This Week in Review - 3/24/2017

Here's another list of interesting links and resources I discovered this week. Quite a few to share here, from a variety of topics!

Creation Accounts and Ancient Near Eastern Religions from Christian Research Institute - It's common for people to say the Genesis narrative is just a rehash of Near Eastern religions, or at the very least that the ancient Jews may have been influenced by them. As this study from CRI shows, a lot of those connections are at best weak or superficial. It's a lot like many of those supposed connections between Christ's death and resurrection and other "dying and rising" myths.

Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi? from GotQuestions.org - A common claim is that the Law of Moses didn't really present anything new that Hammurabi didn't already try. This article provides some comparisons, and shows that all similarities are due to the fact that Hammurabi, and countless other cultures, recognize that things like theft, adultery, etc., are serious crimes that deserve punishment (y'know, that whole Romans 1 thing). The key differences are that, while Hammurabi's code dealt with criminal and civil law, the Law of Moses expands things into the spiritual and personal realm.

The Human Kind from Answers in Genesis - A little known fact among many people today is that, in the early stages of the theory of evolution, racism, and the concept of different levels of racial development, was wildly popular and accepted. Nowadays evolutionists and atheists like to distance themselves from that truth, but, rationally speaking (and looking at the issue of human biodiversity), that is evolution's logical step.

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? from Answers in Genesis - Good read that answers the question on if scripture itself interprets Genesis as a literal, or figurative account. A lot of these arguments are similar to ones I've made in the past, so it's good to see other, more learned men coming to the same conclusions.

Jesus Created The Universe: The Deity Of Christ from Reasons for Jesus - Christ is divine not only from His own claims to being divine, but also the fact that scripture attests to His role as a "causal agent" for the act of creation.

How Early Was Jesus Being Worshiped As God? from Jonathan Morrow - A short read that provides both a quote from scripture and a quote from Pliny on the issue of the historicity of the worship of Christ. Some additional links are provided.

Is the Original Text of the New Testament Lost? Rethinking Our Access to the Autographs from Canon Fodder - A common argument from many today is that, since we don't have access to the original copies of the books in the Bible, we can't really know what they say. Is that true? A few scholarly thoughts on the subject are found here.

Two Moral Atrocities God supposedly committed from DyerThoughts - William Dyer addresses two supposed moral dilemmas that God commits in scripture: creating people with disabilities, and the infamous she-bear incident with Elisha and the youths. Do these prove God isn't worthy of worship? Dyer addresses each, especially by clarifying what's going on in the Elisha narrative.

Did Daniel Accurately Predict a Succession of Nations? from Christian Research Institute - Nice read on the historical narrative found within Daniel, from the fall of Babylon to the rise of the Seleucid Empire. In some respects it could have gone into even deeper detail, or handled the troubling passages from Daniel 11:40-onward, but it's good for what it is.

God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind from Southern Evangelical Seminary - There are a lot of responses out there to The Shack, many of them strictly doctrinal. This article gets to the heart of the matter, by addressing the "experiential emotionalism" so rampant in modern western Christianity. It's a gracious and fine read.

The Most Dangerous Man in Christendom? from First Things - Carl Trueman addresses the charge made that he's "the most dangerous man in Christendom" due to a charge of "high sacramentalism." Trueman goes on to discuss the problem within modern Evangelicalism of loving conversion/witnessing tactics, while at the same time glorifying the men of the Reformation-era, many of whom would be deemed "high sacramentalists" by those same Evangelicals.

Leaving the NAR Church: Derrick's story from Pirate Christian - Derrick, from the UK, shares the experiences of how his family was sucked into the New Apostolic Reformation. He talks about how it left some family members homeless and without jobs due to the advice of a false prophet, while others became involved under false teachers like Mike Bickle. As it grew more stranger and destructive, Derrick eventually left the movement, seeing it for the demonic deception that it was.

The Mailbag: I “feel led” in a different direction from my husband from Michelle Lesley - As the title implies, what does a wife do when she "feels led" differently than her husband? How is she able to still "submit"? Ms. Lesley covers that question from a biblical viewpoint.

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond from BeliefNet - Excellent article by Alister McGrath on the supposed disconnect science gives faith. He speaks a little on his own journey into faith, and how he eventually came to realize how philosophically shallow Richard Dawkins' arguments were. As he writes, "Dawkins and his circle" present a rationale which, "far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone."

Secularism isn't a Neutral Position from Come Reason Ministries - Is secular thought really a "neutral" point compared to religion? On the contrary, it basically becomes a religion all its own.

What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? from Answers in Genesis - Because it's a topic that comes up every now and then...

Ten quick responses to atheist claims from Christian Today - As the title suggests, these are some quick responses to common atheist objections like "I just believe one less God than you," "There are so many denominations," etc.

44 Quotes from Former Atheists from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - What the title implies. Includes some well known former atheists like C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, as well as some lesser known ones.

3 Apologetics Strategies From the Book of Acts from Alisa Childers - Three quick points about the way the apostles handled apologetics against Jews and Gentiles in the book of Acts.

Four Incorrect Views of Christianity

The following is from Authentic Christianity, by Martin Lloyd-Jones, regarding Acts 2:37–47.

Let me put it quite simply like this: What would your answer be if I gave you a sheet of paper and a pencil and told you to put down in as few words as possible your idea of what it means to be a Christian? [...]

There are some people who quite clearly think that Christianity operates solely in the realm of the intellect. These are serious and able men and women who are concerned about life and its problems. They know that here is a traditional teaching, and they believe it their bounden duty to consider it. So they read about the Christian faith and may become very interested in it, even accepting a good deal of it. But it is all in the mind. It is all theoretical. They may greatly enjoy their study of Christianity; it may become their hobby, but it is nothing beyond that. In addition, many people devote their lives to theological study. These scholars and academics spend their time in intellectual argument, taking up religious issues and writing their books one against another or in agreement with one another. That is their whole life. [...]

At the opposite extreme, there are those for whom Christianity is purely a matter for the feelings. They have had a wonderful experience of peace or love or happiness, and they say they need nothing else. The intellectuals, of course, condemn such people. “It’s pure emotionalism,” they say. “They cannot argue seriously with you. They haven’t read the books and cannot discuss them with you. They live on the wonderful feeling they say they’ve had and deliberately try to work it up again and again.” And, of course, there is a good deal of evidence that lends considerable weight to these objections.

Then there is a third group that puts the entire emphasis upon the will. According to this view, what makes a Christian is not what people think; and if they like to play with the emotions, let them do so. Rather, they say, whether or not you are a Christian hinges upon what you do. It is the way in which you live that is the deciding factor. Are you living for the good of humanity? Are you ready to make sacrifices? Are you ready to put desire for a great career on one side in order to do something heroic and wonderful and sacrificial? That is what makes people Christians. It is a question of making a deliberate decision to improve the lot of humanity and uplift the human race. This may take you into politics or into social work—the sphere is unimportant. As long as you are giving yourself in service, what does it matter what you believe? The intellect is comparatively unimportant. Indeed, you can be certain of very few things in a world like this. The important thing is your will and your desire and what you are actually doing.

A fourth view of Christianity, a view commonly held by many people who have been brought up as Christians — I myself held it for many a year — is the view that being a Christian is a task that you have to take up and that you take up more or less reluctantly and miserably in a spirit of fear. Christianity is mainly something that spoils life. You know other people who were not brought up as Christians, and you see that they do things freely without any hesitation at all, and you wish you could be doing the same things, but you are afraid. You have been brought up in a chapel or a church, brought up as a Christian, as it were, and though you want to do these things, you cannot. This Christianity stands between you and them. [...]

So we are considering these eleven verses from Acts, and we see what an utter travesty this last view is of Christianity. This is what Luke wrote: “They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people” (vv. 46–47). Could anything be a greater contrast? This is Christianity.[pg. 64-66]

A Response to a Supposed Calvinist Dilemma

This post is going to be in response to a supposed critique of Calvinism, using Acts 13:48 and a popular Calvinist interpretation of it. The source came from Twitter, where I saw this image shared:

The passage in question is this:

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. [Acts 13:48; NASB]

This passage takes place during Paul's first missionary journey, when he and Barnabas arrive in Antioch, and experience the first major group of conversions among the Gentiles. Obviously the contention of the image is towards any Calvinist use of this verse to say that those who believed had already been appointed unto salvation. Indeed, John MacArthur, in his commentary for this verse, states that it is "one of Scripture's clearest statements on the sovereignty of God in salvation" (pg. 1461).

Generally speaking, there tend to be two major objections to this reading:

1) The appointment was for the Gentiles to receive salvation, since the Jews, as a people, had rejected it. However, this passage is clearly talking about individuals. Not all Jews had rejected the message (as verses 42-43 demonstrate), and not all Gentiles had accepted it.

2) Verse 46 says that the Jews rejected the Gospel, and considered themselves unworthy to receive it, hence this is just speaking about the Gentiles' choice. The problem with this contention is that this verse makes it clear that the act of believing on the part of the Gentiles followed the appointment to eternal life. That is, those who were the ones appointed to eternal life were the ones who believed; if one was not appointed to eternal life, they did not believe. That Jews earlier objected to the Gospel does not contradict Calvinism: that is the natural state of man, which is to reject the Gospel and the message of salvation.

It is also helpful to note that, grammatically speaking, Acts 13:48 is an example of the pluperfect tense. Daniel Wallace lists this verse as one such example of the tense, and writes:

...the force of the pluperfect tense is that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results that existed in the past as well (in relation to the time of speaking). [pg. 583; Wallace]

On the same page, Mr. Wallace explains further that the pluperfect does not make a comment "about the results existing up to the time of speaking". William D. Mounce likewise writes:

The pluperfect is used to describe an action that was completed and whose effects are felt at the time after the completion but before the time of the speaker. (The effects of the action described by the perfect is felt at the time of the speaker.) [pg. 237; Mounce]

In this context, the people were not active believers up to this point of hearing the gospel, but their being appointed to eternal life was something done in the past, and not only at that moment, when they accepted, nor did their accepting the Gospel lead into the being appointed to eternal life. Those who had been appointed to eternal life beforehand were the ones who then, at that moment, believed. We will cover this part a little more later on in this post.

Let us now go to the image, and deal with the supposed treatment of the Calvinist position.

The image states that "God arbitrarily appointed some to eternal life and there is no chance for others to be saved." Immediately, we have a problem with the use of "arbitrary"; as I stated in my podcasts on Matthew Gallatin's use of Romans 9 (he likewise uses the term "arbitary"), that word is misplaced in the Calvinist concept of God. In the Twitter thread where I saw this used, the OP explained: "Arbitrary means 'based on random choice or personal whim'. By definition, arbitrary works just fine." This, however, is problematic, for the simple fact that God does not do anything by "random choice," nor does he do anything by "personal whim." Everything God does is with purpose - even election. This is found throughout scripture, where God will say "for this purpose" and "for this reason" whenever discussion his actions.

The image continues by saying that this belief "makes God a liar," and proceeds to cite 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. These two verses are passages that have been addressed by Calvinists for perhaps hundreds of years, so simply throwing them out in the discussion is (to be frank) highly unproductive, and shows a lack of understanding of the side you are criticizing. For the sake of time, I will link to two discussions on the verses, explaining them from the Calvinist perspective: one on the verse from Paul, and one on the verse from Peter. In short: 1 Timothy 2:4 is speaking about different kinds of men, while 2 Peter 3:9 is addressing believers, not unbelievers (again, see the longer discussions linked to).

The image likewise argues this makes God a "respecter of persons," and cites against such a notion Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and 1 Peter 1:17. However, the author of this image seems to fail to recognize two things:

Firstly, Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 are referring to ethnicity and race. Acts 10 tells the story of Peter, an ethnic Jew, visiting Cornelius' household, and seeing that the Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles; Romans 2:11 is preceded by verse 10, which states "glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." God is not a respecter of persons in regards to their ethnic or racial identity (ie., no one will be banned from salvation simply because they're black, or Latino); this is what those verses are attempting to get across.

Secondly, 1 Peter 1:17 is simply saying that God is one "who impartially judges according to each one’s work." This in no way refutes the idea of unconditional election - it only confirms that God will judge each one rightfully according to their deeds. Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike would agree on this.

The final part of this image's opposition to the (straw man) Calvinist position is that this makes it so God does not "appoint everyone to eternal life," and cites Matthew 7:13. This verse simply states: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." This verse in no way states that God has appointed all to eternal life, nor suggests that such a thing is possible.

Let us now go to the right side of the image, and the response to the so-called Calvinist position.

The contention is that these Gentiles were "making an appointment for eternal life." A quick correction here: these were not unbelieving Gentiles, but Jews and God-fearing men (Gentile converts to Judaism who abstained from circumcision), as clarified in verse 43 (the word "Gentile" is not even used in verse 42, but rather simply the pronoun "they"). Let us also not forget that Paul and Barnabas were speaking in the synagogue (v. 14), and verse 42 happens after their long sermon in the synagogue.

However, let's put this aside for now and examine the contention that the the people were "making an appointment for eternal life," and let us remember what we established earlier: which comes first in this verse? The appointing, or the believing? The appointing does. Those who were appointed were those who believed. If there had been no appointing, there would be no believing. If we were to take the sentence, "As many as were drafted served in the army," and then argued that those who served in the army had drafted themselves, it would make no sense. However, this is how some synergists wish to interpret Acts 13:48.

Further confusion is added to the verse when the image states: "they make appointments to hear the truth of the gospel, and faith comes by hearing of the word of God (Rom 1:16; 10:17)." Two points in regards to this:

Firstly, let's again ask who is making the appointment, and what is being appointed. It is people being appointed (not making appointments - note the image's subtle transition from verb to noun), and this appointing is towards eternal life. There is nothing here about individuals "making appointments" to "hear the truth of the gospel" (in fact, they had already heard it in the text, therefore it seems illogical to hear it again in order to believe).

Secondly, the citations of Romans 1:16 and 10:17 are unrelated to this conversation. I know the image maker probably cited them to back up the statement that faith comes by hearing the word of God, but this in no way contradicts Calvinist doctrine. Calvinists believe that God elects people unto salvation, and then calls them unto that salvation through the preaching of His truth, just as Paul writes "and these whom He predestined, He also called" (Rom 8:30a). It is also worth noting that in the famous phrase "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14), the Greek word for "chosen" can literally be translated as "the called of the called."

In short, this image does not present a conundrum for Calvinist doctrine. Like many anti-Calvinist arguments, it misrepresents the Calvinist position and attempts to reword the passages in question in order to make it fit with a more synergistic approach. As I've said elsewhere, both on the blog and my podcast, this is one of the reasons I'm a Calvinist: when I was a non-Calvinist and I was reviewing both sides of the argument, I saw that one side was being dishonest about the other's position, and not handling scripture rightly; that side was the synergistic side. When I was as honest with scriptural passages about salvation as I was with scriptural passages about the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, I had to come to Calvinistic conclusions.

However, I invite the reader to examine this passage themselves, and treat it with respect and honesty, and see for themselves what the word of God has to say. God bless.

***

Works Cited

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Print.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Print.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Print.

IHOP-KC and Acts 2

Introduction

Among many of the favorite passages of scripture used by International House of Prayer founder Mike Bickle is the prophecy found in the second chapter of the Book of Joel and used again by Peter in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. From here, Bickle draws inspiration for his "prophetic ministry," as well as his beliefs regarding the end times (which he believes will happen within the next generation at the most). Here is a sample from Mike Bickle himself:

When the prophetic ministry flourishes, it is often confirmed by signs and wonders. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted the Joel 2 promise for a last-days' revival. Of course, the last days began with the cross, the Resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. However, the complete fulfillment of the Joel 2 promises will be in the final decades of the last days - those years just prior to the second coming of Jesus, which I refer to as the "End Times."

The first half of the passage in Acts 2 speaks of the outpouring of the Spirit and the increase of prophetic revelation on the entire body of Christ:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My manservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy - Acts 2:17-18

The second half of the passage focuses on the great increase of the acts of God in nature:

I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs on the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved. - Acts 2:19-21

There is a specific order and sequence in the text: the outpouring of the Spirit, followed by the increase of the prophetic dreams and visions, followed by the occurring of confirming signs in the sky and on the earth. We have witnessed a few supernatural confirmations in nature of significant prophetic words. [pg. 11-12; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008 edition]

Bickle believes that these signs and wonders spoken about in Joel will increase as Christ's return draws near.

In the end times, the awesome signs and wonders in the heavens and on Earth prophesied in Acts 2:17-21 will be much greater than anything ever before seen in history. [pg. 21, Prophetic]

Bickle uses this teaching to emphasize the importance of "prophetic ministry" that he and others at IHOP-KC teach.

...the outpouring of the Spirit, the prophetic ministry, and the signs and wonders in nature are clearly a part of God's agenda for the End Times. God has ordained that the church needs the input of the prophetic ministry to stay properly encouraged and focused as well as to minimize unbelief that plagues so many ministries today. [pg. 22, Prophetic]

Bickle even believes that what is being spoken of in Joel 2 and Acts 2 is being fulfilled in the here and now.

We know that a "Great Awakening" is soon to sweep across our nations. Though many see no hope, no solution to the coming crisis, we look with confidence to God’s promises to pour out His Spirit on all flesh in the last days (Acts 2:17-21), when all nations will receive the witness of the kingdom with power (Mt. 24:14; Rev. 7:9). What a privilege to live in this awesome hour of history! [pg. 5; 7 Commitments of a Forereunner, 2009]

Many believe the words of Mike Bickle that "the church needs the input of the prophetic ministry." Thousands flock to the IHOP-KC prayer room every day, and countless more watch the live webcast of their prayer room at home. A former neighbor of mine had the webcast on every day, and even had it playing with the speakers directed out his windows, as if some kind of magical force was flowing from them. Someone at my last church who knew an IHOP-KC attendant said that she had it playing at her house nonstop. People have left their homes and traveled hundreds upon hundreds of miles to live in Kansas City, just to be close to this prayer room. Thousands flock to the conferences sponsored by IHOP-KC and associates such as Lou Engle. Its visitors are of many ages, but a large number of them are teenagers and young adults.

How legitimate is Bickle's exegesis of Acts 2? Does it really speak of an end times prophetic movement? Does it really speak of a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the end times? I thought it would be worth going over Acts 2 and examining what is really going on with Peter's sermon to the Jews. I recognize that, in doing so, I could cover a whole lot more than just IHOP-KC (Dispensationalism comes to mind), but for this post I will focus on Mike Bickle's own exegesis and teachings.

Analysis

First, we need to understand the immediate context that leads to Peter's quotation of Joel 2.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel..." [Acts 2:5-16]

After the sending of the Holy Spirit, the apostles had begun speaking in tongues, shocking all present because each individual Jew (visiting from their home nation) heard the apostles speak in their own native tongues (signifying that these "tongues" were in fact foreign languages). Some started to disregard this, saying the apostles were just drunk, but then Peter speaks up. Note what Peter says: "This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel." What is the "this"? Peter is referring to the Day of Pentecost as the center of the Joel prophecy. Hence, immediate context of the Joel quote involved what was unfolding that day, and would have been applicable to those listening.

For certain, much of what is described by Peter happened in those times. Peter describes the Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh - that happened at Pentecost with the Jews (Acts 2:4) and then with the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-45). Peter says their sons and daughters would prophesy - and indeed, men prophesied, as did many daughters, such as those of the evangelist Philip (Acts 21:9). Peter says young men shall see visions - and indeed, many did see visions (Acts 9:10, 10:3, 11:5). Peter says the old men shall dream dreams, and indeed, old men dreamed dreams (Acts 16:9, 18:9). Peter says men and woman shall prophesy, and indeed, people did so (Acts 11:28, 21:10-11). There's nothing from the immediate context of scripture that says this wasn't fulfilled in Peter's day.

Those at IHOP-KC would argue that they recognize the first part of the Joel prophecy could be related to Pentecost, but that the second half is related to future events. Mike Bickle's own handling of Joel 2 involves cutting it up, dividing it in the middle of verse 19. From this, he says that the "wonders in heaven and signs on the earth beneath" are about general wonders and signs, while the "blood and fire and vapor of smoke" are about specific future signs and wonders. However, no such division exists in Peter's original use. Peter quotes it as a single passage. Humorously enough, even the translation Mike Bickle uses treats it as a single thought. To quote from it:

I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. [v. 19]

Note the colon there - what purpose does a colon serve, grammatically speaking? Colons serve either to explain, prove or list elements related to what preceded before it. What Bickle's own translation says is that the signs described by Joel involve "blood and fire and vapor of smoke."

Now granted, colons weren't present in the original Greek manuscripts, therefore some might call this contention a non sequitor. However, whether by using a colon, semi-colon, comma, or run-on sentence, most translators recognize that what Joel is doing here (and verse 20) is describing specific signs that will be seen in heaven and earth. By cutting verse 19 in two and dividing up the context, Bickle is manhandling the text to get it to say what he wants. Unless Bickle can claim he's seen "blood and fire and vapor of smoke," he can't attribute this to any signs or wonders he's seen to this passage. To do so is to read into the text what isn't there.

As we said earlier, many at IHOP-KC repeat what Bickle says, which is that half of the Joel prophecy (from "blood and fire, etc." onward) is about future events, and can't be about Pentecost because none of that happened at Pentecost. In some ways, they are right - it is about future events. However, it involves the near future, and it is still related to the Day of Pentecost, as I hope to explain shortly, and in this manner:

The apostles, on the Day of Pentecost, were addressing the Jews - the Gospel had not yet gone to the Gentiles, and God would not send anyone to the Gentiles until Acts 10, with Peter and Cornelius. Peter's quotation of Joel is important because when Joel says "in the last days," it was generally understood by most Jews (as John Gill discusses from Jewish sources) that this referred to the age of the Messiah. Hence, when Peter says this prophecy is being fulfilled in their midst, the Jews listening understood the significance.

Peter finishes the Joel quotation with: "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." He then - while still addressing the Jews - attests to the historic reality of Christ. Quoting from the ESV:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." [Acts 2:22-24]

He goes on about the raising of Christ, and concludes regarding Christ's authority: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (v. 36). The Jews understand the significance of this as well - Peter is saying that Christ, whom many in Jerusalem believed to have died - was in fact the Messiah, and was now seated with authority on heaven and earth. Realizing this, they ask what they should do, to which Peter gives the call for repentance (v. 37-38). He then says that the promise of salvation is for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" (v. 39). Remember this part for later, as it will become relevant.

Then comes an important statement from the apostle:

And with many other words [Peter] bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:40]

Who is "this crooked generation"? That has been a topic of debate for those who study eschatology, but given the immediate context and audience, it is clear that Peter is referring to that current Jewish generation. Moses had called the Jews of his time a "crooked and twisted generation" (Deu 32:5), and Jesus himself had referred to those in Peter's time as a faithless and twisted generation (Matt 17:17; Luke 9:41). Christ had likewise said: "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah" (Luke 11:29). The sign of Jonah was Christ's being in the earth for three days and rising up to bring repentance to men (Matt 12:40). Peter had preached repentance, and now it was time for those in this "crooked generation" to repent.

Now we must ask this: when Peter says "save yourselves," what do they need to be saved from? Many might immediately respond that they need to be saved from the final judgment, and this would not be inaccurate. However, let's refer back to that second part Bickle referred to:

"I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Acts 2:19-21]

Remember, Mike Bickle divides up verse 19 and tries to separate the signs and wonders from the descriptions, but that isn't how the text reads - they correlate with one another. What specific signs and wonders does God intend to show? Blood, fire, vapor of smoke, the sun turning to darkness, the moon into blood, and all before the great and awesome day of the Lord. Again, unless Bickle wants to claim he's seen all of these already, he can't apply these verses to this day. It will be granted that Bickle often talks about miracles and signs he's witnessed, but none of them include the aforementioned signs. Therefore, they are irrelevant to this verse. I don't care if Bickle saw Bigfoot come down from heaven and completely heal Stephen Hawking with a bent seven iron while doing the hokey pokey - if it's not blood, fire, vapor of smoke, the sun turning to darkness, the moon into blood, etc...then it's not relevant to Joel 2/Acts 2.

In any case, the language used by Joel is obviously figurative language - unless someone wants to claim the moon is going to become a giant glob of plasma floating around the earth, we can't assume the prophet Joel is speaking literally. This is also obviously apocalyptic language, dealing with destruction compounded with woe, calamity and misery. The sun is not going to be darkened because there's a light switch God can flick whenever He wants, but because of the vapor and smoke mentioned before. In like manner, the moon will appear like blood because the vapor and smoke in the atmosphere will give it a reddish or orange tinge (this can be seen sometimes even today).

Now, what significance would this have to the Jews with whom Peter was talking, and how does this relate to what they would be saved from? These are all, in fact, talking about the approaching siege and destruction of Jerusalem, which was God's judgment upon the "crooked generation" for their rejection of the Messiah. The destruction of Jerusalem, and with it the Temple, was performed by Roman soldiers under Titus in 70 AD, nearly forty years after Pentecost. The Jews had rebelled against Roman rule in the mid-60's, but soon turned on one another, murdering and torturing fellow Jews as different factions made a bid for power. Thus when Titus arrived with his legions (the "armies" described in Luke 21:20) against Jerusalem, the city was already torn by conflict.

After a prolonged siege and great famine, the city fell and was obliterated. This great calamity, described by the Jewish historian Josephus (who was an eyewitness), saw the city and the Temple engulfed in flames. Roman soldiers left not one single stone of the Temple atop another, fulfilling the prophecy given by Christ (Matt 24:1-2). Aside from the loss of property, the loss of life was even greater, and although there exist no accurate estimates, they range anywhere from a hundred thousand to a million.

This was the "great and awesome day" of the Lord spoken of by Joel, for it was the day of judgment for the Jews who had rejected their Messiah. Even Josephus, who was shocked at the conduct of his own countrymen against one another, and who was certainly not a Christian, believed this was God's judgment.

"It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions." [Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, 1:5]

If we argue this is the "day of the Lord" spoken of by Joel, one might then ask about the following passage which says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." We should first wonder: what happened to the Jerusalem Christians we read about in Acts? Did they perish under the Romans? In fact, the Christians had left Jerusalem before the city fell. The famous church historian Eusebius accounts that the Christians in Jerusalem fled as soon as they found out the Romans were coming. As a result, the Jewish Christians were spared from the destruction of Jerusalem and what befell the unbelieving Jews therein.

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella... [Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 5:3]

It might be helpful to note here that, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter does not quote all of Joel's prophecy in full. This is not because Peter himself was playing with the text, but because he had given the full gist of it, and most Jews listening probably would have been able to fill in the blanks themselves. It is also because Peter indirectly refers to it later on. Let's review the full quotation of that section from Joel:

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. [Joel 2:32]

Joel prophesies that "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved," yes, but then adds: "For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape...and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls." Remember what Peter said in Acts 2:39? He had told the Jews to repent and be baptized and turn to Christ for forgiveness of their sins, then proclaims that the promise was for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." It is then, in the next verse, that Peter exhorts the Jews to save themselves from this crooked generation. This is a definite tie-in between the generation to whom Peter is preaching and the prophecies given by Joel. The Jews at Pentecost were to save themselves from the crooked generation because judgment was fast approaching upon that crooked generation.

And as it stood, God kept his promises for all parties involved. Those whom He had called were saved from the destruction that befell that crooked generation, but as for that crooked and faithless generation, they were judged. There was blood (from the massacre of Jerusalem's inhabitants), fire (across the city and in the temple), vapor of smoke (rising from the ruins), the sun turned into darkness (from the thick smoke) and the moon turned to blood (from the haze of the smoke). Joel 2's prophecy was fulfilled, as Peter had said it would be.

Conclusion

There are a few assumptions made by Bickle and others at IHOP-KC about what Joel 2 and Acts 2 teach, all of which are false.

1) God will perform natural signs and wonders in the prophetic church today: This is false, at least from the text Mike Bickle relies on. As demonstrated earlier, he comes to this conclusion by chopping up verse 19 and isolating each piece from the full context. This is a blatant mishandling of God's word that is unbecoming of a Christian leader.

2) God will perform other natural signs and wonders at the end times: This is false, and for reasons dealing with the previous section. The signs and wonders in heaven and earth and the blood, smoke and vapor mentioned by Joel are related to one another. There are not two separate groups of signs and wonders here - Mike Bickle has read that into the text by, again, mishandling God's word.

3) The latter half of the Joel prophecy is talking about the very end of days: This is also false. Given the immediate context of Peter's sermon in Acts, accompanied by what he says later and what we know from history, and how the orthodox Christian church has interpreted these verses up until the rise of Dispensationalism and other problematic theologies, Peter is warning the Jews to escape the approaching judgment upon their nation.

The prophecies in Joel refer to the Day of Pentecost, the era of the apostolic church, and the impending judgment of the Jewish nation. They had nothing to do with the church today - let alone do they have anything to do with Mike Bickle and his prophetic ministry.

Did Agabus get it wrong?

Some supporters of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC), in an attempt to justify founder Mike Bickle's position that New Testament prophets can get details of a prophecy wrong, or can prophesy wrongly (see my posts here and here), have tried turning to a scriptural example. They turn to the prophecy of a prophet named Agabus, found in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Using his very own personal account, Luke recalls the prophesy given by Agabus regarding Paul's eventual journey to Jerusalem and his imprisonment.

While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" [Acts 21:10-11]

IHOP-KC supporters claim that this was wrong, as it was the Romans who bound Paul. To verify this, they go to verse 33.

Then the tribune came up and arrested [Paul] and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. [Acts 21:33]

Therefore, they say, since Agabus was wrong (at least "partially") on the details, this is scriptural proof for the IHOP-KC position that New Testament prophets can get some things in a prophecy wrong. Is this the case?

First, let's remember what the apostle Peter wrote regarding prophecy in general:

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

As I discussed in the previously cited post, both the words and the grammar here are clear. The apostle Peter begins by saying that "no prophecy of Scripture" comes from someone's own interpretation (not referring to sola scriptura, but man making up scripture with no assistance from God), and then explains why in the next verse: it is because no prophecy was ever by "the will of man," but as men "were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The original word translated in the ESV as "carried along" means that God is in complete control, and what God wants to be said will be said. God is not a victim of fatalism to the personal spiritual whims of the creature, and His prophecies are not capable of being given with any degree of error. At the time of this writing, I have yet to have a follower of Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC's doctrines give a real response to this passage of scripture.

Secondly, we should point out that the idea that Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong is vastly foreign to the over 2000 years of Christian exegesis and scriptural study. Some recent men, such as Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson, have certainly made the claim that Agabus spoke in error (and IHOP-KC's followers readily quote them), but their opinion is in the vast minority. Some of the greatest theologians and expositors of scripture throughout history have interpreted Agabus's prophecy as being completely fulfilled with no mistake on his part (even with verse 33 in consideration). This list of great men includes John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, John Gill, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, A.T Robertson and many, many others.

Thirdly, let's try to understand what occurs in Jerusalem when Paul arrives. While the backing of Christian history can be vital, it is not Matthew Henry, D.A. Carson or anyone else who gets the final word, but scripture itself and its plain meaning. We find, in this section, the apostle Paul at the Temple performing Jewish forms of worship, and a riot occurs:

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd were shouting one thing, some another. And as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. And when he came to the steps, he was actually carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd, for the mob of the people followed, crying out, "Away with him!" [Acts 21:27-36]

Paul was indeed bound by Romans (v. 33), but it was at the instigation of the Jews (v. 31-32), who had already seized and dragged him out of the Temple (v. 30). It was because Paul's enemies had instigated the people and caused the riot that the Romans were compelled to chain him. Some commentators, such as John Gill, suggest that the reason the tribune puts Paul in chains is to calm the Jews and pacify the situation, and, if this were the case, then the Jews of Jerusalem would indeed be responsible for Paul's binding. Certainly Tertullus, spokesman for the Jewish leadership, made the claim later on that it was they who captured Paul (Acts 24:6). Although there is a textual variant in the next verse where Tertullus gives some credit to the tribune, this is not in the earliest manuscripts, and is left out of most modern translations.

Fourthly and finally, if Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong, the characters of Acts - including the author Luke himself - are completely silent on the matter. We don't see Agabus and others being befuddled by the differing events in the same manner Mike Bickle, Bob Jones and the other Kansas City Prophets were befuddled by differing events from their own prophecies (as was often recorded by Bickle himself). In fact, let's take a moment to understand how the apostle Paul interpreted the events of Acts 21. To the Jews in Rome, Paul said:

"Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." [Acts 28:17]

Did Agabus get the details of the prophecy wrong? That's completely foreign to the apostle Paul himself. Paul interprets the events as the Jews capturing him as a prisoner (thus being bound, even if only by instigation) and handing him over to the Romans. According to the apostle Paul, Agabus got everything right. If Agabus had been wrong, Paul should have said something similar to simply: "I was arrested by the Romans." There is good reason, therefore, that the previously mentioned theologians believed that Agabus's prediction was completely fulfilled, and that is the apostle Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, confirmed it so in this verse. At this moment in my life, I do not believe myself spiritually mature enough to disagree with the apostle Paul.

It is perfectly fine to turn to scripture affirm or review our theology. However, when we reach a level where we attempt to accuse prophets of God of prophesying falsely (even if "partially") and ignore how scripture itself interprets an event, then we are not continuing in a mindset where scripture has the final say. Instead, we are entering a mindset where our presuppositions and desires to validate another man's ministries and false teachings are carrying the day. I humbly ask that those supporting IHOP-KC, Mike Bickle and his peers carefully and prayerfully consider this. God bless.

Paul and the Unknown God

There is a brief moment in Luke's Acts of the Apostles where the apostle Paul speaks to a group of pagan Athenians regarding their worship. The verses most commonly quoted from this episode are:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." [Acts 17:22-23; ESV]

Of all possible conclusions, this verse is often used to support either one of two things: 1) universalism, which says all religions are right, or 2) justification for saying that some of the other monotheistic faiths (such as Islam) worship the same God as Christians. Careful examination of the scriptural context, however, does not support this.

First, let's present some background. Paul, along with fellow apostles Timothy and Silas, has been traveling throughout Greece spreading the gospel and debating in various synagogues. The group meets some hostility at Thessalonica (17:1-9), but encounters greater success at Berea (17:10-12), where Paul continues on to Athens awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy (17:15).

Those who believe Acts 17 supports universalism or some form of it would be shocked to discover that, upon entering Athens, Paul's first reaction is not one of interest or open mindedness - but rather divine anger.

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him... [Acts 17:16-18; ESV]

Paul feels his spirit "provoked within" by the copious amount of idols, and, without waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him, begins to reason with the people just as he did in the synagogues. Soon this spreads out, and he is not only debating the Jews but the pagan philosophers as well. This leads many to be interested in what he has to say:

And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean." [Acts 17:19-20; ESV]

The Areopagus, or "Rock of Ares," is a hill of rocky terrain overlooking Athens that in ancient times was used for criminal or civil cases, as well as important meetings in general. The nearby temple to the "Unknown God," which Paul will make mention of soon, is a historic reality: it served as a sort of "fill-in" position in addition to the twelve known gods of Greek mythology. Incidentally, the original Greek for "Unknown God" is Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ - it's from the root word for Ἀγνώστῳ that we get the word "agnostic."

Now we have finally arrived at the passage quoted in the beginning of this blog post. Does it present universalism? It would seem that Paul's goal is the conversion of the people he is speaking to, in the hopes of bringing them into Christ's arms. Therefore the end of Paul's statement makes much more sense:

"Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." [emphasis mine]

"What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" - or rather: "This 'Unknown God' you worship has an identity, and I am making Him known to you now." In fact, the language Paul uses is very similar to what he uses at the very beginning of Acts 17, when speaking in the synagogues:

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." [Acts 17:2-3; ESV; emphasis mine]

It would be wrong to assume that Paul was telling the Jews they could simply ignore Jesus as the Messiah, for he announces that he is proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. Similarly in Athens, he announces that he is proclaiming Jesus as the Unknown God. Paul is doing in many ways what many missionaries today try to do: initiate conversation with a person of another faith by finding some similarity between the two groups. More importantly, however, he is destroying the ignorance of the Greeks, as we will soon see.

Paul continues from here. In full:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for, 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Acts 17:24-31; ESV]

This speech contradicted much of what the Athenians knew - in fact, Luke records that "some mocked" Paul for what he had said (Acts 17:32). Partially this was because he was telling them that Jesus died and rose again in a spiritually glorified body, whereas most pagan cultures of that time had the idea that the soul and body were separate (sadly, some Christians today believe this too). Partially this was also because Paul clearly mocks idolatry and its reliance on creation rather than the Creator, for he tells them:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." [Acts 17:24-25; ESV]

Greeks worshiped creation: where there was thunder, there was Zeus; where there was dawn, there was Apollo; where there was forests, there was Athena; on and on it went. By contrast, Paul brings forward the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the one true God, from Whom all creation sprung forth. This God "made the world and everything in it," and is "Lord of heaven and earth." Likewise, the Greeks (and many pagans of that time) committed to worship of gods and goddess through material objects, which they worshiped as if the gods were there. Paul attacks this notion by pointing out that these same hands, breath and all matters of living supplied by mankind to idols are, in fact, source directly to God. He has no need of them - just as they exist, He exists.

Following this, he outlines the "religious" nature of the Athenians that he discussed earlier:

"And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for, 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'" [Acts 17:26-28; ESV]

The quotations supplied by Paul are believed to have come from two Greek poets, possibly Epimenides of Crete and Aratus’s "Phainomena."

Paul preaches here the "religious" nature of mankind. Every religion on earth seeks, in one way or another, to "feel their way" towards the Unknown God. One might think this supports the pro-universalism argument, but afterward Paul clearly states:

"Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." [Acts 17:29; ESV]

Idolatry and the use of idols, which the Greeks were doing, is clearly condemned. Remember that this "Unknown God" was not the only god which the Greeks worshiped, for, like Hindus of today, they went from temple to temple where giant statues dedicated to various gods and goddesses towered over the worshipers. If Paul were tolerant with what the Greeks were doing, as some argue, why then would he suddenly condemn the very method of worship a few sentences later? The Greeks were not agnostics (as one might suppose given the argumentation), but polytheists.

This is all, incidentally, very similar to the words Paul uses in his letter to the Romans, in which he also speaks of idolatry.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [Romans 1:18-25; ESV]

It might be worthy to stop here and regard the "religious" nature of the Athenians: there is a wide difference between being "religious" and being "spiritual." A Muslim man in Syria who attends mosque regularly, engages in the Ramadan fast, and reads the Quran, then goes out and cheats on his wife - this man can be said to be "religious," but hardly "spiritual." To be fair, this is true even for Christians - a man who is godly in church and atrocious outside of church may be "religious," but not "spiritual." A religious nature, as Paul says the Athenians have, does not equal a complete faith. Even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that there existed some Greeks who worshiped the Unknown God alone, that would not equal a complete faith, for as the apostle James said, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder" (James 2:19).

Returning to Acts, Paul finally states:

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Acts 17:30-31; ESV]

The times of ignorance are over because God has finally made Himself known through the Incarnate Son, and has dispatched His Church throughout the world to preach the greatest message of all: that death is not the end, and that we may have life through Jesus Christ. He is no longer "the Unknown God" to be worshiped besides twelve more - He is the almighty God, the pantocrator, who is to be worshiped alone. The muddied window of paganism is washed clean, and the light of God shines through. No longer can men accept their error in worshiping creation, for the Creator has made Himself known throughout all of creation, for through creation He has reconciled them.

Paul had stated that man had been made to "seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him." While pagan faiths such as those held by the Athenians are man reaching up to God, the true God proclaimed by Paul is reaching down to man, and now "commands all people everywhere to repent." This Unknown God is unknown no longer. This is a direct attack against the wisdom which many of Paul's audience would have upheld. The greatest wisdom is not a philosophical outlook (as the Greeks treasured), but the knowledge of the true God through Jesus Christ, resurrected from the dead to give life to the dead. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [1 Cor 2:6-8; ESV]

The idea, therefore, that Paul is arguing, "Well, God is OK with you Athenians, because you have a religion that seeks after Him in your own special way," is eisegesis. Paul is seeking nothing more than the conversion of the Athenians to Christ. He not only condemns the idea that God can be found solely in a temple, but also idolatry and transforming God into images. He highlights that salvation is found only in Christ through the Resurrection. For this, he receives some mockery - a curious thing if he was supposedly preaching that the Athenian religious were in the right. How many times in history has a person been mocked by someone for agreeing with them?

Paul's focus here is, as with his other sermons and lessons found throughout Acts and his epistles, is Christ as Redeemer and Savior. To Paul, the apostles, and the great men of the Church, anything else is a distraction that keeps us from our goal of seeking union with God.