Monday 13 October 2008

Photographic Orbs

A lot of people nowadays are claiming photographic orbs are angels. I think most photographic orbs can probably be explained as backscatter, near-camera reflection, and lens flare. To read my thoughts, click here

Photographic Orbs

A lot of people nowadays are claiming photographic orbs are angels. I think most photographic orbs can probably be explained as backscatter, near-camera reflection, and lens flare. To read my thoughts, click here

Photographic Orbs

A lot of people nowadays are claiming photographic orbs are angels. I think most photographic orbs can probably be explained as backscatter, near-camera reflection, and lens flare. To read my thoughts, click here

Israel and the End Times


It seems a lot of end-times preachers nowadays are saying Jesus MUST return within the generation that saw the rebirth of Israel in 1948 (referring to the Parable of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24).

They're running out of time, so that means a lot of prophetic fulfillment has to be squeezed into the next few years. That's why they have to try to see eschatological significance in virtually every piece of bad news that happens even if far worse things have happened in previous generations.

So, does Jesus really have to come back within the generation that saw Israel rebirthed?

In this post I'll give reasons why I think He probably doesn't necessarily HAVE TO, although HE COULD if God wills.

Anyway, isn't it already too late for that? - because wasn't that LAST generation (1948)? It's interesting how our definition of "generation" keeps getting stretched in order to accommodate our theory.

So what did Jesus mean by the "fig tree shooting forth its branches"? Well, it probably doesn't have anything to do with the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

Firstly, because Israel is more often symbolized in prophetic literature by an OLIVE branch, or a GRAPE vine, but seldom as a fig TREE.

Secondly, even if the fig tree IS used here in the Olivet discourse as a symbol of Israel, it still probably doesn't refer to the events of 1948, because Jesus did NOT single-out the fig tree specifically. Rather, as seen in Luke's account, He said, "...behold the fig tree, AND ALL THE TREES".

Thirdly, Jesus Himself explained exactly what the "shooting forth of the branches" refers to. He said, "...so also when you see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass..." What were "these things"? They were the things He'd just finished describing, which were the famines, pestilences, earthquakes, wars, false Christs (antichrists, plural) and the siege of Jerusalem by Gentile armies, and the abomination that would cause Israel's desolation, as spoken of by Daniel.

When the believers see all THESE THINGS happen, they were told, it would then be time to flee from Judea as a matter of urgency - in the same way that a person knows summer is near once he sees the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES shooting forth their branches.

According to the historians Josephus and Tacitus, the believers indeed fled from Judea just as Jesus told them, when they saw all these things come to pass upon that generation, during the Jewish-Roman War (AD67-70). There were earthquakes, famines, pestilences, false Christs, wars & rumours of wars, abominable practices were set-up in the holy place, Jerusalem was besieged, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were transported as captives all around the world - but the believers who fled from Judea were spared. And the City of Jerusalem has remained trodden underfoot of Gentiles ever since, just as foretold by Jesus.

And the Lord told us for how long Jerusalem will remain in this state: "...until the years of the Gentiles be fulfilled" or as Paul said, "...until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in". Only the heavenly Father knows how much longer that will be.

It seems that much of what Jesus predicted indeed came to pass exactly as predicted and exactly within the time-frame that was predicted. These events were like the sprouting of the branches of a tree that lets a person know summer is near - they let the believers know that the destruction of the Temple was near, and that it was time to flee from Judea.

Jesus had instructed His disciples what to do when they see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass: He told them, "...Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains..."

The believers' lives were spared from the Roman onslaught precisely because they recognized the fulfillment of Jesus' predictions, and followed His instructions.

The subsequent history of Jerusalem has transpired exactly as Jesus foretold, and has remained a sign since AD70 in the sight of each successive generation.

Therefore the Church in each century has preached that the Son of Man can come AT ANY TIME! That has always been the message of the Church throughout the centuries. Jesus can come at any time.

As the Apostles Peter and John said, the "last days" began on the Day of Pentecost - not in the first half of last century.

Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed, that's for sure.

When you think about it - if the Parable of the Fig Tree refers to 1948, then believers ought to have been FLEEING from Judea in 1948, NOT encouraging Jews from all over the world to start regathering there!

But why does it matter anyway, someone might ask?

It matters because an enormous amount of time and resources is being spent by Christians who believe theirs MUST be the last generation. Seminars are held, books are written, expensive Christian TV time is devoted to the subject. And when their contemporary predictions fizzle into nothing, unbelievers could make a mockery of it.

Current affairs are blown right out of proportion. These believers are CONSTANTLY trying to squeeze momentous prophetic significance out of everything bad that happens in the news - because in their view a lot MUST happen within the 1948 generation. And they're running out of time. All of this is happening simply because of a dubious understanding of ONE small sentence in Matthew 24.

It also detracts from the Gospel truth that the Son of Man can come at ANY TIME.

There is another reason why it matters. Do you really think unbelievers are going to feel comfortable voting for a Christian political candidate - to manage their economy, to work towards their children's future, and to be trusted as Commander in Chief of its nuclear arsenal - if they know that particular candidate's religious paradigm teaches that EVERYTHING is CERTAIN to come to an END within the LIFETIME of those who were alive to see ISRAEL become a nation again in 1948?

Israel and the End Times


It seems a lot of end-times preachers nowadays are saying Jesus MUST return within the generation that saw the rebirth of Israel in 1948 (referring to the Parable of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24).

They're running out of time, so that means a lot of prophetic fulfillment has to be squeezed into the next few years. That's why they have to try to see eschatological significance in virtually every piece of bad news that happens even if far worse things have happened in previous generations.

So, does Jesus really have to come back within the generation that saw Israel rebirthed?

In this post I'll give reasons why I think He probably doesn't necessarily HAVE TO, although HE COULD if God wills.

Anyway, isn't it already too late for that? - because wasn't that LAST generation (1948)? It's interesting how our definition of "generation" keeps getting stretched in order to accommodate our theory.

So what did Jesus mean by the "fig tree shooting forth its branches"? Well, it probably doesn't have anything to do with the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

Firstly, because Israel is more often symbolized in prophetic literature by an OLIVE branch, or a GRAPE vine, but seldom as a fig TREE.

Secondly, even if the fig tree IS used here in the Olivet discourse as a symbol of Israel, it still probably doesn't refer to the events of 1948, because Jesus did NOT single-out the fig tree specifically. Rather, as seen in Luke's account, He said, "...behold the fig tree, AND ALL THE TREES".

Thirdly, Jesus Himself explained exactly what the "shooting forth of the branches" refers to. He said, "...so also when you see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass..." What were "these things"? They were the things He'd just finished describing, which were the famines, pestilences, earthquakes, wars, false Christs (antichrists, plural) and the siege of Jerusalem by Gentile armies, and the abomination that would cause Israel's desolation, as spoken of by Daniel.

When the believers see all THESE THINGS happen, they were told, it would then be time to flee from Judea as a matter of urgency - in the same way that a person knows summer is near once he sees the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES shooting forth their branches.

According to the historians Josephus and Tacitus, the believers indeed fled from Judea just as Jesus told them, when they saw all these things come to pass upon that generation, during the Jewish-Roman War (AD67-70). There were earthquakes, famines, pestilences, false Christs, wars & rumours of wars, abominable practices were set-up in the holy place, Jerusalem was besieged, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were transported as captives all around the world - but the believers who fled from Judea were spared. And the City of Jerusalem has remained trodden underfoot of Gentiles ever since, just as foretold by Jesus.

And the Lord told us for how long Jerusalem will remain in this state: "...until the years of the Gentiles be fulfilled" or as Paul said, "...until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in". Only the heavenly Father knows how much longer that will be.

It seems that much of what Jesus predicted indeed came to pass exactly as predicted and exactly within the time-frame that was predicted. These events were like the sprouting of the branches of a tree that lets a person know summer is near - they let the believers know that the destruction of the Temple was near, and that it was time to flee from Judea.

Jesus had instructed His disciples what to do when they see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass: He told them, "...Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains..."

The believers' lives were spared from the Roman onslaught precisely because they recognized the fulfillment of Jesus' predictions, and followed His instructions.

The subsequent history of Jerusalem has transpired exactly as Jesus foretold, and has remained a sign since AD70 in the sight of each successive generation.

Therefore the Church in each century has preached that the Son of Man can come AT ANY TIME! That has always been the message of the Church throughout the centuries. Jesus can come at any time.

As the Apostles Peter and John said, the "last days" began on the Day of Pentecost - not in the first half of last century.

Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed, that's for sure.

When you think about it - if the Parable of the Fig Tree refers to 1948, then believers ought to have been FLEEING from Judea in 1948, NOT encouraging Jews from all over the world to start regathering there!

But why does it matter anyway, someone might ask?

It matters because an enormous amount of time and resources is being spent by Christians who believe theirs MUST be the last generation. Seminars are held, books are written, expensive Christian TV time is devoted to the subject. And when their contemporary predictions fizzle into nothing, unbelievers could make a mockery of it.

Current affairs are blown right out of proportion. These believers are CONSTANTLY trying to squeeze momentous prophetic significance out of everything bad that happens in the news - because in their view a lot MUST happen within the 1948 generation. And they're running out of time. All of this is happening simply because of a dubious understanding of ONE small sentence in Matthew 24.

It also detracts from the Gospel truth that the Son of Man can come at ANY TIME.

There is another reason why it matters. Do you really think unbelievers are going to feel comfortable voting for a Christian political candidate - to manage their economy, to work towards their children's future, and to be trusted as Commander in Chief of its nuclear arsenal - if they know that particular candidate's religious paradigm teaches that EVERYTHING is CERTAIN to come to an END within the LIFETIME of those who were alive to see ISRAEL become a nation again in 1948?

Israel and the End Times


It seems a lot of end-times preachers nowadays are saying Jesus MUST return within the generation that saw the rebirth of Israel in 1948 (referring to the Parable of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24).

They're running out of time, so that means a lot of prophetic fulfillment has to be squeezed into the next few years. That's why they have to try to see eschatological significance in virtually every piece of bad news that happens even if far worse things have happened in previous generations.

So, does Jesus really have to come back within the generation that saw Israel rebirthed?

In this post I'll give reasons why I think He probably doesn't necessarily HAVE TO, although HE COULD if God wills.

Anyway, isn't it already too late for that? - because wasn't that LAST generation (1948)? It's interesting how our definition of "generation" keeps getting stretched in order to accommodate our theory.

So what did Jesus mean by the "fig tree shooting forth its branches"? Well, it probably doesn't have anything to do with the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

Firstly, because Israel is more often symbolized in prophetic literature by an OLIVE branch, or a GRAPE vine, but seldom as a fig TREE.

Secondly, even if the fig tree IS used here in the Olivet discourse as a symbol of Israel, it still probably doesn't refer to the events of 1948, because Jesus did NOT single-out the fig tree specifically. Rather, as seen in Luke's account, He said, "...behold the fig tree, AND ALL THE TREES".

Thirdly, Jesus Himself explained exactly what the "shooting forth of the branches" refers to. He said, "...so also when you see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass..." What were "these things"? They were the things He'd just finished describing, which were the famines, pestilences, earthquakes, wars, false Christs (antichrists, plural) and the siege of Jerusalem by Gentile armies, and the abomination that would cause Israel's desolation, as spoken of by Daniel.

When the believers see all THESE THINGS happen, they were told, it would then be time to flee from Judea as a matter of urgency - in the same way that a person knows summer is near once he sees the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES shooting forth their branches.

According to the historians Josephus and Tacitus, the believers indeed fled from Judea just as Jesus told them, when they saw all these things come to pass upon that generation, during the Jewish-Roman War (AD67-70). There were earthquakes, famines, pestilences, false Christs, wars & rumours of wars, abominable practices were set-up in the holy place, Jerusalem was besieged, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were transported as captives all around the world - but the believers who fled from Judea were spared. And the City of Jerusalem has remained trodden underfoot of Gentiles ever since, just as foretold by Jesus.

And the Lord told us for how long Jerusalem will remain in this state: "...until the years of the Gentiles be fulfilled" or as Paul said, "...until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in". Only the heavenly Father knows how much longer that will be.

It seems that much of what Jesus predicted indeed came to pass exactly as predicted and exactly within the time-frame that was predicted. These events were like the sprouting of the branches of a tree that lets a person know summer is near - they let the believers know that the destruction of the Temple was near, and that it was time to flee from Judea.

Jesus had instructed His disciples what to do when they see ALL THESE THINGS come to pass: He told them, "...Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains..."

The believers' lives were spared from the Roman onslaught precisely because they recognized the fulfillment of Jesus' predictions, and followed His instructions.

The subsequent history of Jerusalem has transpired exactly as Jesus foretold, and has remained a sign since AD70 in the sight of each successive generation.

Therefore the Church in each century has preached that the Son of Man can come AT ANY TIME! That has always been the message of the Church throughout the centuries. Jesus can come at any time.

As the Apostles Peter and John said, the "last days" began on the Day of Pentecost - not in the first half of last century.

Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed, that's for sure.

When you think about it - if the Parable of the Fig Tree refers to 1948, then believers ought to have been FLEEING from Judea in 1948, NOT encouraging Jews from all over the world to start regathering there!

But why does it matter anyway, someone might ask?

It matters because an enormous amount of time and resources is being spent by Christians who believe theirs MUST be the last generation. Seminars are held, books are written, expensive Christian TV time is devoted to the subject. And when their contemporary predictions fizzle into nothing, unbelievers could make a mockery of it.

Current affairs are blown right out of proportion. These believers are CONSTANTLY trying to squeeze momentous prophetic significance out of everything bad that happens in the news - because in their view a lot MUST happen within the 1948 generation. And they're running out of time. All of this is happening simply because of a dubious understanding of ONE small sentence in Matthew 24.

It also detracts from the Gospel truth that the Son of Man can come at ANY TIME.

There is another reason why it matters. Do you really think unbelievers are going to feel comfortable voting for a Christian political candidate - to manage their economy, to work towards their children's future, and to be trusted as Commander in Chief of its nuclear arsenal - if they know that particular candidate's religious paradigm teaches that EVERYTHING is CERTAIN to come to an END within the LIFETIME of those who were alive to see ISRAEL become a nation again in 1948?

Ethnocentric End-Times Teaching

It seems many predictions about the end of the world are merely based on one's own circumstances, often forgetting that far worse things have happened to others in previous generations. For example:

There were 60,000 to 1,100,100 mass civilian casualties during the siege of Jerusalem in AD70 - but when Hezbollah fired 4.8- inch Katyusha rockets into Israel two years ago killing 121, end-times preachers thought we were seeing the fulfillment of prophecy before our very eyes.

Six million European Jews were killed during the Holocaust - but when President Ahmadinejad of Iran threatened Israel 18 months ago even though nothing has happened yet, end-times preachers were calling it the last days.

75 million people (30-60% of Europe's population) died of the plague in the 1340s - but when the bird flu infected fewer than 200 laboratory-tested people four years ago, it was portrayed as the end of the world.

Two to four million died in the China floods of 1931 - but when eleven people died in flooding in America's mid-west this year, one end-times preacher said ours surely must be the final generation.

An estimated 200,000-400,000 have died and 2,500,000 misplaced in the current Darfur conflict - but when a city was temporarily evacuated and 50 people died in Texas two months ago, well it's got to be the apocalypse.

There have been at least six world empires since New Testament days which each controlled at least 25% of the world's population - but if you mention the 'North American Union conspiracy theory', all of a sudden you're talking about the end of human civilization, even though the USA comprises only 6.4% of the world's population.

One American end-times preacher even warned that the Great Tribulation is near, due to outrage in California over petrol prices peaking at 51c/litre. Nevermind that 110 countries in the world were already paying double or triple that, or didn't even own a car to put fuel in in the first place.

South Korea now has the largest churches in history; China's Church has an estimated 100million members; revival and church-growth in Africa is at unprecedented levels - but if someone starts teaching wrong doctrine in one American denomination, all of a sudden it's regarded as the worldwide "great falling away" that Paul warned about.

Untold millions have died in natural disasters throughout the centuries - but if it happens in OUR country and in OUR genaration, then we tend to think it must be WORSE THAN EVER and that it MUST BE the end of the world. We try to attach so much eschatological significance to current events, as if ours is certainly the last generation.

That's what I mean by ethnocentric eschatology. Funny isn't it! It's funny how ethnocentric some of us can become. For example, American baseball is called the 'World Series'; a Californian bodybuilding competition is called 'Mr Universe'.

Perhaps a lot of this type of thinking about End-Times originates in America, although it's not limited to America. I've been wondering why American culture spawns so many end-times theories. I thought of two possible reasons:

Other cultures never had the freedoms Americans still enjoy; so when something bad happens, the people in those countries don't immediately suspect a new conspiracy nor attach eschatological significance to what's happening - to them it's just more of the same of what they've already always seen. The American psyche, on the other hand, gets a real jolt if they perceive that even one of their rights might become slightly threatened, as if it could mean the end of their world.

Another reason could be that conspiracy theories and end-times books can make good money in America. Authors probably can't wait to publish the next sensational theory. Such books are highly marketable to Americans so long as you can sell the idea to the American reader that one of his rights could be threatened by what's happening.

But it isn't limited to America. Other examples of historical events which people have mistakenly thought were a sign of the last generation include: the idea during the Middle Ages that the Pope was the 'Antichrist'; the idea during the First World War that the Ottoman Empire was the 'Beast'; the idea during the Second World War that Nazism was the 'man of sin'; the idea that the rebirth of Israel in 1948 meant that was the last generation; during the Cold War that communism was the 'northern army'; then there were doomsday fears during the oil crisis of the 1970s; and the apocalypse was forecast to occur as a result of the Jupiter Effect (planetary alignment) in 1980; there were dire warnings of the Mark of the Beast when the plastic-card and barcoding were introduced in the 1970s and '80s; next was the idea that Iraq was the modern 'Babylon', during the first Gulf War in the 1990s; then Y2K, which came to nothing, despite all the money spent promoting it on Christian TV; there was the current War on Terror, which didn't exactly become the 'mother of all wars'; recent earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, and the current US sub-prime lenders crisis are other examples.

Each event seems terrible if it happens in your country in your generation. But time moved on and we now know those historical events were not a sign of the last generation before Jesus returns.

Jesus gave us the signs of His coming. But I'm not sure whether He really tried to give us the signs of the last generation, because no-one knows the day nor the hour. The signs of His coming have been with us throughout every century since the early Church. The 'last days' began on the day of Pentecost!

A more mistake-proof approach to understanding Biblical prophecy might be to simply LET THE TEXT SPEAK FOR ITSELF, instead of trying to use 'newspaper exegesis' to understand what He meant. Endeavor to find out, first of all, what the text would have meant to its original readers. Remember that the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 24 were spoken nearly 2,000 years ago while overlooking the City of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives in answer to a specific question about the destruction of the Temple. Jesus' statements need to be understood in that context, before being viewed through the grid of 21st century current affairs. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

21st century ethnocentric interpretations will fizzle, like every other prediction about the Lord's coming. But when we let the text speak for itself, here's the conclusions we'll come to: that Jesus is coming soon (soon, compared with eternity); that no-one knows when (so we won't even bother trying to predict when); and that we must be ready at every hour (by living obediently).

Those three points are the enduring message of the Gospel which are relevant to all nations of all generations.

Jesus is coming soon; no-one knows when; be ready.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Stick to that, and your predictions won't fizzle into nothing.

Ethnocentric End-Times Teaching

It seems many predictions about the end of the world are merely based on one's own circumstances, often forgetting that far worse things have happened to others in previous generations. For example:

There were 60,000 to 1,100,100 mass civilian casualties during the siege of Jerusalem in AD70 - but when Hezbollah fired 4.8- inch Katyusha rockets into Israel two years ago killing 121, end-times preachers thought we were seeing the fulfillment of prophecy before our very eyes.

Six million European Jews were killed during the Holocaust - but when President Ahmadinejad of Iran threatened Israel 18 months ago even though nothing has happened yet, end-times preachers were calling it the last days.

75 million people (30-60% of Europe's population) died of the plague in the 1340s - but when the bird flu infected fewer than 200 laboratory-tested people four years ago, it was portrayed as the end of the world.

Two to four million died in the China floods of 1931 - but when eleven people died in flooding in America's mid-west this year, one end-times preacher said ours surely must be the final generation.

An estimated 200,000-400,000 have died and 2,500,000 misplaced in the current Darfur conflict - but when a city was temporarily evacuated and 50 people died in Texas two months ago, well it's got to be the apocalypse.

There have been at least six world empires since New Testament days which each controlled at least 25% of the world's population - but if you mention the 'North American Union conspiracy theory', all of a sudden you're talking about the end of human civilization, even though the USA comprises only 6.4% of the world's population.

One American end-times preacher even warned that the Great Tribulation is near, due to outrage in California over petrol prices peaking at 51c/litre. Nevermind that 110 countries in the world were already paying double or triple that, or didn't even own a car to put fuel in in the first place.

South Korea now has the largest churches in history; China's Church has an estimated 100million members; revival and church-growth in Africa is at unprecedented levels - but if someone starts teaching wrong doctrine in one American denomination, all of a sudden it's regarded as the worldwide "great falling away" that Paul warned about.

Untold millions have died in natural disasters throughout the centuries - but if it happens in OUR country and in OUR genaration, then we tend to think it must be WORSE THAN EVER and that it MUST BE the end of the world. We try to attach so much eschatological significance to current events, as if ours is certainly the last generation.

That's what I mean by ethnocentric eschatology. Funny isn't it! It's funny how ethnocentric some of us can become. For example, American baseball is called the 'World Series'; a Californian bodybuilding competition is called 'Mr Universe'.

Perhaps a lot of this type of thinking about End-Times originates in America, although it's not limited to America. I've been wondering why American culture spawns so many end-times theories. I thought of two possible reasons:

Other cultures never had the freedoms Americans still enjoy; so when something bad happens, the people in those countries don't immediately suspect a new conspiracy nor attach eschatological significance to what's happening - to them it's just more of the same of what they've already always seen. The American psyche, on the other hand, gets a real jolt if they perceive that even one of their rights might become slightly threatened, as if it could mean the end of their world.

Another reason could be that conspiracy theories and end-times books can make good money in America. Authors probably can't wait to publish the next sensational theory. Such books are highly marketable to Americans so long as you can sell the idea to the American reader that one of his rights could be threatened by what's happening.

But it isn't limited to America. Other examples of historical events which people have mistakenly thought were a sign of the last generation include: the idea during the Middle Ages that the Pope was the 'Antichrist'; the idea during the First World War that the Ottoman Empire was the 'Beast'; the idea during the Second World War that Nazism was the 'man of sin'; the idea that the rebirth of Israel in 1948 meant that was the last generation; during the Cold War that communism was the 'northern army'; then there were doomsday fears during the oil crisis of the 1970s; and the apocalypse was forecast to occur as a result of the Jupiter Effect (planetary alignment) in 1980; there were dire warnings of the Mark of the Beast when the plastic-card and barcoding were introduced in the 1970s and '80s; next was the idea that Iraq was the modern 'Babylon', during the first Gulf War in the 1990s; then Y2K, which came to nothing, despite all the money spent promoting it on Christian TV; there was the current War on Terror, which didn't exactly become the 'mother of all wars'; recent earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, and the current US sub-prime lenders crisis are other examples.

Each event seems terrible if it happens in your country in your generation. But time moved on and we now know those historical events were not a sign of the last generation before Jesus returns.

Jesus gave us the signs of His coming. But I'm not sure whether He really tried to give us the signs of the last generation, because no-one knows the day nor the hour. The signs of His coming have been with us throughout every century since the early Church. The 'last days' began on the day of Pentecost!

A more mistake-proof approach to understanding Biblical prophecy might be to simply LET THE TEXT SPEAK FOR ITSELF, instead of trying to use 'newspaper exegesis' to understand what He meant. Endeavor to find out, first of all, what the text would have meant to its original readers. Remember that the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 24 were spoken nearly 2,000 years ago while overlooking the City of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives in answer to a specific question about the destruction of the Temple. Jesus' statements need to be understood in that context, before being viewed through the grid of 21st century current affairs. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

21st century ethnocentric interpretations will fizzle, like every other prediction about the Lord's coming. But when we let the text speak for itself, here's the conclusions we'll come to: that Jesus is coming soon (soon, compared with eternity); that no-one knows when (so we won't even bother trying to predict when); and that we must be ready at every hour (by living obediently).

Those three points are the enduring message of the Gospel which are relevant to all nations of all generations.

Jesus is coming soon; no-one knows when; be ready.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Stick to that, and your predictions won't fizzle into nothing.

Ethnocentric End-Times Teaching

It seems many predictions about the end of the world are merely based on one's own circumstances, often forgetting that far worse things have happened to others in previous generations. For example:

There were 60,000 to 1,100,100 mass civilian casualties during the siege of Jerusalem in AD70 - but when Hezbollah fired 4.8- inch Katyusha rockets into Israel two years ago killing 121, end-times preachers thought we were seeing the fulfillment of prophecy before our very eyes.

Six million European Jews were killed during the Holocaust - but when President Ahmadinejad of Iran threatened Israel 18 months ago even though nothing has happened yet, end-times preachers were calling it the last days.

75 million people (30-60% of Europe's population) died of the plague in the 1340s - but when the bird flu infected fewer than 200 laboratory-tested people four years ago, it was portrayed as the end of the world.

Two to four million died in the China floods of 1931 - but when eleven people died in flooding in America's mid-west this year, one end-times preacher said ours surely must be the final generation.

An estimated 200,000-400,000 have died and 2,500,000 misplaced in the current Darfur conflict - but when a city was temporarily evacuated and 50 people died in Texas two months ago, well it's got to be the apocalypse.

There have been at least six world empires since New Testament days which each controlled at least 25% of the world's population - but if you mention the 'North American Union conspiracy theory', all of a sudden you're talking about the end of human civilization, even though the USA comprises only 6.4% of the world's population.

One American end-times preacher even warned that the Great Tribulation is near, due to outrage in California over petrol prices peaking at 51c/litre. Nevermind that 110 countries in the world were already paying double or triple that, or didn't even own a car to put fuel in in the first place.

South Korea now has the largest churches in history; China's Church has an estimated 100million members; revival and church-growth in Africa is at unprecedented levels - but if someone starts teaching wrong doctrine in one American denomination, all of a sudden it's regarded as the worldwide "great falling away" that Paul warned about.

Untold millions have died in natural disasters throughout the centuries - but if it happens in OUR country and in OUR genaration, then we tend to think it must be WORSE THAN EVER and that it MUST BE the end of the world. We try to attach so much eschatological significance to current events, as if ours is certainly the last generation.

That's what I mean by ethnocentric eschatology. Funny isn't it! It's funny how ethnocentric some of us can become. For example, American baseball is called the 'World Series'; a Californian bodybuilding competition is called 'Mr Universe'.

Perhaps a lot of this type of thinking about End-Times originates in America, although it's not limited to America. I've been wondering why American culture spawns so many end-times theories. I thought of two possible reasons:

Other cultures never had the freedoms Americans still enjoy; so when something bad happens, the people in those countries don't immediately suspect a new conspiracy nor attach eschatological significance to what's happening - to them it's just more of the same of what they've already always seen. The American psyche, on the other hand, gets a real jolt if they perceive that even one of their rights might become slightly threatened, as if it could mean the end of their world.

Another reason could be that conspiracy theories and end-times books can make good money in America. Authors probably can't wait to publish the next sensational theory. Such books are highly marketable to Americans so long as you can sell the idea to the American reader that one of his rights could be threatened by what's happening.

But it isn't limited to America. Other examples of historical events which people have mistakenly thought were a sign of the last generation include: the idea during the Middle Ages that the Pope was the 'Antichrist'; the idea during the First World War that the Ottoman Empire was the 'Beast'; the idea during the Second World War that Nazism was the 'man of sin'; the idea that the rebirth of Israel in 1948 meant that was the last generation; during the Cold War that communism was the 'northern army'; then there were doomsday fears during the oil crisis of the 1970s; and the apocalypse was forecast to occur as a result of the Jupiter Effect (planetary alignment) in 1980; there were dire warnings of the Mark of the Beast when the plastic-card and barcoding were introduced in the 1970s and '80s; next was the idea that Iraq was the modern 'Babylon', during the first Gulf War in the 1990s; then Y2K, which came to nothing, despite all the money spent promoting it on Christian TV; there was the current War on Terror, which didn't exactly become the 'mother of all wars'; recent earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, and the current US sub-prime lenders crisis are other examples.

Each event seems terrible if it happens in your country in your generation. But time moved on and we now know those historical events were not a sign of the last generation before Jesus returns.

Jesus gave us the signs of His coming. But I'm not sure whether He really tried to give us the signs of the last generation, because no-one knows the day nor the hour. The signs of His coming have been with us throughout every century since the early Church. The 'last days' began on the day of Pentecost!

A more mistake-proof approach to understanding Biblical prophecy might be to simply LET THE TEXT SPEAK FOR ITSELF, instead of trying to use 'newspaper exegesis' to understand what He meant. Endeavor to find out, first of all, what the text would have meant to its original readers. Remember that the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 24 were spoken nearly 2,000 years ago while overlooking the City of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives in answer to a specific question about the destruction of the Temple. Jesus' statements need to be understood in that context, before being viewed through the grid of 21st century current affairs. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

21st century ethnocentric interpretations will fizzle, like every other prediction about the Lord's coming. But when we let the text speak for itself, here's the conclusions we'll come to: that Jesus is coming soon (soon, compared with eternity); that no-one knows when (so we won't even bother trying to predict when); and that we must be ready at every hour (by living obediently).

Those three points are the enduring message of the Gospel which are relevant to all nations of all generations.

Jesus is coming soon; no-one knows when; be ready.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Stick to that, and your predictions won't fizzle into nothing.

Thursday 27 March 2008

"Thou Hast Asked a Hard Thing"

Today I resolve: "The supernatural life for me" - supernatural in purpose, guidance, provision and power.

He who would follow Elijah beyond Jordan must, shall, return over Jordan, alone.

We may think of staying where we are. Or we can follow to one place or another to which some others have already attained. Jordan, however, is the place these others can only look at from a distance. These may KNOW certain things by the Spirit, but they shall see the DOINGS of him who follows and returns back, alone, over Jordan.

Be one who has moved beyond supernatural KNOWING into supernatural DOING.

The requirement is more than to put yourself into a "sink or swim" situation. Elisha did more than that. He followed Elijah to the place where he had no option but to require the supernatural, alone, in order to get back over Jordan.

Two of them went over Jordan - only ONE of them came back.

Elisha followed to the point where he knew he had to get it in order to return back.

"There is that maketh himself poor, and yet hath GREAT riches"

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."

"Thou Hast Asked a Hard Thing"

Today I resolve: "The supernatural life for me" - supernatural in purpose, guidance, provision and power.

He who would follow Elijah beyond Jordan must, shall, return over Jordan, alone.

We may think of staying where we are. Or we can follow to one place or another to which some others have already attained. Jordan, however, is the place these others can only look at from a distance. These may KNOW certain things by the Spirit, but they shall see the DOINGS of him who follows and returns back, alone, over Jordan.

Be one who has moved beyond supernatural KNOWING into supernatural DOING.

The requirement is more than to put yourself into a "sink or swim" situation. Elisha did more than that. He followed Elijah to the place where he had no option but to require the supernatural, alone, in order to get back over Jordan.

Two of them went over Jordan - only ONE of them came back.

Elisha followed to the point where he knew he had to get it in order to return back.

"There is that maketh himself poor, and yet hath GREAT riches"

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."

"Thou Hast Asked a Hard Thing"

Today I resolve: "The supernatural life for me" - supernatural in purpose, guidance, provision and power.

He who would follow Elijah beyond Jordan must, shall, return over Jordan, alone.

We may think of staying where we are. Or we can follow to one place or another to which some others have already attained. Jordan, however, is the place these others can only look at from a distance. These may KNOW certain things by the Spirit, but they shall see the DOINGS of him who follows and returns back, alone, over Jordan.

Be one who has moved beyond supernatural KNOWING into supernatural DOING.

The requirement is more than to put yourself into a "sink or swim" situation. Elisha did more than that. He followed Elijah to the place where he had no option but to require the supernatural, alone, in order to get back over Jordan.

Two of them went over Jordan - only ONE of them came back.

Elisha followed to the point where he knew he had to get it in order to return back.

"There is that maketh himself poor, and yet hath GREAT riches"

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."

Sunday 16 March 2008

Music

1. "Music" is not listed in either of the New Testament's lists of the ministry gifts which God has set in the church. Yet today in the church music takes primary place. I wonder whether we'd know what to do in a church service, or in an evangelistic outreach, without music.
2. Musicians could possibly be categorized as "helps", an office which is a long way down the list in importance after apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles and healings. Therefore musicians should facilitate not dominate the other more important manifestations of the Spirit during a meeting. If the song-leader also occupies one of the higher offices, then he or she may be able to express his or her higher gift through music. But if the song-leader is a person who does not hold a higher office in the Spirit, then his or her musicianship is a ministry of "helps" and would do best to take a role in the service that facilitates the other expressions of the Spirit during a meeting rather than featuring in its own right.
3. Very often a greater manifestation of the Spirit will begin to sweep a congregation when the music is suspended, or at least turned-down in volume and given a supportive rather than featuring role.
4. An appropriate time to strike the music up again could be afterwards - after the other manifestations and functions of the Spirit have taken their course - when it can be accompanied with dancing and celebration of the miracles which the congregation has just witnessed and experienced.
5. The "sacrifice of praise" which pleases God is not a work of the law, but rather a spontaneous response to grace - the "fruit of our lips..." ('fruit', contrasted with 'works') "...offering thanks to God."

Music

1. "Music" is not listed in either of the New Testament's lists of the ministry gifts which God has set in the church. Yet today in the church music takes primary place. I wonder whether we'd know what to do in a church service, or in an evangelistic outreach, without music.
2. Musicians could possibly be categorized as "helps", an office which is a long way down the list in importance after apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles and healings. Therefore musicians should facilitate not dominate the other more important manifestations of the Spirit during a meeting. If the song-leader also occupies one of the higher offices, then he or she may be able to express his or her higher gift through music. But if the song-leader is a person who does not hold a higher office in the Spirit, then his or her musicianship is a ministry of "helps" and would do best to take a role in the service that facilitates the other expressions of the Spirit during a meeting rather than featuring in its own right.
3. Very often a greater manifestation of the Spirit will begin to sweep a congregation when the music is suspended, or at least turned-down in volume and given a supportive rather than featuring role.
4. An appropriate time to strike the music up again could be afterwards - after the other manifestations and functions of the Spirit have taken their course - when it can be accompanied with dancing and celebration of the miracles which the congregation has just witnessed and experienced.
5. The "sacrifice of praise" which pleases God is not a work of the law, but rather a spontaneous response to grace - the "fruit of our lips..." ('fruit', contrasted with 'works') "...offering thanks to God."

Music

1. "Music" is not listed in either of the New Testament's lists of the ministry gifts which God has set in the church. Yet today in the church music takes primary place. I wonder whether we'd know what to do in a church service, or in an evangelistic outreach, without music.
2. Musicians could possibly be categorized as "helps", an office which is a long way down the list in importance after apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles and healings. Therefore musicians should facilitate not dominate the other more important manifestations of the Spirit during a meeting. If the song-leader also occupies one of the higher offices, then he or she may be able to express his or her higher gift through music. But if the song-leader is a person who does not hold a higher office in the Spirit, then his or her musicianship is a ministry of "helps" and would do best to take a role in the service that facilitates the other expressions of the Spirit during a meeting rather than featuring in its own right.
3. Very often a greater manifestation of the Spirit will begin to sweep a congregation when the music is suspended, or at least turned-down in volume and given a supportive rather than featuring role.
4. An appropriate time to strike the music up again could be afterwards - after the other manifestations and functions of the Spirit have taken their course - when it can be accompanied with dancing and celebration of the miracles which the congregation has just witnessed and experienced.
5. The "sacrifice of praise" which pleases God is not a work of the law, but rather a spontaneous response to grace - the "fruit of our lips..." ('fruit', contrasted with 'works') "...offering thanks to God."

Monday 10 March 2008

"Evil is not something - it is someone" - unknown
"Evil is not something - it is someone" - unknown
"Evil is not something - it is someone" - unknown

Tuesday 19 February 2008

42nd Anniversary

On this day, 43 years ago, my parents, with their first child, became missionaries to Japan.

42nd Anniversary

On this day, 43 years ago, my parents, with their first child, became missionaries to Japan.

42nd Anniversary

On this day, 43 years ago, my parents, with their first child, became missionaries to Japan.

Sunday 17 February 2008

You Deserve the Glory

imo ang himaya

ug kadungganan

ipataas ka namo sa pagsimba

ngalan mo daygon ka

( repeat 2x )

choros:

Gamhanan ka

milagroso ka nga Diyos

walay sama kanimo

walay sama kanimo

You Deserve the Glory

imo ang himaya

ug kadungganan

ipataas ka namo sa pagsimba

ngalan mo daygon ka

( repeat 2x )

choros:

Gamhanan ka

milagroso ka nga Diyos

walay sama kanimo

walay sama kanimo

You Deserve the Glory

imo ang himaya

ug kadungganan

ipataas ka namo sa pagsimba

ngalan mo daygon ka

( repeat 2x )

choros:

Gamhanan ka

milagroso ka nga Diyos

walay sama kanimo

walay sama kanimo

Wednesday 6 February 2008

Biblical Models of Church

I once heard a minister of the Gospel say that TV ministry is wrong - because it allows a preacher to minister to the members of another pastor's flock without their pastor's permission.

Another pastor told an evangelist that he has nothing to say until he's proved it in the local church. The same pastor also said that no person should ever act on his own initiative (as far as ministry goes) but that he should only ever act on initiatives of his church elders.

Some evangelists, teachers and prophets have responded by attempting to pastor their own churches.

Others have come up with new models of 'church', claiming that an apostolic revolution is now taking place in which God is finished with the traditional pastor-based model and is instead restoring a new way of doing church. Some of them present a model that empowers the individual; others that empower the 'apostles'.

What is the Biblical relationship between pastors and other ministries - and their congregations?

I CORINTHIANS 12:28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The word "first" in I Corinthians 12:28 can mean first in prominence, first in importance - and also first in process as a local church matures and new abilities develop and become recognized.

Either way, it is
interesting to notice where the role of pastor is placed in the list. The office of pastor is probably represented by the word governments - because that's what pastors do - they govern, or rule. (The New Testament terms pastor, elder, bishop and presbytery each probably describe the same office). Notice that the office of pastor is listed seventh only, following a list of six other ministries which are primordial - primordial either in process, prominence or importance - to the office of pastor.

The ministries which are listed ahead of the ministry of governments (pastors) are: the ministry of helps (which is probably the same as the office of deacon), the gifts of healings, miracles, teachers, prophets and apostles.

It may come as a surprise that the ministry of helps (deacons) can figure more prominently than pastors - yet, when you think about it, that's how it was in the Book of Acts. Philip and Stephen are two examples of 'deacons' whose public roles featured more prominently than any church elders.
No church elder is ever named nor his ministry ever singled-out and given special mention, anywhere in the Book of Acts. But these two 'deacons' - Philip and Stephen - are given a prominence which, for part of the Book of Acts, is almost on a par with the Apostles.

Since even the deacons featured more prominently in public ministry in those days than the pastors, how much more prominent were the evangelists, teachers, prophets and apostles!

Can you say that the ministries of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps are currently featuring more prominently in your city, than the pastors are? and are they functioning more authoritatively, more autonomously, and at least as freely?

That portrays a very different picture to what is common today, and yet that's how it was during the early church.

I enjoy imagining what it would be like to live in a city where each of the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) are free to publicly function to full capacity. Wouldn't it be wonderful to witness that type of a move of God! Then I try to imagine what the role of pastors (elders) might be in such a scenario.

Sourcing the New Testament for precedents, the first thing I observe is that it was the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) that did the bulk of all the ministry that's recorded in the Book of Acts, more so than the pastors.

Plus, these ministries usually acted on their own initiative, rather than being made to feel it would be somehow illegitimate of them to make any move at all other than what their elders (pastors) told them they were allowed to do.

I see evangelists acting on their own initiative. I see apostolic teams largely directing their own movements. I see apostles, at the end of the day, making all the big decisions themselves (although sometimes they made their decisions in conference with elders).

Someone said that the above pattern of church government only describes a church in infancy - such as the early church - before elders (pastors) were appointed. They claim that once elders have been appointed, the office of pastor replaces the apostle as being first in prominence.

Others, on the other hand, claim that
the need for elders is only relevant during the absence of an apostle.

Admittedly, in most places where the Bible-apostles and evangelists went, there were no existing churches and therefore there were no elders. It would have taken some years before their converts matured enough in their faith to qualify for eldership (two of the qualifications for a bishop were that he must not be a novice and he must be apt to teach). Therefore, prior to the appointment of elders in the Gentile churches, it was only natural that the predominant ministries were that of the founding apostles, plus prophets, teachers and evangelists. But as we shall see, Biblical apostles continued to have a role in churches even after elders had been appointed.

Admittedly it also seems clear that by the time John saw his vision on the isle of Patmos, there was a recognized individual whom the Lord held accountable as the angel (messenger) of each local church. However, it is clear that John's authority as an apostle continued to be held in high regard by those messengers of the churches - or else it would have been pointless him writing letters to them. And besides, they each may have been either an elder or even somewhat apostolic in their own right, in their roles over their respective churches. So the ongoing role of apostles and pastors is not undermined by this fact.

And as for Paul, he didn't say that apostles were first only during a church's infancy. Nor did he say anything about the role of elders only being relevant during an apostle's absence. And he didn't say anything about governments ever moving to the top of the list in prominence.

On the contrary, we see a different, ongoing, inter-relationship between apostles and elders in the Bible - in churches where elders (pastors) had already been appointed.

The office of elder continued to exist, even when Paul made a return visit, such as at Ephesus. Even after a long absence, the elders were happy to act as advised by Paul. Whenever Paul was back in town they gladly facilitated his ministry. After all, the elders had been appointed by the apostles in the first place, not by themselves (appointed either by Timothy or Silas, acting on Paul's advice.)
Only the deacons were elected democratically - but elders of a local church were chosen by a founding apostle. In one place Paul mentioned the word "rule" when referring to the geographic scope of his authority as an apostle.

The same ongoing relationship between apostles and elders is evidenced in the church at Jerusalem. The elders were not the prime-movers of public ministry. That role was fulfilled by the apostles - and by various prophets, teachers, evangelists and even by the ministry of helps (deacons - e.g., Philip and Steven). The elders certainly never stifled the proper expression in the city of the primordial ministries. The reverse was true: the purpose of the eldership's existence was to facilitate those other ministries in their more prominent public role in the city.

In the church at Jerusalem there was a recognized role for elders even many years after the church's founding. They continued to function even with the presence of Apostles. They continued to be designated separately from the Twelve Apostles who remained in a class of their own - and they worked together, in support of the Apostles.

In John's vision on the isle of Patmos, he saw the 70 elders in heaven, and then he saw the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb written into the very foundation! So the two roles - of elders and apostles - are eternally functioning and inscribed - distinctly from each other - in heaven. If so in heaven, how much more upon the earth.

So in most modern cities around the world where churches already have an appointed pastor, the role of the pastors (or elders, bishops, presbyters) ought to be to foster, facilitate, and further - to promote, preserve and provide - for the work of the other more prominent ministries, in their city.

We ought to be seeing ministries like community work (helps - deacons), city-wide miracle-healing rallies (evangelists), Bible seminars (teachers), prophets and apostles ministering big-time in our cities - along with the cooperation of local pastors (governments). That creates an exciting picture!

Keep in mind though that although the role of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps may be ahead of pastors in prominence, this does not do away with the distinct role of pastors as governors.

The relationship between apostles and elders is one of mutual dependence. This is because while elders depended on apostles for their initial appointment to office, so did the apostles depend on elders (or their home church, at least) to commend them to ministry and send them out in the first place. It's a bit like, Man is the head of the woman, and yet, the Man was born of a woman.

This mutually dependent relationship is kept in correct balance when there is:

  • a recognition of the governing role of the elders;
  • a recognition of the premordial status of the other ministry functions ahead of the function of the eldership;
  • and a recognition of the fact that while all apostles are probably co-elders, not all elders are necessarily apostles, or even laborers in the word, for that matter.

Here's how the mutually dependent relationship works. The apostles were first of all recognized and sent-out by a church that presumably had an eldership of sorts. Then the apostles went out and founded new churches where they eventually appointed elders of their own. Thereafter, the new elders became responsible for governing, feeding and protecting their local flock. They reminded everyone of the doctrine of the apostles while they were away. And they were happy to facilitate the apostle's ministry whenever he visited again. The elders wisely discerned the validity or otherwise of any other ministry that came to town. The elders were responsible for both receiving or not receiving traveling ministries. Technically therefore, they could have chosen not to act on advice from Paul during a return visit. That's why we read of Paul, as the founder of the Corinthian church, imploring them to receive him. A true apostle would never lord it over a church, but it's amazing how welcoming pastors will be to an apostle who fulfills his calling with exemplary character, when the pastors also have exemplary character.


In the New Testament, there was usually a spontaneous recognition on the part of pastors of their founding-apostle's authority. And sometimes an apostle's authority was recognized even when the apostle had had no previous role in the church. But usually a person's apostleship had geographical spheres. Paul was determined not to build upon another man's foundation.

For example, Paul's apostleship was to the Gentiles, whereas Peter's was to the Jews. So there was a different dynamic in Paul's relationship with the elders whom Timothy and Silus had appointed, to Paul's relationship to the Apostles and elders when he briefly visited Jerusalem.

There are certain character qualities which enhance the relationship between local pastors and apostles - or between pastors and any of the other public ministries such as helps, teachers, evangelists and apostles. One of those qualities is humility. Another is service. Another is the principle of spontaneous recognition. That means, an apostle's authority is especially spontaneous over a group which he founded (although apostolic authority is not necessarily limited to having been a particular church's founder). Another principle is mutual recognition and submission. The public role of some of those other ministries in the city may be ahead of the role of the eldership in prominence or perhaps in importance, however that doesn't take anything away from the role for the elders as governors, overseers.

There are two aspects to submission. One is mutual submission:

"Submitting yourselves one to another [mutually] in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:21).

Another aspect is that the office of elders is particularly implied where we are told:

"Obey them which have the rule over you and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake".

This means that if we recognize the variety of grace that has been given to one another, in the fear of God, while acknowledging the governing role given to elders (and apostles would be included as co-elders) - we'll get on okay.

For example (on the side of apostles, first of all). When
apostles submit to elders (pastors) in the fear of God - they'll never expect cooperation from pastors simply on the basis of their calling. They'll appreciate that the pastors have a responsibility before God to know that the so-called apostle's character befits his higher calling. Usually (if the pastor also has a mature attitude towards God's work), once he knows the apostle's heart - he may open the door voluntarily, not because of any hierarchy. It takes many years of experience and character-building in order to qualify for apostleship - plus an apostle is usually a person who has himself had the responsibility of leadership over a church. Therefore he is sympathetic towards the role of pastors, and he comes to serve, not to lord it over them, and not just to receive offerings, even though he may legitimately have God-given authority, in the Gospel not in hierarchy.

And on the side of pastors. When pastors submit in the fear of the Lord (to apostles and evangelists, for example) - we can avoid scenarios where gifted evangelists try pastoring churches, just so they can have somewhere to function when they're back in their home city. And we'll avoid seeing valuable teaching ministries effecting but a small segment of the Body of Christ when they could be ministering to whole churches. Maybe we could even avoid promoting models of 'church' that either give exclusive authority to elders or else diminish their role more than is meat.

In conclusion, let's be mindful to always acknowledge the ongoing relevance and role of pastors as governors in the local church; and also, to allow our apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps ministries to feel free to fulfill their more prominent public ministries in the city - whether it's through a community service, city-wide miracle-healing rally, a teaching seminar, or through media such as TV.


That sounds like an exciting church to belong to!

Biblical Models of Church

I once heard a minister of the Gospel say that TV ministry is wrong - because it allows a preacher to minister to the members of another pastor's flock without their pastor's permission.

Another pastor told an evangelist that he has nothing to say until he's proved it in the local church. The same pastor also said that no person should ever act on his own initiative (as far as ministry goes) but that he should only ever act on initiatives of his church elders.

Some evangelists, teachers and prophets have responded by attempting to pastor their own churches.

Others have come up with new models of 'church', claiming that an apostolic revolution is now taking place in which God is finished with the traditional pastor-based model and is instead restoring a new way of doing church. Some of them present a model that empowers the individual; others that empower the 'apostles'.

What is the Biblical relationship between pastors and other ministries - and their congregations?

I CORINTHIANS 12:28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The word "first" in I Corinthians 12:28 can mean first in prominence, first in importance - and also first in process as a local church matures and new abilities develop and become recognized.

Either way, it is
interesting to notice where the role of pastor is placed in the list. The office of pastor is probably represented by the word governments - because that's what pastors do - they govern, or rule. (The New Testament terms pastor, elder, bishop and presbytery each probably describe the same office). Notice that the office of pastor is listed seventh only, following a list of six other ministries which are primordial - primordial either in process, prominence or importance - to the office of pastor.

The ministries which are listed ahead of the ministry of governments (pastors) are: the ministry of helps (which is probably the same as the office of deacon), the gifts of healings, miracles, teachers, prophets and apostles.

It may come as a surprise that the ministry of helps (deacons) can figure more prominently than pastors - yet, when you think about it, that's how it was in the Book of Acts. Philip and Stephen are two examples of 'deacons' whose public roles featured more prominently than any church elders.
No church elder is ever named nor his ministry ever singled-out and given special mention, anywhere in the Book of Acts. But these two 'deacons' - Philip and Stephen - are given a prominence which, for part of the Book of Acts, is almost on a par with the Apostles.

Since even the deacons featured more prominently in public ministry in those days than the pastors, how much more prominent were the evangelists, teachers, prophets and apostles!

Can you say that the ministries of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps are currently featuring more prominently in your city, than the pastors are? and are they functioning more authoritatively, more autonomously, and at least as freely?

That portrays a very different picture to what is common today, and yet that's how it was during the early church.

I enjoy imagining what it would be like to live in a city where each of the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) are free to publicly function to full capacity. Wouldn't it be wonderful to witness that type of a move of God! Then I try to imagine what the role of pastors (elders) might be in such a scenario.

Sourcing the New Testament for precedents, the first thing I observe is that it was the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) that did the bulk of all the ministry that's recorded in the Book of Acts, more so than the pastors.

Plus, these ministries usually acted on their own initiative, rather than being made to feel it would be somehow illegitimate of them to make any move at all other than what their elders (pastors) told them they were allowed to do.

I see evangelists acting on their own initiative. I see apostolic teams largely directing their own movements. I see apostles, at the end of the day, making all the big decisions themselves (although sometimes they made their decisions in conference with elders).

Someone said that the above pattern of church government only describes a church in infancy - such as the early church - before elders (pastors) were appointed. They claim that once elders have been appointed, the office of pastor replaces the apostle as being first in prominence.

Others, on the other hand, claim that
the need for elders is only relevant during the absence of an apostle.

Admittedly, in most places where the Bible-apostles and evangelists went, there were no existing churches and therefore there were no elders. It would have taken some years before their converts matured enough in their faith to qualify for eldership (two of the qualifications for a bishop were that he must not be a novice and he must be apt to teach). Therefore, prior to the appointment of elders in the Gentile churches, it was only natural that the predominant ministries were that of the founding apostles, plus prophets, teachers and evangelists. But as we shall see, Biblical apostles continued to have a role in churches even after elders had been appointed.

Admittedly it also seems clear that by the time John saw his vision on the isle of Patmos, there was a recognized individual whom the Lord held accountable as the angel (messenger) of each local church. However, it is clear that John's authority as an apostle continued to be held in high regard by those messengers of the churches - or else it would have been pointless him writing letters to them. And besides, they each may have been either an elder or even somewhat apostolic in their own right, in their roles over their respective churches. So the ongoing role of apostles and pastors is not undermined by this fact.

And as for Paul, he didn't say that apostles were first only during a church's infancy. Nor did he say anything about the role of elders only being relevant during an apostle's absence. And he didn't say anything about governments ever moving to the top of the list in prominence.

On the contrary, we see a different, ongoing, inter-relationship between apostles and elders in the Bible - in churches where elders (pastors) had already been appointed.

The office of elder continued to exist, even when Paul made a return visit, such as at Ephesus. Even after a long absence, the elders were happy to act as advised by Paul. Whenever Paul was back in town they gladly facilitated his ministry. After all, the elders had been appointed by the apostles in the first place, not by themselves (appointed either by Timothy or Silas, acting on Paul's advice.)
Only the deacons were elected democratically - but elders of a local church were chosen by a founding apostle. In one place Paul mentioned the word "rule" when referring to the geographic scope of his authority as an apostle.

The same ongoing relationship between apostles and elders is evidenced in the church at Jerusalem. The elders were not the prime-movers of public ministry. That role was fulfilled by the apostles - and by various prophets, teachers, evangelists and even by the ministry of helps (deacons - e.g., Philip and Steven). The elders certainly never stifled the proper expression in the city of the primordial ministries. The reverse was true: the purpose of the eldership's existence was to facilitate those other ministries in their more prominent public role in the city.

In the church at Jerusalem there was a recognized role for elders even many years after the church's founding. They continued to function even with the presence of Apostles. They continued to be designated separately from the Twelve Apostles who remained in a class of their own - and they worked together, in support of the Apostles.

In John's vision on the isle of Patmos, he saw the 70 elders in heaven, and then he saw the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb written into the very foundation! So the two roles - of elders and apostles - are eternally functioning and inscribed - distinctly from each other - in heaven. If so in heaven, how much more upon the earth.

So in most modern cities around the world where churches already have an appointed pastor, the role of the pastors (or elders, bishops, presbyters) ought to be to foster, facilitate, and further - to promote, preserve and provide - for the work of the other more prominent ministries, in their city.

We ought to be seeing ministries like community work (helps - deacons), city-wide miracle-healing rallies (evangelists), Bible seminars (teachers), prophets and apostles ministering big-time in our cities - along with the cooperation of local pastors (governments). That creates an exciting picture!

Keep in mind though that although the role of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps may be ahead of pastors in prominence, this does not do away with the distinct role of pastors as governors.

The relationship between apostles and elders is one of mutual dependence. This is because while elders depended on apostles for their initial appointment to office, so did the apostles depend on elders (or their home church, at least) to commend them to ministry and send them out in the first place. It's a bit like, Man is the head of the woman, and yet, the Man was born of a woman.

This mutually dependent relationship is kept in correct balance when there is:

  • a recognition of the governing role of the elders;
  • a recognition of the premordial status of the other ministry functions ahead of the function of the eldership;
  • and a recognition of the fact that while all apostles are probably co-elders, not all elders are necessarily apostles, or even laborers in the word, for that matter.

Here's how the mutually dependent relationship works. The apostles were first of all recognized and sent-out by a church that presumably had an eldership of sorts. Then the apostles went out and founded new churches where they eventually appointed elders of their own. Thereafter, the new elders became responsible for governing, feeding and protecting their local flock. They reminded everyone of the doctrine of the apostles while they were away. And they were happy to facilitate the apostle's ministry whenever he visited again. The elders wisely discerned the validity or otherwise of any other ministry that came to town. The elders were responsible for both receiving or not receiving traveling ministries. Technically therefore, they could have chosen not to act on advice from Paul during a return visit. That's why we read of Paul, as the founder of the Corinthian church, imploring them to receive him. A true apostle would never lord it over a church, but it's amazing how welcoming pastors will be to an apostle who fulfills his calling with exemplary character, when the pastors also have exemplary character.


In the New Testament, there was usually a spontaneous recognition on the part of pastors of their founding-apostle's authority. And sometimes an apostle's authority was recognized even when the apostle had had no previous role in the church. But usually a person's apostleship had geographical spheres. Paul was determined not to build upon another man's foundation.

For example, Paul's apostleship was to the Gentiles, whereas Peter's was to the Jews. So there was a different dynamic in Paul's relationship with the elders whom Timothy and Silus had appointed, to Paul's relationship to the Apostles and elders when he briefly visited Jerusalem.

There are certain character qualities which enhance the relationship between local pastors and apostles - or between pastors and any of the other public ministries such as helps, teachers, evangelists and apostles. One of those qualities is humility. Another is service. Another is the principle of spontaneous recognition. That means, an apostle's authority is especially spontaneous over a group which he founded (although apostolic authority is not necessarily limited to having been a particular church's founder). Another principle is mutual recognition and submission. The public role of some of those other ministries in the city may be ahead of the role of the eldership in prominence or perhaps in importance, however that doesn't take anything away from the role for the elders as governors, overseers.

There are two aspects to submission. One is mutual submission:

"Submitting yourselves one to another [mutually] in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:21).

Another aspect is that the office of elders is particularly implied where we are told:

"Obey them which have the rule over you and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake".

This means that if we recognize the variety of grace that has been given to one another, in the fear of God, while acknowledging the governing role given to elders (and apostles would be included as co-elders) - we'll get on okay.

For example (on the side of apostles, first of all). When
apostles submit to elders (pastors) in the fear of God - they'll never expect cooperation from pastors simply on the basis of their calling. They'll appreciate that the pastors have a responsibility before God to know that the so-called apostle's character befits his higher calling. Usually (if the pastor also has a mature attitude towards God's work), once he knows the apostle's heart - he may open the door voluntarily, not because of any hierarchy. It takes many years of experience and character-building in order to qualify for apostleship - plus an apostle is usually a person who has himself had the responsibility of leadership over a church. Therefore he is sympathetic towards the role of pastors, and he comes to serve, not to lord it over them, and not just to receive offerings, even though he may legitimately have God-given authority, in the Gospel not in hierarchy.

And on the side of pastors. When pastors submit in the fear of the Lord (to apostles and evangelists, for example) - we can avoid scenarios where gifted evangelists try pastoring churches, just so they can have somewhere to function when they're back in their home city. And we'll avoid seeing valuable teaching ministries effecting but a small segment of the Body of Christ when they could be ministering to whole churches. Maybe we could even avoid promoting models of 'church' that either give exclusive authority to elders or else diminish their role more than is meat.

In conclusion, let's be mindful to always acknowledge the ongoing relevance and role of pastors as governors in the local church; and also, to allow our apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps ministries to feel free to fulfill their more prominent public ministries in the city - whether it's through a community service, city-wide miracle-healing rally, a teaching seminar, or through media such as TV.


That sounds like an exciting church to belong to!

Biblical Models of Church

I once heard a minister of the Gospel say that TV ministry is wrong - because it allows a preacher to minister to the members of another pastor's flock without their pastor's permission.

Another pastor told an evangelist that he has nothing to say until he's proved it in the local church. The same pastor also said that no person should ever act on his own initiative (as far as ministry goes) but that he should only ever act on initiatives of his church elders.

Some evangelists, teachers and prophets have responded by attempting to pastor their own churches.

Others have come up with new models of 'church', claiming that an apostolic revolution is now taking place in which God is finished with the traditional pastor-based model and is instead restoring a new way of doing church. Some of them present a model that empowers the individual; others that empower the 'apostles'.

What is the Biblical relationship between pastors and other ministries - and their congregations?

I CORINTHIANS 12:28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The word "first" in I Corinthians 12:28 can mean first in prominence, first in importance - and also first in process as a local church matures and new abilities develop and become recognized.

Either way, it is
interesting to notice where the role of pastor is placed in the list. The office of pastor is probably represented by the word governments - because that's what pastors do - they govern, or rule. (The New Testament terms pastor, elder, bishop and presbytery each probably describe the same office). Notice that the office of pastor is listed seventh only, following a list of six other ministries which are primordial - primordial either in process, prominence or importance - to the office of pastor.

The ministries which are listed ahead of the ministry of governments (pastors) are: the ministry of helps (which is probably the same as the office of deacon), the gifts of healings, miracles, teachers, prophets and apostles.

It may come as a surprise that the ministry of helps (deacons) can figure more prominently than pastors - yet, when you think about it, that's how it was in the Book of Acts. Philip and Stephen are two examples of 'deacons' whose public roles featured more prominently than any church elders.
No church elder is ever named nor his ministry ever singled-out and given special mention, anywhere in the Book of Acts. But these two 'deacons' - Philip and Stephen - are given a prominence which, for part of the Book of Acts, is almost on a par with the Apostles.

Since even the deacons featured more prominently in public ministry in those days than the pastors, how much more prominent were the evangelists, teachers, prophets and apostles!

Can you say that the ministries of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps are currently featuring more prominently in your city, than the pastors are? and are they functioning more authoritatively, more autonomously, and at least as freely?

That portrays a very different picture to what is common today, and yet that's how it was during the early church.

I enjoy imagining what it would be like to live in a city where each of the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) are free to publicly function to full capacity. Wouldn't it be wonderful to witness that type of a move of God! Then I try to imagine what the role of pastors (elders) might be in such a scenario.

Sourcing the New Testament for precedents, the first thing I observe is that it was the primordial ministries (apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists) that did the bulk of all the ministry that's recorded in the Book of Acts, more so than the pastors.

Plus, these ministries usually acted on their own initiative, rather than being made to feel it would be somehow illegitimate of them to make any move at all other than what their elders (pastors) told them they were allowed to do.

I see evangelists acting on their own initiative. I see apostolic teams largely directing their own movements. I see apostles, at the end of the day, making all the big decisions themselves (although sometimes they made their decisions in conference with elders).

Someone said that the above pattern of church government only describes a church in infancy - such as the early church - before elders (pastors) were appointed. They claim that once elders have been appointed, the office of pastor replaces the apostle as being first in prominence.

Others, on the other hand, claim that
the need for elders is only relevant during the absence of an apostle.

Admittedly, in most places where the Bible-apostles and evangelists went, there were no existing churches and therefore there were no elders. It would have taken some years before their converts matured enough in their faith to qualify for eldership (two of the qualifications for a bishop were that he must not be a novice and he must be apt to teach). Therefore, prior to the appointment of elders in the Gentile churches, it was only natural that the predominant ministries were that of the founding apostles, plus prophets, teachers and evangelists. But as we shall see, Biblical apostles continued to have a role in churches even after elders had been appointed.

Admittedly it also seems clear that by the time John saw his vision on the isle of Patmos, there was a recognized individual whom the Lord held accountable as the angel (messenger) of each local church. However, it is clear that John's authority as an apostle continued to be held in high regard by those messengers of the churches - or else it would have been pointless him writing letters to them. And besides, they each may have been either an elder or even somewhat apostolic in their own right, in their roles over their respective churches. So the ongoing role of apostles and pastors is not undermined by this fact.

And as for Paul, he didn't say that apostles were first only during a church's infancy. Nor did he say anything about the role of elders only being relevant during an apostle's absence. And he didn't say anything about governments ever moving to the top of the list in prominence.

On the contrary, we see a different, ongoing, inter-relationship between apostles and elders in the Bible - in churches where elders (pastors) had already been appointed.

The office of elder continued to exist, even when Paul made a return visit, such as at Ephesus. Even after a long absence, the elders were happy to act as advised by Paul. Whenever Paul was back in town they gladly facilitated his ministry. After all, the elders had been appointed by the apostles in the first place, not by themselves (appointed either by Timothy or Silas, acting on Paul's advice.)
Only the deacons were elected democratically - but elders of a local church were chosen by a founding apostle. In one place Paul mentioned the word "rule" when referring to the geographic scope of his authority as an apostle.

The same ongoing relationship between apostles and elders is evidenced in the church at Jerusalem. The elders were not the prime-movers of public ministry. That role was fulfilled by the apostles - and by various prophets, teachers, evangelists and even by the ministry of helps (deacons - e.g., Philip and Steven). The elders certainly never stifled the proper expression in the city of the primordial ministries. The reverse was true: the purpose of the eldership's existence was to facilitate those other ministries in their more prominent public role in the city.

In the church at Jerusalem there was a recognized role for elders even many years after the church's founding. They continued to function even with the presence of Apostles. They continued to be designated separately from the Twelve Apostles who remained in a class of their own - and they worked together, in support of the Apostles.

In John's vision on the isle of Patmos, he saw the 70 elders in heaven, and then he saw the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb written into the very foundation! So the two roles - of elders and apostles - are eternally functioning and inscribed - distinctly from each other - in heaven. If so in heaven, how much more upon the earth.

So in most modern cities around the world where churches already have an appointed pastor, the role of the pastors (or elders, bishops, presbyters) ought to be to foster, facilitate, and further - to promote, preserve and provide - for the work of the other more prominent ministries, in their city.

We ought to be seeing ministries like community work (helps - deacons), city-wide miracle-healing rallies (evangelists), Bible seminars (teachers), prophets and apostles ministering big-time in our cities - along with the cooperation of local pastors (governments). That creates an exciting picture!

Keep in mind though that although the role of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps may be ahead of pastors in prominence, this does not do away with the distinct role of pastors as governors.

The relationship between apostles and elders is one of mutual dependence. This is because while elders depended on apostles for their initial appointment to office, so did the apostles depend on elders (or their home church, at least) to commend them to ministry and send them out in the first place. It's a bit like, Man is the head of the woman, and yet, the Man was born of a woman.

This mutually dependent relationship is kept in correct balance when there is:

  • a recognition of the governing role of the elders;
  • a recognition of the premordial status of the other ministry functions ahead of the function of the eldership;
  • and a recognition of the fact that while all apostles are probably co-elders, not all elders are necessarily apostles, or even laborers in the word, for that matter.

Here's how the mutually dependent relationship works. The apostles were first of all recognized and sent-out by a church that presumably had an eldership of sorts. Then the apostles went out and founded new churches where they eventually appointed elders of their own. Thereafter, the new elders became responsible for governing, feeding and protecting their local flock. They reminded everyone of the doctrine of the apostles while they were away. And they were happy to facilitate the apostle's ministry whenever he visited again. The elders wisely discerned the validity or otherwise of any other ministry that came to town. The elders were responsible for both receiving or not receiving traveling ministries. Technically therefore, they could have chosen not to act on advice from Paul during a return visit. That's why we read of Paul, as the founder of the Corinthian church, imploring them to receive him. A true apostle would never lord it over a church, but it's amazing how welcoming pastors will be to an apostle who fulfills his calling with exemplary character, when the pastors also have exemplary character.


In the New Testament, there was usually a spontaneous recognition on the part of pastors of their founding-apostle's authority. And sometimes an apostle's authority was recognized even when the apostle had had no previous role in the church. But usually a person's apostleship had geographical spheres. Paul was determined not to build upon another man's foundation.

For example, Paul's apostleship was to the Gentiles, whereas Peter's was to the Jews. So there was a different dynamic in Paul's relationship with the elders whom Timothy and Silus had appointed, to Paul's relationship to the Apostles and elders when he briefly visited Jerusalem.

There are certain character qualities which enhance the relationship between local pastors and apostles - or between pastors and any of the other public ministries such as helps, teachers, evangelists and apostles. One of those qualities is humility. Another is service. Another is the principle of spontaneous recognition. That means, an apostle's authority is especially spontaneous over a group which he founded (although apostolic authority is not necessarily limited to having been a particular church's founder). Another principle is mutual recognition and submission. The public role of some of those other ministries in the city may be ahead of the role of the eldership in prominence or perhaps in importance, however that doesn't take anything away from the role for the elders as governors, overseers.

There are two aspects to submission. One is mutual submission:

"Submitting yourselves one to another [mutually] in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:21).

Another aspect is that the office of elders is particularly implied where we are told:

"Obey them which have the rule over you and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake".

This means that if we recognize the variety of grace that has been given to one another, in the fear of God, while acknowledging the governing role given to elders (and apostles would be included as co-elders) - we'll get on okay.

For example (on the side of apostles, first of all). When
apostles submit to elders (pastors) in the fear of God - they'll never expect cooperation from pastors simply on the basis of their calling. They'll appreciate that the pastors have a responsibility before God to know that the so-called apostle's character befits his higher calling. Usually (if the pastor also has a mature attitude towards God's work), once he knows the apostle's heart - he may open the door voluntarily, not because of any hierarchy. It takes many years of experience and character-building in order to qualify for apostleship - plus an apostle is usually a person who has himself had the responsibility of leadership over a church. Therefore he is sympathetic towards the role of pastors, and he comes to serve, not to lord it over them, and not just to receive offerings, even though he may legitimately have God-given authority, in the Gospel not in hierarchy.

And on the side of pastors. When pastors submit in the fear of the Lord (to apostles and evangelists, for example) - we can avoid scenarios where gifted evangelists try pastoring churches, just so they can have somewhere to function when they're back in their home city. And we'll avoid seeing valuable teaching ministries effecting but a small segment of the Body of Christ when they could be ministering to whole churches. Maybe we could even avoid promoting models of 'church' that either give exclusive authority to elders or else diminish their role more than is meat.

In conclusion, let's be mindful to always acknowledge the ongoing relevance and role of pastors as governors in the local church; and also, to allow our apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and helps ministries to feel free to fulfill their more prominent public ministries in the city - whether it's through a community service, city-wide miracle-healing rally, a teaching seminar, or through media such as TV.


That sounds like an exciting church to belong to!