Jesus Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" forty-six times in the King James Version of the New Testament. What does this epithet mean? Why was Christ called the "Son of God?"
First, Jesus Christ was awarded this epithet because of the way in which he was conceived. We read in Luke's account of the Gospel that the angel Gabriel appeared to a young Jewish virgin named Mary. (Luke 1:26-27) Gabriel told her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Second, God personally attached this appellation to Jesus. When Christ was baptized, a voice from heaven declared "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)
Third, Christ was also the "Son of God" in the sense that every human is God's son. In Luke's account of Christ's human descent from Adam, we read that Enos was the son of Seth, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38)
Fourth, Christ was also God's son in the sense that he loved God as his Father and devoted his life to the fulfillment of his "Father's" expectations and wishes. (John 5:19, 30 and 10:37-38) Hence, God was the "Father" or genesis of everything that Jesus did during his lifetime on this planet. In short, God's morality and righteousness was Christ's standard throughout his life on this earth.
Fifth, Christ was confirmed in this appellation by virtue of the fact that he was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven to be with his Father. (Acts 2:32-36 and Romans 1:4) As Stephen finished his sermon about Jesus before the Jewish Council, we read that "he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56) That declaration got him stoned to death for blasphemy. (verses 59-60)
Thus, while there is no statement recorded in Scripture that a Christian must believe that Jesus is God, it is made very plain that one must believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God. John declared that his account of the Gospel was written so that people would believe that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. (John 20:31) John wrote: "Whosoever shall confess (declare) that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." (I John 4:15) When Peter stated that he believed that Jesus was the Messiah and God's Son, Christ responded that only the Father could have revealed that awareness to him. (Matthew 16:17)
What about you? Do you believe that Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesied to come in the Old Testament? Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God? If you can sincerely answer "Yes" to both of those questions, then Scripture states that the only way for you to have arrived at that conclusion is by virtue of the fact that God lives within you! In other words, that makes you a Christian.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
God and Pharaoh
When Moses and Aaron went before the King of Egypt and demanded that he obey the instructions of the Lord God of Israel, Pharaoh replied: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." (Exodus 5:2)
In a sense, Pharaoh is everyman in this story. He epitomizes the reaction of so many humans to the Divine. "Who is this God?" he asks. "I don't know him, and I won't obey him," he declares. Isn't that the same reaction that many folks have when they here about God today?
For our purposes, it is immaterial to the point we are making whether or not one believes that the events of this story ever happened. We are focused on this man's reaction to an introduction to God and "His" demands. In short, I believe that there are spiritual lessons to be gleaned from this story that are applicable to all of us.
In the chapters that follow this introduction to the Lord, God proceeded to answer Pharaoh's questions. God allowed the king to witness a miracle when Aaron's staff transformed into a serpent right before his eyes. (Exodus 7:10) Next, God demonstrated to the king that "He" is in charge of the forces of nature by changing the waters of the Nile River into blood and inundating the land with frogs, lice, flies and locusts. God also displayed his power over both animal and human disease for the king's benefit. Likewise, God demonstrated his control over the weather and skies with hail and darkness. Finally, in a particularly poignant way, God demonstrated "His" power over life and death through the firstborn of Egypt. Sometimes we get so caught up in the drama of the story that we forget that God was answering Pharaoh's questions through the device of these "plagues." (Exodus 7-11)
"Well, that's where the story departs from our experience," my critics will protest. "God hasn't done anything so dramatic to answer our questions about him and his authority," they will point out.
Is that true? Has the world that God has created around us never offered us any evidence of who "He" is? Could anything that happens in this day and age be considered a miracle? Does the blood that courses through our veins have anything to teach us about God? Have you ever studied the anatomy and physiology of frogs, lice, flies and locusts in a high school biology class? Have you ever examined the structures of a single cell under a microscope? Does any of that have the ability to teach us anything about the One who created them? Have you ever considered the forces that produce hail, tornadoes and hurricanes? Have you ever experienced the death of a loved one? Doesn't the evidence of our own lives offer at least some insights into who the Lord is and why we should obey him?
I think that God demonstrates "His" presence and identity in some rather dramatic ways every day, but we (like Pharaoh before us) refuse to acknowledge or see what is so obvious. Instead, we stubbornly refuse to look at the evidence and continue to insist on having our own way. Yes, I'd say that Pharaoh fits rather well in his role as everyman - What do you think?
In a sense, Pharaoh is everyman in this story. He epitomizes the reaction of so many humans to the Divine. "Who is this God?" he asks. "I don't know him, and I won't obey him," he declares. Isn't that the same reaction that many folks have when they here about God today?
For our purposes, it is immaterial to the point we are making whether or not one believes that the events of this story ever happened. We are focused on this man's reaction to an introduction to God and "His" demands. In short, I believe that there are spiritual lessons to be gleaned from this story that are applicable to all of us.
In the chapters that follow this introduction to the Lord, God proceeded to answer Pharaoh's questions. God allowed the king to witness a miracle when Aaron's staff transformed into a serpent right before his eyes. (Exodus 7:10) Next, God demonstrated to the king that "He" is in charge of the forces of nature by changing the waters of the Nile River into blood and inundating the land with frogs, lice, flies and locusts. God also displayed his power over both animal and human disease for the king's benefit. Likewise, God demonstrated his control over the weather and skies with hail and darkness. Finally, in a particularly poignant way, God demonstrated "His" power over life and death through the firstborn of Egypt. Sometimes we get so caught up in the drama of the story that we forget that God was answering Pharaoh's questions through the device of these "plagues." (Exodus 7-11)
"Well, that's where the story departs from our experience," my critics will protest. "God hasn't done anything so dramatic to answer our questions about him and his authority," they will point out.
Is that true? Has the world that God has created around us never offered us any evidence of who "He" is? Could anything that happens in this day and age be considered a miracle? Does the blood that courses through our veins have anything to teach us about God? Have you ever studied the anatomy and physiology of frogs, lice, flies and locusts in a high school biology class? Have you ever examined the structures of a single cell under a microscope? Does any of that have the ability to teach us anything about the One who created them? Have you ever considered the forces that produce hail, tornadoes and hurricanes? Have you ever experienced the death of a loved one? Doesn't the evidence of our own lives offer at least some insights into who the Lord is and why we should obey him?
I think that God demonstrates "His" presence and identity in some rather dramatic ways every day, but we (like Pharaoh before us) refuse to acknowledge or see what is so obvious. Instead, we stubbornly refuse to look at the evidence and continue to insist on having our own way. Yes, I'd say that Pharaoh fits rather well in his role as everyman - What do you think?
Friday, May 30, 2014
Did God inspire someone to write the 137th Psalm?
Before you shout, "Yes, of course, He did!" you may want to take a look at this particular psalm. Here is the text of the psalm as found in the New Living Translation of the Bible:
"Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept as we thought of Jerusalem. We put away our harps, hanging them on the branches of poplar trees. For our captors demanded a song from us. Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn: 'Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!' But how can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a pagan land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget how to play the harp. May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I fail to remember you, if I don't make Jerusalem my greatest joy. O Lord, remember what the Edomites did on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem. 'Destroy it!' they yelled. 'Level it to the ground!' O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137)
First, it is obvious that this psalm was written from the perspective of one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon. It is also clear that this individual was part of a group of temple musicians, and that they were missing their home in Jerusalem. Thus it is certainly understandable that these folks did not want to perform the Lord's songs (hymns) for their pagan captors.
However, their longing for Jerusalem is portrayed in the psalm as obsessive. After all, it is Jerusalem that this writer was focused on - not the Lord. Is it ever appropriate to make any physical thing or place one's "greatest joy." God is appealed to only in the context of settling the score with the people who have wronged them (the Edomites and the Babylonians). The pain and bitterness over what has happened to them is made clear in every line.
Finally, the author rejoices at the prospect that Babylon will one day suffer a similar fate - that they will be repaid for what they did to the Jews. He/she even goes so far as to say that the one who exacts the retribution will enjoy taking the Babylonian babies and dashing their brains out against the rocks. Can you imagine any crime that would justify taking an innocent baby and slinging it against some rocks? How is that fair, righteous or just in any universe?
Could it be a mistranslation of the text? The King James Version of the Bible renders this passage as: "Happy, shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (verse 9) The New International Version renders the same verse as: "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible informs us that the Hebrew word translated as babies, little ones and infants appears thirteen times in the KJV as "children," three times as "infant," two times as "babes," and one time each as "child" or "little ones." Likewise, the Hebrew word translated as smashes, dasheth and dashes appears nine times as "break in pieces," three times as "break," three times as "scatter," two times as "dash," and one time as "dash in pieces" (and in similar contexts in a few other places). So it sounds like the translators got it right.
Does this kind of cruel, heartless and vindictive behavior sound like anything that Almighty God would ever engage in or condone? I don't think so. Do we really want to attribute this passage to the inspiration of the Lord? What do you think?
"Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept as we thought of Jerusalem. We put away our harps, hanging them on the branches of poplar trees. For our captors demanded a song from us. Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn: 'Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!' But how can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a pagan land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget how to play the harp. May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I fail to remember you, if I don't make Jerusalem my greatest joy. O Lord, remember what the Edomites did on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem. 'Destroy it!' they yelled. 'Level it to the ground!' O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137)
First, it is obvious that this psalm was written from the perspective of one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon. It is also clear that this individual was part of a group of temple musicians, and that they were missing their home in Jerusalem. Thus it is certainly understandable that these folks did not want to perform the Lord's songs (hymns) for their pagan captors.
However, their longing for Jerusalem is portrayed in the psalm as obsessive. After all, it is Jerusalem that this writer was focused on - not the Lord. Is it ever appropriate to make any physical thing or place one's "greatest joy." God is appealed to only in the context of settling the score with the people who have wronged them (the Edomites and the Babylonians). The pain and bitterness over what has happened to them is made clear in every line.
Finally, the author rejoices at the prospect that Babylon will one day suffer a similar fate - that they will be repaid for what they did to the Jews. He/she even goes so far as to say that the one who exacts the retribution will enjoy taking the Babylonian babies and dashing their brains out against the rocks. Can you imagine any crime that would justify taking an innocent baby and slinging it against some rocks? How is that fair, righteous or just in any universe?
Could it be a mistranslation of the text? The King James Version of the Bible renders this passage as: "Happy, shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (verse 9) The New International Version renders the same verse as: "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible informs us that the Hebrew word translated as babies, little ones and infants appears thirteen times in the KJV as "children," three times as "infant," two times as "babes," and one time each as "child" or "little ones." Likewise, the Hebrew word translated as smashes, dasheth and dashes appears nine times as "break in pieces," three times as "break," three times as "scatter," two times as "dash," and one time as "dash in pieces" (and in similar contexts in a few other places). So it sounds like the translators got it right.
Does this kind of cruel, heartless and vindictive behavior sound like anything that Almighty God would ever engage in or condone? I don't think so. Do we really want to attribute this passage to the inspiration of the Lord? What do you think?
Thursday, May 29, 2014
The scientific evidence that God cares about life on planet earth
Have you ever considered the things that make life possible on the third rock from the sun? What were the conditions that allowed life to form on the surface of this planet? More importantly, what are the conditions that allow life to continue to exist here?
Robert Lamb wrote an article entitled "What is it about earth that makes it just right for life?" for HowStuffWorks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/earth-just-right-for-life.htm) In the article, he listed a number of special features that make life on this earth possible:
1. the presence of liquid water
2. an energy source (our sun)
3. a mix of the right elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen)
4. a hot metallic core
5. a rocky mantle (surface)
6. a moderate temperature (not too hot and not too cold)
7. a moon of sufficient size and position to stabilize the planet's climate
8. an electromagnetic field that protects us from harmful solar radiation
9. the proximity of the large planet Jupiter whose gravity pulls in a lot of asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike the earth with catastrophic effect
All of these factors together contributed to the formation of life on this planet and ensure its continued survival. Take any one of them away and life would not exist here - at least, not as we currently know it.
Take a moment to consider our nearest neighbors. According to NASA, mercury is a sun-scorched little hell that alternates between super heated conditions and temperatures hundreds of degrees below freezing. It describes Venus as a dim world that is much too hot for life, churns with volcanic activity and is surrounded by a thick and toxic atmosphere that traps the heat near the planet's surface. On the other end of the scale, NASA tells us that Mars is a dry, desert-like planet with a thin atmosphere that has a hard time holding on to any heat. Jupiter is a large, gaseous planet with an extremely turbulent atmosphere and no solid surface for life to gain a foothold. Hence, we can readily see, a little closer to the Sun (or a little further away) and life on this planet would be toast!
We must also remember the time element involved in the formation and evolution of life on this planet. This process has taken billions of years. Think about how resilient and adaptable life has had to be to continue to exist here. Consider for just a moment the complex ecosystems that have developed on the land (and in the water) of this planet.
It seems to me that everything here has been just right for the formation and perpetuation of life on this planet. That indicates to me that the One who created this earth and placed it in this orbit around the Sun must have cared a great deal about the life that was placed here. What do you think?
Robert Lamb wrote an article entitled "What is it about earth that makes it just right for life?" for HowStuffWorks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/earth-just-right-for-life.htm) In the article, he listed a number of special features that make life on this earth possible:
1. the presence of liquid water
2. an energy source (our sun)
3. a mix of the right elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen)
4. a hot metallic core
5. a rocky mantle (surface)
6. a moderate temperature (not too hot and not too cold)
7. a moon of sufficient size and position to stabilize the planet's climate
8. an electromagnetic field that protects us from harmful solar radiation
9. the proximity of the large planet Jupiter whose gravity pulls in a lot of asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike the earth with catastrophic effect
All of these factors together contributed to the formation of life on this planet and ensure its continued survival. Take any one of them away and life would not exist here - at least, not as we currently know it.
Take a moment to consider our nearest neighbors. According to NASA, mercury is a sun-scorched little hell that alternates between super heated conditions and temperatures hundreds of degrees below freezing. It describes Venus as a dim world that is much too hot for life, churns with volcanic activity and is surrounded by a thick and toxic atmosphere that traps the heat near the planet's surface. On the other end of the scale, NASA tells us that Mars is a dry, desert-like planet with a thin atmosphere that has a hard time holding on to any heat. Jupiter is a large, gaseous planet with an extremely turbulent atmosphere and no solid surface for life to gain a foothold. Hence, we can readily see, a little closer to the Sun (or a little further away) and life on this planet would be toast!
We must also remember the time element involved in the formation and evolution of life on this planet. This process has taken billions of years. Think about how resilient and adaptable life has had to be to continue to exist here. Consider for just a moment the complex ecosystems that have developed on the land (and in the water) of this planet.
It seems to me that everything here has been just right for the formation and perpetuation of life on this planet. That indicates to me that the One who created this earth and placed it in this orbit around the Sun must have cared a great deal about the life that was placed here. What do you think?
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The peace of God
Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi: "Be careful (worried) for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you." (Philippians 4:6-9, KJV)
Likewise, he wrote to the Christians of Colosse: "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity (love), which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Colossians 3:12-15, KJV)
As the context of these two verses clearly demonstrates, the meaning of the Greek word translated into English as "peace" denotes a state of tranquility and felicity. Paul says this kind of peace is beyond the ability of our intellects to quantify or define. Hence, it is not an understanding - it is a state of mind.
Even so, Paul clearly indicates that the way for Christians to achieve this peace is to let go of burdens and not worry over things. This is consistent with what Jesus Christ had told his disciples during his earthly ministry. After telling them that it was impossible to serve two masters, he said: "That is why I tell you not to worry about everyday life - whether you have enough food and drink, or enough clothes to wear. Isn't life more than food, and your body more than clothing?...Can all your worries add a single moment to your life?...So don't worry about these things...These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs." (Matthew 6:25-32, NLT)
God's peace is a special blessing that is available to Christians, but we have to be willing to let go of our anger, hurts, worries and concerns to receive it. Maybe that's why one of Paul's favorite greetings and salutations was, "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Brethren, God wants us to have that peace; but we have to let go and allow it to wash over us.
Likewise, he wrote to the Christians of Colosse: "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity (love), which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Colossians 3:12-15, KJV)
As the context of these two verses clearly demonstrates, the meaning of the Greek word translated into English as "peace" denotes a state of tranquility and felicity. Paul says this kind of peace is beyond the ability of our intellects to quantify or define. Hence, it is not an understanding - it is a state of mind.
Even so, Paul clearly indicates that the way for Christians to achieve this peace is to let go of burdens and not worry over things. This is consistent with what Jesus Christ had told his disciples during his earthly ministry. After telling them that it was impossible to serve two masters, he said: "That is why I tell you not to worry about everyday life - whether you have enough food and drink, or enough clothes to wear. Isn't life more than food, and your body more than clothing?...Can all your worries add a single moment to your life?...So don't worry about these things...These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs." (Matthew 6:25-32, NLT)
God's peace is a special blessing that is available to Christians, but we have to be willing to let go of our anger, hurts, worries and concerns to receive it. Maybe that's why one of Paul's favorite greetings and salutations was, "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Brethren, God wants us to have that peace; but we have to let go and allow it to wash over us.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
God and Prophecy
Many Christians are enamored with the subject of Biblical prophecy. Indeed, it is safe to say that some folks are obsessed with the subject. A few individuals have devoted their entire lives and ministries to the subject. For many, the study and understanding of prophecy is of paramount importance to their faith, and they are deeply attached to their particular interpretations of the symbols and timelines that those studies and reasoning have produced. Moreover, many preachers and organizations have used the public's interest in prophecy as an advertising hook to get people into the pews of their churches.
What about prophecy? Is this obsession in some circles a healthy development within the Christian community? What is God's perspective on prophecy? What does Scripture say about how prophecy should be regarded and interpreted?
Various scholars have estimated that somewhere between one quarter and one third of the Bible is prophetic in nature. In fact, anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Scripture would readily acknowledge that most of the books of the Bible contain some prophecy (even those of the Torah, Psalms, Proverbs and the ones which are focused on history). When combined with the works of the Major and Minor prophets, this is plainly not an insignificant phenomenon. Hence, it would be ridiculous and illogical to dismiss such an integral part of the Bible as inconsequential or irrelevant.
Nevertheless, it is also clear from this evidence that somewhere between three quarters and two thirds of the Bible is not prophetic in nature. Hence, from this fact alone, one could reasonably conclude that prophecy is not the most important subject in the Bible. In short, we are appealing for perspective here. Prophecy is important, but it is not deserving of our singular focus and attention. In other words, the subject is not worthy of obsession.
Also, if we claim the Bible as our guide, we are forced to admit that it indicates that God attaches more importance to other principles and teachings. In short, Scripture clearly places some of the other teachings of Scripture above the understanding and fulfillment of prophecy. Let's examine a few instances of this to demonstrate our point.
First, it is apparent in numerous passages that the fulfillment of a prophecy was very often made contingent upon the behavior of the people to whom it was directed. God made certain promises to Abraham about the future if he would obey God's instructions. (Genesis 12:1-3) Moses informed the Israelites about what would happen if they obeyed God, and what would happen if they disobeyed the Lord. (Deuteronomy 28) Jeremiah said that God would not allow the bad things that had been prophesied against them to happen if only the people would repent. (Jeremiah 18:8 and 26:13) God did not permit the destruction of Nineveh that Jonah had prophesied because the people repented of their sins. (Jonah 3:5-10) Daniel predicted that King Nebuchadnezzar would lose his kingdom if he didn't repent of his prideful attitude. (Daniel 4)
In similar fashion, there are numerous instances in Scripture where the fulfillment of a prophecy was delayed because of God's great mercy and compassion. We are informed that God delayed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until Lot and his family could leave. (Genesis 19) After Isaiah had prophesied King Hezekiah's imminent death, the Lord added fifteen years to his life because "He" was touched by the king's tears and plea for mercy. (II Kings 20:1-6) God delayed the overthrow of the Kingdom of Judah until after the death of the righteous King Josiah. (II Kings 22:11-20) Peter said that God was deliberately withholding the fulfillment of "His" promises to the saints because "He" wanted more people to be saved. (II Peter 3:9)
In his letter to the saints at Corinth, Paul made clear that love was more important to God than the understanding and fulfillment of prophecy. He wrote: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (love), I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2) He continued: "Charity (love) never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail...whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (verses 8-10) Clearly, prophecy is not even in the same league with love.
Finally, in terms of the prophetic utterances that he had just given to them regarding the end of the age, Jesus Christ told his disciples: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36) He concluded: "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24:45-46)
Thus we may all reasonably conclude that it is best to be engaged in doing the Lord's will - to be loving and building up each other. Scripture clearly indicates that that would be a better use of our time and energy than trying to determine who or what the Great Whore of Revelation represents or exactly how many years she will be allowed to reign. Although speculation can be fun, God is able to fulfill prophecy in whatever fashion "He" determines to be the most appropriate. What do you think?
What about prophecy? Is this obsession in some circles a healthy development within the Christian community? What is God's perspective on prophecy? What does Scripture say about how prophecy should be regarded and interpreted?
Various scholars have estimated that somewhere between one quarter and one third of the Bible is prophetic in nature. In fact, anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Scripture would readily acknowledge that most of the books of the Bible contain some prophecy (even those of the Torah, Psalms, Proverbs and the ones which are focused on history). When combined with the works of the Major and Minor prophets, this is plainly not an insignificant phenomenon. Hence, it would be ridiculous and illogical to dismiss such an integral part of the Bible as inconsequential or irrelevant.
Nevertheless, it is also clear from this evidence that somewhere between three quarters and two thirds of the Bible is not prophetic in nature. Hence, from this fact alone, one could reasonably conclude that prophecy is not the most important subject in the Bible. In short, we are appealing for perspective here. Prophecy is important, but it is not deserving of our singular focus and attention. In other words, the subject is not worthy of obsession.
Also, if we claim the Bible as our guide, we are forced to admit that it indicates that God attaches more importance to other principles and teachings. In short, Scripture clearly places some of the other teachings of Scripture above the understanding and fulfillment of prophecy. Let's examine a few instances of this to demonstrate our point.
First, it is apparent in numerous passages that the fulfillment of a prophecy was very often made contingent upon the behavior of the people to whom it was directed. God made certain promises to Abraham about the future if he would obey God's instructions. (Genesis 12:1-3) Moses informed the Israelites about what would happen if they obeyed God, and what would happen if they disobeyed the Lord. (Deuteronomy 28) Jeremiah said that God would not allow the bad things that had been prophesied against them to happen if only the people would repent. (Jeremiah 18:8 and 26:13) God did not permit the destruction of Nineveh that Jonah had prophesied because the people repented of their sins. (Jonah 3:5-10) Daniel predicted that King Nebuchadnezzar would lose his kingdom if he didn't repent of his prideful attitude. (Daniel 4)
In similar fashion, there are numerous instances in Scripture where the fulfillment of a prophecy was delayed because of God's great mercy and compassion. We are informed that God delayed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until Lot and his family could leave. (Genesis 19) After Isaiah had prophesied King Hezekiah's imminent death, the Lord added fifteen years to his life because "He" was touched by the king's tears and plea for mercy. (II Kings 20:1-6) God delayed the overthrow of the Kingdom of Judah until after the death of the righteous King Josiah. (II Kings 22:11-20) Peter said that God was deliberately withholding the fulfillment of "His" promises to the saints because "He" wanted more people to be saved. (II Peter 3:9)
In his letter to the saints at Corinth, Paul made clear that love was more important to God than the understanding and fulfillment of prophecy. He wrote: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (love), I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2) He continued: "Charity (love) never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail...whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (verses 8-10) Clearly, prophecy is not even in the same league with love.
Finally, in terms of the prophetic utterances that he had just given to them regarding the end of the age, Jesus Christ told his disciples: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36) He concluded: "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24:45-46)
Thus we may all reasonably conclude that it is best to be engaged in doing the Lord's will - to be loving and building up each other. Scripture clearly indicates that that would be a better use of our time and energy than trying to determine who or what the Great Whore of Revelation represents or exactly how many years she will be allowed to reign. Although speculation can be fun, God is able to fulfill prophecy in whatever fashion "He" determines to be the most appropriate. What do you think?
Monday, May 26, 2014
Is a personal relationship with God all that is really necessary?
A friend recently sent me an article entitled "A Point of View: Is it better to be religious than spiritual?" (you can view the article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27554640) Tom Shakespeare notes that more and more people are choosing to designate themselves as "Spiritual But Not Religious." (SBNR) He also concludes that this is not a positive development. He said: "I worry that SBNR can just be vague, lacking the rigor which comes from centuries of refinement and debate. And unlike traditional religions, it doesn't have much to say about charity and justice." In short, Mr. Shakespeare concludes that rugged individualism does not produce the best results for spiritual growth and development - we need each other.
As a Christian, I have to agree with him. Although I have pointed out the failures and shortcomings of Traditional Christianity on numerous occasions, there is still value in people coming together and interacting with each other. Yes, the arguments over beliefs and doctrines can be petty and unpleasant; but we desperately need to hear other opinions and perspectives. How can anyone expect to grow and learn if they settle into their own personal self-reinforcing pocket universe of ideas? How can one expect to grow in love, empathy, patience and mercy if there is no one to love, empathize with, be patient with or be merciful to?
From a Biblical perspective, going it alone is simply not an option. As I have also noted, the Greek word that has been translated into English as "Church" implies a coming together - an assembly of people. Indeed, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read: "Let us think of ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works. And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his (Christ's) return is drawing near." (Hebrews 10:24-25, NLT) By the way, electronic discussions can count as coming together - it is the interaction that is vital. On the other hand, attending a Church service without speaking to other people or listening to what they have to say wouldn't qualify as coming together in the sense that is being discussed here.
Yes, each one of us is unique and brings a different set of gifts, experiences and perspectives to the table; but that is exactly what God wants! Paul compared the individual members of the Church to the human body. (I Corinthians 12:12-13) He wrote: "Yes, the body has many different parts, not just one part. If the foot says, 'I am not a part of the body because I am not a hand,' that does not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear says, 'I am not part of the body because I am not an eye,' would that make it any less a part of the body? If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear? Or if your whole body were an ear, how would you smell anything? But our bodies have many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it. How strange a body would be if it had only one part! Yes, there are many parts, but only one body. The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don't need you.' The head can't say to the feet, 'I don't need you." (I Corinthians 12:14-21, NLT) Paul concludes, "All of you together are Christ's body, and each of you is a part of it." (verse 27)
In his general epistle to the Christians of his day, John wrote: "If someone says, 'I love God,' but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a LIAR; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see? And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their Christian brothers and sisters." (I John 4:20-21) Clearly, Scripture indicates that we need each other.
In this same vein, I was also dismayed at some of the comments about the Yahoo article entitled "Pope calls Muslims 'brothers' at Dome of Rock." (http://news.yahoo.com/pope-calls-muslims-brothers-dome-rock-061917919.html) What is wrong with Francis' statement? I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I don't agree with many of the teachings of that organization; but what's wrong with referring to Muslims as brothers? Aren't we all God's children? Didn't Christ socialize with people of differing beliefs and perspectives? What's wrong with promoting peace and harmony in the world?
Some of the responses to the article are typical of that kind of reflexive reaction to traditional religion that is so commonplace today. More than a few individuals availed themselves of the opportunity to attack organized religion outright. Why curse the darkness when we can be lighting a candle? If you're standing on the outside looking in, how can you ever hope to have a positive influence on what's happening inside? As the old proverb indicates, "iron sharpens iron." (Proverbs 27:17) Like it or not, if we're Christians, we need each other to grow in grace and knowledge. Also, if you consider yourself to be an SBNR, then you might want to consider getting out of that warm little cocoon of yours every once in a while.
As a Christian, I have to agree with him. Although I have pointed out the failures and shortcomings of Traditional Christianity on numerous occasions, there is still value in people coming together and interacting with each other. Yes, the arguments over beliefs and doctrines can be petty and unpleasant; but we desperately need to hear other opinions and perspectives. How can anyone expect to grow and learn if they settle into their own personal self-reinforcing pocket universe of ideas? How can one expect to grow in love, empathy, patience and mercy if there is no one to love, empathize with, be patient with or be merciful to?
From a Biblical perspective, going it alone is simply not an option. As I have also noted, the Greek word that has been translated into English as "Church" implies a coming together - an assembly of people. Indeed, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read: "Let us think of ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works. And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his (Christ's) return is drawing near." (Hebrews 10:24-25, NLT) By the way, electronic discussions can count as coming together - it is the interaction that is vital. On the other hand, attending a Church service without speaking to other people or listening to what they have to say wouldn't qualify as coming together in the sense that is being discussed here.
Yes, each one of us is unique and brings a different set of gifts, experiences and perspectives to the table; but that is exactly what God wants! Paul compared the individual members of the Church to the human body. (I Corinthians 12:12-13) He wrote: "Yes, the body has many different parts, not just one part. If the foot says, 'I am not a part of the body because I am not a hand,' that does not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear says, 'I am not part of the body because I am not an eye,' would that make it any less a part of the body? If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear? Or if your whole body were an ear, how would you smell anything? But our bodies have many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it. How strange a body would be if it had only one part! Yes, there are many parts, but only one body. The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don't need you.' The head can't say to the feet, 'I don't need you." (I Corinthians 12:14-21, NLT) Paul concludes, "All of you together are Christ's body, and each of you is a part of it." (verse 27)
In his general epistle to the Christians of his day, John wrote: "If someone says, 'I love God,' but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a LIAR; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see? And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their Christian brothers and sisters." (I John 4:20-21) Clearly, Scripture indicates that we need each other.
In this same vein, I was also dismayed at some of the comments about the Yahoo article entitled "Pope calls Muslims 'brothers' at Dome of Rock." (http://news.yahoo.com/pope-calls-muslims-brothers-dome-rock-061917919.html) What is wrong with Francis' statement? I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I don't agree with many of the teachings of that organization; but what's wrong with referring to Muslims as brothers? Aren't we all God's children? Didn't Christ socialize with people of differing beliefs and perspectives? What's wrong with promoting peace and harmony in the world?
Some of the responses to the article are typical of that kind of reflexive reaction to traditional religion that is so commonplace today. More than a few individuals availed themselves of the opportunity to attack organized religion outright. Why curse the darkness when we can be lighting a candle? If you're standing on the outside looking in, how can you ever hope to have a positive influence on what's happening inside? As the old proverb indicates, "iron sharpens iron." (Proverbs 27:17) Like it or not, if we're Christians, we need each other to grow in grace and knowledge. Also, if you consider yourself to be an SBNR, then you might want to consider getting out of that warm little cocoon of yours every once in a while.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)