The Purpose of the Silence from Heaven

The following is from John's commentary for John 5:3.

As the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the Prophets, was a sufficient witness of the divine presence, religion at that time needed no other confirmation; for the Law had been sanctioned by abundantly sufficient miracles, and God ceased not to express, by innumerable testimonies, his approbation of the worship which he had enjoined. But about the time of Christ's coming, as they were deprived of the Prophets and their condition was very wretched, and as various temptations pressed upon them on every hand, they needed this extraordinary aid, that they might not think that God had entirely left them, and thus might be discouraged and fall away. For we know that Malachi was the last of the Prophets, and, therefore, he closes his doctrine with this admonition, that the Jews may "remember the Law delivered by Moses," (Mal 4:4) until Christ appear. God saw it to be advantageous to deprive them of the Prophets, and to keep them in suspense for a time, that they might be inflamed with a stronger desire for Christ, and might receive him with greater reverence, when he should be manifested to them. [source]

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.

Podcast: Beatles Easter at Wave Church

Is the Gospel preached at Wave Church? What is the message of the cross, according to Wave Church? Find out as we review a message delivered this year's Resurrection Sunday by youth pastor Joe Riddle. Does he present the Gospel and the true message of Easter to the people there?

This link takes you to the podcast episode where we review the dangerous, cult-like teachings by Steve Kelly regarding leadership.

This link takes you to the podcast episode where we review Steve Kelly's Prosperity Gospel beliefs.

This link takes you to a blog post that shows how giving more and more money to Wave Church actually gives you more benefits and influence in the church.

This link takes you to a blog post where we reviewed Joe Riddle's abuse of Revelation 5:12.

Lord of the Dance

Another fine rendition of a song by the great John McDermott.

The Unpardonable Sin

On another website, someone asked about the famous "unpardonable sin." Below is my response (starting with the full context of the passage).

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and he healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 12:22-32; NASB]

We find another miracle of Jesus, one wherein he casts out a demon that had rendered a poor man blind and mute (v. 22). This causes the people to wonder if he was the "Son of David" - in other words, the Messiah (v. 23). The Pharisees hear this, and, out of jealousy, come up with the excuse that Jesus is only doing this by the power of Beelzebul (another word for Satan) - in other words, he's casting out demons by using a demonic authority (v. 24). Interestingly enough, the rabbinical sources that speak on Jesus do talk of his miracles, and they too attribute his miracles to witchcraft and demonic power.

Knowing their thoughts, and obviously desiring to nip all this in the bud right away, Jesus addresses them and presents two reasons why their logic does not work:

1) They believed demons were pitted against demons (vv. 25-26) - While it is possible for exorcisms to be faked by demons (for we cannot assume that Muslim or Hindu exorcisms are legitimate, as demons fear no one but the true God), the Pharisees were not arguing that Jesus was in league with the demons to create ruses, but rather that Jesus was using a higher demonic authority to expel demons who were going about their job. By this logic, Satan's house was divided, and there was a demonic civil war going on. This is what Jesus means by "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?" Later on, in verse 29, Christ will give a more accurate view of the situation: it is actually another, non-demonic power at work against the demonic powers.

2) They had disciples who exorcised demons too (v. 27) - Jesus was not the only one known to cast out demons, though he was certainly the only one to cast them out of his own authority and by his own command. In any case, the Pharisees did not attribute every single exorcism to demonic power, but were seeking to disprove Christ's Messianic status. When Christ says "they will be your judges," he does not necessarily mean that the other Jewish exorcists will stand up and judge them, but rather that the Pharisees' hypocrisy in holding up Jesus to one standard and the other exorcists to another standard will be used against them when they are judged. To explain this phraseology, imagine if someone says, "This video tape that recorded your crime will condemn you." This doesn't mean the video tape is going to bang a gavel and pronounce sentencing, it simply means the video tape will be a damning piece of evidence used in the court of law.

Having proven this logic does not work, Christ now presents the only conclusion: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (v. 28). In other words, Christ's exorcisms were part of the prophecies foretold about the Messiah, and what expelled the demons was not Satan, but God the Holy Spirit, working with God the Son in accordance with the Trinitarian work. Note that earlier (see vv. 17-21), Matthew had quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, which said that God's "Beloved" (the Messiah) had had the Spirit placed upon him, and he would do all the work he was meant to do. This story is one such example of Christ fulfilling that. The people in verse 23 were correct - Christ was the Son of David. And he was proving that by the work of the Spirit against the demons.

Here now, during Christ's response, we have the mention of the "unpardonable sin." Christ outlines that those who are not with him are against him (so much for inclusivism!) and  those who are not gathered with him scatter (v. 30). There is no neutrality. Christ is drawing a line in the sand at this point, for both the benefit of the people listening and the Pharisees. He takes it even further by saying that all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven, but "blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (v. 31), going on to say that "whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him" - but those who speak "against the Holy Spirit" will not be forgiven either "in this age or in the age to come" (v. 32). For many who quote these few verses in isolation, they come to similar erroneous conclusions:

1) The Post-Death Judgment Error - Some believe that this means that God will forgive sins after a person dies. What they do is they take the "either in this age or in the age to come" and read it backwards into "it shall be forgiven him." The problem with this is two fold: a) Christ is not arguing that some sins can be forgiven after death, only that the blasphemy against the Spirit is very serious - he's emphasizing how gosh darn serious it is by adding "either in this age or in the age to come" to demonstrate it; b) the "ages" here refer more so to the pre-Messianic age and the Messianic age - that is, Jews of Christ's time had in mind that you would have the old covenant, then the coming of the Messiah, and then the new age under the Messiah's rule. This is how Christ's listeners would have understood it. 

2) The Hyper-Charismatic Error - Some in the Hyper-Charismatic and Neo-Pentecostal camp have taken these verses to mean that any time you point to a supposed work of the Holy Spirit (a miracle healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.) and say "That's not the Holy Spirit," that automatically means you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This can't be the case, as scripture is quite clear that we should be on the lookout for demonic counterfeits of spiritual work: Pharaoh's magicians could mimic many of the miracles of God (Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7); the Law warned against those who would perform miracles and wonders and yet attempt to lead you astray from the orthodox path (De 13:1-4); Jesus warned against false christs and prophets who would perform miracles (Mt 24:24); the apostle Paul warned that the "lawless one" would perform signs and wonders (2 Th 2:9-10); the beast in Revelation is described as performing signs and wonders (Re 13:13-14). Declaring something to not be the work of the Spirit, especially when we have grounds to do so, is not in and of itself blasphemy against the Spirit, but just good discernment.

So, what is this verse talking about? Well, let's remember some of the preliminary information given us, and try to follow the flow of the narrative: Jesus, as Messiah, has the Spirit (v. 18); the people are wondering if Jesus is the Messiah, but the Pharisees are denying it (vv. 23-24); Christ states that his work is by the Spirit, which means the kingdom of God has come upon them (v. 28); he then states that blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Spirit (vv. 31-32). What then is Christ talking about in these two verses?

It is clear, from the context, that Christ is stating that, when all is fulfilled (that is, the Messianic age has come, and Christ is glorified after the resurrection), those who continue to deny his divine status and role as Messiah, just as they were then, will be condemned. Many "spoke a word" against Jesus as the Son of Man (such as Peter) but were later forgiven, especially at Pentecost and other events recorded in Acts. Most of the Pharisees, however, continued to work against him and denied not only his messianic status, but his divinity - first during his earthly ministry, and then against his church. This is even more clear in Mark's parallel account, where (after the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is spoken of) Mark adds that Jesus said all this "because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (Mk 3:30). In denying that Christ's power and miracles were by the Spirit, and attributing it to demonic powers, the Pharisees were blaspheming the Spirit and working against the kingdom of God. It was a sign of their heart (hence Christ's stern warnings about the connection between the heart and words in vv. 33-37, following the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" verses) and that they were, in essence, marked off for condemnation. 

This has led many theologians and commentators to argue that, really, the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is no longer relevant for this day. That is, it was only relevant to those who lived during Christ's time, during that tender moment between the two ages, when one could blaspheme the Son of Man but not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If we were to apply it today somehow, it would, in a sense, be similar to those who, upon hearing of Christ's miracles, attempt to write them off as exaggerations, lies, sorcery, magic tricks, or the like. We should not, however, use these verses to write these people off as damned, and we should treat them with respect and love, and give them the same message of hope and reconciliation which God used to call us. There are many who denied Christ's miracles today who later repented and put their trust upon the Lamb.

Podcast: Two Sermonettes

In this episode of the podcast, I simply share two "sermonettes" I had done for a local church I attended in Kansas City, MO. One covers the Wise Thief on the cross, while the other covers the temptations of Christ in the wilderness.

Ergun Caner, Frank Dux and Jesus Christ: A Comparative Study

A few days ago, Ergun Caner announced on Twitter that he was innocent and denied all charges against him. For those who are not familiar with the accusations made against Ergun Caner, this page where James White collected together his videos on the subject might help (by the way, the graphic at the top was made by yours truly). He added in response to one critic:

Whenever the Caner affair pops up its ugly head again, I can't help but remember similar charges made against someone else. Who is it? Of all people, it's actually one Frank Dux, whose real life experiences were the basis for the famous 1988 Jean Claude Van Damme flick Bloodsport. While the film of course made plenty of exaggerations and additions (some of which Frank Dux criticized), the basic premise is similar to how Dux claimed it unfolded in real life. This, of course, has led many to call foul and claim Dux is himself exaggerating or adding to his life story. Now, whether or not you think Frank Dux is the real deal, the point I'd like to make here is that he has responded to critics by providing evidence, or pointing to where the evidence can be found. One example can be found here, and another here. Overall, he's been pretty precise in response to his critics and naysayers.

Now compare this with Ergun Caner, who has done nothing in response to his critics except to repeat the mantra of "I'm innocent! They're being mean to me! It's a Muslim/Calvinist conspiracy!" Imagine, instead, if he release information to confirm or respond to his critics. Imagine if he presented evidence that he really was raised in the Middle East. Imagine if he explained the wild contradictions that exist in his various testimony presentations. Imagine if, once and for all, he told us who he debated in Nebraska! This sort of thing should not be hard, and one would think that at least some superficial evidence could be provided on this subject. For example, I grew up in my preteens in Europe when my father, who's in the military, was stationed there. If someone wanted to challenge this, they could easily research with the military on where my dad was stationed during my preteen years, to see if indeed it was in Europe. If I "misspoke" and said I was in San Francisco in 1991 when records showed my family wasn't there, I could easily correct it and say we were actually there in 1989, which could indeed be confirmed. The point is, these sort of things are easy enough to prove, and whereas Frank Dux, who (as far as I know) is not a believer, is capable of responding to such accusations, Ergun Caner, who claims to be a Christian and therefore worship He who is the embodiment of truth (Jn 14:6), does not even attempt to provide any answers or evidences. In fact, as precedence shows, Caner and his allies have a habit of simply trying to hide any errors and contradictions.

Now let's take a moment to turn to one other person: Jesus Christ. Ergun Caner said in the tweet above (as he has elsewhere) that Jesus never defended "against false accusations," and so he won't either. Of course, why did Christ remain silent against his accusers? Let's take a look at the accounts in the gospels:

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. [Matthew 26:59-60a]

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. [Mark 14:55-59]

Why was Christ silent? Because he didn't have to defend his innocence. It is said that these were "false testimonies," yes, but not only were they false but the "testimony did not agree." Christ's enemies were inconsistent, and if Christ had not been asked personally to assert his divinity and his Messianic status, he probably would have been a free man.

Now let's compare this to Ergun Caner's situation. Is he under attack by false testimony? Upon what basis is it false except his word against theirs - and his enemies have demonstrated their accusations, not simply launched into blanket charges. Is he under attack from accusations that are inconsistent? On the contrary, the accusations have been very consistent...in fact, the only inconsistent one has been Ergun Caner himself. People have not had to make up charges like they did with Christ, who was blameless before all, but there are serious charges and allegations against Caner which he has yet to provide any real response. Frankly, to use the innocence of Christ against legitimate questions and accusations is sickening and blasphemous.

Ergun Caner, if you read this post, please understand that this isn't being done out of hate. You bring a mark upon the gospel of Christ when you add to it your false stories and embellished testimonies. You're making it harder not only for yourself, but your family as well. Please, sir, repent of your sins, repent of your wrongdoings, and be an example for others out there who might be in your position. God has granted you this time to repent, but there will come a time when it will no longer be available to you. When that time comes, you will be held accountable for all you have done. Please, seriously consider these things.

Why the Stone was Rolled Back

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [Matthew 28:2]

Perhaps a question not many ask themselves, when coming across this verse, is: why did an angel roll the stone back? Consider, for a moment, shortly after the resurrection, that when the disciples were gathered together in a closed room, Christ appeared to them without a problem (Jn 20:26). Why didn't he do the same with the stone? Why was it necessary for an angel to come down and roll the stone back?

Perhaps a few explanations could be considered as to exactly why:

Firstly, the stone was rolled back so that the women, approaching that morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1), might see that Christ was gone, and could be told by the angels to go tell the apostles that the resurrection had occurred.

Secondly, the stone was rolled back to demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the sovereignty of man. The Roman soldiers positioned at the tomb had placed a seal on the stone (Mt 27:66), which served a two-fold function: 1) if the stone was moved back, the seal would be broken, and be prove of wrongdoing if the stone was moved back in place; 2) it was a way of telling potential thieves "Property of the Roman Empire - Keep Out." By the angel coming down and rolling the stone aside, he not only challenged the authority of the seal (as well as the nearby guard), but showed that no power of man on earth is able to stop the will of God.

Thirdly, the stone represented the ultimate separation between those who have passed on and those are still living. Death separated man from God, but in Jesus are men granted eternal life, as the apostle Paul wrote: "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). With the rolling back of the stone, the end of that separation was realized, and Christ's resurrection gave hope for those struggling with the pains of death, seeking eternal life.

Fourthly and finally, the rolling back of the stone signified that Christ had been acquitted of all charges laid against him, and was now free to go. For those who killed him, he was guilty of two crimes: from the Jews, blasphemy (Mt 26:65-66); from the Romans, treachery (Lk 23:2). However, for the purposes of God, he was convicted of greater crimes...namely, the crimes of all those who would believe in his name. The apostle Paul wrote that it was "for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin" (2 Co 5:21), and the prophet Isaiah had foretold that the suffering servant would be "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities," and that the LORD would lay on him "the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:5-6).

This final point has greater significance, for in being let out and declared free of all charge against sin, God's sheep likewise were cleared of all charges. Christ paid the ultimate price for the sins of his people, and our guilt he took on. Every sin we ever committed, are committing, and would commit, was paid for on the cross, and we were declared innocent in Christ the minute that stone was rolled aside. As we ponder and meditate on Resurrection Sunday, and think of what it means when Christ walked out of that tomb, let us remember that he was the Good Shepherd, and those who did follow, are following, and shall follow him out of that tomb are his sheep.

If you are reading this, and you are outside of Christ, then the Resurrection still has relevance for you. There will come a day when God will judge you for every sin you committed: every lie you told, every curse against your fellow man, every lustful thought, everything you stole, and on and on. For those outside of Christ, the wrath of God abides (cf. Jn 3:36), and their guilt remains. If you have not considered eternity, my friend, then let me exhort you to consider eternity, for when the time comes, there will be no opportunity for second thoughts or pondering - that will be it. Consider seriously, then, the situation you are in, and look to the open tomb of Christ. It shows to you that the resurrection was a reality, and that there will come a time when Christ shall resurrect the dead and bring forth the living for a reckoning. What will you say when all your sins are laid before you?

There is, however, the gift of eternal life available for you. Those who repent and believe and lean upon Christ for salvation shall find a Savior who "is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him" (Heb 7:25). In Christ all your sins shall be atoned, and before God you shall be declared innocent. You shall have peace in the knowledge that you are in Christ, from which no one can snatch you (Jn 10:29). You will be declared as innocent as Christ when he went forth from the tomb, and you shall join him in the company of saints on the day of resurrection. Consider these holy things seriously, for these are serious things to consider. You are being called to repent, and the chance is now for you to see the gravity of your sins and the love of Christ in those who believe.

God bless.

What the Crucifixion Meant

The following is from Michael Horton's preface to the 2009 publication of Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. It comes after his quotation of Romans 1:18a: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

But in our day, preaching cannot be foolish. It must be "relevant," which is the word we have drafted into the service of market-driven approaches. However, the message of the cross assumes the terror of the law, divine wrath toward sinners (and not just their sins), and the need for a substitutionary sacrifice to assuage divine justice. It assumes that the greatest problem facing humanity is original and actual sin - personal rebellion against a holy God - not stress, low self-esteem, and a failure to realize one's full potential. [pg. ix]

Three Days and Three Nights?

The following is quoted from the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Matthew 12:40: On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the general tradition—that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00 P.M. (the “ninth hour” of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn—is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. (“And it was the day of preparation [hemera paraskeues] and the Sabbath was coming on [epephosken].”) This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get “three days and three nights” out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00 P.M. Actually, however, He rose “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day—during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or “Abraham’s Bosom,” still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22-26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as “three days and three nights”? The simple answer is that the only way “day” in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of “day” was to speak of the latter as “a night and a day” (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, “Three days and three nights”—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where “he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” is equated in v.13 with hayyom se losah (“three days ago”)—which could only mean “day before yesterday.” But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (“Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the “Feast of Weeks” because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day— Pentecoste in Greek.)

Why Men Don't Want a Resurrection

The Resurrection, by Gustav Dore

We are nearing the celebration of Resurrection Sunday, a day which also remembers one of the most debated subjects regarding the Christian religion. What is the debate? Namely, whether or not Christ truly rose from the grave. Men have been at war with the concept of the resurrection since the earliest days of the church, when enemies of Christ suggested that either the entire thing was made up, or that the apostles fabricated it all. Even during the time of the apostles it was an issue, as the apostle Paul wrote: "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Co 15:14).

It continues to this day, with every theory in existence. Some claim Christ was dug up by dogs and eaten. Some claim that the resurrection was just a copy of pagan myths. Some claim Christ just fainted and got better. Either way, many desire to disprove and deny that the resurrection ever took place, and therefore belief and celebration of it is entirely irrelevant in our day-to-day affair.

Why is this? Why do so many protest the resurrection? What is underlying it all? Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the resurrection happened beyond all question. What would that mean?

If there was a resurrection, it means the events around the resurrection are true.

If there was a resurrection, it means that Christ was raised from the dead.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ truly did appear to the disciples and countless others.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ truly did ascend to the heavens and sit at the right hand of the Father.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ's claims of divinity were true.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ is King and Lord of all.

If there was a resurrection, it means that God exists.

If there was a resurrection, it means that men will one day be held accountable to God for their sins.

...and there, underlying it all, is why men do not want a resurrected Christ...because it means they will have to submit to God and follow Him rather than their own passions. God bless.

John Bunyan and Perseverance of the Saints

The following is from John Bunyan's masterful work Pilgrim's Progress.

Then I saw in my dream, that the Interpreter took Christian by the hand, and led him into a place where was a fire burning against a wall, and one standing by it, always casting much water upon it, to quench it; yet did the fire burn higher and hotter.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This fire is the work of grace that is wrought in the heart; he that casts water upon it, to extinguish and put it out, is the devil: but in that thou seest the fire, notwithstanding, burn higher and hotter, thou shalt also see the reason of that. So he had him about to the back side of the wall, where he saw a man with a vessel of oil in his hand, of the which he did also continually cast (but secretly) into the fire.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This is Christ, who continually, with the oil of his grace, maintains the work already begun in the heart; by the means of which, notwithstanding what the devil can do, the souls of his people prove gracious still (2 Cor. 12:9). And in that thou sawest that the man stood behind the wall to maintain the fire; this is to teach thee, that it is hard for the tempted to see how this work of grace is maintained in the soul. [source]

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

How do we know someone is speaking from or for God?

Introduction

Many people today claim to speak for God, or claim they have something to say from God. Many times, however, this claim is made with no real standard or with no real solid basis for people to believe it. I've written out six conditions and arguments many use to support people who make such claims, which we will now review. This isn't, of course, a complete list, only a list of possibilities I could think of and desire to talk about.

Possibility 1: They have dreams and visions.

Many leaders or ministers in the so-called "prophetic movement," or just in Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles in general, seem to rely heavily upon their dreams or visions. It is believed by many that these dreams and visions are being given by God and are meant to guide and direct the church in this modern day and age. People immediately uphold all these dreams and visions as coming from God and being meant to be followed.

Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that when I read about these men and women who talk of their dreams and visions, there seems to almost be little to no effort made either on their part or the part of their followers to discern whether or not this dream or vision really did come from God. When I bring this up, I'm usually charged with being a Pharisee, a divider of the church, etc., but I believe I have biblical grounds for doing so. For example, the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah against those who relied upon their dreams to instruct the people when, in fact, their dreams were all but useless.

"I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed!' How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart?" [Jeremiah 23:25-26]

Many people might interject here with, "Ah, but the people in that verse are lying - they're blatant false prophets." They forget, however, the frightening words found in the prophecies of Ezekiel:

"They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, 'Declares the Lord,' when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, 'Declares the LORD,' although I have not spoken?" [Ezekiel 13:6-7]

God says that the false prophets had literally seen false visions, and heard lying divinations, and believed them to be from God. This means the false prophets saw or discerned something which they perceived was from God, yet was not. They didn't make up a vision, they saw a legitimate vision...but it wasn't from God. We might look to Mohammad and Joseph Smith, two men who claimed to have seen and heard visions from God, as examples of this. These men had spiritual experiences and claimed to have spoken to divine entities, and yet most Christians would be quick to discredit their experiences as false.

People also forget another story, found in scripture's historical narrative:

And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” [1 Kings 22:19-23]

Micaiah is here speaking to King Ahab concerning the idea of war with Syria. All of Ahab's personal prophets claimed that they had visions and prophetic input that the war with Syria would go well. Micaiah, on the other hand, preaches that the war would go horribly, and then states that God had intentionally permitted the sending of a "lying spirit" in the mouth of all the prophets, so that they would prophesy falsely and bring ruin to Ahab. The prophets claimed to be speaking for and from God, but they were in fact speaking falsely - what's more, God had willed this to happen as a form of judgment.

So what is the standard in regards to dreams and visions? Let's go back to the words God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah:

"Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD." [Jeremiah 23:28]

These are beautiful words to ponder: "let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully." God even compares dreams and God's word with straw and wheat, signifying how different they are.

Many might interject here that God has used dreams for His purposes. For example, the dreams of Pharaoh and the king of Babylon were interpreted by godly men to explain God's intentions, while Joseph and the wise men were warned by God about King Herod through dreams. That God can use dreams for His purposes or to give some amount of guidance or warning is certainly possible. However, what is our basis of authority, as scripture itself says? Scripture never says dreams are our authority - in fact, they often tell us otherwise, such as those false teachers who relied heavily on their dreams over the teachings of scripture, as many in the Neo-Pentecostal movement do (Jude 1:8). That God used x or y to get His will done does not  automatically mean that we should likewise use or rely on x and y as our standard over and against scripture. Jonathan Edwards put it best when he said: "God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule" (Humble Inquiry).

Possibility 2: They perform miracles.

Many today uphold a belief that signs and wonders are necessary in order to evangelize (also known as "power evangelism"). Yet when the early followers of Christ asked for a sign that they "may see and believe" in Him, Christ merely identified Himself as the bread that came down from heaven to give life to the world (John 6:30-33). Certainly Christ performed signs and wonders during His ministry - as did the apostles - yet the hinge of belief was not on how many signs and wonders were performed, but on whether people truly had life in Christ granted them by the Holy Spirit.

In fact, Christ warns the disciples that signs and wonders can be made by false teachers and prophets.

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." [Matthew 24:24]

Paul makes a similar warning concerning the man of lawlessness.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. [2 Thessalonians 2:9-10]

Scripture makes it clear that it is entirely possible for false teachers to perform signs and wonders for the people to see. Therefore, the mere ability to perform a sign or wonder cannot be a standard to know someone is speaking to or from God.

Possibility 3: They prophesy events that come true.

If someone predicts an event, natural occurrence, or the results of an election, is that enough to demonstrate that they are speaking from or for God? Many are familiar with what scripture teaches regarding false prophets and prophesies that don't come true:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." [Deuteronomy 18:22]

Yet many people forget what scripture likewise teaches regarding false prophets who prophesy things that do come to pass.

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him." [Deuteronomy 13:1-4]

If a prophesy given by someone does not come true, that's a good sign they are a false teacher (though some contest that). However, even if it does come true, that is not enough to verify that they are working for God. Rather, it is their doctrine and how well they keep to God's word. That is the ultimate decider as to whether or not the individual is, in fact, speaking for or from God in regards to miracles and wonders. A supposed prophet can split a hundred moons in half, and a supposed miracle worker can heal a hundred men of leprosy. If they are not speaking according to the word of God, they are not from God, and none of that will matter.

Possibility 4: They have a huge amount of followers.

We are essentially arguing here for spiritual pragmatism, wherein quantity is the defining quality - a kind of divine ad populum. As I've discussed in another post, scripture never says large numbers equals heavenly blessings. There are many examples in scripture where the believers were greatly outnumbered by the unbelievers or false believers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). There are some small churches out in the countryside who have far more Christians in them than some of the biggest mega churches in the major cities.

Possibility 5: They have a large number of people who claim to have been blessed.

Many people, in a spirit of emotionalism, will defend a teacher or ministry on the claim that "countless people have been blessed." The idea is that, since so many people have had changed lives or emotional experiences in this ministry, it must surely be sourced to God.

Of course, I once met a man who claimed to have been greatly blessed. He used to be a gang banger but was now a productive member of society. He followed God and assisted his community. He had found a complete turnaround. He had completely changed his lifestyle. This blessing he felt had come from God he claimed to have found in...

...Islam.

That a person has had a "changed life" is not enough to prove that someone or someone's ministry is from God. This is the problem with contemporary Christianity, which believes the faith to be nothing more than a catalyst for changing lives. This makes its followers no different than those who claim to have been blessed by turning to Sikhism, Mormonism, Buddhism, New Age alternatives or any other religion that claims to give you a better life now.

God certainly desires "changed lives" in the sense that we are to put away the old self and put on the new self, which abhors sin and wickedness. However, using a subjective argument like "my life is better, therefore this person is being helped by God" is, as said before, simply spiritual pragmatism. It should also be pointed out that if a person was indeed saved or bettered in their life, it was not because of that individual or their ministry, but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Possibility 6: They believe in Jesus.

Oftentimes, when dilemmas are demonstrated in a person's theology or lifestyle, one of their followers will fall back on one simple fact. They will say: "Ah, but they believe in Jesus, don't they? Don't we all follow the same Messiah? That should be good enough!" Oftentimes this will be used to support superficial peace, saying: "I don't think we should continue arguing about this - after all, don't we all still believe in the same Jesus?"

It might sound ironic, as a follower of sola fide, for me to say that this is perhaps the weakest argument against such men. However, to say they believe in Christ and that is good enough is not sola fide but easy believism. Mere mental assent to Christ's existence is not a guarantee for salvation, nor does it demonstrate you are a true believer. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ warned:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, an do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matthew 7:22-23]

Christ speaks of men who did wonders and signs in His name (directly relevant to Possibilities 2 and 3, listed above), and yet when they come before Him on the day of judgment, Christ will say to them "I never knew you." He does not say "Oh yeah, you went to church for a while" or "Yeah, and you were a real disappointment in the end," but rather "I never knew you." They claimed to be followers of Christ, and even showed off miracles they believed demonstrated such a claim, and yet it turns out they were nothing more than goats masquerading as sheep.

False teachers, in fact, will come under the guise of men who are after the heart of Christ. The apostle Paul warned the church:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of Light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

It is not enough to simply decree a belief in Christ. Rather, we must present the fruits of such belief. Because I recognize that this opens up a whole other can of worms, I defer discussion on judging someone's faith, or whether or not we have the ability to discern it, to this post I made here.

Conclusion

Reviewing what we've gone over, what is the primary ground by which we know someone is speaking directly from or for God? The answer:

If they abide by His holy word.

That's disappointing to a lot of people, of course, but that is because they are not truly satisfied with the supremacy of God's word. They're not happy with just having God's word. They want the charismatic speaker who claims to have prophecies from God. They want the man rocking back and forth on stage talking about dreams he's had. They want the female preacher who gives good advice and has thousands of "saved" women attending her church. They want the pastor who has hundreds of stories of people who have been healed through miraculous or unique ways. They want the ministry led by people who claim the Holy Spirit is working through them for specific, specialized reasons. When people can't repeat the word of the Psalmist when he says "in the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches" (Psa 119:14), they will seek something to fill in that spiritual gap. Such people we should work with and try to save to the best we can, while remaining strong in our convictions and preventing ourselves from falling into the same trap as did they. "Save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Modern Marriage and Modern Theology

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [Ephesians 5:22-27] 

In the course of my upcoming marriage, I've been doing some thinking about how society perceives marriage, and the similarities we have to our concept of God and our interaction with God.

1. The bride and groom choose one another. In Christ's time, the bride was chosen by the father of the groom. Now, I'm not proposing we go back to arranged marriages, or that women shouldn't be allowed to choose their husbands, but this difference leads into the realm of theology as well. With Semi-Pelagianism (and at times rank Pelagianism) infecting the church and Christian evangelizing movements, the idea of God's calling (whether you want to go at it from effectual grace or prevenient grace) is left out. Indeed, many are outright horrified by the idea. To them, nothing is more offensive to them than the words of Christ to the disciples, when he said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16a). Instead we desire a Savior that we can play "hard to get" with, and whom we can choose when we personally feel we are good and ready. 
2. So much focus is on the bride. Every notice how everything involves the bride these days? The bride makes the final call on everything, most of the decisions regarding the wedding are made by the bride (or her family), and on the day of ceremonies, everyone is focused on the bride. What is considered one of the most climactic moments of the wedding is not when the groom appears, but when the bride appears. Everyone is focused on how lovely her dress is, how beautiful she looks, how happy she is, etc. How unfortunate this circumstance is in the divine marriage as well: so much emphasis is placed on the church itself (specifically, it's members). People want a flashy praise band, smoke machines, dirty jokes during the sermon, and generally want all the focus to be on them. It's not about Christ, it's all about them, and what Jesus can do for them (that is, in an earthly sense). People as a whole desire Christianity to be about them and what they want - Christ just needs to stand up there in the tux and passively go with the flow.
3. There are no specific roles. In this day and age, many consider it extremely sexist to suggest that, in a marriage, a husband plays a significant role particular to him, as does the wife. Here I have to be careful, as many, upon hearing about marriage roles, jump to the extreme of a man on a couch watching football and yelling to his wife, "GIMME A BEER!" However, as Paul explained the verses cited above, there are distinct roles between the husband and wife, and they are similar to Christ and the church. That is, the wife submits to the leadership of husband, as the church submits to the leadership of Christ, and husbands nurture and edify their wives, just as Christ nurtures and edifies the church. However, many today desire far more passive men who become in essence walking doormats. Therefore, not only do we expect a passive groom, but we expect that passive groom to be a passive husband the day after the wedding. In the same fashion, many today desire Christ to be a passive groom in the divine marriage between himself and the church: we don't want a Messiah who will condemn some to hell; we don't want a Messiah who gives us a guide on how to discern the morality of our lives; we don't want a Messiah that tells us the sins we love to do, or what sins our friends do, are wrong; bottom line, we don't want a Messiah to whom we should submit. Rather, we want the Messiah to submit to us. 
4. Loyalty to one another is minimized. In college I used to hear guys with girlfriends (or even wives) say, "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu." The idea is that, so long as you aren't doing anything physical, it's perfectly fine to look at and lust after other women. Some would probably even say emotional affairs or flirting is all right, so long as it doesn't lead anywhere physical. To the Christian worldview, this is completely false: Christ clarified to us that looking at a woman with lust made one guilty of the act of adultery, as if they had performed it (Matt 5:27-28). Many today - even many so-called Christians - therefore desire a sort of "permissible adultery." For those in the church, this extends to the realm of loyalty to Christ. Why can't we take a gander at New Age theology? Why can't we make worldly philosophy even more important than studying scripture? Why can't we place our favorite pastor on equal with Christ's authority? Why can't we listen to a heretical teacher so long as he says "Jesus" a few times? The bride's loyalty to the groom is not seen as highly important...indeed, she can toy around with other suitors as much as she wants.

Did Jesus Heal Slowly?

The conundrum of today's supposed faith healings or medical miracles is that they are rarely as quick and instantaneous as those of Christ the Apostles: a person may be declared "healed" of their broken leg, and yet still need to go through the recovery any non-healed person would need; a person may be declared "healed" of their deafness, and yet be told that they'll still need to learn how to speak (you know, like most deaf people need to do any way). Many people involved in the miracles and wonders movement, or who believe in what is called by some "power evangelism," will argue that it's possible for God to heal gradually. I would argue that this confuses miracles with providence. To explain it this way: a miracle from God is a man with a broken leg being healed instantaneously, with no need for further medical attention; providence is God providing a man with a broken leg the right doctors and medical treatment and the appropriate resting time for the gradual healing of said leg. The latter situation is a wonderful example of God's love and care for an individual...but it's not a miracle.

Still some want to try to find ways to demonstrate gradual faith healing either with or from scripture. Two such arguments I have heard from the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, and from their leadership itself. One (which I reviewed before) was by Daniel Lim, the CEO of IHOP-KC: the argument was essentially that whether it takes one second or one month is irrelevant, as it's still a span of time. As I pointed out in the linked post, however, this is a case of special pleading, as those who promote faith healings demand that they are able to do all that Christ and the apostles used to do...except, of course, when it comes to instantaneous healings. For some unknown reason, that's a rule that doesn't apply to them.

Another and more recent argument I heard was by Wes Hall, during the Prayer and Prophetic Conference held earlier this year (and which I tweeted about). In attempting to explain away gradual healings of so-called miracles, Mr. Hall made reference to an account from Mark's gospel:

And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.” [Mark 8:22-26]

Of course, right off the bat, trying to use this to justify gradual faith healings presents a problem: Jesus did not halfway heal the man and then send him on his merry way - the man went home fully healed. You can't possibly compare this to a crippled individual who goes to a faith healing session, feels an emotional tug, then goes home not fully healed. This was not slow faith healing in the context of which most faith healers describe it: Jesus did two actions, the first one of which he asked what the man saw, and the second one which, again, resulted in a full healing. Jesus did not touch the man's eyes twice, then shrug his shoulders and say, "Might take six months or so. Just go back home and remember: keep the faith!"

More importantly, it is clear from Christ's actions that he had a purpose behind this method of healing - indeed, everything Christ did, especially those actions which the Evangelists explicitly describe to us, served some larger purpose. The centurion's servant was healed without any word or action so as to justify the centurion's faith (Matt 8:5-13); the paraplegic man was healed with a command (Matt 9:1-8); the Canaanite woman was initially ignored to demonstrate her steadfast faith (Matt 15:21-28); the man blind from birth was ordered to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam to eventually become an example of those who have never met Christ and yet have great faith in him during persecution (John 9:1-38). Those who quote Mark 8:22-26 to promote slow faith healings (and indeed, it's the only passage to which they can refer) seem to suggest that Christ either failed the first time or was "out of his game" during this one instance in the Gospels. The fact is, Christ knew what he was doing, and he had a purpose for it.

Enough on this, however. As the movie Inception said, "we have to go deeper" - let's study the context and meaning behind this story.

Christ and his disciples, coming from a brief quarrel with the Pharisees, are entering the town of Bethsaida. This town does not have a good history, as it was already marked as one of those cities which had rejected Christ and would face judgment (Matt 11:21). Yet as Christ and his disciples are entering, some of the people bring to Christ a blind man (v. 22). This account of the blind man of Bethsaida is only found in Mark's gospel, as it isn't recorded in Matthew, Luke or John, and all we know about the man thus far is that he is blind and little else.

Christ takes the man and leads him out of the village, so that they could be alone (although the disciples might have been there as witnesses). This was done for a few possible reasons: 1) as a judgment against Bethsaida, whom Christ deemed not worthy to witness such miracles; 2) to continue Christ's practice of not performing his healings as public acts like a circus performance (something modern day faith healers could take to heart).  Matthew Henry rightfully comments: "Never had a poor blind man such a leader."

Having taken the blind man aside, Christ does an unexpected thing: he spits on him (v. 23). More specifically, on his eyes. This has led some commentators to suggest that the man's initial problem may have been crust keeping his eyelids shut. There are certainly eye conditions, such as infections, which result in crust forming on the eyelids if they have been shut for a prolonged time, either by the individual or from sleeping. This is one of the only accounts of our Lord healing using spit, the other one being with the man born blind, wherein the Lord spat onto the ground and used mud to rub on the man's eyes (John 9:6).

Greek commentator AT Robertson makes the interesting note that the Evangelist Mark uses the Greek word omma (specifically the ommata form) for the word "eye," rather than the traditional opthalmous. In the Gospels, the word only occurs here and in Matthew 20:34. Outside the New Testament, omma is often used in a more poetic sense, and hence there might already be a hint of something more significant here.

Christ asks the man what he says, to which the man looks up and says, "I see people, but they look like trees, walking" (v. 24). Obviously the man could see, but had difficulty in doing so. There are two possible explanations for his description: 1) the man saw the disciples (who might have been there, as suggested earlier) and thought they looked like trees; 2) the man saw trees (which Bethsaida does have), and thought they were men - in other words, they were trees! In either case, the man did not have clear vision. In that society and time period, he still would have been unable to survive on his own.

Now as stated earlier, we need to reject the idea that Jesus either failed or only managed to do a halfway job at healing by some fault of his part. Therefore, what was the purpose of this methodology? Perhaps a further hint is seen in the three touches of Christ found in this story:

1. Christ touched the man's hand and led him out of Bethsaida. The town was sinful and rejecting the Gospel, and had already been cursed by Christ. By taking the man out of the town, Christ in essence removes the man from a world of sin and condemnation.
2. Christ touches the man's eyes the first time, revealing his inadequate sight. Whether or not we are to believe Christ spat and used his hands in a more natural way (to remove crusts sealing the eyelids shut), Christ's initial touch served to reveal to the man his own inadequacy. The man sees somewhat, but not enough. He's unable to discern truth - he would be unable to survive and function in the world. He still needs true healing - he still needs Christ.
3. Christ touches the man's eyes the second time, and the man is fully healed. At this point, Christ's full sovereignty is displayed. Not using spit, by simply his own touch, he brings complete healing to the man's eyes. The man can now see clearly, and has a full grasp on the truth of the world around him.

Here we see the deeper, spiritual meanings of the verses. The blind man here was used by Christ as an example of our own spiritual state: 1) we are taken by God out of the village of sin; 2) we are shown of our deeper need for Christ; 3) we are given full sight from God, taking us out of our spiritual blindness. This was the purpose behind Christ's actions.

Therefore, Mark 8:22-26 cannot be used to try to promote slow faith healings, for all the reasons and exegesis presented in this post. Christ and the apostles always healed fully and as quickly as possible. Even in this case - the sole example in scripture of a gradual healing - Christ did not leave the man halfway healed, or incompletely healed. The reason this is the sole example in all of scripture is because it had a purpose, and that purpose was to remind us not to rely on faith healings or cold calling, but upon Christ for saving faith and regeneration.

Ah, those pagan parallels...

This meme summarizes how I felt yesterday, after eavesdropping on a chance conversation. I wonder if these people realize how many of these supposed parallels have been refuted? As in...a thousand times over.

Sympathy in Temptation

The following is from JC Ryle's Expository Thoughts on Matthew, and refer to the temptations of Christ in the wilderness.

The sympathy of Jesus is a truth which ought to be peculiarly dear to believers: they will find in it a mine of strong consolation. They should never forget that they have a mighty Friend in heaven, who feels for them in all their temptations, and can enter into all their spiritual anxieties. Are they ever tempted by Satan to distrust God's care and goodness? So was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to presume on God's mercy, and to run into danger without warrant? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to commit some one private sin for the sake of some great seeming advantage? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to listen to some misapplication of Scripture, as an excuse for doing wrong? So also was Jesus. He is just the Savior that a tempted people require. Let them flee to Him for help, and spread before Him all their troubles; they will find His ear ever ready to hear, and His heart ever ready to feel: He can understand their sorrows.

May we all know the value of a sympathizing Savior by experience! There is nothing to be compared to it in this cold and deceitful world. Those who seek their happiness in this life only, and despise the religion of the Bible, have no idea what true comfort they are missing.

Silly Arguments Part I

Hello, gentle readers. You're probably wondering why Facepalm Picard has graced the posts of this blog again. Well, similar to the post he was in before, we've got a doozy of a discussion for you today. Let me ask you...is there something evil behind the name of Jesus? I don't mean Jesus himself was evil - no no no. That would be too much! I just mean the name "Jesus" itself is evil. Yup, that's what someone brought forward to me. Let's start reviewing this argument:

In Scripture - names have meaning.

"Joshua" or Yah-u-shu-ah - means "YAHUAH is salvation" - the name itself points to the NAME of YHWH. It contains the FATHER'S name. It points to the Father as Savior.

True, most Hebrew names carry a meaning, as most names in any language do. For example, Isaiah's original Hebrew name (Yesha'yahu) means "the LORD is salvation." Jesus' original Hebrew name was indeed Yahushua, which means "The LORD saves." All right, so far so good.

The name "Jesus", and as you correctly say Iesous, since there was no "J" in either Greek or Hebrew means something else.

Yes, Jesus is taken from the Greek Iesous, and there is no "J" in the Greek or Hebrew alphabet. Neither is the sound related to the letter. Again, so far so good.

Transliterated - Iesous - or "H'sus" - in Hebrew means "horse".

Wait, what? Hold on a moment...you don't transliterate words backwards! The Hebrew name came before the Greek, so you generally transliterate words from the Hebrew to the Greek. Transliterating backwards makes about as much sense as putting something in English into Google Translate, translating it into Chinese, then translating it back into English and defining the English context by what comes out. Here, let's have some fun:

English (Before): I need to go down to Office Max and buy a stapler.
Chinese: 我需要去办公室最大，买一个订书机。
English (After): I need to go to the office to buy a stapler.

Ah, see? "Office Max" must refer not to a store chain that sells office supplies, but a specific office somewhere that apparently sells staplers, because when you translate the Chinese backwards, it comes out that way. Aha!

In all seriousness, the Hebrew word for "horse" used in the Old Testament is indeed sus. The form mentioned here, hassus, is, as far as I can tell, merely one such form of the word found in the Bible, and is used only eleven times out of 139 occurrences. The more popular forms are susim (used 34 times) and the regular form of sus (used 22 times).

By the way, the only connection between Iesous and Hassus is they kind of sound the same. Man, that's some hardcore etymology, I must admit.

Do you think that is a coincidence?

Why yes I do. Thank you for asking. It's just as coincidental as the fact that English word "meme" is close to the Turkish word for "boob."

In Latin it gets worse. "Sus" means pig. Greek "Geo" or "Ge" means "earth".

...wait, what? What was the relevance of going to the Hebrew? Now we're going to Latin? Also, "horse" is kind of a nice name. I mean, I'd love to have my name mean "horse." Horses are cool, man. You can ride 'em and charge into battle on 'em and leap over fences and stuff and stuff. What's wrong with your name meaning horse?

By the way, Iesous is a Greek name, not a Latin name. And why are we chopping the name up like this? So the first part of Jesus' name refers to "earth" in Greek (even though there's no "G" sound in the name), but the latter part refers to "pig" in Latin? Why does this matter? This makes about as much sense as me cutting up my name into two parts in two different languages. Observe:

"Did you know that in the name Tony, the word 'to' in Japanese is a quoting particle, whereas 'ni' means 'you' in Chinese? Don't you see! The name Tony is telling us to quote ourselves! We're our own authority, not God! OH MY GOODNESS TONY IS SUCH AN EVIL NAME D'AAAH SAVE YOURSELVES!"

See how silly that is? The name "Tony" is merely the shortened form of "Anthony," in this case specifically from the Italian António, which stems from the Latin Antonius, which means "priceless" or "praiseworthy." There's no grand conspiracy behind the name. It really is as simple as that.

In like manner, there is no grand conspiracy behind the name Jesus. The name Iesous is merely the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yehushua. There were many others in the New Testament named Iesous, but the use predates even the time of Christ. There are countless others in the Greek Septuagint (both in the Law, the Prophets, and the other books) whose names, usually seen as Joshua in the Greek, are rendered Iesous.

Do you think that is a coincidence? Could this be the name above all names?

Yes, it is a coincidence, and one you invented, by cutting the word up and picking and choosing what you wanted the bits to mean. You do this to try to prove that a bunch of third century BC Jews, desiring to preemptively insult the Messiah they had been longing for, took a Greek word that sounded kinda like "horse" in their language and just so happened to mean "pig" in a foreign language that wasn't that widely used at the time, and then combined it with the Greek word for "earth," then applied this new word to the name "Joshua," with no one in the entire Jewish community taking notice at all regarding the degrading change.

That makes perfect sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter by what rendition of his name you call upon him. Whether you speak English and you call him Jesus, whether you speak Serbian and call him Isus, or whether you speak Cantonese and call him Yasu, he will hear you. He will hear you. This is because it is not according to the specific form of his name by which he is called, but by his grace alone. Christ is not a magical being who can be summoned by a magical incantation that requires an exact pronunciation of exact words - he is the Son of the Living God, who died on the cross and rose again, suffering for the sins of his people, so that they may know true life. On the day of resurrection there shall be "a great multitude...from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev 7:9). These shall be believers, and they shall be united not by language, but by faith, and they shall all call on the Lamb by his beautiful name, even if it be in its rendition from their own tongue. I can promise you that, to the Lord, every single rendition and pronunciation shall be beautiful, for the desire to speak such a name came from a beautiful source.

Meme Remonstrance Part 1

The image to the left is a meme I saw shared on Facebook recently. It shows a statue of Jesus saying: "I'm Jesus of Nazareth. I cured 10 lepers thanks to unsubstantiated miracles 2000 years ago and half the world worships me for it." It then shows a picture of Jacinto Convit, the Venezuelan medic, saying: "I'm Jacinto Convit. I was nominated for a Noble [sic] prize for inventing a vaccine to combat leprosy. Thousands of lives were saved worldwide with proven science yet few know of me." At the bottom of the meme read the words: "Something is dreadfully wrong with the relative famousness [sic] of these two individuals."

Like most memes, this is obviously meant to do little except extract the "That's cool!" reaction from its target audience. All memes are guilty of that, not just ones such as this. Usually when I encounter these things, there's so little to say that I just move on with life. Part of me, however, felt a bit compelled to offer something of a response to this, especially if this is going viral. It's often good to take time to examine and respond to this kind of argumentation and mentality. So, let's review what this meme is trying to say.

First and foremost, however, let's establish that men like Convit do deserve recognition for their hard work. Ironically against the purposes of this meme, Convit actually doesn't want personal recognition and fame for his work (source), but nonetheless men like him should be appreciated for what they contribute to society. I think people of every faith would agree with me on this. There are many unsung heroes in the world of science and medicine.

That being said, let's continue on to address the statement made by this meme.

We see a statue of Jesus saying, "I'm Jesus of Nazareth. I cured 10 lepers..." Obviously this is making reference to the story in Luke 17:11-19, wherein Christ heals ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan and actually came back to Christ to praise God. It's a story about faith and a precursor to the acceptance of Christ by the Gentiles, not about why we should worship Jesus (but we'll get to that later). Furthermore, Christ healed far more than these simple ten, as any one who has seriously studied Christian scripture is well aware: an individual episode involving a leper is recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matt 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16); Christ tells the disciples of John the Baptist that lepers (plural) have been healed, even before the incident with the ten has occurred (Luke 7:22), suggesting there were plenty more. The meme creator is cutting Jesus a little short by stopping at just ten.

The statue likewise says that the latter account is "thanks to unsubstantiated miracles 2000 years ago." Here we have to ask what we mean by "unsubstantiated"? Do we mean there weren't any medical records of the individuals before and afterward? There weren't any detailed medical files with x-rays, examinations, and the like? I suppose that would be true, but such technology didn't exist back then. We might as well disregard any medicinal healing or accounts of medicine before the invention of modern equipment or understanding. We might as well forgo the idea that the ancient American civilizations practiced any kind of surgery that was in any way successful. We don't have to stop there either - perhaps we should throw out Pliny the Younger's account of Mount Vesuvius erupting because he went straight from his own eyewitness account, which was "unsubstantiated" by anything such as seismic readings or geological study.

If we mean "unsubstantiated" as in these healings had no merit even at the time they were recorded, then that is likewise erroneous. The vast majority of the specific healings in the New Testament, in which the gospel writers go into further detail, involve either a large number of witnesses or a sickness or condition which was knowable and able to be confirmed. It wasn't like today's faith healers, where an individual comes up on stage out of the blue, refers to a vague sickness or a condition that one can't readily see, and then is declared healed. The blind man of John 9, for example, was recognized by all the people as having been born blind, and the Pharisees even brought in his parents to confirm it. It would have been impossible to have faked such a healing. Another such healing is the man with the withered hand (Matt 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10), who was a regular visitor to the synagogue and therefore seen by everyone there to have, indeed, had a withered hand. It was a visible condition that was well known to be substantiated by those in Christ's presence, and when his hand was healed, it was a transformation that was readily known and accepted by all. This is combined with the fact that the gospels were written by either eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, or by those who had access to those who were eyewitnesses - the gospels were not written hundreds of years later and reliant upon legends and rumors like many stories of other historical figures were. The earliest manuscripts of said accounts were far closer to the original authors and far more consistent with other manuscripts than many other works of antiquity that deal specifically with history (for example, Caesar's Gallic Wars).

On a side note, the mention of something being done "2000 years ago" is irrelevant, unless this is the "because something is older, it can't be trusted" fallacy. Anyone who wishes to make such an argument would have to then answer the question: how long does something have to have existed before it is declared untrustworthy?

Finally, we see the part where the statue of Jesus says, "half the world worships me for it." This is completely and utterly false. No one worships Jesus because he healed lepers - they worship him because he is God. If Jesus had healed not one single leper, it would not be an issue. He was the Eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14), the great I AM who existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and the one before whom every knee will bow and confess that he is Lord (Phi 2:9-11). His miracles confirmed who he was in regards to his status as the Messiah and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (as seen in Isa 26:19, 29:18, 35:5-6 and others) but the worship and adoration of Christ does not rise and fall on whether or not he performed a certain number of miracles. As I say to Muslims who ask if Jesus ever said "I am God," if Jesus is God then he deserves worship owed to God - Q.E.D.

So we are told by our meme, "Something is dreadfully wrong with the relative [fame] of these two individuals." Actually, there's nothing wrong. Convit is well known in medical circles for his medical work; Christ is well known among men as the Lord God. To try to compare the two is comparing apples and oranges; to try to associate Convit's partial obscurity with the well known status of Christ, as if the one affects the other, is a weak connection at best.

Inspired by all this, I now present the following countermeme.