (“Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead: The Witness of the New Testament”) between the deaths of Socrates, the epitome of ancient Greek thinking, and Jesus Christ, our Lord. He writes:

“The death of Socrates is a beautiful death. Nothing is seen here of death’s terror. Socrates cannot fear death, since indeed it sets us free from the body. Whoever fears death proves that he loves the world of the body, that he is thoroughly entangled in the world of the senses. Death is the soul’s great friend. So he teaches; and so, in wonderful harmony with his teaching, he dies — this man who embodied the Greek world in its noblest form.
And now let us hear how Jesus dies. In Gethsemane he knows that death stands before him, just as Socrates expected death on his last day. The synoptic gospels furnish us, by and large, with a unanimous report. Jesus begins “to tremble and be distressed,” writes Mark. “My soul is troubled, even to death,” he says to his disciples. Jesus is so thoroughly human that he shares the natural fear of death. Jesus is afraid ... He is afraid in the face of death itself. Death for him is not something divine; it is something dreadful. Only he who apprehends with the first Christians the horror of death, who takes death seriously as death, can comprehend the Easter exultation of the primitive Christian community and understand that the whole thinking of the New Testament is governed by belief in the resurrection. Belief in the immortality of the soul is not belief in a revolutionary event. Immortality, in fact, is only a negative assertion: the soul does not die, but simply lives on. Resurrection is a positive assertion: the whole man, who has really died, is recalled to life by a new act of creation by God. Something has happened — a miracle of creation! For something has also happened previously, something fearful: life formed by God has been destroyed."

Death in itself is not beautiful, not even the death of Jesus. This is what we are confronted with in Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ. The only “beauty” found in Christ’s death is in its purpose as the ultimate expression of love as He bore the wrath of God. Death is referred to in the Scriptures as an enemy. Whoever has not grasped the horror of death cannot join Paul in the hymn of victory: “Death is swallowed up — in victory! O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (I Cor. 15:55). Jesus has conquered death and He is the first fruits of those who await the resurrection of the body (I Cor. 15:20). This is why Easter is such a blessed event for the believer. Our resurrection is tied to His resurrection (I Cor. 15:23).
He is Risen!

Friday, February 11, 2011

The Lessons of History

Before anyone gets too excited about the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and begins proclaiming this as a great step for democracy in the Middle East, they would do well to examine the lessons of history. Allow me to point out a few from the last 100 years.
  • Czar Nicholas of Russia was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and Lenin began the Communist regime that led to the death of 30 million (conservative estimate).
  • Chiang Kai-shek was overthrown by the followers of Mao Tse-Tung in China, resulting in the imprisonment and slaughter of what some have estimated to be 60 million Chinese.
  • Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue took control of Cambodia and murdered between 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians.
  • Fidel Castro and his forces overthrew the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, creating a communist state that has put death an estimated 100,000 Cubans.
  • The Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini and created an Islamic state that threatens the peace of the Middle East.

Was today, February 11, 2011, a great day for Egypt and the world? Time will tell.

The Chaos in Egypt and The Unshakable Kingdom

Mubarak's speech, telling the Egyptian people that he had stepped aside and was no longer running the government, brought to mind the scene in the Wizard of Oz when Toto discovers the "Wizard" behind the curtain manipulating the controls producing the "giant talking head." The Wizard says, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Mubarak was telling the people in the streets of Cairo to "ignore the man behind the curtain." I seriously doubt that the protesters are that stupid. Promising reforms, elections in September, and supposedly turning the reins of the nation over to his vice-president, who is the former chief of intelligence, is like throwing a bone to a raging pit bull. It only sets the stage for more chaos and bloodshed in the streets. The fuse on the dynamite has already been lit, and Mubarak's patronizing speech, expressing his sorrow for those who have died in the streets, falls on deaf ears.

It appears to me that the United States has been left on the sidelines in this conflict. Mubarak is a dictator, but he is "our dictator." He has been an ally in the war on terrorism, he has helped maintain peace in the Middle East, and has helped serve our national interests while we supplied them with billions in foreign aid. On the other hand, the United States cannot ignore a cry for "democracy" without looking complicit with an oppressive regime. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The wild card in all this is the "Muslim Brotherhood" and the influence they are exerting in this climate of chaos. If one examines the history of this group formed in the 1920's, you find that they had ties with Nazi Germany, and have been a breeding ground for Al-Qada. The leadership vacuum that can be left by Mubarak's removal, which I believe will ultimately come, sets the stage for a far worse situation in the Middle East as the fire spreads beyond the Egyptian borders.

If I did not believe in a sovereign God who rules over the affairs of men, and the power of prayer, knowing that he is still seated upon His throne, I would be unduly alarmed. But I do believe in these things, and rest in the fact that He is in control. Hebrews 12:28 tells us that we, as believers in Christ, have received "a kingdom that that cannot be shaken." Though the kingdoms of this world are being shaken, economically and politically, God's kingdom remains unshaken.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Remembering Reagan and Rise of Political Consciousness

Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States. Whatever one's opinion may be of his presidency, one must acknowledge that Reagan served our nation at what was a crucial time in our history. He was the "Great Communicator," who brought pride back to America after Watergate and the "malaise" of the Ford- Carter years. When he died in June 2004, I wrote the following article to call attention to one aspect of Reagan's influence.

In August 1980 a significant event occurred which changed the course of evangelical Christianity here in the United States. That event was the National Affairs Briefing. Evangelical pastors and laymen gathered to receive a “briefing” on what the could do to restore the moral foundations of our nation. Held in Dallas, it was touted as the largest gathering of its type in history. Ronald Reagan was the only candidate for president who agreed to attend, and the conservative, grass-roots views expressed at that gathering convinced him that Christians were serious about having a political voice. Reagan’s opening statement was, "I realize this is a bipartisan meeting and you can’t endorse me, but I want you to know that I endorse you!" If you want to date the origin of the Republican Party's evangelical swing vote, date it with that meeting. Reagan made it happen.

Prior to that time most evangelical leaders were uninvolved politically (with certain exceptions) and disinterested in the “dirty” business of politics. Most of us who were old enough to vote in 1976 voted for Jimmy Carter, not because of the political platform on which he stood, but because he was unashamedly a “born again” Christian. But after four years of the peanut farmer from Georgia, and the continual decline of “traditional moral values,” evangelical Christians were beginning to be awakened politically out of a long slumber.

In the Presidential election of 1980 evangelicals turned out in large numbers to support the Reagan candidacy. Suddenly voting became a Christian duty. Politics began to be viewed as “spiritual” and believers became aware of political issues. It was the dawn of a new day for many of us. Certainly there were others besides Reagan responsible for this new political consciousness, but Ronald Reagan was the candidate that believers felt they could rally around. He was a man who held firm convictions, a man who spoke about his confidence in God, and a man who was aware of the threat of atheistic communism.

Since that time we have faced many disappointments. The triumphalism that some of us expressed in those days has met with reality. Undoubtedly at times we placed too much confidence in the arm of “political” flesh. We were naive and at times were taken advantage of by the politically ambitious. We at times “married” the Kingdom of God to the Republican Party. But nevertheless, 1980 was a turning point for many of us. We can never go back to the retreatism of the old days. In 1980 I began a journey, which continues to this day, to seek to understand how God’s Kingdom is to effect the social and political agendas of this present world. Ronald Reagan helped start me on that journey for which I am grateful.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Head, Heart, and Hand

“’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind’. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:38-40)

Jesus tells us that loving God involves the whole person. For that reason I have entitled this entry, “Head, Heart, and Hand,” to describe the lifestyle of a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. To follow the Lord fully it must involve my head (intellect), my heart (emotions), and my hand (serving others). To exclude one aspect in favor of another is to rend what should be a “seamless garment.”

Different groups within the Body of Christ have picked up on aspect or another of these three dimensions and made that the “whole” rather than a “part.” Some have focused on the heart - to them it is “better felt-than-telt.” Some have focused on the head – to them the knowledge of how to parse a Greek verb, or how to define supralapsarianism is of primary importance. Others have focused on the hand – to them the primary issue is that we are “saved to serve humanity.” Some believers are like the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, without a brain. Others are like the tin man without a heart. While others never venture out of Oz, to help those along the “yellow brick road.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not putting any of these groups down because of their particular emphasis. But Christianity was never to be merely a “heart-felt religion” that was based upon feelings and emotional stirring. But neither was it meant to be merely a theological “head trip” that turns our faith into an intellectual exercise. Then again, Christianity is not another “social service agency” that simply turns believers into welfare workers. Yet, when the heart joins with the head and the hand, the whole Christ is made visible through His people.

My own journey has been through these various “parts” of the Body. I was converted in a Salvation Army church, managed a Salvation Army thrift store, and was preparing to enter the ministry as a Salvation Army officer. I then became involved with Pentecostals and charismatics. There I encountered people who carried a passion for the Lord that they were not afraid to express outwardly. (As a point of clarification, I do not mean to imply that non-charismatics are necessarily passionless or emotionally suppressed.) I later encountered reformed theology, I began to study Greek, I became a student of church history, I read Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til, R.J. Rushdoony, R.C. Sproul, and many others. (I recall speaking to R.C. Sproul many years ago, telling him I was the pastor of a charismatic church. His comment, spoken in all seriousness, was, “I love charismatics, they know how to worship, they know how to pray, and now some of them are starting to study the Bible.”) My journey has been through the hand, the heart, and the head. In this journey I have come to realize that each has its place, and that I need all of these parts to be a true disciple. I do not want a faith that has been “dumbed down,” nor do I want a faith that is passionless, and I do want to live in a Christian ghetto that is out of touch with the needs of the world.

I previously wrote something that I believe has application here:

“There is symmetry to Biblical truth that must be properly maintained. Paul admonished the Ephesian elders to follow his example and "preach the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), recognizing the necessity for the balancing of one truth with other truths. This is not to say that with an individual, church, or ministry there will not be a particular emphasis, but not at the exclusion of other truths.

There is a word called "equipoise" which refers to a body standing erect and balanced on two feet. The Body of Christ needs both feet, firmly planted on the Word of God, in order to properly stand. It’s not a matter of choosing either the right foot or the left foot. We need both in order to stand.”

May God grant us, both individually and corporately, to bring these three areas together in balanced way.