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 11^th, 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 19^th 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.