http://www.radicallychristian.com/has-american-christianity-basically-become-idolatry
This is a very short, to the point article and worth reading. Click on the link above or paste the web-address into your browser. It is well worth your time!!!
June 2, 2016
An "obamanation" of a sign by Gary Rose
The other day I saw a post on face-book that said something like- JFK put a man on the moon, but Obama put a man in the ladies room. I have to ask myself- WHY? In a word- SIN!!!
The Bible says...
Deuteronomy, Chapter 22 (WEB)
5 A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
If someone is promoting something that God calls an abomination, then that person is participating in their actions and is guilty by association. Any country that has a leader who is so blatantly opposing God will suffer, just wait and see what happens.
Please pray for our nation- we need it!!!
Bible Reading June 2 by Gary Rose
Bible Reading June 2 (The World English Bible)
June 2
Ruth 1, 2
Rth 1:1 It happened in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land. A certain man of Bethlehem Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
Rth 1:2 The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem Judah. They came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
Rth 1:3 Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons.
Rth 1:4 They took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they lived there about ten years.
Rth 1:5 Mahlon and Chilion both died, and the woman was bereaved of her two children and of her husband.
Rth 1:6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that Yahweh had visited his people in giving them bread.
Rth 1:7 She went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.
Rth 1:8 Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each of you to her mother's house: Yahweh deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead, and with me.
Rth 1:9 Yahweh grant you that you may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
Rth 1:10 They said to her, No, but we will return with you to your people.
Rth 1:11 Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why do you want to go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
Rth 1:12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should even have a husband tonight, and should also bear sons;
Rth 1:13 would you therefore wait until they were grown? would you therefore stay from having husbands? nay, my daughters, for it grieves me much for your sakes, for the hand of Yahweh is gone forth against me.
Rth 1:14 They lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth joined with her.
Rth 1:15 She said, Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people, and to her god: return after your sister-in-law.
Rth 1:16 Ruth said, "Don't entreat me to leave you, and to return from following after you, for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God;
Rth 1:17 where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried: Yahweh do so to me, and more also, if anything but death part you and me."
Rth 1:18 When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking to her.
Rth 1:19 So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. It happened, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and the women said, Is this Naomi?
Rth 1:20 She said to them, "Don't call me Naomi, call me Mara; for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.
Rth 1:21 I went out full, and Yahweh has brought me home again empty; why do you call me Naomi, seeing Yahweh has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?"
Rth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, who returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
Rth 2:1 Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz.
Rth 2:2 Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find favor. She said to her, Go, my daughter.
Rth 2:3 She went, and came and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech.
Rth 2:4 Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said to the reapers, Yahweh be with you. They answered him, Yahweh bless you.
Rth 2:5 Then said Boaz to his servant who was set over the reapers, Whose young lady is this?
Rth 2:6 The servant who was set over the reapers answered, It is the Moabite lady who came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab:
Rth 2:7 She said, Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves. So she came, and has continued even from the morning until now, except that she stayed a little in the house.
Rth 2:8 Then said Boaz to Ruth, Don't you hear, my daughter? Don't go to glean in another field, neither pass from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens.
Rth 2:9 Let your eyes be on the field that they reap, and go after them: haven't I commanded the young men not to touch you? and when you are thirsty, go to the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn.
Rth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said to him, Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take knowledge of me, seeing I am a foreigner?
Rth 2:11 Boaz answered her, It has fully been shown me, all that you have done to your mother-in-law since the death of your husband; and how you have left your father and your mother, and the land of your birth, and have come to a people that you didn't know before.
Rth 2:12 May Yahweh repay your work, and a full reward be given you from Yahweh, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.
Rth 2:13 Then she said, Let me find favor in your sight, my lord, because you have comforted me, and because you have spoken kindly to your handmaid, though I am not as one of your handmaidens.
Rth 2:14 At meal time Boaz said to her, Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers, and they reached her parched grain, and she ate, and was sufficed, and left of it.
Rth 2:15 When she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and don't reproach her.
Rth 2:16 Also pull out some for her from the bundles, and leave it, and let her glean, and don't rebuke her.
Rth 2:17 So she gleaned in the field until even; and she beat out that which she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley.
Rth 2:18 She took it up, and went into the city; and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned: and she brought forth and gave to her that which she had left after she was sufficed.
Rth 2:19 Her mother-in-law said to her, Where have you gleaned today? and where have you worked? blessed be he who did take knowledge of you. She showed her mother-in-law with whom she had worked, and said, The man's name with whom I worked today is Boaz.
Rth 2:20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed be he of Yahweh, who has not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. Naomi said to her, The man is a close relative to us, one of our near kinsmen.
Rth 2:21 Ruth the Moabitess said, Yes, he said to me, You shall stay close to my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.
Rth 2:22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens, and that they not meet you in any other field.
Rth 2:23 So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz, to glean to the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and she lived with her mother-in-law.
Jun. 1, 2
John 9
Joh 9:1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.
Joh 9:2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him.
Joh 9:4 I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.
Joh 9:5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Joh 9:6 When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man's eyes with the mud,
Joh 9:7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means "Sent"). So he went away, washed, and came back seeing.
Joh 9:8 The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, "Isn't this he who sat and begged?"
Joh 9:9 Others were saying, "It is he." Still others were saying, "He looks like him." He said, "I am he."
Joh 9:10 They therefore were asking him, "How were your eyes opened?"
Joh 9:11 He answered, "A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.' So I went away and washed, and I received sight."
Joh 9:12 Then they asked him, "Where is he?" He said, "I don't know."
Joh 9:13 They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees.
Joh 9:14 It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.
Joh 9:15 Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see."
Joh 9:16 Some therefore of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he doesn't keep the Sabbath." Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" There was division among them.
Joh 9:17 Therefore they asked the blind man again, "What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?" He said, "He is a prophet."
Joh 9:18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight,
Joh 9:19 and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"
Joh 9:20 His parents answered them, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
Joh 9:21 but how he now sees, we don't know; or who opened his eyes, we don't know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself."
Joh 9:22 His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.
Joh 9:23 Therefore his parents said, "He is of age. Ask him."
Joh 9:24 So they called the man who was blind a second time, and said to him, "Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner."
Joh 9:25 He therefore answered, "I don't know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see."
Joh 9:26 They said to him again, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
Joh 9:27 He answered them, "I told you already, and you didn't listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don't also want to become his disciples, do you?"
Joh 9:28 They insulted him and said, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
Joh 9:29 We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don't know where he comes from."
Joh 9:30 The man answered them, "How amazing! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.
Joh 9:31 We know that God doesn't listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.
Joh 9:32 Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.
Joh 9:33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
Joh 9:34 They answered him, "You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?" They threw him out.
Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of God?"
Joh 9:36 He answered, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you."
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe!" and he worshiped him.
Joh 9:39 Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, that those who don't see may see; and that those who see may become blind."
Joh 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?"
Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
Homosexual Propaganda Tony Horton
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Horton/Tony/Earl/1957/wrongway.html
Homosexual Propaganda
I write this article in love, but I am sick to death of hearing homosexual propaganda. This lifestyle is a death sentence. It destroys your health (from AIDS) and brings eternal death of the soul unless one repents (turns away from it and turns to God).
The punishment for any sin (unforgiven) is eternal separation from God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Can a person change? God's word says he can. I have been out of that lifestyle for six years.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
"And such were some of you"! Yes, a person can change. And like other sinners, a homosexual can be sanctified by the blood of Christ. God tells us He loves us and wants everyone to be saved, and that He waits patiently for us to repent (1 Timothy 2:3,4 and 2 Peter 3:9). We are all free moral agents with a choice to live in sin or to live for God (Romans, chapter 6).
The bottom line is that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God unless they repent and turn to Christ.
I was homosexual and I know not to allow the media to fool me into believing it is a healthy alternative lifestyle. Most homosexuals have had so many sexual partners they have lost count. Many can say their number of partners is in the hundreds.
Even though AIDS is killing people (including me), the homosexual community continues to spread disease through frequenting bath houses disguised as health spa's, and having countless sexual encounters in one evening. They have sex in public bathrooms and in parks. They experience sexual acts that would make a decent person become sick at hearing about them. The sexual acts are so perverse, I can't put them in print here.
Activists will tell you that the homosexual lifestyle is not all about sex. I say this is a lie. It is all about sex, sexual perversion.
Most homosexuals realize how perverse their lifestyle is. But society no longer has enough convictions to push good morals, so not enough of society cares to do anything about this plague. People fear backlash from the activists. The homosexual lifestyle has become politically correct due to a lack of courage to stand up to sin. It has become 'unfair' for anyone to say that it is wrong or unacceptable. In fact, this article will fall mostly on deaf ears, because when it comes to morals, many people no longer have any.
To portray the homosexual lifestyle as wholesome and acceptable, as the Media does, is simply to ignorantly parrot untrue homosexual propaganda. The truth is that the homosexual lifestyle is an alternative life of degrading and harmful sexual perversion.
Tony Horton
The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1434&b=Matthew
Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara?
by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.
Matthew recorded that Jesus commanded demons to come out of two men (8:29). This account is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, but with two different renderings of the name of the place where the miracles occurred. The Greek word commonly accepted in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 as the basis for the name of the people who inhabited the place where Jesus and the disciples went is rendered Gerasenes in English (Metzger, 1975, pp. 84,145). The Greek word in Matthew 8:28, however, reveals that Jesus went to the country of the Gadarenes (p. 23). Were the writers of the synoptic gospel accounts confused about where Jesus was when He healed the men? Albert Barnes explained the difference between Gadara and Gerasa:
Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of “Gerasa”—CC] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts (1949, p. 91).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing of the same general area. The Roman city Gerasa was a famous city that would have been familiar to a Gentile audience, but Gadara, as the capital city of the Roman province of Perea, was the chief of the ten cities in Decapolis (Lenski, 1946, p. 205; Coffman, 1975, p. 85; Youngblood, 1995, p. 468), so even those who lived in Gerasa could have been called Gadarenes. The stamp of a ship on Gadarene coins suggests that the region called Gadara probably extended to Galilee (McGarvey, n.d., p. 344; McClintock and Strong, 1969, 3: 706). The New Testament writers chose to refer to the area in different ways.
It is also a possibility that in the handing down of New Testament manuscripts over many years, slightly different readings of the same word have developed. Some have suggested that the words “Gergesenes” and “Gerasenes” are not words referring to people from a city other than Gadara, but merely different variations of the word “Gadarenes” (Youngblood, p. 468; McGarvey, p. 344).
It is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not contradict each other—in fact, they complemented each other. The writers were not confused about Palestinian geography. In this instance, each writer intended to draw attention to an area close to the Sea of Galilee. The precise place where the miracle occurred is not as essential to our understanding of the narrative as is the realization that Christ has control over the spiritual realm (Lenski, 1946, p. 205).
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Coffman, James Burton (1975), Commentary on Mark (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Lenski, Robert C.H. (1946), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1975 corrected edition), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Societies).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Youngblood, Ronald F., ed. (1995), New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson).
Why America Must be Punished by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4361
Why America Must be Punished
| by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
As Moses’ life drew to a close, God issued to the nation of Israel the keys to national health, i.e., the specific principles necessary to sustaining national existence. The book of Deuteronomy records these great admonitions that serve as extremely relevant advice for America. One insight pertains to the level of wealth and prosperity that characterizes the lifestyle of the average American. Indeed, this country has achieved a greater level of prosperity for a greater number of its citizens than any nation in human history. America’s standard of living is the envy of the civilized world. Even the poorest American lives far better than much of the world’s population.
This circumstance was anticipated by the Founders who insisted that freedom coupled with Christian principles will enable a country to achieve unprecedented prosperity, progress, and happiness. For example, on October 11, 1782, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the nation that articulates this foundational principle, recommending to citizens of
all ranks, to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion,which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness (Journals of..., 23:647, emp. added).
America has graced the world with unparalleled technological progress, shared prosperity, and benevolent assistance. We literally wallow in abundance.
But this paradisaical status cannot last. America must suffer punishment for turning her back on the Source of her greatness, and for spurning the moral and spiritual principles that propelled her to the premiere position among the nations of the Earth. The reason for national punishment is the same reason given for Israel’s expulsion from Canaan. Their punishment? “[T]herefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you” (Deuteronomy 28:48). But why? Why did Israel merit such punishment? Moses articulated the reason in his farewell address to the nation—words that are eerily apropos to Americans: “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:47, emp. added). If only Americans en masse would awaken to reverence and serve the Master of the Universe.
REFERENCE
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
Wrong Must Be Explained by Brad Bromling, D.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=387
Wrong Must Be Explained
| by | Brad Bromling, D.Min. |
Lyle and Erik Menendez brutally killed their mother and father. The evidence is plain; no one denies it. So, why is it so hard to find them guilty? Their defense attorneys argued persuasively that the brothers endured a nightmarish childhood of sexual and physical abuse, and that they were thus acting out of a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. The arguments on both sides reduce to the same basic premise: wrong was committed.
The prosecution accused the brothers of murder and appealed to the public’s sense that murder is evil. Likewise the brothers, in claiming they had been mistreated, appealed to a society that abhors child abuse. This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws being violated, it went much deeper. It was a matter of “right and wrong”—a concept that is universal and unique to humanity.
No matter where people are found, they recognize that some things are wrong. Although human groups differ on what they prohibit, they all censor something. C.S. Lewis articulated this point well:
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked (1952, p. 5).
This also is personal. When I look inside myself, I find this moral sense that I did not invent. I can find no explanation for it in the world—it must derive from beyond that realm. If there is nothing but matter in the Universe, and matter is the only eternal reality—then how do you explain this moral sense in humanity? Did it arise from rocks, trees, or animals? No, this moral sense is one of the clearest and most personal reminders that there is a God.
REFERENCE
Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan).
What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=272
What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?
| by | Brad Bromling, D.Min. |
Q.
What does it mean to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”?
A.
The New Testament employs a variety of terms in its effort to define the personal identity of Jesus. Strictly speaking, His name simply is Jesus (meaning “Yahweh is salvation”). Recognition of His messiahship quickly led His followers to call Him Christ (christos is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Messiah), Christ Jesus, and the more common Jesus Christ. In addition, He also is called:
- Lord—an Old Testament designation for God, as well as a term of respect like “Sir”;
- Son of Man—the designation Jesus most often applied to Himself that can indicate “a human,” or point to a mysterious heavenly figure (Daniel 7:13);
- Son of David—an indicator of messianic lineage; and
- “I AM”—an apparent echo of the unutterable divine name (Exodus 3:14).
All of these titles make exalted claims for the Man from Galilee. For many Christians, though, Son of God is the most familiar term used to identify Jesus. This is understandable in light of passages like 1 John 4:15: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God,” and John 20:30-31: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” There is power in the confession that Jesus is the “Son of God,” but what does it mean?
The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place, the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23; see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected, comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).
The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p. 117).
When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses. After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ministry began with a pronouncement from heaven: “This is my beloved Son...” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11). The same is heard at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). In the Gospel of John, the baptizer testified that Jesus “ranks ahead of ” him, and by virtue of the Spirit’s descending upon Jesus, he testified that Jesus is the “Son of God” (John 1:30,NRSV). These references are reminiscent of the decree of royal sonship (Psalm 2:6-7; see also Luke 1:32-33). When the Jewish leaders put Jesus on trial, they asked: “Are you the Son of God, then?” Satisfied with His answer, they told Pilate Jesus was claiming to be “a king” (Luke 22:70; 23:2). As Jesus died on the cross, the only accusation assigned to Him was, “This is the king of the Jews” (Luke 23:38). According to Paul and the writer of Hebrews, this regal distinction was especially manifest after Jesus was raised from the dead (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 1:5).
While Jesus’ identity certainly included these then-prevailing ideas of sonship, it is obvious they do not exhaust the significance of the term for Him. Over and again, Jesus referred to God as His Father (Matthew 7:21; 10:32; 11:27, et al.). Since the Jews also saw themselves as sons and daughters of God, this should not have bothered them. But it did bother them, precisely because they perceived Jesus to be making a unique—and seemingly blasphemous—claim of sonship.
This uniqueness reached its zenith when Jesus addressed God as “Abba, Father” in prayer (Mark 14:36). “Abba” was the word a Jewish child used to refer to his or her “original person of reference” (i.e., mother or father). This bespoke an “unheard-of closeness” between Jesus and God (Moltmann, 1993, p. 142). Jesus demonstrated this closeness throughout His life. And it was in this intimacy that Jesus’ sonship is best defined. Gerald O’Collins has observed:
[Jesus] not only spoke like “the Son” but he also acted like “the Son” in knowing and revealing truth about God, in changing the divine law, in forgiving sins, in being the one through whom others could become children of God, and in acting with total obedience as the agent of God’s final kingdom (1995, p. 126).
To see through the eyes of faith that Jesus is the Son of God is to see that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Finally, in the Gospel of John, Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son” Who was “sent” from the Father (John 3:16-17; 5:23; 6:40; 10:36). Clearly, this is a special claim. On one of those occasions, Jesus based His authority to heal on the Sabbath on the fact that His Father was working. This infuriated some of the Jews. John explained: “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).
In summary, to identify Jesus as the Son of God is to acknowledge His genealogical connection to Israel, His right to the throne of David, and His unparalleled nearness to God. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to declare as true Jesus’ claim: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
REFERENCES
Fossum, Jarl (1992), “Son of God,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday).
Moltmann, Jürgen (1993), The Way of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).
O’Collins, Gerald (1995), Christology (New York: Oxford University Press).
Sanders, E.P. (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin).
Will There be a Millennium? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1253
Will There be a Millennium?
| by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
Many within Christendom are preoccupied with dispensational theology, having embraced the premillennial framework that teaches a coming “rapture,” “tribulation,” “antichrist,” “Armageddon,” and “millennium.” The millennium refers to an alleged thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth in which He will establish a literal, physical kingdom, and rule from Jerusalem. Is a thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth taught in the Word of God? The reader is urged to consider the following observations.
In the first place, several contextual indicators within the book of Revelation militate against the application of the book’s contents to a yet-future time. For example, the events of the book of Revelation were to “shortly take place”—an expression that occurs near the beginning as well as near the end of the book (1:1; 22:6). “Shortly” (en tachei) meant quickly, at once, without delay, soon, in a short time (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 814). Moffatt gave the meaning as “soon” and noted: “The keynote of the Apocalypse is the cheering assurance that upon God’s part there is no reluctance or delay; His people have not long to wait now” (n.d., 5:335).
Other passages where the term is used, confirm that a brief length of time is intended—not merely the rapidity with which the designated events occur. Regarding those disciples who cry out to God night and day for His intervention, Jesus assured: “He will avenge them speedily (en tachei)” (Luke 18:8). What comfort would be afforded if Jesus intended to convey the idea that relief may be long delayed, but when it finally did come, it would come in a quick fashion? When Peter was asleep in prison, bound with two chains between two soldiers, and an angel awoke him by striking him on the side and instructed him to “arise quickly (en tachei)!” (Acts 12:7), would Peter have understood the angel to mean that he could continue resting or sleeping for as long as he chose, just as long as when he did get ready to get up, he came up off the prison floor with a rapid motion? When Festus insisted that Paul be detained in Caesarea rather than transferred to Jerusalem, since “he himself was going there shortly (en tachei)” (Acts 25:4), would anyone have understood him to mean that he may delay his visit to Caesarea by years? Paul even used the term in contradistinction with being “delayed” (1 Timothy 3:14-15; cf. White, n.d., 4:117). Additional occurrences of the expression further underscore the meaning of “soon” (Acts 10:33; 17:15; 22:18; Romans 16:20).
Another contextual indicator within Revelation itself is the occurrence of the phrase: “for the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). Thayer said “near” (eggus) refers to “things imminent and soon to come to pass” (1901, p. 164; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, p. 213). Such a reference would necessarily pertain to the first century—not the twenty-first. Two or three thousand years would be too late for the desperate Christians of Asia Minor (see Summers, 1951, p. 99). Those who get caught up in “millennium mania” seem oblivious to the fact that the book was written to an original, immediate audience. Revelation was, in fact, written to the seven churches of Christ situated in Asia Minor (1:4). All seven are even named (1:11)! If the book was written to them, and if it wastheir spiritual condition that was the concern of the book, millenarians are incorrect in their contention that the book is devoted primarily, if not exclusively, to predictions of the end times. Though the Old Testament prophets predicted future events on occasion, their primary message was relevant to their immediate audience. Dispensationalists have trouble finding in Revelation a relevant message for a first-century audience. The apostle John recognized their need, and identified himself as their “companion” in the terrible tribulation they were then enduring (1:9). Not only was this tribulation going on at that time, but John further referred to himself and his readers as being in the kingdom at that time (1:9). Thus, Christ’s kingdom was already set up, in existence on Earth, and in full operating mode.
In addition to these contextual indicators, there is the statement of the angel to John: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:10). What did the angel mean? What he meant becomes apparent when one reflects upon the fact that Daniel was told to do the exact opposite of what John was told to do. After receiving a remarkable series of detailed prophecies, Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4, emp. added). Furthermore, he was instructed: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (vs. 9, emp. added). The reason Daniel was told to seal the book was because the fulfillment of the prophecies that had been revealed to him were hundreds of years off in the future—far from his own day. The predictions, therefore, would be of no immediate value to the initial recipients of the book. The book could be closed and placed on the shelf until those who would be living at the time of their fulfillment could appreciate the relevance of its predictions. In stark contrast, John was ordered: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:10, emp. added). Why? The text answers—“for the time is at hand”! These words can hold no other meaning than that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in close proximity to the time they were written.
Still another significant contextual detail pertains to the use of the impersonal verb “must”: “things which must shortly take place” (1:1). Greek grammarian Ray Summers explained:
The verb translated “it is necessary’ or “must”…indicates that a moral necessity is involved; the nature of the case is such that the things revealed here must come to pass shortly…. The things revealed here must happen shortly, or the cause will be lost…. They were in need of assurance of help in the immediate present—not in some millennium of the distant and uncertain future (p. 99, emp. in orig.).
Indeed, the downtrodden, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor needed assistance right away. The dispensational framework would rob those first-century saints of the very comfort and reassurance they so desperately needed, deserved—and received!
One additional contextual feature is the use of the term “signified”: “And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John” (1:1). This term, as is evident from the English translation, means “to show by signs” (Vincent, 1890, 2:564; Summers, p. 99). The term, along with the Greek word translated “revelation” (apocalupsis), introduces the nature of this book. The book of Revelation reveals or unveils God’s message through signs or symbols. Placing a literalinterpretation on the numbers, animals, objects, colors, and locations of Revelation—as dispensationalists routinely try to do—does violence to the true intent of the book. John’s Revelation declares itself to be a book of symbols, filled with figurative language, and not intended to be taken literally. In fact, as Swete observed, “much of the imagery of the Apocalypse is doubtless not symbolism, but merely designed to heighten the colouring of the great picture, and to add vividness and movement to its scenes” (1911, p. cxxxiii). A genuine recognition of this realization of this self-declared feature of the book excludes a literal interpretation of the number one thousand.
In addition to these preliminary contextual details (which are sufficient of themselves to dismiss the dispensationalism scheme from the book), chapter twenty contains specific features that assist the interpreter in pinpointing the meaning of the symbol of a “thousand-year reign.” It is surely noteworthy that in the entire Bible, the only allusion to a so-called thousand-year reign is Revelation 20:4,6—a fact that is conceded even by dispensationalists (e.g., Ladd, 1972, p. 267; Mounce, 1977, pp. 356-357). Yet an entire belief system has been built upon such scanty evidence. An examination of the setting and context yields surprising results. For example, a simple reading of the immediate context reveals that the theme of Revelation 20 is not “the thousand-year reign of Christ.” Rather, it is “victory over Satan.” Each of the symbols presents concepts that, when put together, relieve the fears of oppressed first-century Christians regarding their outcome. The key, abyss, and chain (vs. 1) are apocalyptic symbols for the effective limitation or containment of Satan in his ability to deceive the nations in the specific matter of emperor worship enforced by the government (see Swete, 1911, pp. xxxi, civ-cv). The symbol of one thousand years (vss. 2-7) is a high multiple of ten, representing ultimatecompleteness (see Summers, p. 23). John’s readers thus could know that the devil was to becompletely restrained from deceiving the nations into worshipping the emperor. The thousand years symbolized the extended triumph of God’s kingdom on Earth over the devil, who was then operating through the persecuting powers of Rome. A thousand symbolic years of victory would lesson suffering in the minds of persecuted Christians.
“Loosing for a little season” (vs. 3) would have represented the revival of persecution under later emperors. “Thrones” (vs. 4) represented the victorious power of the oppressed. The persecuted saints were pictured on thrones, judging because of the victory of their cause. “Souls” (vs. 4)—not resurrected bodies, but disembodied spirits—represent those who were martyrs of the persecution. Their refusal to “receive the mark” meant they refused to worship Caesar, or to manifest those marks that would identify them as adherents of the false state religion of emperor worship. The “first resurrection” (vs. 5) referred to the triumphant resurrection of the cause for which the Christians of Revelation 20:4 had lived and died. Gog and Magog were symbolic of the enemies of God and Christ, the imagery drawn from Ezekiel 38 and 39. The “beloved city” (vs. 9) is an unmistakable reference to spiritual Israel, the church (John 4:20-21; Galatians 6:16).
Some allowance may be granted in the interpretation of these highly figurative symbols, without doing damage to other Bible doctrines, or reflecting adversely upon the Gospel system and the broader will of Deity. However, the thousand years must not be perceived as a yet-future period. There is simply no biblical support for doing so. The figure represents an important concept for those to whom it was first directed. It has meaning for people living today only in that context. There will be no one thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Ladd, George E. (1972), A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Moffatt, James (no date), “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” ed. Nicoll, W. Robertson, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Mounce, Robert (1977), The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Swete, Henry B. (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
White, Newport (no date), “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)