Archive for the ‘Topical Studies’ Category

Can you trust something that has mistakes?

Posted: June 4, 2012 in authority of the Bible, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, Uncategorized
0

Well, there is no way to avoid this post where things could hit the fan.  In the last post, we established that the Bible claims to be the word of God, absolutely inspired and trustworthy.  However, we also saw that in our modern translations, there is disagreement on passages due to manuscript issues.  So, even if we say that the autographs (original copies) are without error, what can we say about the copies that we have?

At this point, we have to separate our discussion of the trustworthiness of Scripture into two terms:  inerrant and infallible.  Biblical inerrancy means that you believe that the Bible is free from errors.  However, some scholars prefer using the term infallible, and clarify that the Bible is totally true in regards matters of faith and the character and nature of God, but may contain errors as regards numbers or insignificant details that don’t change the doctrine of Christianity.  Others go farther with infallibility, and say that the Bible may also contain scientific or historical error, but that doesn’t affect the principles of the faith.

I believe that based on the Scriptures we have studied,  the autographs were inerrant.  I don’t believe that the Bible has scientific or historical errors.  Some of the supposed scientific errors are a misinterpretation based on a lack of understanding of the type of literature being used.  Poetry uses imagery and does not need to adhere to a strict literalism.  Again, the problem is that we don’t have the originals, and at times there is a difference in the manuscript copies we have.  We will discuss canon issues later, but as we look at differences in numbers between Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel, it can also leave one with questions like the earlier passages we looked at in Mark and Samuel.

Could we have a view of Biblical infallibility that states that God has preserved the majority of the Scriptures in the exact form of the autographs, and the very few places of disagreement or unclarity do not bring any challenges to theological doctrine?  For example, knowing how old Saul was and how long he reigned will not change any theological statements at all.  None of the possible endings of Mark introduce any new material that would be different from what is presented in the other 3 Gospels.   The bottom line is that for a work of this size, from this many authors, over this span of time, there is incredibly few passages where we have questions.  The large majority of the Bible has thousands of copies that agree on the content.

Remember that at the beginning of this series, I stated that you need faith and that you can’t prove the Bible is true by human reason alone.  You have to have faith that God has had His hand on this book over thousands of years, in order that we might have a trustworthy account of Him and His redemptive plan.  I worry that if we try to hold to a view that our current Bible has no questioned passages or number disagreements, then we are backing ourselves into a corner that will be difficult to defend against intelligent atheists.  Let’s pull our head out of the sand, and say that the Bible is totally trustworthy and none of the questioned areas affect any major tenants of our faith.  Our Western scientific, detailed bound brains at times are a hindrance to matters of the faith.

The amazing thing is that as more and more ancient manuscripts are found (like the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Bible is just getting more and more accurate, and having more attestation close to the original time of writing.  We are not taking an illogical leap of faith, but one based on logic, reason, and evidence.  It is more like a small step of faith if you ask me.  Next, we will look at the Gospels and the so called “contradictions”, some claim they have.

The Bible says we should trust it

Posted: June 3, 2012 in authority of the Bible, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

Finally, we get to some Bible verses that actually will help answer the question about whether we can trust the Bible or not!  Some will immediately point out the lack of logic in that last statement.  Of course, the Bible is going to claim to be true, but that is like going into court with only yourself as a witness.  If you don’t believe the Bible is true, then these verses have no impact whatsoever.  Kind of a slippery slope here.  And yes, I know that most of us have heard the first verse a thousand times, but that is because the 2 Timothy passage is absolutely foundational.  Just because we need additional witness (see the first post on this question), and we have heard it before, we still need to start here.

Let’s get right to it.  Paul is writing what he thinks might be his last letter to Timothy, facing imminent execution in Rome.  He is passing on his ministry to Timothy, and is reaffirming key teaching he has given to him.  In 3:16, he says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”  First, we must establish here that “Scripture” to Paul is what we know today as the Old Testament.  When we talk about the canon later, it will be clear that by Paul’s day, the Hebrew canon was well established.  The Greek word translated as “breathe” here is translated as “inspired” in other translations.  The connection is to Genesis 2:7 when God created man and “breathed” life into him.  Just as God created life in man, so He has created Scripture to communicate with mankind.

The next step comes in 2 Peter 3:15-16, as Peter is addressing how false teachers are twisting both the Old Testament (Scriptures) and the letters of Paul.  Here is how explains it, “just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”  Even Peter, the rock of the church, admits that there are hard things to understand in Paul’s letters!  That makes me feel better about Romans 9 – 11.  What I want to point out is that I see Peter equating Scripture with Paul’s writing (in bold). Peter is writing this around 64 AD, and as a leader of the church, he is clearly communicating that Paul’s writings are already considered as “Scripture”.

The Old Testament is pretty clear about how serious the Hebrews took calling something the Word of God.  Deuteronomy 18:20 states, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.”  That seems like they are taking this seriously.  I know this is about prophets, but you need to understand that Moses the prophet wrote the Pentateuch, Joshua through Kings is called the former prophets, and Isaiah to Malachi is called the latter prophets (Daniel is actually placed among the Writings).  So, Jews considered the writers of the Old Testament as prophets as they were communicating the message and words of God (their definition was obviously more broad than ours today).  By the way, I am not advocating stoning anyone to death if they don’t believe in the Bible. Not cool.

Revelation 22:18-19 says, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”  Just like the Old Testament, the New Testament books also show us how God sees these books and letters.  They were given a status above and beyond any other writings of Israel or the church.  They were considered trustworthy, authoritative, and sacred.  God Himself spoke them through the authors so that man might know who God is, and what His redemptive plan set out to accomplish in Christ.

Now it is time for a personal, Bible nerd tick.  I can’t write in Bibles without feeling wrong, guilty, or outright sacrilegious.  I don’t stand on Bibles or feel right if they are on the floor.  I can’t stand seeing a page of the Bible get folded or crumpled.  I know, I know, I have Bible OCD.  To me though, the Bible is a special, priceless object containing the very words of God.  I don’t give a rip whether it has a calf skin cover (cows can thank me later), gold leaf letters, or the words of Jesus in red, but holding something in my hands that is God breathed just gets to me.  How about you?

So, does the Bible have mistakes or not???

Posted: June 2, 2012 in authority of the Bible, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

As a teacher, sometimes you have to start by showing people things that they might not want to see, and could end up making them feel very uncomfortable.  No, I am not talking about old pictures of me when I had a perm like Kirk Cameron.  I am speaking of things in the Bible that we would rather not see and just pretend that they are not there.  Before discussing Biblical inerrancy, there are two passages of Scripture that I have to show you.  You can thank me later.

Mark 16 starts off with a bang, as the women go to the tomb after Jesus’ crucifixion only to discover that Jesus isn’t there! He has risen!  Verse 8 leaves us on the edge of our seat, waiting to see what happens next, “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”  Unfortunately, what follows after that is rather odd.  Most modern translations have the following messages either above the text or in the footnotes below:

Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.  Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20.

I used to love a series of books when I was a kid called Choose Your Own Adventure, where you could make choices while reading the book that changed the ending of the story.  I am not sure how comfortable I am with the end of a Gospel being turned into a Choose Your Ending to the Life of Jesus.  Wait, it gets better.  In Samuel 13:1, it seems like the author wants to tell us how old Saul was when he began his kingship and how long he reigned.  Here is how it reads in one translation, “Saul was ___ years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel _____ two years.”  Yes folks, some people’s Bibles actually come with fill in the blanks, literally.  Here is what your footnote says about this verse:

As in a few Greek manuscripts; the number is missing in the Hebrew.  Hebrew reigned . . . and two; the number is incomplete in the Hebrew.

So, the translators are basically telling you that the Hebrew manuscript is missing the numbers that would be needed to understand this sentence, so they have filled it in based on other Scriptures or a few Greek manuscripts.  That makes me feel better. Why do I start out with these two passages?  Any discussion on Biblical inerrancy must begin with an admission that we must separate inerrancy of the autographs from the transmission through manuscripts.  Say what, Bible nerd?  Autograph is a fancy way of saying the original letter or scroll that the actual author wrote; for example the original copy of the letter that Paul sent to the church of Galatia.  Transmission through manuscripts is how it has been copied through the years and passed on to us today.

If we hold to the first tenant of Biblical inerrancy, then we believe that the autographs were without any errors or mistakes.  Unfortunately, as of today, we have exactly ZERO autographs.  Some of the New Testament copies are very close to the original time of writing, but are still copies of copies at best.  The other fact that we have to acknowledge is that Bible translators make decisions that affect the meaning of Scripture.  For example, Isaiah 7:14 reads in the ESV, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” However, if you look up this same verse in a NRSV Bible, it says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”

Hmm…. This is a pretty important verse in the Bible since it is a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus which is quoted in the New Testament.  So, should it be “virgin” or “young woman/maiden”?  Even the NASB puts “or maiden” in the footnote, even though it chooses “virgin” for the actual verse.  Of course, hordes of Protestants ditched the NRSV for decisions like this, but it shows you that we are not talking about inerrancy of a TRANSLATION at this point either (more fun on that later).  As dear as that old King James Bible might be to many, there were even more manuscript questions back then as fewer ancient manuscripts had been unearthed.

Just cut to the chase already and tell us if the Bible has mistakes or not already!  All we can conclude from this post is that we have to begin with deciding if the autographs were without error or not.  As a preview, I will say that I believe that the autographs were without error based on two Scriptures we will discuss more in the next post, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:15-16.  Until then…

Can you prove that the Bible is true?

Posted: June 1, 2012 in authority of the Bible, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

I guess it makes sense the main question that I get asked as a Bible teacher is, “Can you really trust the Bible?  Is it really all true?”  If you can’t make this decision, all of the posts I have written up until now are pretty much useless.  Seriously.  Of course, we can take the approach of many post moderns and New Age’ers today, and say that it doesn’t matter if it is true or not.  As long as it helps you in your own spiritual journey, that is all that is important.  However, if you are trying to decide what to do with your life, or which lifestyle is best, that may not cut it for you.

It used to be in the old days (aka the 70’s and 80’s), that there was only one approach to this question.  You either believed in the whole Bible or you didn’t believe in it at all.  The classic Creation versus evolution debate was the quintessential example of this black and white way of looking at things.  All the hard core Evangelical fundamentalists (like Falwell) and equally hard core atheists (Hitchens) were born out of this era of the debate.  There was a feeling that science and religion were ultimately not compatible.  You have to give it to post moderns though (especially those in the Emergent Church movement) in that they want to provide a space for everyone and their own personal views.  It is cool now to believe in PARTS of the Bible, while rejecting others.  This buffet approach to the Bible has drawn in some, while for others it has only pushed them farther to defining a conservative view of Biblical inerrancy.

I am not sure which view is more dangerous:  the one where people instantly assume that the Bible isn’t true and is just a story book of legends and myths with no historical value, or the one where people see the Bible on equal ground with the Koran and writings of Eastern religion holding guidance without dogma.  For the next few weeks, we are going to be discussing this question of whether we can trust the Bible or not, but we must begin with the more foundational question of CAN we prove that the Bible is true.  My answer may shock you, but intellectually and only relying on human wisdom, we CAN’T prove that the Bible is true.  I am not saying that all of Josh McDowell’s work and that of other great apologetics masters is a waste of time, but no matter how many volumes they write, it isn’t sufficient to prove that the Bible is true.

Paul, who was a brilliant in his apologetics, never shied away from this truth.  To the wisdom loving Greeks of Corinth he wrote, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”  (1 Cor. 2:2-5) Paul believed that the truth of the Gospel (therefore Scripture itself) rested not on the wisdom alone, but also upon the power of God.  This power was manifested through the miracles of the Holy Spirit, like healing and prophecies. He resisted being drawn into the Greeks thirst for argument, debate, and rhetoric, even in light of being compared to the eloquence of Apollos.

To the Galatians, Paul writes, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3)  Paul goes on to talk about the miracles that the Galatians witnessed, and though this is speaking about the dangers of legalism, it also fits into my point about the truth of God being confirmed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, we need to STOP trying to prove that the Bible is true through history, archaeology, reason, apologetics, and logic alone.  These things have value and we will discuss them in the next posts, but they are not sufficient.  As Paul tells two churches, it is the power of God as manifested through the Spirit that was meant to bring people to belief in the Gospel, and therefore the Bible which professes it.  No, don’t think that I am getting Mormon on you, “Just take the book, and the “light” will show you that the words are true.”  I still remember that line from a Mormon who kept insisting that if I just took the book, God would reward me with enlightenment to it’s authority.

I am simply saying that it is a combination of both truth and Spirit that bring confirmation of the Bible, which is ultimately then an act of faith.  Acts of the Spirit can be interpreted as random acts or ones with a natural explanation.  It takes faith to believe that the God of the Gospel story is the One behind the miracle.  So before we dive into the details of topics like Biblical inerrancy, transmission of manuscripts, supposed contradictions of the Bible, and other such issues, we must remember that it is the power of the Spirit working in people’s lives that ultimately confirms the truth of the Bible and who God is.  Thank God for this, because it if is just up to us, we tend to muck things up pretty quickly.  In our next post, we will talk about what Biblical inerrancy means, especially when it comes to fun passages like 1 Samuel 13:1.

Top Real Bible Questions: The Rapture!

Posted: May 14, 2012 in eschatology (end times), Theology, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, Uncategorized
0

It is slightly ironic that there is so much controversy surrounding the rapture considering that the word “rapture” never even appears in the Bible.  For me personally, the rapture held all sorts of interest and fear in my university days.  I wasn’t following Jesus or attending church at that time.  I knew that I was living a sinful life and that if Jesus did return, I was convinced that I would be “left behind”.  I can still remember vivid nightmares of being left behind, crawling around in black lava rock caves, fire and lava all around, trying desperately to find a place to hide and escape.  Yes, most of this was my subconscious mind working out all the guilt that I had for not following Jesus and living a wrong lifestyle, yet it revealed my fascination with the rapture.

Even though I wasn’t going to church and almost never read my Bible, there was one book that I actually did read:  Revelation.  Movies about the seven signs with Demi Moore didn’t help my eschatology, but they did fuel my paranoia.  Some weekends I would come home from university to spend the weekend at my parent’s house.  They are very committed Christians, and if I returned home and no one was there, I would panic.  I was certain that I had been left behind and had missed the rapture.  Maybe some of you can identify.

The concept of the rapture is based on the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.  The Thessalonians are worried that Christians who have already died will miss the rapture.  This is mainly due to their Greek view that there is no resurrection from the dead (bodily that is).  Paul wants to comfort them by letting them know, “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”  When the Bible was translated into Latin, the word chosen to translate “caught up” was the word we get the English word rapture from.  The Greek word harpazo has the implications of being “caught up, seized, or taken”.  The Latin word rapio which was chosen unfortunately is the same root word where we also get the English word “rape”.  Yikes!

From the King James to the New American Standard Bible, they all use “caught up”, so I guess we should call this the catching up debate (just not as snazzy as the rapture, huh?).  As you can see, the 1 Thessalonians passage doesn’t give enough detail to give much warning or specifics on when the rapture will happen.  It is simply the trumpet call and loud voice, and the next thing we know, we are all meeting Jesus in the air in our new bodies.  No wars mentioned, earthquakes, years of tribulation, anti-Christs, or anything!  Unfortunately, Revelation doesn’t mention this “catching up” as Paul describes, so some people try to find passages in Revelation that might fit.

The pre-tribulation rapture folks look at Revelation 4:1 where John is told to “Come up here” to heaven as being the rapture of the whole church.  Not much in the text to support this at all as only John is mentioned.  Mid-tribulation rapture people say that Revelation 11:12 where the two witnesses are resurrected and taken up to heaven is the rapture of the whole church.  This might fit the text if you read the 2 witnesses figuratively as the church, but most people who debate the rapture take the 2 witnesses as two literal, end times prophets.  Finally, post-tribulation supporters point to Revelation 19:14 and say that since the armies of heaven (Christians) are riding behind Jesus when He returns, we must meet Him in the air as He is coming down.  Again, since there is no detail given in any of these passages that really fit with 1 Thessalonians, we must draw implications and infer these conclusions.

Of course, all of this debate over when the rapture happens is only within the one view of the end times we talked about called premillennial dispensationalism.  Those who don’t hold to the literal, futurist view simply believe that the church is “caught up” when Jesus returns.  Since they don’t believe that there will be a literal 7 year tribulation before Jesus returns, there is no urgency to determine if the rapture will happen before, in the middle of, or after the suffering in that specific time frame.

Having fun yet?  Waiting for the part where it really hits home?  Recall Jesus’ words to His disciples in Mark 13:32-33, “ “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.” Our main role as the church is to be watchful and be doing the Father’s business until Jesus returns.  We may not know when, but we are assured that it WILL happen, and those of us who are Christians are going for a ride on the Jesus express.  It is a one way ticket to heaven, and we are sitting in the first class seats of our new glorified bodies.  All aboard!

Real Bible Questions: the end times part 3 (Millennium continued)

Posted: May 11, 2012 in eschatology (end times), Theology, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

One of the advantages of being older and having worked in Biblical studies for a while is that you can see trends or fads in the interests of the church.  For example, spiritual warfare was the topic of the 90’s, with the charismatic movement close behind.  The excitement over events in Toronto and Brownsville fueled this, and so people in Bible schools wanted to know what the Bible said.  Right now, the topic of church and worship are popular due to the Emerging Church movement and the controversy that has been stirred up.  For sure, the end times debate saw its height in the 70’s and 80’s due to books like The Late Great Planet Earth, Left Behind, and the growing concern of nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  So I wonder, who are we allowing to dictate what issues are “most important” in the church, and is it us as individual Christians that should be saying what is most important?

I know the issue over the millennium and even the end times in general isn’t overly “popular” right now, yet I feel some things must be discussed as key to Christianity.  The centrality of eschatology in the Bible should scream at us at its importance to our worldview and daily lives.  The book of Revelation alone would be sufficient to impact us with the relevance of the return of Christ.  Yet, for many, the fact that a host of arguments and weird movies have been made about the end times, is reason enough to stay away from Revelation and the whole topic.  What does it matter to my individual walk with God whether the 1,000 year reign is the church age or a physical kingdom set up when Jesus returns?  I hope by the end of this post, you will see the impact.

In his vision, John describes several things which will take place during this 1,000 year time period: 1) Satan will be bound in the pit and not allowed to deceive the nations; 2) there will be a first resurrection of those martyred and who have not received the mark of the Beast; 3) those who resurrected will reign with Christ and the second death has no power over them.

After the 1,000 years are over, the following occurs: 1) Satan is loosed and deceives the nations in order to gather an army and surround the “camp of the saints”; 2) God destroys Satan and his armies; 3) second resurrection; all dead rise;  4) final judgment and restoration; books are opened.

We asked the question about Satan being bound in the last post, because it is a key argument that people put forth to say that the 1,000 years can’t be the church age and figurative.  However, we must remember what Jesus says about Satan in Mark 3:27.  The crowds have just accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan.  Jesus replies that Satan wouldn’t cast “himself” out, but rather the strong man has been “bound” so that Jesus can raid the strong man’s house (cast out demons).  The Greek word used for “bound” here and in Revelation 20 is the EXACT same verb.  Jesus is saying that Satan was bound due to the power He brought at the time of His first coming.  We think of Satan bound in the pit as a statement of geography (the where question), but the symbolism here is speaking of power not place (the what question).  Satan’s power was defeated at the cross and the 2nd coming is just the clean up.  So, Satan being bound could be speaking of the church age or a time after the 2nd coming.

The other question we asked was about the multiple resurrections discussed in this passage.  Who is able to be included in this first resurrection?  In some translations, it would seem like it is just one group, the martyrs.  However, the Greek is unclear and it could be two groups, “those who have been beheaded for their testimony” AND “those who had not worshipped the Beast and had not received its mark”.  If it is two groups then, it could be speaking about all Christians.  Remember in Revelation, either you have the seal of God (chapter 7) or you have the mark of the Beast (chapter 13), and based on Ezekiel 9, it is likely that this isn’t speaking of a physical mark, but a spiritual one.  So, the first resurrection could be the spiritual resurrection of all believers in the church age, as the imagery of Ephesians 2:1-4 shows, “You were dead in your sins, but made alive together with Christ”.  That would explain how the 2nd death (lake of fire) has no power over this group, as they are declared righteous in Christ and go to New Jerusalem.  If it is a resurrection in a literal time after Jesus return, it leaves open the question of if people can still be saved in this time (unbelievers when Jesus returns), and if so, when they die, do they have to wait for the 2nd resurrection?

That would mean that the battle with Satan, Gog, and Magog would either be a literal battle fought after the 1,000 year reign of Jesus after the 2nd coming, or it is another picture of the final judgment that happens immediately when Jesus returns.  The differences between the battle here in Revelation and in Ezekiel 38-39 must be explained somehow.  In Ezekiel 38:2, Gog is a “chief prince” where in Revelation 20:8 it appears to be a place.  In Ezekiel 39:4, the “great supper of God” where birds eat the evil dead bodies happens at this battle, where in Revelation 19:17-18 it happens at the return of Jesus and His victory on the white horse.  In Ezekiel 39:9, there is a 7 year time period discussed AFTER the battle is over, where in Revelation 20 we go straight to final judgment and restoration.  Basically, we have some tough questions that we can’t avoid.

How does any of this affect your life now?  To that end, I ask a question:  are you waiting for Jesus to come in power when He returns?  That is a trick question, because the answer is yes and no.  Yes, He will come in power as we observe in Revelation 19.  No, because Jesus has ALREADY come in power when He came and died on the cross.  Many reject the figurative/church age option because they say they don’t see Satan bound and they don’t see Jesus reigning.  This is only seeing things from a physical, limited perspective.  When Jesus came the 1st time, there were only a few people who believed in the true God, most around this area of Israel.  Today, there are over 2 billion Christians, making up 1/3 of all mankind.  Today, there are Christians on every continent and even some of the places we call unreached have been reached at some point in the church age.

Revelation 5:9-10 says, “Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth”

The New Testament says that Jesus has ALREADY made us into a kingdom of priests, we aren’t waiting for that (1 Peter 2:9-10).  Colossians 2:13-15 says this about the cross and its power, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” No matter your view on the millennium, you have to ask yourself, “Am I living this way?  do I see myself reigning with Christ?”

The end times: part 2 The Millennium

Posted: May 10, 2012 in eschatology (end times), Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, Uncategorized
0

It is just 10 little verses, but the amount of discussion surrounding these 10 verses has gone on and on and on (and will keep going until Jesus returns!).  Revelation 20:1-10 is describing God’s ultimate and final victory over Satan.  As John wrote this vision down, he was probably so excited to share such encouraging news to the persecuted church.  Of course, we people have a way of mucking up God’s word.  Instead of the encouragement it was meant to be, it has turned into major theological views that divide the church today.  Classic, right?  I am speaking about the time period mentioned of 1,000 years, or as we Bible nerds like to call it, the Millennium.  Not as infamous as number in chapter 13 of Revelation (666), but has seen its own share of commentary.

We will see that the main views on this passage begin with our discussion from the last post on literal and figurative fulfillments.  However, throwing in an additional monkey wrench, one has to decide whether this passage is in chronological order from chapter 19, or part of the cyclical structure of Revelation.  One main view (premillennial dispensationalism) views this passage as being both chronological and literal.  Most scholars agree that Revelation 19 is the 2nd coming of Christ, so the literal view believes that after Jesus return, He will reign on Earth for 1,000 before final judgment and our journey to the New Jerusalem (heaven).  The second main view (called amillennialism)   is that the 1,000 year reign does not chronologically follow chapter 19, but instead follows the cyclical pattern in revelation and goes back to the church age.  The 1,000 years are meant to be taken figurative and is the same time period as the church age.

Umm, could these two views be more different?  Let us deal with the foundational issues.  First, is there a cyclical pattern within Revelation, or is it chronological?  In other words, do we see events happening in order leading up to the return of Jesus?  I am still quite shocked when I read a commentary on Revelation which doesn’t mention the cyclical structure of the book.  For example, how can one miss how many times the world seems to end? (Rev. 6:12-17, 11:15-19, 14:14-20, 16:1-21, 17:14, 19:17-21).  Especially telling is the repetition from 6:14, “The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.” and 16:20, “And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.”  If we are to take this chronologically, then God must destroy the world, then recreate it just so He can destroy it again.  I haven’t heard that interpretation even though people insist ALL of Revelation is in chronological order.

Second, are numbers used mostly figuratively (or symbolically) or literally in Revelation?  One can’t read Revelation without seeing the importance of numbers, especially the number 7 (7 churches, lampstands, stars, seals, trumpets, bowls, etc…)  Seven is the divine number, often meaning “fulfillment/completion).  12 or multiples of 12 are also found throughout the book (24, 144,000).  Of course, there are 7 literal churches John is writing to, but overall apocalyptic literature (which is the genre of Revelation) is characterized by it’s heavy usage of symbolic numbers.  Just because a number is used symbolically, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have literal value.

None of our evidence so far necessitates one view or another, but it may help us decide what is more likely based on the context of the book.  In the next post, we will go through this passage verse by verse.  Until then, we need to face some facts.  No where else in the Bible does it mention this 1,000 year time period.  We won’t get any help from there.  Jewish tradition doesn’t have anything about a 1,000 year period in eschatology (they mention a 2,000 year one, does that count?).  Strike two.  Old Testament predictions don’t seem to indicate a time between Jesus return and final judgment (not that most of the Jews understood there would be thousands of years between the first and the second coming).   Looks like we will just have to use our powers of inductive study on Revelation alone.

Until then, ask yourself some questions:  what would be the purpose of a 1,000 year literal reign on Earth?  when Jesus comes back, do all people get resurrected bodies or just the ones alive?  who would rebel after 1,000 years?  if the 1,000 years are the church age, how can we say that Satan is bound and in the pit?  why does it seem that only the Christian martyrs get resurrected and get to reign with Jesus?  what ever happened to parachute pants?  how can we be that stupid to pay Starbucks $4 for a cup of coffee?  am I the only one on the planet who didn’t think the show Seinfeld was funny?

Top Real Bible Question #2: Are we in the end times?

Posted: May 9, 2012 in eschatology (end times), Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

Even the Simpsons can’t avoid the temptation to make fun of Christians when it comes to the end times.  One of my favorite episodes is called “Left Below”, and it parodies the attempt to predict the return of Jesus Christ.  Of course, since it is the Simpsons, there are highly sacrilegious parts, but I feel we need to watch it so we understand how we are often perceived.  If we can’t take the humor, then it will be even more difficult to read about real life tradgedies that occur because of Christians’ views on the end times.  Cult suicides, the events in Waco, Texas, and all the Y2K hysteria should wake us up to the fact that we simply can’t avoid this topic in our Bible studies.

Where do we start with this enormous issue?  Oddly enough, we need to start with some Bible nerd territory:  dealing with fulfillments of predictive prophecy (doesn’t that sound exciting???).  The fact is that most of the Bible’s predictions have already been fulfilled in history.  Many were centered either on Israel in Old Testament times (judgment, return) or were about Jesus 1st coming and the church.  The few remaining predictions are the ones in question (Jesus 2nd coming, final judgment, etc…).  If we could nail down how we deal with these and choose fulfillments, it should guide us in our quest to understand the end times, and to know if we are in them or not.  Sounds easy, right?  Wrong!

There are two main ways that predictions are fulfilled: 1) literal- the prophecy is fulfilled in the exact, literal way that we would expect by reading the passage in a straight forward way.  For example, in Micah 5:2, God says that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.  Lo and behold, in Matthew 2:5-6, we are told that is exactly what happens.  Most people today assume that this is how all prophecies are fulfilled as it fits well with our Western, scientific minds.  The problem is that sometimes prophecies are fulfilled in another fashion:  2) figurative (sometimes called spiritual)- the prophecy is fulfilled in a way that we wouldn’t have expected because it is predicted in a figurative fashion.  For example, in Amos 9:11-12, God says that the booth of David (Jerusalem) will be restored, the walls repaired, and that they will possess the remnant of Edom.  We would think that this was fulfilled in the physical return of the Jews in 538 B.C.  However, James quotes this passage in Acts 15:16-17 and says it has a figurative fulfillment in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church.  Wow!

How do we know when a prediction will have a literal fulfillment and when a prediction will have a figurative fulfillment?  Unless the New Testament quotes it and gives the fulfillment, we can’t be 100 % sure.  The Bible creates this situation, not Bible scholars.  Two quick things to remember: first, saying that it has a figurative fulfillment doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that literally happens.  It means you have to look below the figurative symbol or imagery used, to find the literal event underneath (like the Amos passage which predicted a literal event in Gentiles becoming part of God’s people).  Second, the sound, conservative rule of Biblical prophecy is to not use the concept of double or multiple fulfillments.  It may seem attractive to say a prediction has both literal and figurative fulfillments, but it is a slippery slope.  Once you have double fulfillments, why not three or four or fifteen?  The best guideline is to use the New Testament as the authority and example that there are only single fulfillments.

What does any of this have to do with the end times?  I am glad you asked (or actually I asked for you).  People who only think that the predictions still left to be fulfilled will be fulfilled literally are those we call futurists (also known as premillennial dispensationalists).  This is a predominant view in the evangelical church and is the theology behind the popular Left Behind book and movie series.  People who think that most of the predictions still left to be fulfilled will be fulfilled in a figurative way are known as either historicists or symbolic view (also known as amillenialists or idealists).  Amillenialism was the predominant view in most of church history, and is still the view in many mainstream denominations.  There are a multitude of end times views out there to be sure, but a key decision that determines where you will end up is this decision about literal or figurative fulfillments.  If you believe that all the end times events will happen literally, you place a big emphasis on the modern nation of Israel, events in the Middle East, and future war with the Anti-Christ.  If you believe that all end times events will happen figuratively, you generally believe that when Jesus returns, He will judge all evil doers, reward the righteous, and there are not as many world events that will happen that would tell us that we are definitely in the end times.

In the next few posts, we will look at some key passages like Revelation 20, discuss the main views and their implications, and try to come to a conclusion about what we can really know about the end times.  In the midst of this, we need to have the words of Revelation 22:20 firmly in our minds, “He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”  Jesus’ return is a good thing!  It is something that we as Christians look forward to, and have no fear about.  Often the end times can turn into a thing of fear for believers, and that should never be.  If Satan can’t turn it into an argument, he is quite happy to turn it into something we fear and dread.  I say, Come Lord Jesus!

Top Real Questions- tongues part 4

Posted: May 7, 2012 in Tongues, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

The look on the guy’s face was deadly serious as he told me that if you can’t speak in tongues, then you don’t really have the Holy Spirit.  At the time I thought the guy needed a big neon sign on his head that read “Heretic”, and of course I mean that in a loving, non judgmental way.  Other people have been made to feel that they aren’t spiritual if they can’t speak in tongues.  As we finish this series of posts, we need to lay some of these issues at rest.  We will do that by looking at a few passages in Acts, and then discussing what is meant by a prayer language.

We already looked at Acts 2, where the first sign after the coming of the Holy Spirit was the gift of tongues.  Then, after you read Acts 8 and 19, I can understand why you might have more questions about the Holy Spirit and tongues.  In both chapters, we find that there are believers who haven’t “received the Holy Spirit”.  In Acts 8:12 due to Philip’s evangelism, many of the Samaritans, ” believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.”  Then Peter and John come and pray for them so “that they might receive the Holy Spirit”.

In Acts 19:2, Paul discovers disciples whom he asks, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”   After receiving, they speak in tongues and prophesy.  If you only had these passages, you might conclude that you get the Holy Spirit as a post salvation experience, and it is evidenced by tongues.  However, we must use the didactic (direct) teaching of the New Testament to interpret narrative.  Romans 8:9 and Titus 3:5 make it clear that you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon salvation.  It doesn’t come later; no Holy Spirit, and you are not a Christian!  What we must do is to define “receiving” (Greek word here is lambano which means take, receive, or claim) according to the context of Acts and the rest of the New Testament.

“Receiving” the Holy Spirit is not about getting the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as we have already clearly established.  Within the context, it seems more like the manifestation of gifts, not just tongues but also prophecy.  We can’t limit it to these two gifts either since it is a narrative and doesn’t give all examples.  Like the Ephesian disciples, many new Christians don’t know about or desire the gifts of the Spirit.  As they hear about them and want to be prayed over, they “receive” the gifts (as the Spirit decides and allots).  Therefore, speaking in tongues is not a proof of salvation, but a gift some receive when prayed over for manifestations of the Spirit.

Even though Paul was trying to bring the use of tongues under guidelines in the Corinthian’s church, he says something interesting in 1 Corinthians 14:18-19, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.”  This has led many to interpret that Paul speaks in tongues outside of church, most likely at home in his personal prayer and worship of God.  They label this “prayer language” to distinguish it from the sign tongues we already looked at.  If this is the case, Paul doesn’t directly mention it anywhere else in his letters.  Some point to Ephesians 6:18 “pray in the Spirit” and Romans 8:26-27 “Spirit intercedes for us” to be this tongues prayer language.  Although this is possible, it is difficult to obtain any real detail here.

I hope that you will be challenged by all these Scriptures to really think through God’s purpose with tongues.  We don’t want to over glorify it like the Corinthians, however, we don’t want to “quench the Spirit” with doubt, fear, or skepticism.  In church, we have Paul’s clear guidelines so that tongues are used to build up others.  At home, we have the freedom to pray and ask God about tongues as a prayer language.  I can tell you what I know for sure.  There is no chance that we can reach full potential in carrying out the Great Commission without the power of the Holy Spirit.  That is enough motivation for me to push through any uncomfortable feelings or church arguments.  Next up, we move to Top Real Bible Question #2, “Are we in the end times?”.

Top Real Bible Questions: Tongues part 3

Posted: May 4, 2012 in Tongues, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
3

God occasionally does stuff that we just can’t explain.  That’s the whole point of a miracle or what we call a sign.  We aren’t supposed to be able to give a rational explanation or figure it out.  If we could, then it wouldn’t be a sign or miracle, right?  It is given to build faith, illuminate, and draw people to Himself.  Part of me still feels completely unable to grasp what happened one time at a worship service at a missions campus that I worked at.  A young man from Canada was worshipping God along with everyone else.  Then suddenly, he starts speaking in tongues, except many around him felt the language sounded familiar.  You can imagine the shock when a man from South Korea standing near him realized that the Canadian was speaking Korean fluently.  The Canadian did not know (still doesn’t know) Korean, nor has he ever even BEEN to South Korea.  It was in the most simple terms, a sign from God.

I bring up this story for two reasons  First, we need to remember that though we might personally find tongues “weird”, the weird comes from it being supernatural.  People from the Western world are always complaining that they never see miracles or signs, but then they want to have nothing to do with tongues.  Second, this story highlights how tongues were first used when they manifested in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.  We call these “sign” tongues to differentiate them from “prayer” tongues (often called a prayer language) which we will discuss later.  Sign tongues are the ones that Paul has in mind when he quotes from Isaiah 28 and talks about what tongues were meant for in the corporate worship service.

The prediction in Isaiah 28 is quite amazing when you step back and look at it.  God is in the midst of condemning the nation of Israel for it’s sin and pride, predicting the judgment of Assyria that is soon coming.  Israel has refused to learn from God, and rejected the instruction through the prophets.  At face value, verse 11 would seem like God is saying that because they wouldn’t listen to him, soon they will be listen to a foreign tongue as they will be stripped out of the land and sent away into exile.  However, Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit, says the true fulfillment of this verse is in the church age, as God uses the gift of tongues to speak to people, including the Jews.  The “strange lips” and “foreign tongue” wasn’t from the Gentiles to the Jews, it was from God’s people to the unbelievers (including Jews).

That is what happens in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit first empowers the disciples to fulfill the Great Commission.  The religious and political leaders of the Jews had, as a majority, rejected Jesus and the disciples are hiding and waiting.  During Pentecost, thousands of Jews are pouring into Jerusalem from the Diaspora, most of who speak a foreign language (other than Hebrew or Aramaic).  Though most had rejected the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, God isn’t finished with these people.  He gives the disciples the gift of tongues, and thus fulfills Isaiah’s prediction to speak to them through a “foreign tongue”.  The end result and goal of sign tongues is clear in Acts 2:41, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

Here, the disciples were speaking real languages, and no one needed interpretation as they were from that foreign nation.  In Corinthians 12 – 14, we must leave open the possibility that sign tongues may also be what we might call a “heavenly language”, meaning sounds that aren’t representative of an actual language.  No matter whether this is the case or not, Paul’s point is that there must be interpretation in the service (people could be speaking some actual remote language, but again, if no one in the church understands and can interpret, there is no point for it in the worship service).

I love that Acts includes the interpretation of what the disciples were actually saying in tongues.  “both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”  How cool is that!  As they worshipped God, the Spirit spoke through them an actual language, and in that language they spoke out the mighty works of God.  I don’t know about you, but I would love to see 3,000 people get saved at every open air meeting we have.  God and the disciples weren’t trying to just impress people, the disciples weren’t merely seeking an experience with God, the goal here was more people in heaven.  Peter was ready with a whole evangelistic sermon packed with Old Testament quotes as soon as the gift of tongues stopped.  Are we ready?  is that message in our hearts and minds?  are we open to the power of God?

Older Entries
Newer Entries