Thursday 23 June 2011

Pearls Before Swine

Someone who critiques what you give them, is a friend. Someone who even rebukes you, is a friend. But someone who tramples what you give them under their feet, and turns again and rends you, is called something else!

MATTHEW 7:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


You don't have to cast your pearls before such a person.

Thursday 16 June 2011

"Surely I Come Quickly" by Rusty Entrekin

Interesting study claiming Jesus did not say He is coming "soon" but that He said that when He comes, He will come "quickly" - by Rusty Entrekin:

"Surely I Come Quickly"

Why erchomai tachu most likely describes
how Jesus is coming, not when He will come.

By Rusty Entrekin
Four times in the book of Revelation, the NIV, RV and ESV translate the Greek phrase erchomai tachu "I am coming soon."

1. "I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown." Revelation 3:11 (NIV)
2. "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." Revelation 22:7 (NIV)
3. "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. (NIV) Revelation 22:12
4. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. Revelation 22:20 (NIV)

And yet, this phrase is translated "I come quickly" in the KJV and many other translations. Obviously, this leaves room for the idea of speed or suddenness of action. The NIV translation does not leave room for this. Is the NIV, or the KJV correct here? Is it possible that Jesus meant he would return with quickness or suddenness, rather than soon in time?

Let's look at how the verb tachu is used by New Testament writers in the rest of the New Testament to see. Tachu occurs a total of thirteen times in the NT. Twelve times it is translated "quickly" in the KJV. Once is it translated "lightly."

Here are all of the occurrences of tachu outside of the book of Revelation.

Matthew 5:25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

Matthew 28:7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you."

Matthew 28:8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.

Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me." [Some translations render tachu "soon" here, but that is an interpretative translation, and I believe it is a mistaken one as well. I will explain why below.]

Mark 16:8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

John 11:29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly and came to Him.

In each of these instances, note how this adverb denotes quick, sudden action. Take just a moment and substitute the word "soon" for "quickly" in the verses above. In all these instances, "soon" does not fit the sentence as well as "quickly" does, because swift action is being described rather than action sometime in the near but indeterminate future.

Mark 9:39 may seem to be an exception, but it actually is not, because even here tachu conveys the idea of speaking too quickly, without weighing one’s words first. This verse also demonstrates that tachu can be used to describe a swift action which takes place after a period of time has gone by.

Recently, a friend objected to this observation by saying, "In none of the these verses does the writer mean that the action will take place suddenly 2000 years from now."

That is true, but it is an irrelevant and misleading objection, for several reasons:

1) In Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, and 11:28, the biblical writers are describing past events, not events that will occur in the future.

2) In Matthew 28:7, "go quickly" is an imperative command that is obviously meant to be obeyed immediately.

3) Matthew 5:25 demonstrates just how misleading the above objection is. Here, Jesus commands "Agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him." Who knows how much time may pass before you find yourself in a situation like this? Ten, twenty, thirty years or more? The idea behind this is to agree with an adversary quickly and immediately when you find yourself in this situation.

4) In Mark 9:39 Jesus said, "there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me." A long period of time might go by after a man has done a miracle in Jesus' name. But that man still will not be able to hastily speak evil of Jesus. He will hesitate and check himself before saying such a thing, because he has seen the power of God displayed in the name of Jesus.

And so we see that when tachu is used, it does not necessarily mean that the action takes place right away, or even that the action will take place in the near future. Rather, it simply describes the speed and suddeness of an action once it has been initiated. This implies nearness in time only after the action has begun. As we are about to see, the first two uses of the adverb tachu in the book of Revelation illustrate this very well.

The Uses of the Adverb tachu in Revelation

There are seven uses of the adverb tachu in the book of Revelation. Six of these regard Christ’s coming:

Revelation 2:5 remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand from its place—if thou mayest not reform; (YLT)

Revelation 2:16 Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

Note that in both of the above two verses, Jesus offers the offending churches time to repent. The idea here is that if they do not repent now, they will not have time to repent when He comes, because when He comes in judgment on churches and individuals, He comes quickly and suddenly.

Now let's look at the other instances of tachu in the book of Revelation. There is no reason to believe that Jesus is speaking differently in these verses than he did in the two above.

Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly; hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Revelation 22:7 "Behold, I come quickly." Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12 "And behold, I come quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:20 He that testifieth these things saith, "Surely I come quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The other use of tachu regards the coming of the third woe:

Revelation 11:14 The second woe is past; and behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

Significantly, in every one of these seven instances, the verb translated "come" (erchomai) is in the present indicative tense, not in the future tense. So how should we take Jesus’ words in the first six verses above? Curtis Vaugnhan and Virtus Gideon, in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, state that there are four regular, and four special uses of the present indicative in Greek ( page 136). Let’s look at these to see which one fits best, along with some scriptural examples of these uses which Vaughan and Gideon give.

The most common of these, the descriptive, describes an act in progress. Did Jesus mean that He was already in the process of coming? Since tachu conveys the meaning of sudden, swift action once it occurs, even the preterist notion of Jesus coming one to five years after the writing of Revelation is too slow to fit this idea.

The durative use, which describes ongoing, continual action, also does not seem to fit here either.

The gnomic use could fit. It describes a general or timeless truth, such as "Every house is built by someone." (Heb 3:4)

The iterative use could also fit. It describes something which occurs at successive intervals: "I die daily." ( I Cor. 15:31). Both the gnomic and the iterative uses would reflect our Lord’s frequent, unseen comings in judgment of nations and individuals. Two of the six "coming" statements in the book of Revelation are indeed individual applications of the idea that He comes swiftly to persons and churches with chastisements:

Revelation 2:5 remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand from its place—if thou mayest not reform; (YLT)

Revelation 2:16 Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

However, although these verses do establish the fact that there are individual comings of our Lord, since Jesus uses the words "to thee" and "unto thee" in the above two verses, the form of the present tense used here is probably the special use of the present indicative called the futuristic present. An example of the futuristic present is "If I go away, I am coming again and will receive you to myself." (John 14:3). We use the futuristic present in English, also: "The President is coming to Atlanta."

The other three special uses of the present tense, the historical (describing a past event), the perfective (a completed event), and the conative (an act contemplated or attempted), do not fit at all.

And so the futuristic present is the best fit. Note that in John 14:3, when Jesus used the futuristic present to say, "If I go away, I am coming again and will receive you to myself," He did not mean that He was currently in the process of coming. Rather, he simply meant that the event was going to happen in the future. And so it is erroneous to claim that our Lord's use of the futuristic present in the verses above indicates that He was already in the process of coming quickly, in the sense of "soon." Obviously, since He stated that He is coming quickly, His coming would have occurred immediately if that was His meaning.

Rather, since the adverb tachu indicates swift, sudden action, Jesus must be describing how He is coming, rather than when He will come.

The futuristic present conveys the idea of imminence. When we speak of the "imminent" collapse of communism, we mean that it is bound and certain to happen, and that this sure and certain expectation looms over communist dictatorships.

Are there other passages in scripture that support this idea of Jesus returning swiftly rather than soon? Yes. There are many passages that indicate that Jesus will return suddenly:

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. {Note that here the coming of Jesus is likened to the coming of lightning.}

Matthew 24:42 "Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh.

Mark 13:33-37 "Take ye heed, watch and pray; for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh—at evening, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning— lest coming suddenly, He find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all: Watch!"

Luke 12:35-39 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning. And you yourselves be like men who wait for their lord, whenever he shall return from the wedding, so that when he comes and knocks, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants whom the lord will find watching when he comes. Truly I say to you that he shall gird himself and make them recline; and coming up he will serve them. And if he comes in the second watch, or comes in the third watch, and find it so, blessed are those servants. And know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and would not have allowed his house to be dug through.

Luke 12:46 the lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him asunder and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

Luke 17:31 In that Day, he that shall be upon the housetop and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Luke 18:8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?"

Luke 21:36 Watch therefore, praying in every season that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things which shall occur, and to stand before the Son of man.

1 Thessalonians 5:2-4 For you yourselves know perfectly that the Day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they are saying, "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that Day should overtake you as a thief.

1 Thessalonians 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us watch and be calm.

Revelation 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard; and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Revelation 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

There are also many verses which indicate that it will be a long time, from a human perspective, until Jesus returns. Jonathan Edwards wrote: "Christ often speaks of his last coming, as that which would be long delayed." The idea of Jesus returning swiftly or suddenly rather than "soon" better harmonizes with these passages:

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

Matthew 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Matthew 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a long journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Luke 12:39 And this know, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not have suffered his house to be broken into.

Luke 17:22 And He said unto the disciples, "The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it.

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, who cry day and night to him, though he beareth long with them?

Luke 20:9 ¶ Then he began to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part hath happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles shall be come in.

Hebrews 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promise.

James 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receiveth the early and the latter rain.

2 Peter 3:8-9 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

The Uses of the Noun táchos in Revelation

Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich list the following definitions for táchos: "speed, quickness, swiftness, haste" (p. 814). The noun táchos occurs twice in the book of Revelation. Green’s Literal Translation translates these two verses accordingly:

Revelation 1:11a A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly.

Revelation 22:6 And he said to me, These words are faithful and true. And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His slaves what must happen quickly.

Young’s Literal Translation also translates tachos as "quickly" in these two verses.

Thomas Ice writes regarding these two occurrences of tachos:

The two times that this noun appears in Revelation (1:1; 22:6), it is coupled with the preposition en, causing this phrase to function grammatically as an adverb revealing to us the "sudden" manner in which these events will take place. They will occur "swiftly."

The tense of "occur" and "happen" in both of these verses is aorist. This tense, according to Moulton, presents "an event as a single whole, without regarding the time taken during its accomplishment." (Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, page 190).

But combined with en táchei, the literal sense is "things which must occur in speed" in Rev 1:1, and "what must happen in speed" in Rev 22:6.

There is a passage in Luke which demonstrates that "in speed" is the natural meaning of en táchei rather than "soon":

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge His own elect, who cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them?

Luke 18:8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily {Greek: en táchei}. Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?"

According to Robertson, "long" in verse seven indicates God’s forbearance with the wicked:

God delays taking vengeance on behalf of his people, not through indifference, but through patient forbearance. {Robertson’s Word Pictures}

And so the word "long" indicates that en táchei cannot mean "soon" here. Instead, it must mean "in speed." This passage proves that en táchei is indeed used in the NT to describe a sudden, speedy action that occurs after a long time period.

There are only four other occurrences of en táchei in the NT. Try substituting the word "soon" in the following verses that use en táchei:

Acts 12:7 and lo, a messenger of the Lord stood by, and a light shone in the buildings, and having smitten Peter on the side, he raised him up, saying, ‘Rise in haste,’ and his chains fell from off his hands.

Acts 22:18 and I saw him saying to me, Haste and go forth in haste out of Jerusalem, because they will not receive thy testimony concerning me;

"Soon" does not fit in any of these verses!

The word "soon" could, however, be substituted in the remaining two verses.

Acts 25:4 Then, indeed, Festus answered that Paul is kept in Caesarea, and himself is about speedily to go on thither, (YLT)

Romans 16:20 and the God of the peace shall bruise the Adversary under your feet quickly; the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen! (YLT)

And so it is possible that the words en táchei in Rev 1:1 and 22:6 refer to how certain of the events described in Revelation will take place rather than when they will take place. Although "soon" may have been our Lord's intent, it seems best to translate the passage more precisely with the words "in quickness" and allow the Holy Spirit to guide the reader as to the intent.

If we take Rev 1:1 and 22:6 to mean that all of the things in the book of Revelation will occur "soon," then this causes problems for the full preterist view, because under it, all of the events in the millennium must be compressed into the 1-5 years full preterists claim occurred between the writing of the book of Revelation and it's supposed complete fulfillment in 70 AD. Rather, the correct sense seems to be that some of the things in the book will take place "in quickness."
In Conclusion

To summarize, the preponderance of NT Greek usage leads us to believe that the adverb tachu, combined with the verb erchomai in the present tense, most likely describes how Jesus is coming rather than when He will come. Therefore, "I am coming quickly" is a better and much more precise translation than "I am coming soon." Likewise, when the apostle John used the phrase en tachei, he may have been describing how certain events in the book of Revelation will happen, rather than when they will happen. Here as well, "in quickness" is a better and more precise translation. To translate tachu as "soon," or en tachei as "shortly" is intepretative, and it is possible to err in interpretation.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.
Rusty Entrekin is a theology graduate of LA College. He and his wife Julie have seven children, with 6 still at home, and one grandchild. Currently, he resides in Kennesaw, GA, and teaches in a house church that practices participatory meetings.

Would you like to become a patron of Rusty's ministry of defending the faith and helping to prepare the bride of Christ for the return of Jesus? Then click here.

Tuesday 14 June 2011

Does Mark 9:1 Indicate the First-Century Generation?

Some modern renderings of Mk 9:1 are basically the same as the KJV’s, while others differ. But I don’t see that either rendering means Jesus necessarily had the first-century generation in mind.

If the KJV and similar versions’ rendering is correct – then the wording of the text allows the meaning that Jesus meant the generation which shall be alive when the kingdom comes, not necessarily the first-century generation.

And in that case, it makes it more a statement of the nature of the kingdom than of its timing. It makes it a statement that the kingdom shall one day be so literally present that people alive at the time will not need to die first in order to see it.

That makes sense, since Jesus said no-one knows the timing (I believe). It also makes sense seeing the nature of the kingdom was a disputed topic.

If on the other hand, the alternative renderings of Mark 9:1 are correct – and the wording of the text addressed the first-century generation directly in the first person – it still doesn’t mean it literally came to pass that way.

As an example of this non-literal use of the first person by Jesus, consider the Olivet discourse itself. Jesus spoke to four of His disciples directly, addressing them in the first person, as if they would be alive to see Jerusalem besieged by armies and to respond when it happened. But we know James was not alive to see it – for he had been martyred by Herod. We don’t know whether any of the others were present to see it either. Jesus spoke to His four disciples in the first person – but He didn’t have them personally in mind when He spoke what He spoke. Instead, he had in mind things beyond their lifetime – things which related directly not to them but to others even after their lifetime. This style is used more than once in the Olivet discourse.

Similarly therefore, Jesus’ statement in Mk 9:1 may have a future generation in mind even though it addresses a first century audience in the first person (assuming the KJV’s rendering is incorrect). If this literary style or hermeneutic is good enough for the Olivet discourse, it should be good enough for Mark 9:1 as well!

But as I said, the KJV’s rendering, if it’s correct, doesn’t necessitate the use of that hermeneutic – because the wording of the text itself allows that Jesus may have had a future generation in mind.

This is the problem I encountered with preterism after studying it for seven years. I found preterism does an excellent job of explaining that we needn’t expect a future fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple. The time-indicators for that event were clear, both in the Olivet discourse and in Daniel. But full-preterism also brings you into conflict with what I consider to be clear themes elsewhere in Scripture – such as the theme of the future, general, physical resurrection of all the dead on the day of His coming. I never found preterism’s explaining-away of these themes adequate.

So I went back and re-studied preterism’s claimed time-indicating clauses in Scripture - and I'm beginning to see that preterism leans too much weight on the so-called time-indicating clauses. I feel preterism doesn't allow for such clauses to have a different scope and meaning than theirs, even though the plain text, let alone literary rules and hermeneutics, allows it. I’m beginning to see that some of these clauses are in fact not after all such literal, unmistakable time-indicating clauses after all. While in some verses they are.

Christians Are Innocent of the Law

Someone wrote to me:

"...I still don't get your idea that if someone judges us according to the Law's principles we would be found guiltless."

Okay, I'll explain it this way: pick any point of law in Moses' Law - absolutely any point at all - and I can demonstrate how Christians fulfill it simply by walking in love.

I don't mean Christians fulfill it using precisely the same model or mode of expression – that would be inappropriate in some cases, and logistically impossible in others. (For example, it would be inappropriate for us to offer blood sacrifices today; and it would be impossible for us to visit the Temple today, because the Temple no longer exists).

I mean, we fulfill the underlying, intrinsic spiritual principle of any point of Law – not in the form of the model given by the Law – but the real thing.

Therefore someone can open the Law to any page, judge us by its principles, truths & ethics – and find us guiltless.

By saying this, I’m not meaning to condemn any Christian who may have happened to have sinned - my intention is to exult in the wonder of God’s scheme of salvation in that it even includes provision if we sin - if we confess our sins.

God’s grace promises that "...if we sin, if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us of our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Notice it says He is "...faithful AND JUST..." Just – means it is ethical of Him to forgive us. In other words, the promise that God’s grace offers forgiveness and cleansing upon confession of sin, also fulfills the Law (it fulfills a principle which the Law itself illustrated). God doesn't have to ignore the principles and ethics and spiritual truths in the Law in order to forgive us - rather, by forgiving us (on the basis of Christ's sacrifice, and our confession) He fulfills all of those spiritual truths, principles and ethics!

Neither do I say this to give a license to callously go on sinning - because God's grace empowers us and teaches us to do what is right. And we do reap what we sow, except we confess it and repent. God's grace is more effective at making us do right than the Law was able to be.

So, whether we’re doing well (and God’s grace certainly does empower us to do well, and teaches us to do well) or whether we’ve sinned and confessed it and been forgiven and cleansed (and God’s grace certainly makes provision for that as well) – we fulfill and experience the same principles illustrated in the Law. In both scenarios therefore, we are found guiltless, even if judged by the principles of the Law – and all because of the blood of Jesus.

Isn't that a wonderful, effective, gracious plan!

Monday 13 June 2011

Did Revelation Gifts Cease Late in Paul's Life?

The gifts of revelation could not have ceased by the time Paul wrote to Timothy, because the letters to Timothy actually include statements that came by direct revelation from the Spirit, such as I Tim.4:1 where Paul wrote "...the Spirit speaketh expressly..."

And the book of Revelation was probably written later than Timothy - and the book of Revelation itself was a miraculous revelation! Not only was it a miraculous revelation, but it speaks of miracles and prophesying occurring right up until the very last trumpet.

Jesus didn't personally ordain Paul, Barnabas, James, Jude, Apollos and other apostles into those roles - He only directly appointed the Eleven.

Jesus didn't personally appoint any of the prophets named in the New Testament either. With the exception of the eleven, it was the Holy Spirit - not Jesus, in the flesh - who called the New Testament ministers and who separated them and made them ministers.

The same Holy Spirit dwells in the Church today - and He still calls and ordains and equips men into the ministry today.

Are there Apostles and Prophets Today?

The first class of Apostle mentioned is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 3:1). Obviously He was in a class of His own as an Apostle.

The next category of apostles was the 12 apostles of the Lamb. The criteria for was that they had been directly chosen by the Lord Himself (in the case of the eleven) or (in the case of Matthias – Judas’ replacement) he must at least have accompanied the entire ministry of Jesus from start to finish and been an eyewitness of His resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:21-22). Again, obviously no-one today qualifies to be an apostle in that class.

But the Bible mentions others, not in the above category of apostleship, but who were nonetheless named as apostles – for example: Paul, and the Lord’s brothers (e.g., Jude, James). These apostles also had a unique function, because each of them wrote part of the New Testament. We can’t have any apostles with that function today.

Then the Bible mentions others who were neither part of the 12 nor wrote any part of the New Testament – and yet they were named as apostles – e.g., Barnabas (Acts 14:14) Apollos (I Cor.3:22) and Epaphroditus (Phil.2:25).

There isn’t any reason why we can’t have apostles today in the class of apostleship that doesn’t lay any new foundations of doctrine, doesn’t bring any new revelations, doesn’t claim to write any new books of the Bible, and of course doesn’t claim to have been eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and resurrection.

These are simply “sent ones” – those who have been called and ordained to “go” into ministry. It is a distinct function from pastoring; distinct from teaching; distinct from evangelizing and distinct from prophesying – because it has the element of “going”. It includes a stronger pioneering and overseeing role than the other ministries - yet they will not start a work upon any new foundation of doctrine other than the foundation of doctrine already laid by the Bible apostles.

The same can be said for the office of prophet.

Jesus Christ is named as a prophet – in a class of His own.

Then there were New Testament prophets who stood in a class of their own, such as John, who wrote Revelation (Revelation 10:11).

And there were others named as prophets but who didn’t write any of the New Testament, such as Agabus (Acts 11:28) and some of the five at Antioch (Acts 13:1).

There is no reason why we can’t have prophets today – in the category that doesn’t bring any extra-Biblical doctrine, that doesn’t write any new books of the New Testament.

The role of present day prophets is distinct from teaching and evangelizing and is a unique responsibility different to that of pastoring. They bring the specific word which God wants a person or church to hear at the time. As well as preaching and teaching, they may function with the gift of prophecy, the interpretation of tongues, and they may see visions - but any vision they see will confirm and not add to Biblical doctrine.

All of the gifts and manifestation of the Spirit are to remain until the Lord comes. None have been withdrawn ( Acts 2:16-21, Acts 13:8-10).

I think someone like John Wesley could rightly have been called an apostle, in a sense; and I think someone like George Fox might rightly have been called a prophet – because both of them functioned more than just as a pastor, teacher or evangelist. Wesley was both pioneer and overseer of many works; Fox brought a specific word to the church and society of his day – he even prophesied the great fire of London. Yet neither of them were in the same class as any of the writers of the New Testament.

Saturday 11 June 2011

What it Means to Welcome the Holy Spirit

Singing about the Holy Spirit, and actually letting the Holy Spirit move, are not the same thing - they are two different things.

Saying, "We welcome you in this place Holy Spirit" is not the same as actually welcoming the Holy Spirit.

To welcome the Holy Spirit, you literally have to give Him time to do what He wants. You have to stop doing what He doesn't want you to be doing, and start letting Him do what He wants to do - start doing what He wants you to do.

Praying for the Holy Spirit to move is not the same as letting the Holy Spirit move. Sometimes we need to stop praying and start letting Him do what He wants to do, during a meeting.

Preaching about the Holy Spirit is not the same as letting the Holy Spirit move. Sometimes you have to stop speaking and let the Holy Spirit touch the people.

The key is to find out what the Holy Spirit wants to do - and let Him do it. Find out what He wants you to do - and do it.

Just because the Holy Spirit led you to sing, pray or preach before, doesn't mean He wants you to sing, pray or preach now - He may want to do something different now. If He wants to do something different - if He wants you to do something different right now - then persisting to do what was appropriate before won't be appropriate now - in fact, it will be a hindrance.

Welcoming the Holy Spirit means to sense what He wants to do right at this moment - stop doing something else - let Him do what He wants - start doing what He wants you to do. And do it when He wants - not at some other time that suits you better.

The results will be amazing, satisfying and refreshing! Not only for you, but for the whole congregation.

Preterism and the Resurrection

Since the kingdom was already at hand when John the Baptizer ministered, it's certainly at hand now!

John didn't know when the world will end, therefore he could only say that it is at hand. The angels and the Son of Man didn't know either, therefore they could only say 'soon'.

The entire Church age is therefore intrinsically the last hour - because there is nothing else covenantally which must happen in the interim - it's all been done - therefore He could potentially come at any time now.

The Bible explains why He delays His coming - so that more people come to repentance. Even a thousand years is 'soon' compared to eternity.

Nothing spiritual and covenantal happened in AD70 that wasn't already happening beforehand during the early Church. Believers already went straight to heaven when they died, said Paul in Phillipians. Unbelieving Jews were already missing out on the promises. The Bible doesn't say that Sheol was to empty in AD70.

As for the resurrection, the Bible says it is to be physical and worldwide, inclusive of all the dead, in my understanding of things. If so, then that obviously hasn't happened yet.

The Preterist View of the End of the World

When Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:4 that "the earth abideth forever," it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the earth shall never end in future - he was just saying that the earth exists trans-generationally.

It's similar to when Moses wrote that the Levitical priesthood should continue "forever in Israel" - it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the Levitical priesthood should never end - because we now know that the Levitical priesthood was only ever intended to be temporary - it was always intended to pass away when Jesus came.

And as for Ephesians 3:21, it doesn't actually say the earth will never end, especially not in the Greek.

Therefore if we want to assert that the earth shall remain literally ‘forever’ – we will have to establish the case for it elsewhere than in the above Scriptures, because the above Scriptures didn’t have that intent.

But even if it’s true that the earth shall literally remain forever, I feel the Bible still teaches that the current age will come to an end – when Jesus returns and abolishes physical death. I don’t feel that the “end of the world(KJV)” has happened yet – because I feel the Bible says that there is to be a universal, physical resurrection of all the dead on that day.

There Will Be An End of the World

The Greek word translated “world” in Ephesians 3:21 is – αἰῶνος – the same Greek word translated “world” in Matthew 24. Preterists seem to make it mean “earth” in Ephesians 3:21 but “age” in Matthew 24 – even though it’s the same Greek word!

In fact, the Greek text literally means, “…throughout all the generations of the age of ages…” It doesn’t actually include vocabulary conveying the certainty that the earth (terra firma) will never end.

But even if Paul did mean that the world (αἰῶνος, age) is never to end – still preterists contradict that by saying that Paul’s age did in fact end several years later!

Ephesians 3:21 is therefore not a strong basis for the view that the earth will never end.

Joel's Prophecy is Receivable by Believers

I don't think Joel's prophecy was necessarily about a future nationwide salvation in Israel before the coming of the Lord. Peter said Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.

"All flesh" probably meant that the promise was to all, including sons, daughters, servants and the aged - rather than exclusively for prophets, priests and kings.

It also probably meant the promise was potentially available to all Jews – even though not all Jews would necessarily believe and receive it.

The promise may indeed have been for Jews first of all - but on the same day, Peter continued his sermon, saying, "...for the promise is for you and your children and for them that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call..." So the promise was to extend beyond the day of Pentecost. And it was also conditional upon being called – that is, upon believing in Jesus.

The Apostles seemed to deal differently with apparently unfulfilled prophecies than many of our end-times teachers do today. Modern end-times teachers seem to say, "Well it didn't come to pass, so it must be going to happen during the end-times." But the Apostles didn’t seem to be looking for a future fulfillment of God’s promises to the forefathers. Rather, they explained the manner in which the promises had in fact already been fulfilled through the Gospel. They explained that the promises had been received by the remnant of believing Jews. They also explained that Gentiles who believe had been grafted in. They never seemed to look for a future, repeat fulfillment in Israel.

Jesus didn’t seem to mention a nationwide salvation of Israel before the end, either. And the book of Revelation too seemed to paint a different picture for Israel’s future. The Apostles seemed to be expecting not a nationwide revival in Israel, but a great falling away, the love of many growing cold, and persecutions and hardships in Israel, immediately prior to the end. Not a nationwide fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy!

Joel’s prophecy didn’t state for how long God’s Spirit would continue to be poured out before the Day of the Lord – because the prophets didn’t know how much longer it would be before the Day of the Lord – and we don’t know either, neither did the angels know, and neither did the Son of Man know. Only the Father knows.

Therefore the baptism with the Holy Spirit had an end-times context just as much in the first century as it does at any other time during the Church age. The entire Church age is the “last days” really. Joel’s prophecy about the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon all flesh was therefore interpreted by the Apostles as fulfilled. They taught that the promise is receivable by believers – whether Jew or Gentile, and would continue to be received right up until the day of the Lord - and unbelievers will miss out - whether they are Jews or Gentiles. That’s how the Apostles understood prophecy.

The Apostles said nothing of a future, nationwide repeat fulfillment in Israel of Joel’s prophecy immediately before the Day of the Lord. It’s worthwhile taking note of the manner in which the Apostles said prophecy had been fulfilled (and the manner in which it continues to apply during the entire Church age), rather than asserting our own idea that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled during some special future dispensation. The Apostles’ interpretation of prophecy is good New Covenant doctrine which keeps Gospel-truth and natural Israel in proper perspective.

Wednesday 8 June 2011

Freewill and the Sovereignty of God

Man's will doesn't diminish God's sovereignty at all - it confirms it.

If man didn't have a will, then God doesn't have a will either - because man was made in God's image.

But since man has a will, it is confirmed that God has a will - since man was made in God's image.

God is holy, and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy - and He has appointed a day of judgment. The necessity for judgment confirms that man has a will. If the only will that existed was God's will, then there should be no necessity for judgment - for God can't judge Himself!

Illustration:

The fact that I own freehold title to my land diminishes nothing of the Crown's sovereignty - it confirms it.

Crown sovereignty is the source of my freehold title. Crown sovereignty sets the limits of my title. Even though I have title, I'm still subject to judgment by the Crown if I break laws on my own land.

Similarly, anything that God sovereignly decides to do, confirms His sovereignty, rather than denies it.

Since God sovereignly decided to make man in His own image, and gave man a will, then the fact that man has a will is evidence of the sovereign action of God who gave man a will in the first place.

Seeing man is sovereignly given a will, it follows that man is also subject to sovereign, divine law - and to judgment.

Illustration:

It's appropriate for a father to tell his child who lives in his house, what to do. But when the child is grown, married and lives in his own house, the father now knocks on his son's door before entering. He is still his father - but his son has his own house now.

God created sons to be mature sons - not undeveloped children. He delights when we use our will with the same ethics with which He uses His.

Illustration:

Marriage is an example of God sovereignly subjecting Himself to the limitations of a subsequent principle - without diminishing anything of His sovereignty. When a man and woman decide to get married, God puts them together - and forever thereafter God relates to the couple as one, respecting the decision the couple made to get married.

God remains sovereign over both individuals, yet He no longer treats them as though they were not a couple. In all His actions towards the couple, He is now duty-bound to regard them no longer as individuals alone but also as a couple.

After they were married, the sovereign God now frames His own actions towards the couple by the terms of a subsequent law - the law of marriage.

The fact that God's regard for the couple must now be framed by the fact that the couple had decided to get married, takes nothing away from the sovereignty of God - it confirms His sovereignty, because it was God who sovereignly decided to create the law of marriage in the first place.

Their decision to marry forever shapes the way God sees them - yet within the provisions of that framework, the couple remains subject to sovereign, divine law.

Similarly, God's sovereign decision to make man in His own image, giving him a will, takes nothing away from His sovereignty, but confirms it. Man's will can affect the way God relates to man - and yet it is still subject to sovereign, divine law and judgment.

Man's will has limitations though - it can't achieve as much as God's. Man is subject to time and death - but God can predict man's choices and He can control certain political destinies spanning generations - not by removing man's will, but by working with it, by keeping someone alive or not - as He did with Pharaoh, and as He did with the unbelieving nation of Israel. He didn't remove their will, but He kept them alive for His own time and purposes.

Pharaoh was like a cleaner-fish in an aquarium. A cleaner fish does what it does by nature - it goes along cleaning up the mess from the other fish in the aquarium. It goes along happily doing what it does, unaware that it is fulfilling someone else's purpose - its owner's purpose.

Similarly Pharaoh was doing his own will, unaware that God, who could have judged him earlier, instead allowed him to rise to a prominent position for His own purpose (so that God's judgment and deliverance would be public).

God couldn't have judged Pharaoh if Pharaoh hadn't had a will of his own. Pharaoh had a will of his own, and was therefore subject to Sovereign judgment - yet God still worked-out His purpose in history by delaying Pharaoh's judgment and allowing him to rise to prominence for such a time.

In the same way, natural Israel was allowed to exist, despite its self-will and unbelief - so that God's judgment and the salvation of believers could both be demonstrated. That's what Romans 9 is about.

Indeed God's salvation plan did not originate with a man's will or running - but with God Himself. He sovereignly offered salvation upon His own sovereign basis - faith. Man's will and running had nothing to do with deciding that basis - God Himself decided it. And faith to live by is not a work: it's a gift for all to receive. Receiving a gift is not a work. The door of faith is open. Whosoever will may come.

Everything in life is a gift. Faith is a gift - and it is offered to all. Therefore if some don't have faith, it's not neccessarily because God hadn't offered it to them - some simply may not have liked to take advantage of the offer. Yet even this is within God's sovereign allowance.

I feel that I'm taking Scriptures on face value, in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and without manipulation.

Monday 6 June 2011

Contextualizing Predestination

Someone objected to my understanding of Romans 9 saying:

"You took Romans 9 out of context both with the rest of the chapter and with the rest of the Bible. Pharaoh was pre-ordained to be a child of God's wrath. God turned him and his will to do His bidding like a rider does a horse...Salvation is NOT by the will of men but by the will of God. God determines who is quickened in spirit (born again) and who is not..."

He went on to say:

"Stop making doctrinal statements without backing them up whith scripture in context John, it is very dangerous."

Okay - let's consider Romans 9 in context.

The context of Romans chapter 9 is of course Romans chapters 1-8.

Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).

Paul then supported this premise by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about this salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).

Paul then addressed an objection to this premise - an objection which had been raised by the Judaizers who were infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:

Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they objected.

But Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered believers to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).

'Salvation through faith alone' was always therefore going to be a controversial message - one that would attract persecution and hardship to the believers. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith despite their hardships - seeing they were, after all, complying with a plan which had genuinely been foreseen, foretold and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).

So that's the context of Romans 9: Salvation is through faith not through Jewishness nor through having the Law - salvation is even for the Gentiles.

In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection:

If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.

Paul answered that God's promised salvation given to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendants but from the beginning a chosen segment of the natural descendants were the custodians of that promise. The custodianship was given first of all to Isaac's line, and then to Jacob's line - but the promised seed who was to save all nations was actually a singular descendant of Abraham, who is Christ (see Galatians 3:16).

Paul's premise - that salvation is through faith - meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. Paul's objective in Romans 9 was to defend this scenario against the objection that it represented a breach of God's promise or even unfairness on God's part.

God was not unjust to have elected or preordained that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a 'vessel' (that is, for saving a person). Even though some vessels had been marked for destruction (due to their failure to meet the chosen criterion - which was faith) God had every right to delay the destruction of those vessels (He endured their unbelief, He had allowed their nation to continue up until then), for His own time and purpose - namely, to eventually demonstrate His wrath on those vessels (on Jewish unbelievers, and on the polity of the Jews) and to demonstrate His mercy on the vessels which met His elected criteria (that is, on all those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile).

Having successfully defended his premise against the above objection of the Judaizers (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith in salvation (chap.10).

Paul then proceeded to address another opposite extreme misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can still be grafted in again if he believes. Therefore Gentile believers should feel warned against conceit: because it is still possible even for them to miss out on God's salvation if they too similarly fail to comply with God's elected criteria - that is, it is only by faith that they themselves stand.

Thus Paul presented the same message (of salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended his message against the objections and misconceptions of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom.1-11).

Finally Paul urged a practical response upon his readers, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16). And there you have the book of Romans.

So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defense against a specific objection of the premise he'd already presented in chaps 1-8 - that salvation is indeed through faith.

Paul showed that it had indeed always been God's intention, choice and promise to one day grant His mercy, compassion and salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus even to believing Gentiles. And he said it was God's prerogative to carry out this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church despite its ramifications for unbelievers, even for unbelieving Jews.

That's how I understand Romans 9 in the flow of the design of Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans. To say Romans 9 is about the Five-Point Calvinist view of 'predestination' comes right out of left field - it's about as relevant as throwing a tennis ball onto the field of play of a football match - midplay. The assertions made by Five-Point Calvinists have nothing at all to do with Paul's argument in the book of Romans and cut cross-grain across it.

Salvation through faith - and its ramifications for unbelievers, whether Jew or Gentile - is a premise that was both Scriptural and just. That's all Paul was trying to say in Romans 9.

And this of course complies with, and eliminates conflict with, the overall tenure of Scripture. Jesus saves all who believe.

Contextualizing Predestination

The context of Rom. chapter 9 is Rom. chapters 1-8.

Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).

Paul then supported his premise (salvation through faith alone) by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about the salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).

Paul then addressed an objection to this premise, an objection which had been raised by Judaizers who has been infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:

Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they were objecting. Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered them to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).

'Salvation through faith alone' was therefore a controversial message, attracting persecution and hardship to the faithful. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith, despite their hardships - seeing they were complying with a plan which after all had been genuinely foreseen and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).

That's the context: Salvation is through faith, not through Jewishness nor having the Law - salvation is therefore even for Gentiles!

In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection: If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.

Paul answered that God's promise to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendents but was from the beginning limited.

God's promise (to Abraham's seed) followed Isaac's line only, and then Jacob's line only, and spoke of a single seed, who is Christ.

Paul's premise meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. To combat Jewish pride, Paul proved that 'salvation through faith alone' was neither a breach of promise nor unfair on God's part.

God was not unjust to have chosen that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a vessel.

Even though a vessel had been marked for destruction (due to its failure to meet the chosen criteria - faith, repentance) God had every right to delay that person's destruction and to endure such a person or nation in order to raise him up for His own time and purpose: to later demonstrate His wrath on them and His mercy on others (others who met His chosen criterion - which is faith) even if they are Gentiles.

Having defended his premise of salvation through faith (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith (chap.10). All of this had been a defence against the influence of the Judaizers.

Paul then proceeded to address an opposite misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can be grafted in again if he believes. And Gentile believers should also be warned against conceit: it was possible even for them to miss out if they similarly don't comply with God's elected criteria.

Thus Paul presented the same Gospel (salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended it against objections and misconceptions from both Jewish and Gentile camps (Rom.1-11).

Finally he urges a practical response, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16).

So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defence of the premise he'd presented in chaps 1-8 that salvation is indeed through faith.

It was indeed always God's intention, choice, promise to grant mercy, compassion, salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus. And it was God's prerogative to demonstrate this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church.

That's how I understand Paul's design in his epistle to the Romans.

Predestination

In order to understand what Paul meant by predestination, let's first consider the design of Paul's argument in the Epistle to the Romans.

In chapter 1, Paul described the sinfulness of the Gentiles who didn't have the Law.

In chapter 2, he said the Jews also were sinful, even though they had the Law.

In chapter 3, Paul said that although being Jewish had some advantages, being Jewish couldn't actually save a person, and neither could keeping Moses' Law - salvation can be received only through faith in Jesus - irrespective of whether we are Jew or Gentile.

In chapter 4, Paul proves his premise that salvation is received only through faith in Jesus from the life of Abraham.

In chapter 5, he goes into more detail about why it's only faith in Jesus - and not Jewishness, or keeping the Law - that saves (irrespective of whether a person is Jew or Gentile).

Now in chapter 6, he begins to anticipate and address a likely objection or question about his message of grace and faith (as opposed to Law-keeping): Doesn't this message encourage sin? No - it empowers us to live holy!

This message was controversial and obviously attracted persecution and hardship against the believers. So Paul comforted them by saying that their hardships would have a good outcome (Romans 8:28) seeing they (the believers) are them that love God (even though their Jewish persecutors may not have thought the believers were lovers of God) - them who are called according to His purpose (even though their persecutors did not think the Gospel was a genuine plan of God).