Did Josephus invent Jesus?

An old friend of mine recently notified me of a message he had received from an unbeliever explaining why specifically he rejected Christ. This individual introduced what is perhaps the most unique attempt I've ever read to prove parallels between Christ and something else. Most people try to compare Christ with Attis, Horus, Osiris, Mithra, and various other deities, but...well...have you ever heard anyone compare Christ with the works of the Jewish historian Josephus?

I am not making any of this up. Here is the first part of what my friend received:

The Roman-Jewish wars where ongoing, the destruction of Jerusalem is possibly the most famous event during these conflicts. Josephus wrote the official history of the war and follows the conquests of Titus on his march through 'the holy land'.

I am going to use Josephus' Jewish War and the ministry of Jesus as described in the New Testament to illustrate five events.

That's right - the supposed parallels are between the New Testament and Josephus's Wars of the Jews (from here on I will use the acronym WotJ). This account, written in the first century by a Jewish historian and officer who, originally a rebel, became close to the Roman emperors, tells of the Jewish wars up to that time. In particular detail is the rebellion against Rome in the 60's, up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Let's review these "five events" bit by bit and try to provide a response.

JW - Titus begins his campaign in Galilee, his men fish the enemy out of the water, killing them
NT - Jesus begins his ministry at Galilee, he makes men the fishers of men.

This is completely false. Titus did not start his own campaign in Galilee, but rather marched with his legions out of Caesarea, on the coast of Samaria, heading straight for Jerusalem (WotJ, 5.1.6).

What the individual is confusing this with is the earlier campaign by Titus's father Vespasian, under whom Titus served as a legion commander. Vespasian started his campaign at Ptolemais (on the west coast, near Phoenecia and Galilee). In fact, Galilee had already been overrun by another Roman commander, Placidus (WotJ, 3.6.1), and Vespasian was joining in support. Therefore it is completely erroneous to say that Titus started his military campaign in Galilee, and thus Titus was supposed to be like Christ.

In regards to Christ's saying they will be fishers of men...well, most of the apostles were fishermen, so the metaphor made sense. Were Titus's soldiers all fishermen? Also, Titus soldiers were fishing dead or dying men out of the water...all the men the apostles fished were living, and in fact were given eternal life. Where is the parallel there?

In this regard, pertaining to Titus fishing men out of the water, nothing like this is reported. Instead, this individual may be referring to what happened when Vespasian sent a detachment of troops to Joppa to destroy the Jewish pirate fleet that was forming there:

They also built themselves a great many piratical ships, and turned pirates upon the seas near to Syria, and Phoenicia, and Egypt, and made those seas unnavigable to all men. Now as soon as Vespasian knew of their conspiracy, he sent both footmen and horsemen to Joppa...yet did they not endeavor to keep the Romans out, but fled to their ships, and lay at sea all night, out of the reach of their darts.

...Now as those people of Joppa were floating about in this sea, in the morning there fell a violent wind upon them; it is called by those that sail there "the black north wind," and there dashed their ships one against another, and dashed some of them against the rocks, and carried many of them by force, while they strove against the opposite waves, into the main sea; for the shore was so rocky, and had so many of the enemy upon it, that they were afraid to come to land...but some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned; although the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime parts were full of dead bodies; for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them... [WotJ, 3.9.2-3]

In other words, a group of Vespasian's men (not Titus's) goes to Joppa, the Jews sail out at sea, are caught in a storm, and most of them drown, with those who make it to shore being killed by Roman soldiers. Please tell me...how is any of this related to the context of the apostles being "fishers of men"? Was Pentecost carried out by the Jews going out into boats, only to be caught in storms with the apostles killing anyone who made it ashore?

JW - Titus then arrives in Gadara with his legion. The enemy are described as wild beasts that fled into the water.
NT - Jesus then arrives in Gadara and meets a men called legion. He casts demons into swine and they fled into the water.

Firstly, Vespasian took Gadara, not Titus (WotJ, 4.7.3).

Secondly, Vespasian had more than one legion, and the man in the New Testament wasn't himself named Legion - that was the name the demons inside him collectively took. Mark's account, which has the demoniac speak for himself, has him say, "My name is Legion, for we are many" (Mark 5:9; emphasis mine). The word "legion" itself was often used simply to refer to a large number of something. Think of how people today use the phrase "You could feed a whole army with that."

Thirdly, in regards to the "wild beasts" and the sea, there was an incident where Roman soldiers under Placidus were sent after those Jews who had fled Gadara and were then caught inside the walls of a small village. The description of "wild beasts" is not about fleeing into the water, but is actually about the Jews courageously running into the Romans like wild beasts out of desperation. A quotation:

So the horsemen cut off the flight of the fugitives, while the foot terribly destroyed those that fought against them; for those Jews did no more than show their courage, and then were destroyed; for as they fell upon the Romans when they were joined close together and, as it were, walled about with their entire armor, they were not able to find any place where the darts could enter, nor were they any way able to break their ranks, while they were themselves run through by the Roman darts, and, like the wildest of wild beasts, rushed upon the points of the others' swords; so that some of them were destroyed, as cut with their enemies' swords upon their faces, and others were dispersed by the horsemen. [WotJ, 4.7.4; emphasis mine]

Much later on, when the Jews retreat from the village, they are caught not at the Sea of Galilee but the Jordan River, and, having nowhere else to escape, are cut down and massacred (WotJ, 4.7.5). There is absolutely, positively no parallel between this account of the campaign and Christ's expulsion of Legion. Unless, of course, one rips certain words and phrases out of the account and completely robs them of their original context.

JW - In Jerusalem a woman called Mary eats her own son during passover.
NT - In Jerusalem, Jesus offers his flesh to be eaten during passover.

This is perhaps the weakest connection between the two, and proves that some enemies of Christ truly grasp for straws when trying to come up with supposed parallels. For one, the story of "a woman called Mary" is from Josephus's account of a woman forced to eat her own child in the midst of the famine that struck Jerusalem during its fierce siege. This is a sad tale, and it's unfortunately a true one (WotJ, 6.3.4).

However, for the purpose of our discussion, we have to realize that we're talking about two completely different contexts here. Christ was having the Passover meal, in which everything was representative of something from the Passover story, including the body and blood of the lamb. Under this context, Christ holds up the bread and wine and says "This is My body" and "This is My blood," referring to the coming crucifixion, where He would be slain for the passing over of sins as the original Passover lamb was slain for the passing over of death. Now we're trying to compare that to a woman who runs out of food during a siege and so eats her baby. Do we see now how illogical this comparison is?

Also, let's review the train of thought thus far: earlier, we had established that Titus was the figure of Jesus...now a woman called Mary is? With the allegorical methodology of Harold Camping, we are supposed to believe that symbols and representations change meaning almost mid-thought. This is both irrational and inconsistent.

JW - Three men crucified, one survives.
NT - Three men crucified, Jesus rises from the dead (survives).

Jesus didn't survive the crucifixion, if one wants to get technical. Saying that He rose from the dead forgets that this means He...well...died. Which also means, of course, He didn't survive the crucifixion. A person shot by a bullet who doesn't die can be said to have survived being shot, a person who dies from a bullet can't be said to have survived. If that person is somehow miraculously raised, you can't say he survived the wound, as the bullet did what it was sent out to do.

I'm actually not aware of what this person is referring to specifically in WotJ - though a lot of people get crucified in Josephus's account. Crucifixion was, of course, a common execution back then. The closest thing I could find in Josephus's account was related to Vespasian and a supposed deserter during the siege of Jotapata:

But Vespasian had a suspicion about this deserter, as knowing how faithful the Jews were to one another, and how much they despised any punishments that could be inflicted on them; this last because one of the people of Jotapata had undergone all sorts of torments, and though they made him pass through a fiery trial of his enemies in his examination, yet would he inform them nothing of the affairs within the city, and as he was crucified, smiled at them. However, the probability there was in the relation itself did partly confirm the truth of what the deserter told them, and they thought he might probably speak truth. However, Vespasian thought they should be no great sufferers if the report was a sham; so he commanded them to keep the man in custody, and prepared the army for taking the city. [WotJ, 3.7.33]

A deserter from the city is distrusted by Vespasian and so tortured, partially by crucifixion. The phrase at the end ("keep the man in custody") therefore suggests that the Romans probably took him down from the cross and so he didn't die from the crucifixion. However, this is far different from the story of Christ, since there was only one man, and he didn't die from the crucifixion like Christ did. Again, there's no comparison between these two accounts.

JW - Simon is killed in Rome and John is spared.
NT - Simon is killed in Rome and John is spared, just as Jesus predicted.

The Simon and John referred to from Josephus are the Jewish leaders who were part of the rebellion. Simon Bar Giora had tried to escape from Jerusalem by disguise but was caught and sent to Rome as a trophy of war (WotJ, 7.2.1), while John of Gischala was likewise captured and sent to Rome. Simon, being the nominal leader of the Jewish rebellion, or at least the largest part of it, was hung at the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (WotJ, 7.5.6). John is not mentioned again, and so it is assumed (from Josephus's account) that he was spared.

Of course, here we have another weak connection, and one that is only based on names - Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala compared with the apostles Simon bar Jonah (Peter) and John son of Zebedee. However, the individual forgets other details to the story. For one, Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala were opposed to each other, and their men fought one another inside Jerusalem before the arrival of the Romans - were Peter and John opposed to one another? For another, there was a third party - Eleazar ben Simon - who led the Zealots inside Jerusalem (WotJ, 5.1.4) and who was killed by John of Gischala shortly before the arrival of Titus (WotJ, 5.3.1). Which disciple was Eleazar supposed to represent? Who did John kill in the Gospels? Perhaps John killed Judas with Matthew and Luke claiming it was suicide to cover it up - now there's a conspiracy! Also, let's remember Titus is supposed to be an image of Christ - did Christ take Peter to Rome and hang him?

But in all seriousness, we see here that whoever this individual is getting his facts from has not read the New Testament, for it never says Peter was killed, nor John was spared. In fact, Acts ends with Paul still alive in Rome, with neither Peter nor John present with him. The most we get in regards to the fate of Peter and John is the following section from scripture:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)...When Peter saw [John], he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" [John 21:18-19, 21-23]

All we are told here is that Christ gave a foreshadow of how Peter would die (not exactly how, nor where) and that it was no one's concern how long John should live. The only clarification John makes is to dispel a rumor obviously spread among some early Christians that Christ predicted John would live forever. Otherwise, nothing else is said. Nothing about Rome, being crucified upside down or being exiled to Patmos, let alone "spared". All of that comes from traditions regarding the last years of the apostles, not the New Testament.

The individual continues:

Similar events, same names, same locations and all appear in exactly the same sequence. They are both the ONLY known works on Judea during this time period. So what is going on here?

Actually, as we saw, most of this is completely false. What is going on here is fraud and deception to blaspheme He who is the Truth. This individual is uncritically accepting another man's argument and not cross-referencing original source materials.

The ministry of Jesus is a satire. It was devised by the Flavians to mock the Jews whilst amusing themselves and creating a cult that combines many known religious ideas. This religion would eventually unify the Empire under one God (political) and pacify it's followers with it's teachings.

Josephus' Jewish War would have been a well-read and well-known work throughout the Roman hierarchy. The exploits of Titus where renowned and he was revered, as was his father Vespasian. The gospel of Jesus would have amused those in the know and the Flavian cult was born.

With all due respect (and I am trying to present some level of respect), this is where the individual's argument flies into the realm of sheer fantasy. We've already shown that the five supposed parallels between Josephus's work and the New Testament were poor comparisons at best, and now we're expected to believe, from this shallow evidence, that a "Flavian cult" created a satire known as the New Testament to mock the Jews and also create a religion that would later unify the empire under a political god and pacify its followers with its teachings. Yet can anyone who has honestly read the Gospel account of Christ come to the conclusion it's just a satire of Titus's campaign against the Jews? Did anyone before reading this post ever read Christ's words at the Passover supper and think, "Oh yeah, that reminds me of the time a woman ate her baby!" Are we really supposed to think anyone in Josephus's time would have made that connection?

In the autumn of 81, Titus died after only 2 years on the throne. His younger brother, Domitian was made Roman Emperor and reigned for the next 15 years. He completes the "Trinity" and the Gospel of John, the Pauline Epistles and the book of Revelations are written under his rule. Coincidently, in these three works the Holy Spirit is more visible.

I have absolutely no idea what this person means when they say Domitian "completes the 'Trinity'", as if there was a collection of books called Trinity. If he's claiming that Domitian invented the Trinity, then I have to confess that's a fairly unique claim as well. Usually people attribute either the First Council of Nicaea or Tertullian as being the inventors of the Trinity. If he means Vespasian, Titus and Domitian are a kind of "trinity", then this individual has no concept of what the Trinity is to begin with.

Furthermore, if the Pauline epistles were written during Domitian's time, does that mean that the Petrine epistles were written before? If that's the case, then we have a bigger miracle on our hands, because that means Peter referred to Paul's epistles long before they were written! (2 Pet 3:15). It is also interesting that we are told "the Holy Spirit is more visible" in these mentioned works - then why does the Holy Spirit appear as a dove in the Synoptics (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21-22) and descend upon the apostles in Luke's account of Acts (Acts 2:1-3)? By the way, just a little pet peeve of mine...it's Revelation, not Revelations.

Now some of my readers might be wondering at this point: Wait a minute - didn't Domitian persecute the Christians? In fact, didn't the Romans persecute Christians for the next 300 years? The individual has an answer to that contention:

Explaining the persecutions. What is a Christian? Or what was a Christian?

The term "Christian" simply means a follower of a Christ (a leader claiming to have been foreseen by the Jews' messianic prophecies). The word Kristos is Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah. So while the Romans did indeed persecute "Christians" in the way that history recorded, these were not "Roman Christians" but Jewish zealots.

Is that so? Is that why Justin Martyr, a mid-second century Church Father and full blooded Greek, was martyred for his faith? Is that why most of the martyrs for the next 300 years were Gentiles? During the time of Domitian's rule specifically, even those Christians in his own family were not spared. To give a quote:

But Domitian (81–96), a suspicious and blasphemous tyrant, accustomed to call himself and to be called "Lord and God," treated the embracing of Christianity a crime against the state, and condemned to death many Christians, even his own cousin, the consul Flavius Clemens, on the charge of atheism... [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. II; § 16; emphasis mine]

Was Flavius Clemens a Jewish zealot? One must only imagine not - in fact, it's clear from this he was a "Roman Christian," and yet he too was martyred. This entire idea of "Roman Christians" wiping out "Jewish zealots" is easily proven false from history.

In order to conceal how Roman Christianity began, the Romans stole parts of the history of the Jewish messianic movement to use as the history for their fictitious religion. In other words, since they knew they could not simply evaporate the knowledge of a movement large enough to have fought successfully against the empire, they decided to claim some of that movement's history as belonging to Roman Christianity.

As brave as they often proved themselves to be, the Jews were never a major threat to the Roman Empire, and after the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews as a united people continued to weaken until the mid-second century (this is something Josephus speaks of himself in his works). Also, when we say "Jewish messianic movement," do we imply that there were Messiahs to follow? There were certainly false Messiahs, but the only Messiah to ever be deemed a threat to the Roman Empire in toto was Jesus Christ.

The Jews where expecting a Christ, their coming Messiah, and are still waiting. Jesus was invented by Roman Christianity. Therefore Jesus never existed. I am yet to see any evidence of anyone called Jesus that Roman Christianity could of been based on. It is simply assumed. It's nonsense, in my opinion.

Note the part I highlighted here - "it is simply assumed." Actually, all this individual has written is mere assumption. The parallels were mere assumption, the conspiracy by the Flavian family to invent Jesus and the idea of "Roman Christians" persecuting not Christians but "Jewish zealots" were likewise mere assumption. All of this has been based on thin evidence which is entirely conspiratorial, and belongs more with the ranks of 9/11 truthers and fake moon landing cults than serious history.

The sad thing, however, is that we're not dealing with simply September 11 conspiracies or whether or not man landed on the moon...we're dealing with life or death. We're dealing with man trying to justify his natural inclination to deny God. Man, by nature, will not only seek to practice what, deep down, he knows is wrong, but will give approval to those who likewise believe or practice it (Rom 1:32). This individual, seeking to have his itching ears tickled, has latched onto philosophical-historical nonsense and is attempting to put it forward as true, despite the fact that nothing about it can be demonstrated from original sources. As I've said in the past, it's one thing to just be ignorant, but it's another to be willfully ignorant.

I strongly encourage anyone who may have been caught up in this belief to read this review carefully, and to examine the comparisons made. Realize one thing: Christ was real. He was not made up. He existed. He taught, He preached, He was crucified and on the third day rose again, dispatching His apostles to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations (Luke 24:47). The times of ignorance God overlooked in the past, but now, under the new covenant, God is calling all men to repentance for the day when Christ will judge all men of their sins (Acts 17:30-31). If you take your life seriously, this will be something you should seriously ponder. Eternity is a long time. God bless.

Math Atheists

Calvin and Hobbes is copyright Bill Waterson

Meditations on Genesis 1:3-4

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [Gen 1:3-4]

After hearing about the fun times had by two friends, I decided to pick up Bible journaling. One friend was going through the Gospel of John, but I decided to start at the very beginning - namely, Genesis. I've been trying to do it Matthew Henry style: not only going verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, and writing down not how the verse relates to me personally, but rather how it fits into the larger context of scripture. As I went into the beginning of creation, there were two things I noticed: 1) light is created in verse 3 on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not made until verse 16, on the fourth day; 2) God only identifies the light as being good (verse 4), yet the darkness is not included.

The question, of course, is where did that light come from, and what was it?

One can't help but conclude, if the sun is not created until verses 14 to 18, then this cannot be a natural light. If so, then what is it? It can only be the Divine Light of God, the same Light which Paul describes in an epistle:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:6]

Remember that previous to this, the world was described as "without form and void," and "darkness was over the face of the deep" (v. 2). Yet even in the midst of this darkness, God was present, for we are told in the same verse that God the Holy Spirit was "hovering over the face of the waters." If God was present, why then was there darkness? Is God not light, in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5)? It is hard to imagine the Person of the Holy Spirit hovering over the dark void and yet no light to be seen at all. How can divinity exist in darkness without light of any kind?

The answer is simple, at least in the sense that we may return to the previous quotation of Paul: the Light, which is revealed in verse 3, is God making His presence known. God was letting it be known, not only for the formless creation, but for the benefit of those who would be reading Genesis for years to come, that in the midst of the darkness He was present. That He had not made Himself known is irrelevant - He was still there. Darkness must never be seen as the weakness of God, but merely the absence of God. Not absence in the sense that He is not present, for it is clear here that God is present even the darkness - rather, it is the absence of the knowledge of His presence. There are many times in our lives when we find ourselves in great darkness, and it feels like God is not present - yet it is clear, from the very beginning, that God is still present even in the greatest of darkness.

What follows next is plain in the text: God commands for there to be light, light is revealed, and it is said that God saw the light as being good. He then separates the light from the darkness. Many things can be seen from this:

1) The light is good because it comes directly from God, and as God is a perfect Creator it stands to reason that all He creates would be perfect.

2) The darkness is not said to be good because darkness, by its very nature, acts contrary to light. God will later call the sun and moon, natural night and day, equally good because natural night serves good purposes - it is at night that bats and various insects are able to function and find food. Yet spiritual darkness has no good purpose, and the absence of God is the greatest evil that can be devised.

3) God separates the light from the darkness for two-fold reasons:

a) God is in control of good and evil. Not that God is Himself the author of sin, but that sin and evil cannot usurp or thwart God's will. That an evil man may believe himself to be in complete control of his destiny is only an example of his own total foolishness. To his brothers Joseph said, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). To King Sennacherib the Lord says, "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2 Kings 19:25), and likewise to the king of Assyria, "Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?" (Isa 10:15). God is able to separate light from darkness because it is He who is truly in command, and the darkness has neither ability nor power over Him. Hence the words of the apostle John: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).

b) Light and darkness are opposed to each other, and cannot coexist. The apostle Paul rightfully asks "what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). Where there is light, there is no darkness; where there is no light, there is only darkness. God's separation of light and darkness signifies that, in His eyes, there is no middle ground. He would make this abundantly clear through the prophet Isaiah with the words: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20).

There is one final aspect to these passages: they are an early Messianic shadow. The prophet Isaiah foretold "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Isa 9:2), which was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 4:16). The apostle John wrote that Christ, that Light, is He through Whom we have seen "glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14), and it is He who has made God known (John 1:18). Christ came to a world shrouded in spiritual darkness, revealing the presence of God and bringing in the Light once again. Yet with light comes conflict with darkness, which hates that light which extinguishes it. "This is the judgment," Christ said, "the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil" (John 3:19). To His brothers, the Lord said, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). The world is by nature darkness, and is by nature working in darkness, and thus hates that light which exposes its evil works for what they really are (John 3:20).

There will, however, come a time when light will truly triumph over darkness. It is said that the celestial city, the bride of Christ, will have "no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23). It is likewise said "there will be no night there" (Rev 21:25), for the light of God will never be extinguished. For now, however, "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1 John 2:8), and until Christ returns we who "were darkness" must "walk as children of light" (Eph 5:8), and preach the Gospel so that those still living in darkness may turn "to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me" (Acts 26:18). Amen.

Just a small note...

From now on, I'll be using the ESV for my scripture citations.

Yes yes, call me a conformist...

Presuppositions on Miracles and God

In an earlier post I discussed what I called the "fallacy of contrary presuppositions." Namely, two presuppositions that a person upholds which cannot coexist without one contradicting the other. Recently I've been reading or encountering another series of contrary presuppositions that I often seen be made by accidental deists, liberal theologians, and similar groups. Many of these people will assert, at once, two things:

A) God exists


B) Miracles do not exist, or cannot be proven

Herein is the problem: A is affirmed without being established, yet B is affirmed without establishing why in light of A. Let me explain this contradiction by highlighting that both A and B deal with the supernatural. A affirms that God exists, which therefore affirms the supernatural exists; B denies that miracles happen or can be proven, hence either denying or objecting to the supernatural.

At this point we can immediately see the contradiction. Namely, that a person admits that a Being, energy or presence exists beyond the confines of the natural world, yet refuses to believe that anything that likewise goes beyond the confines of the natural world exists, or can be verified. In other words, they are affirming that A is true, yet they are denying miracles in B, even though the belief in A, by extension, confirms that B cannot be true in the sense that miracles cannot happen or be proven. Yet if the supernatural exists, that at least provides the possibility that miracles and other supernatural occurrences exist.

Many might immediately protest this reasoning and accuse me of opening the door for false miracles and giving validity to supposed miracles found in false religions. On the contrary, I am simply skimming the surface at this point. If B is false because A is true, then miracles have the possibility of happening, and then can be studied, and therefore some validity can be given as to whether or not they actually happened. To give an example: I believe in God, and I believe God performs miracles - but when miracles that supposedly happen at a Benny Hinn event are proven false time and time again with medical evidence and background checks of the supposedly healed, I can safely say that the miracles are false. Likewise, if I believe in the one true God of Christianity, then miracles attributed to false gods such as those in Hinduism, Islam or otherwise can be dismissed based on our presuppositions. This argument is merely meant to give validity to the idea of miracles, not to affirm miracles in toto.

In order for a person to uphold both A and B, they have to either admit to deism or some form of dualism: deism in the sense that they believe in a god, but he is a passive, absent one; dualism in the sense that there is a supernatural world, but this supernatural world will have nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Whether the person directly confesses one belief or the other, they will be separating themselves from orthodox, historical Christianity.

Living on a Prayer

This sums up my life about now. Soli Deo Gloria.

Double Crossed by the Crossing Church

Excellent podcast by Chris Rosebrough over at Fighting for the Faith, dealing with Eric Dykstra of the Crossing Church. It mainly details his teachings, how he handles his authority, and how he twists scripture. Rosebrough even has to deal with some Crossing Church-inspired interruptions at a few points. The link is below:

Double Crossed by the Crossing Church

Resources on "The Problem of Evil"

The following is a link to an Apologetics 315 page with resources on varying opinions on the problem of evil and God's place in evil. It's centered around a September 11 theme, or at the very least uses the question of how such an event could have happened.

Apologetics 315: Resources on the Problem of Evil

Getting Around Romans 9:10-13

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; or though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Romans 9:10-13]

In the middle of his letter to the Roman Christians, the apostle Paul begins to answer the question of why not all Jews are accepting Christ as their Messiah. Turning to Old Testament examples, Paul brings up Jacob and Esau, pointing out that, despite neither twin had been born, and having not done anything good or bad, Jacob was chosen over Esau to fulfill God's purposes and His promise. In these verses we find the clear teachings of God's sovereignty over man's will, as well as the nature and purpose of His divine election onto salvation.

Yet along with John 6:44, Romans 9:10-13 is one of those passages that is so clear in language that many will try to find a way to avoid what it is plainly saying. The following are some popular responses to it (with a counter-response provided for each):

1. The passage is referring to nations, not individuals

The Argument: This is one of the most common arguments against the Calvinist interpretation of the passage. Those who make it do so by pointing out that the quote "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is taken from Malachi 1:2, wherein God is referring to Israel and Edom, who were the descendants of Jacob and Esau respectively. Therefore, Paul is speaking here not of individual election, but rather of national blessings.

The Dilemma: In order for this to be true, one has to completely ignore the full context of Romans 9, which is dealing with individuals. The apostle Paul, after talking of the assurance of salvation for God's people in Romans 8, has to preemptively respond to a contention that some in Rome might be presenting: if God's people are given the promise of faith, then why are so many Jews - God's supposed "chosen people" - rejecting the Gospel? Paul replies that it is "not as though the word of God has failed," and explains "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (v. 6). He follows this up with the statement that the Jews are not "all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (v. 7). In other words, you have Jew A and Jew B, and Jew A accepts the Gospel and Jew B does not - but this is no mater, for it is not being an ethnic Jew that makes you one of God's elect. In fact, it is now set so that Jew A and Gentile A together are the true Israel of God with Jew B not being a part of Israel.

Note very carefully here: Paul's talking about individuals. Jew A and Jew B are not members of specific separate nations. Paul is answering the question, "Why does Jew A follow the Gospel and Jew B rejects it if both are supposed to be part of Israel?" This is not a question of nations - this is a question of persons.

This is also contradicted with how Paul uses the quotation from Malachi 1:2, which is really just an expounding of the earlier quotation of Genesis 25:23. Paul's reference to the story of Jacob and Esau is one entirely of individual traits, not the traits of nations. He cites throughout verse 11 that "the twins were not yet born," and had "not done anything good or bad." Who is being addressed here? The twins, Jacob and Esau - individual persons.

This is seen likewise in the passages that follow, wherein Paul quotes God saying to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (v. 15), followed by Paul's own summation: "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v. 16). This is, again, dealing with election on an individual basis. We see it again when Paul mentions Pharaoh (v. 17) and declares, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Once again, this is dealing with individual election, not national blessing. This is why reading nations into verses 10 to 13 is to simply jump from Paul's train of thought.

2. God was merely reacting to foreknowledge of what Jacob and Esau would do

The Argument: This is another popular argument, especially by those who recognize that Paul is referring to individuals and not nations. Essentially, God looks down the corridor of time, sees what Jacob and Esau will do, and thus makes His election of Jacob over Esau based on that. Therefore, God is not unconditionally electing Jacob over Esau, but He is choosing Jacob because of how Jacob will be later on in life.

The Dilemma: Despite its popularity and its seemingly simple response to Calvinism, this is perhaps the most fallacious argument to make, as it completely contradicts the original text. Namely, the fullness of verse 11:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, [all emphasis mine]

Paul is presenting a clear scenario: two twins are yet to be born; they haven't done anything good or bad, so you can't judge them by any actions. A choice is then made - one of the children is favored by God. Why was this done? Does the text have God say, "Because I see in the future that Jacob is going to be a great man"? On the contrary, it says it was done on the basis of "God's purpose according to His choice," and even specifies that it was not because of works, but on God, the Him who calls. God's decision of choosing Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with what Jacob or Esau would do decades after their birth, and the verse makes that clear. Nowhere does it even imply that this election was based on passive foreknowledge of future events.

This is likewise contradicted by Paul's repetition a few verses later with the previous quoted: "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v. 16). Once again, it is not man's works upon which God made His electing decision, but God's mercy alone. It was not what Jacob did which made God choose Jacob over Esau, but God's purpose and His full intent with what He wanted to do with Jacob. This very argument, in fact, leads logically into a works-based method of salvation, wherein man's works or actions come first, and essentially convince God to justify them upon that basis.

In this same vein, I might ask which action of Jacob made him appear justified before God? Was it Jacob's making his hungry brother give up his birthright (Gen 25:29-34)? Was it when Jacob tricked his blind, dying father into handing over Esau's blessing to him (Gen 27:1-38)? The way some interpret this passage, one would think that Jacob was a holy individual, but while he found favor in God's eyes, he was far from perfect. In any case, even if we disregard this, it still remains that the verses clearly tell us that what Jacob did had no affect upon what God decided. For a person to argue thus is to read something into the verse that not only isn't there...but is completely contradictory to what the verse says.

3. Hated doesn't mean "hated," but "loved less"

The Argument: The original Greek word for "hated" in the verse does not mean a literal hate, as if God downright loathed Esau, but that God simply loved Esau less than Jacob. This can be seen in some translations: the NLT renders it "I rejected Esau"; the CEV renders it "the Lord liked Jacob more than Esau"; the Amplified adds the parenthetical statement "held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob."

The Dilemma: It is certainly affirmed from many commentators (such as A.T. Robertson) that the word used here for "to hate" (μισέω) can mean to have a form of moral antipathy when contrasted with the word "to love" (ἀγαπάω). One example of this is Christ's own use of the two words in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13, wherein He says that one cannot serve two masters "for either he will hate the one and love the other." One could therefore make a valid case that when scripture says Esau was "hated," it doesn't mean a violent, passionate malice similar to an antisemitic person against a Jew, but, as stated before, a form of moral antipathy, with full preference given to Jacob.

Yet even if we concede this, where does it really get us? That God elected Jacob over Esau on preference does not hide the fact that election took place, and that Esau, during that election, was forsaken. Imagine a parent saying, "No no no, I don't hate my second son, I just prefer the first one over him." Or let's return to the citation of Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 - are we supposed to believe that the servant loves both masters equally? That would completely contradict the point Christ was trying to make. The point made is that God went over Esau and gave His blessing to Jacob, irregardless of what either individual did.


Therefore, to argue that "to hate" actually means "to love less" is, in the end, simply a non sequitor.

Confessing our sins

The following is a brief excerpt from John Bunyan.

"Acknowledge thine iniquity," saith the Lord (Jer 3:13). This is a hard pinch, I know what I say, for a man to fall down under the sense of sins by acknowledging them to be what the Lord saith they are; to acknowledge them, I say, in their own defiling and polluting nature; to acknowledge them in their unreasonable and aggravating circumstances; to acknowledge them in their God-offending and soul-destroying nature, especially when the conscience is burdened with the guilt of them. Yet this is duty: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive" (1 John 1:9). 

Isaiah 53 and Early Christian Apologetics

Many Jews argue that what Christians call "the suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is actually a metaphor for the entire nation. Here we have an early response to this in the works of Origen.

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” (Col_2:15) At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus. [Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 55]

Reviewing a Daniel Lim Sermon at IHOP-KC

Daniel Lim (according to his bio) is a former Baptist minister from Malaysia who currently serves as chief executive officer of the missions base for the International House of Prayer here in Kansas City (IHOP-KC). IHOP-KC is known by many for its nonstop 24-hour prayer services, with continued praise songs intermingled with sermons and prayers. It was founded by Mike Bickle, infamous to some for his involvement with the Kansas City prophets as well as the Vineyard Movement, two groups rife with false prophecies and corrupt practices.

In May of 2010, Lim did a sermon entitled "Jesus Christ Heals," which is available at IHOP-KC's Weekend Teaching Archive. It is subtitled as an exposition of Luke 7:21-23. Throughout the sermon, Lim does say many truths: he begins by asserting the divinity of Christ, and at one point says that the greatest healing is that of being born again. However, certain things were said that led me to believe this sermon should perhaps be biblically examined, if not for the benefit of those outside the IHOP-KC movement, then for the benefit of those inside.

It begins when Lim states that Christ's works affirmed who He was (which is certainly true), quoting Luke 7:21-23 where Christ responds to the question by John the Baptist's followers on whether or not He was the true Messiah. Then Lim connects Christ's demonstration of His works not only with Himself, but with the ability for those within the church to be able to do such works:

But you know the works of Jesus is right now resting upon the body of Christ. God is working, and He's working through His body. In other words, His glory will then be manifested through His glory, so that when people see the works of God through the glory of God they give glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. The dead longing is the longing for the proclamation and the demonstration of the apostolic gospel. When I say that the authentic gospel being proclaimed and demonstrated, I long to see that a gospel is preached and then is confirmed and the - the kingdom of God is demonstrated accompanying the preaching of the Gospel. [6:57-mark]

As an example, he gives a time when IHOP students in Boston went out praying for healing, and supposedly a Harvard university basketball player was healed from a hurt leg, walking away without his crutches. "Now we're talking about demonstration," Lim says, "because then you don't need advertisement. The word will go out because a basketball player is kind of a mini-celebrity on campus" (8:25-mark).

I actually did a little research on this, and found an article that talks about the story. The Harvard University basketball player's name was Brandyn T. Curry, and he did indeed walk away without his crutches after some IHOP students prayed for him...but that's not the full story.

He was on crutches following a knee operation earlier that day, to fix a tear in his patella, an injury he says came from "normal wear and tear" playing point guard on the varsity basketball team. The doctors had told him to use the crutches for a week or two, and that it would take from four to six months to recover fully...

Curry’s take on the situation seems a little less dramatic than Hood’s. He describes feeling stronger when they prayed for him, and he says his recovery was shorter than expected, clocking in at just under four months. Curry says he reserved serious spiritual discussion of the event for fellow Christians, such as his mother. With others, he just talks about how his leg felt better and confirms that yes, it really happened. [source; all emphasis mine]

He didn't have to use his crutches after the prayer, yes, but the doctors didn't expect him to use his crutches for that long any way. Also note that he still had to recover. In other words, the healing was not complete. He felt strength after they prayed for him, but his leg was not fully healed. In fact, it wasn't fully healed until the time frame that the doctors had already provided. All this was not the way Daniel Lim portrayed it, and is an example of the danger behind healing "fish stories" that get thrown around so casually. One can only be reminded of the many times Benny Hinn healings were investigated, and the majority of the time it was discovered that the person supposedly healed was either misdiagnosed, not as sick as they were said to be, or died soon afterward. Might I propose that instead of trying to come up with or looking for healing fish stories to wow people, we should simply be turning to the word of God to transform people's hearts and minds towards Christ?

In any case, Lim continues:

I'm longing to see how the gospel is being proclaimed and demonstrated. This led to the promise of Jesus to say that, "You know, believe me for the sake of my works, but those who believe in me, the works that I do, he will also do, but greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father," referring to Him sending the Holy Spirit to indwell, to fill, to empower the body of Christ to carry out the works, so that the glory of God will be revealed on the earth. [8:45-mark]

In his sermon notes, Lim cites for this Matthew 24:14 and John 14:12. John 14:12 is relevant to what he is talking about, but Matthew 24:14 actually has nothing to do with works. Initially I thought this might have been a typo, but as the sermon went on, I began to wonder if Lim was either irresponsible or dishonest. This will become more and more clear as we progress.

Lim says the "words that were released" by him during this time of his great wanting for revival have been "catalytic in some way." He then shares the following story.

And then on December 13, again, the leadership asked me to share, and I was under the burden to talk about Elijah and Elisha, the double portion anointing, and going, asking God-asking the people to go for the double portion of the Spirit, and not just to settle down for what has already been released, and referring to how the Elisha/Elijah generation, how Elijah was taken by the chariots. And then, two days later, someone wrote me an email, that, "Did you know that one of the spiritual fathers of the healing movement went home to be with the Lord - Oral Roberts - on December 15." I was not making the connection, I was just preaching my Sunday morning sermon. So they told me that, you know, in some way, you release the word, things kind of happen, so I say, "Maybe I'm accidentally catalytic." [10:28-mark]

This is rather close to the doctrines of the Word of Faith theology, where a person speaks something and, by that word, it releases a power that makes it come true. Ignoring both the fact that he essentially claims to have killed Oral Roberts with his words as well as the fact he compared Oral Roberts with Elijah and Elisha, Lim continues with a promise that God is about to do something great:

...this morning is about us releasing a proclamation, and perhaps, perhaps, that this is truly in time and in line with something that God is about to release and launch forth. Whether I'm understanding or not, I believe what I'm feeling, which I cannot describe with language, is we are on the threshold of another wave of healing revival. And Kansas City has a vital portion along with many other appointed cities and lands for this to break forth on the earth right now, and this healing revival labors has been given to a period of time in Pentecostal and Charismatic church history in the 1940's to the 1950's when a company of vessels and messengers of the Lord has been set apart and the Holy Spirit came upon them and they were used by God to bring a massive harvest of souls that's accompanied by supernatural healings and miracles. [12:10-mark]

Lim admits immediately afterward that this revival was "tainted by imperfection of error and doctrine, as well as excesses of practices."  He shrugs it off with, "Nobody's perfect," but insists that there was still "a genuine touch of God during that period of time."

It was 1946 that some healing revivalists began to go forth and began to start in a small way, and in 1948 Oral Robert Evangelistic Association was registered because it's now picking up momentum, and in 1949 Billy Graham has his Los Angeles crusade that put him on a national and global scene, and 1950 he organized the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Now most of you would not classify Billy Graham - Reverend Billy Graham - to be a healing evangelist. Nobody would do that. So why am I putting this storyline together? Because as you look at the bigger picture, what was happening in the late 40's and 50's was not two camps - it was a release of anointed laborers, anointed evangelists, whether they were operating in healing or they were not operating in healings as their main gifts - there was a company of evangelists anointed by God to bring in an unprecedented harvest in the 20th century. What I'm feeling in my heart is again God is going to answer the Matthew 9 prayer, "Lord of the harvest, send forth laborers" - not just any laborers, anointed laborers. God is going to raise up in the 21st century - we're at the beginning of the 21st century - another wave of evangelists that will have variety of expressions. Some will be marked by unusual gifts of healing, and Kansas City will have a part to play in that. [14:08-mark]

Lim seems to glorify Oral Roberts and others, declaring this to be a work of the Spirit even if "nobody's perfect." How "perfect" should we expect a minister of God, especially one that is claimed to be used by God to bring about His Spirit? Let's review Oral Roberts, since Lim brings him up and seems to think he's a "spiritual father" of the healing movement:

Some believe God is raising the dead. Oral Roberts, for example, speaking at a Charismatic Bible Ministry Conference in 1987, said, "I can't tell you about [all] the dead people I've raised. I've had to stop a sermon, go back and raise a dead person."...Surely it is significant, then, that not one modern occurence of raising the dead can be verified. What about Oral Roberts' claim? Challenged to produce names and addresses of people he had raised, Roberts balked. Later, he recalled only one incident - more than twenty years before - when he had supposedly raised a dead child in front of ten thousand witnesses...Roberts conceded that neither the child nor others he said he had brought to life had been pronounced clinically dead. "I understand," he hedged, "there's a difference in a person dying and not breathing and [a person] being clinically dead." [pg. 131-132; John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 1992]

And again:

Strange private prophecies are proclaimed by all kinds of people who evidently believe God speaks to them. Surely the most infamous is Oral Roberts' preposterous death-threat prophecy. Roberts told his nation-wide audience in 1987 that God had threatened to "call him home" if he couldn't raise eight million dollars by his creditors' deadline. [pg. 54; ibid]

And again:

Oral Roberts asked for "seed-faith offerings" - money donated to him that is in effect a down-payment on your own personal miracle or healing. [pg. 242; ibid]

And again, this time from a different source:

Here is one of Roberts' illustrations of how giving money is the seed that produces miracles. In January of 1985 Oral Roberts sent out a letter informing his supporters that they could send for his "33 Predictions for You in 1985." These predictions were allegedly based on Roberts' exercising his "gift of prophecy" for them. The many recipients of his letter were instructed to expect "creative miracles" and money. The reader was urged to send a "seed-faith gift" which would help him get a "hundredfold return." But there was a catch. Roberts said, "If you neglect to pay attention to what He [God] is especially saying to you, then Satan will take advantage and hit you with bad things and you will wish that 1985 had never come." What could you have concluded from these statements if you didn't want to send any seed-faith money? [pg. 313; John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Cult Watch, 1991]

And yet again, from yet another source:

One well-known example of a false prophet telling made-up stories for profit is Oral Roberts. He claimed to have had a conversation with a nine-hundred-foot-tall Jesus, who told him to build the City of Faith Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. If he failed to do so he would die. He told his supporters there would be cures for cancer and other diseases if each of his prayer partners contributed money for the project. Donors contributed the millions of dollars needed to complete the twenty-story complex. Sadly, the promised miracles failed to materialize. The medical center, with more than seven hundred beds, never functioned anywhere near capacity and finally went bankrupt. [pg. 129-130; David Emerson Wilson, Let No Man Deceive You, 2008]

If you think I'm exaggerating things by quoting sources other than Oral Roberts himself, you can always take a look at his book How I Learned Jesus was Not Poor, which goes along with the Word of Faith theology that Jesus was rich and thus so should we (or at the very least, so should his ministers).

All these practices are what Lim shrugs off with "nobody's perfect." Now, do I believe God does good in the midst of evil? Of course I do - but I don't glorify evil or the practices of evil because some good came out of it. To do so is to introduce a kind of spiritual pragmatism. Do I believe that all Christian ministers should be 100% perfect? Of course not - but there's a difference between personal flaws inherent in most people and evil practices that violate every biblical definition of what a minister of the word should be. To call men who practice such things a "spiritual father" shows an askew of priorities.

Lim returns to Luke 7, saying that he will use it to teach what Christ-centered healing ministry looks like. He correctly identifies that Christ's response to John the Baptist's disciples is a reference to the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, although he interprets Isaiah 53:4-5 the way Word of Faith preachers do:

So when the disciples of John came, Jesus said, "Look, and hear, what is happening around you. You are living in the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 verse 4 and 5: 'for He was stricken for our transgression, by His stripes we are healed...'" [26:03-mark]

Quite obviously the phrase "by His stripes we are healed" is being interpreted in a healing way, which is, again, how the Word of Faith teachers and most faith healers interpret it. As they are wrong in that interpretation, so too is Lim wrong. Let's review the verses in context:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. [Isaiah 53:4-6]

This is one of the most beautiful passages in scripture, as it details the pain and suffering that the Good Shepherd will endure for His flock. Yet does it mean that Christ gives us the power to heal others? Does it even mean that by His death Christ is able to physically heal? Not at all! The context here is entirely one of spiritual healing. Note what the verses say: "our griefs" Christ bore; "our sorrows" He carried; He was "pierced through for our transgressions"; He was "crushed for our iniquities"; the "iniquity of us all" fell upon Christ.

What is the true context here? The atonement. Of what? Of our sickness? Of our disease? No, not at all - of our sins. To turn a great truth - that we are forgiven of our sins by the atoning work of Christ - into a verse supporting supposed "healing ministries" is not only a great disservice to the cross, but to Christ Himself.

Lim also reads the opening verses of Isaiah 61 in a strange way, but before I transcribe that part, let me first give what Isaiah 61 says:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn. [Isa 61:1-2]

Now see how Lim quotes it:

...and that in Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the living God is upon me, He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor and to set the captives free, and to do different kinds of healings, miracles."  [26:27-mark]

Whoa whoa whoa! Where in the first few verses of Isaiah 61 are any healings or miracles mentioned? Now, as I said before, it is true that the Messiah was foretold to perform miracles, and we see this in Isaiah 26:19, 29:18 and 35:5-6. However, Isaiah 61 has nothing at all to do with healings or miracles. One must wonder then: why Lim chose to misquote it in this way? It's possible he may have been going from memory, but I highly doubt it, as he expounds Isaiah 61 in a similar fashion in his sermon notes (see III, B, 3). The most likely answer is because of the verse's use of "anointing," and his own theology's tie-in of the traits of those "anointed ones" of God. That is, those who are "anointed" will be able to do such things as healings and miracles. Whether this theology is true or not, Lim chose to completely misquote a verse to substantiate it.

At this point, Lim jumps to Matthew 10:8 for a further discussion on scriptural examples of healing ministries.

Matthew 10:8 Jesus commanded the disciples, and said, "Go into the house of Israel, and then begin to preach 'repent the kingdom of God is at hand.' Heal the sick, open the blind, [sic] cleanse the leper, raise the dead. I read the line, OK, pray for the sick, good. Uh, open the eyes of the blind, good. Cleanse the leper, we don't have so many people with leprosy today, but you know, it's still good. Raise the dead...hmmm. Why is it all happening in the same sentence? Can you put a period, like, after one of these, so that we can kind of interpret it differently? There's no period! There's no semi-colon! It's one sentence. If you believe that the sick can be healed, you gonna believe the lepers can be cleansed and the dead can be raised. It's all in one sentence. [27:30-mark]

Lim uses this to go on about "raising from the dead ministries" and the proper way for Christians to go about them. His application is that Matthew 10:8 is applicable to all Christians. However, he seems to not fully realize that this passage is meant only for the twelve disciples, and at that specific time. How do we know this? Lim didn't quote the verse that came right before the section he used: 

These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans." [Matthew 10:5]

Let me ask you something: if this section of scripture is applicable to every Christian at every time...then should we avoid the Gentiles and Samaritans? Most Christians today are Gentiles, so that would be very difficult. So why did Jesus tell the disciples to avoid the Gentiles and Samaritans, and what relevance does that have to do with raising of the dead?

As Lim himself quoted, Christ told the disciples to go to "the lost sheep of Israel" (Matt 10:6). The signs the disciples were to perform served to tell the Jews that their Messiah had come, and that they were to repent before judgment would come on their nation (in the form of the Temple destruction). That they were to raise men from the dead was significant because such a thing had not been seen since the days of Elijah and Elisha, hence it was something the Jews would have noticed.

Lim seems to misunderstand all this...in fact, later on in the sermon he goes so far as to call Matthew 10:8 the great commission!

Jesus commanded His disciples to preach the gospel, to heal the sick, and the command to preach the gospel and to heal the sick comes in one sentence, so why should we choose one towards the other? If we say healing, preaching the gospel is the great commission, why not heal the sick is the great commission? There is no period. It is all one sentence, one verse, one flow of charge from Jesus: preach the gospel, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, raise the dead. I know how painful this is to my soul because not everything is happening, but I have to be truthful to the scripture. It is one charge, one commandment, one commission that is going forth. [41:36-mark]

Lim is about eighteen chapters too early for this to be the great commission. What is the great commission?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:19-20]

Note that there's nothing about healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, or raising the dead. The only three things mentioned are making disciples, Trinitarian baptism, and teaching all that has been commanded (in other words, the gospel). In fact, many who study the language of the New Testament point out that the only verb here is "make disciples" - the actions "baptize" and "teaching" are actually participles that are related to the making of disciples (in other words, they're the two elements of the disciple-making).

Keep in mind that we had already established that the instructions in Matthew 10 were explicitly given in regards to the "lost sheep of Israel," and that Gentiles and Samaritans were to be completely avoided. If that was the great commission, then it is a limited commission, and the gospel would never have been spread outside Judea. However, the true great commission is one that commands "all the nations" (or "all kinds of people") to be made disciples of Christ, including Gentiles and Samaritans. We see this fulfilled in Acts, where the Jews are preached to and then, after the rest of the Jews reject and even persecute the gospel, God's grace goes to the Gentiles. Daniel Lim is therefore completely misusing Matthew 10:8.

Perhaps the strangest (or perhaps most revealing) of Lim's exposition on healing is the part where he says Jesus either heals over time or instantaneously. In his sermon notes, Lim writes that this gift "can manifest in sudden complete healing or gradual partial healing," citing Matthew 8:24. In the sermon itself, he says:

And again, in Matthew 8:24, Jesus can manifest the healing power suddenly or gradually. Both are true. Now you say, how can that be true? Wouldn't Jesus have miracles instantaneously? Yes, instantaneously he can do it, or he can do it over a period of time, over a process. Now the fact is, whether Jesus heals in 0.1 seconds, or He heals in 365 days, the perception of time is on our side, not on His side, because there is still a process, the process is called be healed in 0.1 seconds. We are not able to perceive in 0.1 seconds, that is not perceivable time with us, but there is still a process from sick to heal and there is time involved, it's just very fast. Fast to the point that we perceive it as instantaneous by the relative statement. There is always a process. So this is scriptural. [40:18-mark]

Firstly, Matthew 8:24 has absolutely nothing to do with healing. It reads:

And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep.

What does that at all have to do with healing or healing ministry? This is the opening of Christ calming the storm - which, by the way, He stopped instantaneously, not over time. Daniel Lim is therefore guilty of one or two things: 1) irresponsibility in preparing for his sermon, not bothering to check that the verse cited both in his sermon notes and the sermon itself are correct; 2) outright dishonesty, citing a verse as evidence for his theology when that verse has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Secondly, Lim presents the (quite frankly) silly argument that if healing happens in 0.1 seconds it's still technically a span of time, hence we shouldn't be shocked if it happens over 365 days, which is also a span of time. What Lim is basically putting forward here is pretty much the same thing that faith healers employ to cover the fact that their own healings are not instantaneous. Namely, that sometimes healing miracles happen over time, or the effects can only be seen until later.
The problem is that this is where faith healers and those who promote so-called "healing ministries" shoot themselves in the foot. They claim that all Christians should be able to heal, and jump to all scripture passages where Christ talks of His disciples doing what He did, and hence establish that we should be able to heal like Christ and the apostles did. Then they turn around and say that sometimes, in our healing ministries, healing might take time or the effects may not be seen until later. However, nowhere in scripture is the healing done by Christ or the apostles ever over time, nor is it ever only a partial healing. In this case, the faith healers are in essence presenting an example of special pleading, where they say they are simply living up to the standard set by Christ and the apostles, but then say that not all rules applicable to Christ and the apostles are applicable to them for superficial reasons.
Please don't misunderstand me here - I do believe that God has a hand in natural, gradual, physical healing. Let's say a soldier over in Afghanistan is hit by an enemy bullet. I believe God has a hand in the bullet just missing all the vital organs. I believe God has a hand in providing nearby buddies to pick him up and carry him to safety. I believe God has a hand in providing for the vehicles to take him out of the battle zone. I believe God has a hand in providing just the right medic to give that soldier surgery. I believe God has a hand in providing that soldier a place to rest and heal from his wounds. I believe God has a hand in providing that soldier renewed strength to be ready to fight again. I do believe that in all healing, be it quick or slow, God has a hand.
However, I think John MacArthur (in Charismatic Chaos) is correct in trying to differentiate between what are miracles and what is merely providence. So many people today throw the world miracle around that the word has lost all meaning, so much so that something as small as finding a good parking spot at the grocery story is considered by some to be a miracle from God. Yet there is a wide difference between a person born blind being given perfect sight (as we see in John 9) and a basketball player, told it'll take four to six months to recover, recovering in the minimum four months. The former is a miracle; the latter is providence.
If we are going to claim that we are part of a "healing ministry" that seeks to mimic the healings of Christ and the apostles and for the same purposes for which they did them, then we should be holding ourselves to that same standard. Christ and the apostles healed completely and instantaneously. Praying for a fellow church member going through cancer treatment to have healing might indeed happen, and it might indeed happen gradually, but we should not compare that to the healing miracles of the New Testament.


This is why I worry about those who are caught up in movements such as IHOP-KC, where they are taught doctrine that comes not from sound exegesis but from proof texts that are tweaked just enough in context (or even, as we see here, in quotation) to prove the teacher's own individual theology. I worry about those who are dramatically changing their lifestyles and making great sacrifices because they sincerely believe that the Holy Spirit's own personal 55 Central Park West is a place in Kansas City founded by proven false prophets.


Many have asked me if IHOP-KC is a cult. While it doesn't necessarily have all the traits of a cult (they don't believe those outside of IHOP-KC are unsaved, for example), I do worry and pray for those who are giving up so much for something that has no real merit. They are caught up in a movement where they are fed teachings such as this, and have become emotionally attached to the guidance of wolves. We should pray for all of them, that they may come to know the true Spirit of wisdom and discernment, which can only be found in the scriptures and the sound doctrines of God.