Does eschatology matter? Clearly, it’s not a bedrock issue like the atonement, the virgin birth or the deity of Christ, so why waste valuable time studying a doctrine that causes so much conflict and seems to accomplish so little? After all, whether we understand the Biblical view of the end times or not, everything is going pan out the way God intends. So, since brilliant people can’t come to a meaningful consensus, why bother flirting with a subject that seems above most of our pay grades? Wouldn’t it be prudent to simply take the path of least resistance rather than get caught up in all the hype and confusion that accompanies the prevailing eschatological view? After all, who do we think we are, believing that we can discover God’s truth on a subject that those far brighter have been jousting about for centuries?
Well, perhaps after watching this short video, you’ll begin to appreciate the reasons why eschatology really does matter and why it might be time for you to take a serious look. Maybe it’s not quite as complicated as you’d imagined? And it may turn out to play a far more extensive role in the health and vitality of the Church than you’d ever dreamed…and it might even make a difference in the way you view your future.
I continue to hear people, empowered by conspiratorialists like Alex Jones, claim that ISIL, ISIS or whatever name you choose for the Islamic State, is merely a fabrication of the CIA/Mossad, and that the terror they are accused of spreading, only serves to falsely demonize Muslims. But what about the beheadings? Crisis actors. Yes, that’s correct, they insist that the dead journalists were just part of the illusion. And these same conspiratorialists believe that the U.S. government in consort with Israel, plotted and perpetrated 9/11 and that they, are the greatest dangers to worldwide freedom.
Now, if you believe or are entertaining such a belief, I’d like to know if you’ve ever taken the time to listen to the words of Osama bin Laden one month after the collapse of the Twin Towers. In this interview, bin Laden not only proudly claimed responsibility for the attacks on New York and Washington, but he openly shared his motivations for masterminding this nefarious plan?
However, the conspiratorialists are not easily fooled. They insist that bin Laden was a mere CIA asset and that he’s simply part of the charade.
I’d like to challenge you to listen carefully to bin Laden, as he clearly enunciates the fact that he is not a pawn of the west, and has only and always represented the interests of Islam. If you think this is a vaudeville act, then you will have no trouble believing just about anything.
Why was America attacked on 9/11? Bin Laden states a number of reasons, one being the U.S. backing of Israel as they’ve treated the Palestinians with contempt. But the bottom line is that bin Laden was no a patsy. Most people won’t watch the interviews, but they will continue to repeat the mantra, “9/11 was an inside job” and then begin to turn reason on its ear.
*Addendum. All of the videos (posted at the time of this blog article) of the bin Laden interview have been removed by YouTube. But even after watching those videos which went into great detail explaining bin Laden’s motivation perpetrating the attacks, few conspiratorialists will believe him. They will either say that he was part of the false flag CIA-planned attack or that he was scapegoated.
Following is a nightly news report with bin Laden boldly proclaiming his motivations. Clearly not as thorough as the lengthy interview but nonetheless clear.
The following story is a rather poignant reminder why large-scale conspiracies involving hundreds, if not thousands of people, simply cannot be true. The fact is that people can’t keep their mouths shut… not for long. Even in this small group of highly trained Navy Seals, not all of them kept their traditional oath of silence. When money, fame and/or notoriety are on the line, somebody always chirps.
On Nov. 11 and 12, Fox News Channel will air “The Man Who Killed Usama Bin Laden,” a two-part documentary featuring “an exclusive interview with the Navy SEAL who says he fired the shots that killed terrorist leader Usama Bin Laden,” according to a Fox media release, using an alternate spelling for the jihadi’s name. The retired SEAL, “who will reveal his identity and speak out publicly for the first time, describes the events leading up to and during the historical raid that took place on May 1st, 2011.” (TBO.com)
Though the detail in which “The Shooter” described his assassination of bin Laden seems inappropriate for public consumption, it nonetheless serves to confirm this object lesson. Silence, even in an event confined to a band of brothers, is a virtual impossibility. And this Seal team revelation came to light less than 2 years after the death of bin Laden.
So when people talk about conspiracy theories on the magnitude of 9/11, where thousands had to have been “in the know”, the chances of long-term silence are extremely slim. It’s simply contrary to human nature, especially in a free society?
Recently, a Facebook friend argued that since the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers building) in advance of the actual collapse, this was proof that the BBC had prior knowledge. Therefore, in his eyes, this was clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, that Larry Silverman (owner of the complex), plus all of the alphabet networks, the CIA, the Mossad, the U.S. military, and many high-level government officials, were all in on the plot.
So instead of this fellow realizing that on that chaotic day of mass hysteria, reporting was at times confused and downright errant, he chose to believe that thousands knew of the supposed conspiratorial plans to bring down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 through controlled demolition, to wreak havoc on the Pentagon through a missile strike, and to shoot down Flight 93 (that they insist didn’t crash in Shanksville).
As a sidebar, I have always found it absurd for the conspiracists to claim that covert operators within our government issued a stand-down order to the military tasked with protecting U.S. airspace (and especially Washington) and then argue that “Flight 93 was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in midair, scattering the wreckage over a large area.” So, if the intent was to wreak the most havoc possible why shoot Flight 93 down miles away from nowhere? Why not let the airliner hit the White House, Capitol Building or some other equally vital icon? And why, if the military was told to stand-down, would they have shot down Flight 93? It makes no sense to their narrative.
And that’s the point. Conspiracists have a nasty habit of throwing as much conjecture against the wall hoping something will stick. “I just think the official narrative sounds fishy”, they say. Their theories, when taken to their logical extremes, are nonsensical. And in typical fashion, after they realize one particular argument doesn’t fly, they say, “I’m just asking questions.” Asking questions is something we all ought to do regarding every event. We should never take the government’s word for anything. But finding a few anomalies, that on balance are nothing more than what one would expect in a highly fluid catastrophic event (with so many moving parts), does not a conspiracy make.
Yes, indeed, the 19 hijackers were just a bunch of poor Muslim patsies scapegoated so that the U.S. could muster the moral justification to invade Iraq while ultimately stealing their oil. Or so it has been argued. So why weren’t any of the patsies actually from Iraq? Couldn’t the sociopathic NWO masterminds who were supposedly orchestrating the attack, have managed to throw a few Iraqis into the flight manifests? And why does the U.S. import a lesser percentage of oil post-Gulf War than it did while Hussein was in power? These menacing little factoids don’t matter to the true believer.
Further, consider this. Why would the triumvirate of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld have used four planes (two to strike the Twin Towers, one to merely fly over the Pentagon, and one to shoot down), as some sort of magician’s misdirection? Why not crash all four planes into hard targets to create the most damage?
A friend, deep into the rabbit hole, scolded me, “Use your HEAD, man!” As if I was the one who was living in a dream world void of reality. But using my head is quite frankly what eventually woke me from my conspiratorial stupor. Instead of watching one propaganda flick which is riddled with lies and half-truths, I began to do some serious research. I decided to be a Berean and not simply believe what I’d been told. And so, after reading thousands of website pages and viewing the video evidence in detail, I climbed out of the rabbit hole and left the cozy confines of conspiracism.
The bottom line is that people will believe whatever is necessary to confirm their bias. And even when confronted with the improbability of their conspiracy theory, undaunted they simply ignore the evidence, get verbally aggressive and move on to force the next square peg anomaly into their conspiratorial round hole. Anything to make the world less complex.
So this latest Seal shooter revelation is further proof that massive conspiracies are as improbable as a snowy day in San Francisco. People don’t keep secrets even in the most well-confined events, much less the 9/11 granddaddy of them all.
My recommendation? Break down every conspiracy claim and determine if it can stand on its own merit. Don’t fall prey to allowing the massive number of bogus claims overwhelm you. A hundred false claims do not the truth make.
One concluding thought. For goodness sake, don’t watch one clever YouTube vid and believe you have all the facts. One of the guys obsessed with 9/11 being an inside job, did just that. He actually made the following statement which he believed was proof that WTC 7 had to have been collapsed by controlled demolition. “Your video [which simply showed the WTC 7 collapse in real time] shows NADA of this. NOTHING ON TOP OF THIS BUILDING absolutely NOTHING because they were turned into DUST!!!”
I don’t mean to sound unkind, but this is complete nonsense, devoid of reality. The slick “Loose Change” movie producers, using carefully selected video clips, led this dear brother to believe that the Twin Towers were basically vaporized into what conspiracists like John Lear and Judy Wood refer to as nano-dust. How could they come to this conclusion if they watched ANY of the video footage of the collapse?
Watch the following to see the kind of “nano-dust” that fell to the ground during the collapse. They hauled away massive amounts of steel, but the revisionist’s theories are so compelling to the uninformed, they don’t even do a cursory fact check.
Conspiracism is a rabid form of cynicism that is not serving us well. It’s both crippling and debilitating, and it causes such a severe malaise that one is left feeling disenfranchised and helpless. Ultimately people remove themselves from the political process believing that their vote and voice are worthless. Clearly, our government is seriously flawed. And yes, it conceals far more than it ought. But blaming the government for things done by terrorists is not only unhealthy but it’s intellectually dishonest. Don’t allow a small group of cyber-conspiracists to control the debate. Think for yourself.
A FB friend posted a snippet of a 2010 Bill Gates’ speech, “Innovating to Zero”, where Gates essentially outlined what he believed are grave environment problems that will guarantee cataclysmic results. He specifically referenced global warming through greenhouse gas emissions as the main culprit. One of his methods to reduce C02 is through global Population (P in the equation below) reduction. Though I have serious issues with Gates’ alarmist environmental claims (which I dealt with in a prior blog), my intent here is to focus on one particular facet of a statement which I shall quote in a moment.
Because the amount of CO2 emitted correlates to world population (with developed countries emitting far more of the environmental load), Gates briefly mentioned ways to reduce the projected world population (currently at 6.8B headed to 9B), including “reproductive health services” i.e. abortion and contraception, and also the vaccine initiatives. Following is the exact quote from the lecture.
“Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that [the population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. (article HERE, video below)
Did you catch that? One can certainly understand how abortion and contraception lower world population, but how in the world can new vaccines and better health services also shrink population. Aren’t vaccines designed to prevent disease?
Well, not according to the way Natural News and the many other conspiratorial-minded websites, interpreted Gates’ intentions. Natural News reposted just the first 3 minutes of the 30-minute lecture and changed the title to, Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care.” And off they went with their NWO (New World Order) diatribe accusing Mr. Microsoft of plotting to wipe out millions. But is that truly what Gates meant by the above statement? Even if that was his intent, would he be so brazen to telegraph his diabolical plan to kill off half the world?
Though I couldn’t disagree with Gates more on his bogus global warming assertions, and I despise (is that a harsh enough word?) his pro-abortion initiatives, anyone with a modicum of common sense should have known that Gates, in that 2010 speech, was not talking about euthanizing large population centers with some sort of killer drug disguised as a vaccine. Talk about confirmation bias!
Admittedly, though he sounded a bit like Mr. Hyde with some severely demented logic, he was essentially saying that reducing infant deaths by using vaccines and providing better health care, reduces a family’s fears of losing their children through disease. Therefore, he argued, that they’re not as apt to have as many children to compensate for the expected infant deaths. And given the following stats, one need not wonder why.
Diphtheria–760,000 deaths
Hepatitis B–12,700,000 deaths
Measles–96,700,000 deaths
Meningitis-21,900,000 deaths
Polio–130,000 deaths (and who knows how many permanently crippled)
Smallpox–400,000,000 deaths (yes, 400 million)
Tetanus–37,000,000 deaths
Whooping cough–38,100,000 deaths
Gates wrote in his 2009 Annual Letter, that a “surprising but critical fact [is] that reducing the number of [infant] deaths actually reduces population growth.”
He continued by explaining the theory that “parents will have more children when infant mortality is high, so as to ensure that several children will survive to take care of them as they grow old.”
Furthering that argument in a 2008 CNN interview, he said, “If you improve health in a society … surprisingly, population growth goes down. And that’s because a parent needs to have some children survive into adulthood to take care of them when they’re old. And so, if they think having six children is what they need to do to have at least two survive, that’s what they’ll do. And amazingly, across the entire world, as health improves, then the population growth actually is reduced.”
If Natural News had done a simple internet search or called the Gates Foundation directly, they would have preempted this false accusation. And if my friend would have done the same, it would have saved them the embarrassment of propagating a falsehood. One has to wonder if Natural News chose to close their eyes or if they simply wanted to believe the lie since it confirmed their bias against the nefarious “they”. This kind of bogus reporting, which seems all too typical of Natural News and similar conspiratorial “watchdog” organizations, makes the many Christians who share their blogs look rather foolish. But this raises the wider question about vaccines. Are they as dangerous, and are they’re makers as evil as they’re made out to be.
Consider the fact that Small Pox, Polio, and Influenza have killed and crippled hundreds of millions. Do Natural News and the anti-vaxers really want to return to those days? It has been estimated that nearly 1.7 billion people have died from infectious diseases. Though Dr. Mercola points out that the Gates Foundation vaccination programs are not necessarily what malnourished, dehydrated, children living in squalor, need, vilifying Bill Gates as some sort of a sociopathic monster waging a murderous population control campaign through the use of vaccines, is libelous and irresponsible. Natural News and others who spread this disinformation ought to be ashamed of themselves.
If we don’t do a better job of holding these kinds of organizations accountable, we’re going to continue to look like fools to the world… and not for the right reasons. And the Gospel’s proliferation will be compromised simply because too many Christians are passing along these errant stories lessening our credible by the day.
In closing, let me leave you with some food for thought about vaccines. I apologize in advance for the occasional foul language in the following video, but I offer it to you to dispel some of the anti-vaccine rhetoric that I continue to hear. In my view, too much of what we take at face value from the alternative medicine community is poorly researched. Though I put little trust in traditional medicine in dealing with cancer and immune disorders, I’ve found that I was throwing too many babies out with the bath water. As Bereans, we tend to disbelieve anything and everything coming out of the establishment, but I have found this to be imprudent. Everything should be studied on a case by case basis. Vaccines are no different than anything else.
Global warming is a fact, the polar ice caps are melting and industrialization is the root cause. Well, that’s at least what the “experts” are telling us.
Is our planet really in a dangerous state of warming precipitated by human activity? Are we truly on an imminent and ominous Armageddon type collision course lest we immediately and resoundingly throttle back our greenhouse gas production? One need only listen to the Paul Revere style rhetoric of Al Gore, John McCain and the true believers in this “climate crisis”, to realize that more than science is fueling this movement. It has reached religious fervor and, according to them, only ignorant neanderthals incapable of objective inquiry and open-mindedness could possibly disagree with their conclusions. The facts, they say, stand decidedly in their corner.
Listen, I have no ax to grind. I want to be a faithful steward of God’s provision. If we need to alter our behavior to save the planet from calamity, I have no problem making the necessary changes. However, in my view, the interpretation of the facts may not be quite as clear as the climate crisis advocates would have us believe. In the “The Mind-Blowing Truth about Global Warming that Nobody Talks About”, blogger Steven Bancarz makes the following rather insightful observation.
“Every single planet in our solar system is experiencing the exact same changes the earth is experiencing. Uranus, Pluto, Mercury, Mars, you name it. Global warming is not an effect unique to the earth, but is instead a universal phenomenon that is happening throughout the entire solar system in ways that have been documented by Hubble, NASA, BBC, CNN, and mainstream university professors and scientists all over the world. Every celestial body in our solar system is undergoing dramatic changes, meaning that global warming on earth would still be happening even if it was uninhabited by humans.”
If you are confused by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and wonder if the global warming denialists are full of hot air, I highly recommend the following videos. I think you will find that science is not as decidedly on the side of the alarmists as they would have you believe.
One closing word of caution. Though some climate alarmists appear to have an anti-free- market agenda, I don’t think it’s prudent to jump on the conspiratorialist bandwagon as so many are prone to do. Every issue must be weighed individually and should not be linked into some web of NWO (New World Order) conspiratorial fear-mongering dogma. You don’t have to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing were false flag hoaxes, to realize that humans are not the enemy of God’s gracious provision.
Should we be responsible stewards of the earth? Absolutely! However, the fact remains that global warming and cooling are phenomena which have been cyclical since the creation without regard to human activity. So it seems prudent that we ought not assault industry until we have a far better handle on this issue. And after watching the above videos I think you will find that man-made global warming is anything but a certainty.
Who recently said, “Either convert them or kill them?” An Islamic terrorist or Cleric, right? It clearly sounds like Middle East rhetoric we’ve heard before, but in this instance, it was a famous Christian duck hunter.
Phil Robertson seems like a very committed believer. In reading the book, “Duck Commander”, I came away with three thoughts. He really, really, really like to kill ducks (never heard of so many varieties), he’s a very simple man who loathes technology, and he loves the Lord. I believe he and his family are bold and courageous in their willingness to stave off political correctness and speak affirmatively concerning Christian values.
In reaction, a FB friend’s repost simply stated, “‘Convert them or kill them.’ Congratulations, Phil, you just taught the philosophy of Islam.“ I found the ensuing debate rather intriguing and invigorating. Many Christians supported Robertson with a “get them before they get us” mentality, The first response was, “He ain’t wrong when it comes to radical Islam. However, since a conversion is unlikely with these radicals, just save time and go to option 2”. Another posited, “If Christians and “Christian nations” do not bring “liberty and justice” to the world, then who the hell will.” Yet another expressed an entirely different point of view when he simply wrote, “He’s Phil’s Christ”, and then linked the following photo of Jesus holding a 50 caliber machine gun.
To a wildly cheering crowd, John Hagee (video link) has made similar statements regarding the Palestinians, Muslims and what he regards as the terrorist state of Iran. A number of years ago he proclaimed, “It is time for America to consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel and a nuclear attack in America.” I refer to this as the Hagee commandment, “Nuke unto others before they nuke unto you.”
The fellow who posted the Hagee video which included the above quote, wrote, “It’s time for all americans [sic] to rise up and nuck [sic] the terrorists in Iran before they come over here and hop on the Al Ciada naval ships and reign down nuckler terror on America! It’s time to say no to the racists and liberal ku klux klan nazi members like Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul who just want us to roll over and surreder [sic] to the terrorists.”
Though this guy (whom I have a great deal of respect for) could clearly benefit from a little spell check (which in and of itself makes him sound extreme), I don’t find his sentiment all that unusual. Perhaps most are not quite as blatant in their militaristic attitudes, but it appears that he’s clearly not out of the dispensational mainstream. Just watch the Hagee video and take a good look at the crowd as they cheer his war cry.
At another time, John Hagee and Benny Hinn gathered to pray to lead “this nation into war…“ Though the Hagee ministry eliminated this prayer session from public view based upon “copyright infringement”, it can still be found here: John Hagee With Benny Hinn: Praying For War, In the Name Of Jesus. Certainly doesn’t remind me a whole lot of Jesus’ sermon on the mount’s “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called son of God.” How did we get so far from the prayers for peace?
But as much as it feeds our sense of justice to hold savages and terrorists to an account, is this a Biblically sanctioned response? ISIS may be out of control, but to pray for the annihilation of a sovereign nation that has NEVER attacked us (Iran), seems less than prudent.
The question we must answer is if Hagee’s and Robertson’s message is that of Jesus and the NT authors? Where does “love your enemies” and “pray for those who persecute you“ come into the equation? Every last disciple (and yes, I believe John is included) died martyrs. Stephen didn’t even pick up a rock in self-defense and as he was dying said, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And the one time a disciple attempted to use aggression to thwart the enemies of Christ, Jesus rebuked him and restored the ear of the enemy.
So are Phil Robertson and John Hagee correct? What should we do? Following is an interview with Semse Aydin, the Christian Widow Who Forgave the men who brutally tortured and murdered her husband and two other missionaries in Turkey.
In closing, please consider the following article, “Phil Robertson preaches Islamic doctrine? Convert or die?, as Joel McDurmon of American Vision weighs in on this debate. He wrote, “While Robertson’s sentiment resonates with a lot of people, especially conservatives stirred to outrage by gruesome videos of alleged beheadings and alleged threats to “America,” we must step back for a moment and check our reaction.
On the surface of this quotation, Robertson’s response is little more than the doctrine of the very Islamic “thugs on steroids” he would confront. “Convert them or kill them,” is no different than the classic Islamic battle cry: “convert or die!” Is this really the response Christians should have? Is this what the Bible teaches? Is this even what the allegedly harsh and outdated Old Testament ethics for war would prescribe? No, it is not.
One of my all-time favorite songs, John Newton’s 1772 “Amazing Grace”, contains some of the sweetest words ever written. “I once was lost but now I’m found, was blind but now I see”. God’s love, grace, and mercy are truly amazing!
The healed blind man said it first, “…one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” (John 9:25) A whole new world opened up to him. What a powerful metaphor for our spiritual condition prior to faith in Christ.
As you may be aware, Chris Tomlin’s updated rendition of Amazing Grace (My chains fell off), eliminated the last verse and included the following.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow
The sun forbear to shine
But God, Who called me here below,
Will be forever mine.
Will be forever mine.
You are forever mine.
What you may not know is that Chris’ version, though a slight alteration of the one found in most hymnals, was, in fact, a revival of Newton’s original (published in 1779).
John Newton, 1779, Olney Hymns Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears reliev’d; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believ’d!
Thro’ many dangers, toils, and snares, I have already come; ‘Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promis’d good to me, His word my hope secures; He will my shield and portion be As long as life endures.
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease; I shall possess, within the veil, A life of joy and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, The sun forbear to shine; But God, who call’d me here below, Will be forever mine.
Do you notice the difference between Newton’s original and the one in the hymnal below?
In the mid-1800s,the verse, “When we’ve been there ten thousand years…” replaced the apocalyptic predictions of Newton.
With that revelation, two questions immediately sprang to mind.
1. Why was Newton’s “the earth will soon be dissolved like snow” replaced?
2. And why did Chris Tomlin bring it back?
Clearly, Newton believed like so many before him, that the current world conditions at the end of the 18th century signaled the end of the planet. And this point is critical because we continue to repeat his error. There is a doom and gloom atmosphere that pervades today’s Church as it has for the many generations before ours. The church seems to believe the worst about everything. The currency, financial markets, and society as a whole are always assumed to be on a crash course. But given the sordid track record of these doomsayers, should that not at least cause us pause?
Since Newton penned this beloved song so long ago (241 years to be exact), is that perhaps the reason this verse was eventually eliminated? Did someone finally realize that an event can’t be perpetually imminent? That, since the earth did not dissolve “soon” as Newton expected, it became somewhat of an embarrassment? How long will it be before we stop to realize that something cannot be forever on the verge?
In a sermon, this Sunday morn, the pastor, in his attempt to explain away the imminence of 1 Peter 4:7 (“The end of ALL THINGS is NEAR…”), did his best to ignore what Peter actually said. Because, in the pastor’s mind, Peter couldn’t possibly have really meant that the end of all things actually was NEAR (Greek eggizo). Surely Peter didn’t mean that the earth was ABOUT TO dissolve as snow, given the fact that he’d penned these words in the earthly AD 60s, almost 2,000 years ago… slightly less than a GENERATION after Jesus proclaimed, “This GENERATION will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS take place” (Matt 24:34)?
Even after reading two verses earlier “…to Him who is READY TO JUDGE the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5), the pastor immediately dispelled the notion that Peter, an inspired Apostle, meant exactly what he wrote. After all, the pastor quipped, Peter never said that the end of all things would take place in his GENERATION.
Do you realize what this dear pastor was arguing? Even though Peter’s teacher, Messiah, friend, and Savior, made that exact statement some 3 decades earlier, simply because Peter didn’t use the word GENERATION, “near” basically meant nothing. I’m sorry, but this kind of logic is, well, not logical. This pastor apparently doesn’t understand the ground he’s giving the atheists and mockers of our day. We need to be prepared to give a defense, and this, in my view, is not it.
The reason Peter made that and other bold time-sensitive assertions was in direct response to the claims of Jesus Christ. Not only had Jesus said that “ALL THESE THINGS” would take place within a GENERATION of His audience, but He made it abundantly clear that He would return before His disciples finished going through the cities of Israel while a few were still alive. (Matt 10:23; 16:27-28). And, in the Revelation, Jesus at this point (approx AD 62) sitting at the right hand of the Father in full knowledge of the events about to transpire, told John “Things which are to SOON take place…for the TIME IS NEAR.” (Rev 1:1,3)
So, respectfully, we must not continue to make these kinds of excuses for the Word of God. If we will begin to interpret the Bible in context, we will find out how amazing it really is.
So why did Tomlin remove the one verse (below) that instills the inevitable i.e. our date with death? I can’t answer that but it is, in my opinion, what our focus should be. All of our lives will “soon dissolve as snow”. We are here but for an instant. Our life is but a vapor in the wind. And so it is that we must not waste even a moment.
For centuries, the millions if not billions who have awaited the return of Jesus, have one thing in common. They have all died. So doesn’t it seem that our focus should be on our life that will eventually fade? How precious is this verse?
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease; I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
Concerning Newton’s last verse, a blogger wrote, “There will come a time when the “earth will soon dissolve like snow” — melting snow is something that we’ve all seen either in person or remotely.
This comment is a microcosm of the modern-day problem and is not dissimilar to that which the pastor said this morning. The majority have become so desensitized concerning time (the misinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 is at the hub) that they don’t recognize this kind of faulty logic. Do you see it how inane this is? They are saying that there will come a time when the earth will SOON dissolve? Really? Is that what Newton meant by “the earth will soon dissolve like snow”? Was he ambivalent about the timing of the end? Did he mean that one day in the distant future the earth would SOON dissolve? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
If I tell my wife, “I’ll be there soon, honey,” does that mean that at some future time when I finally decide to leave the office, that I’ll be there soon? Can you imagine what she would say if that was my excuse for not coming home when she expected? How do you think this would sell? “Honey, I only meant that when I left, I would be there shortly.” These are the kinds of ludicrous leaps of logic that arise from having to support a very faulty eschatological system.
It has come to the point where words don’t mean a thing. Christians read the first verse in the Revelation, “…things which MUST take place SHORTLY”, and they are so conditioned to ignore the simplest time-sensitive language that they don’t even consider the impact. I’ve spoken to countless folks who have engaged in rather extensive Bible studies on the book of Revelation, and when I ask them what “must take place shortly” means, they look at me almost incredulously as if to say, “We all know that shortly can mean thousands of years.”
The reality is that John Newton, however well-intentioned, joined the long list of false prophets when he wrote, “The earth will soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine.”
So why then did Chris Tomlin bring that verse back?
Perhaps he was motivated by his eschatological presuppositions? In my view, Chris made the same mistake as Newton. No doubt Chris believes, that given the state of affairs today, the earth will in-fact SOON dissolve like snow. And he’s looking forward to it!
However, I want to know why, when he sings this verse, that he thinks soon actually conveys something that is actually AT HAND? If the inspired NT writers weren’t implying imminence when they used terms like “shortly“, “soon“, “at hand“, “quickly” and “in a very little while“, time becomes totally irrelevant and it would be impossible to hold a prophet accountable. So why would Chris use what has so often been characterized as a Biblically ambiguous term? (for a more comprehensive look at the Biblical usages of imminent language click HERE)
The kind of de-creation apocalyptic verbiage Tomlin brought back (earth dissolving like snow) is found in the Olivet discourse (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) and in the Revelation as the 6th seal is opened (Rev 6). So when were all these cataclysmic events supposed to take place? Written in Approx AD 62, Jesus, through the Angel, told John…
Revelation 1:1-3 (NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
So, what’s going on? If the calamitous events Tomlin references were imminent 2,000 years ago but never happened, what makes him think they’ll happen soon? Do you see the problem? The issue is not with God’s faithfulness but rather our understanding of what is referred to as “apocalyptic language“.
When the Bible refers to this kind of judgment de-creation language like the moon turning into blood, the stars falling from the sky, and the sun ceasing to shine, we need to determine if these prophetic words have EVER spoken of the literal/natural? The answer is, not even once. (for a fuller discussion click HERE) Until we understand the context and genre of apocalyptic language, we will continue to get stuck in the eschatological quagmire.
So what’s actually going on here? What kind of expectations is Tomlin creating? If you expect the earth to dissolve in the near-term, how will that affect your expectations both in the near-term and long-term? Will it cause any lifestyle changes? Will you begin hoarding food? Will it incline you to become a prepper? Will you see any manifestation of societal degradation as an inevitable sign of the end? If you believe the world is on a crash course toward certain implosion, there’s little chance that you’ll have the necessary resolve to effect transformation for God’s ultimate glory? For the past 50 years “occupy until I come” has been the common refrain. Occupy? Is that truly what Christianity has become?
The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians that the “time is short…for the form of this world is passing away”(1 Cor 7:29-31). And because they were nearing the end, what was Paul’s admonition? To remain as they were! “So that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it…” So why aren’t Christians heeding this message if they truly believe that we only have a short time left? Why aren’t Christians remaining as they are?
The reason is because, even if they won’t admit it, instinctively they know that Paul was warning the recipients of his letter (AD 57) with no regard whatever to us today. Scripture must be read in context lest we develop some very strange conclusions.
Chris Tomlin is a gifted songwriter as evidenced by the wonderfully inspiring verse (our chains have fallen off and we truly have been set free!), but the problem is that he’s spreading an eschatological system that is simply not supported by Scripture. Isn’t it rather audacious to say that soon actually means soon today, but it didn’t mean soon when Peter or Paul wrote it?
The crux of the matter is that the experts have led us to believe that, when Peter wrote, “The end of all things is near“ that he was referring to the end of the planet. Neither Jesus nor Peter were referring to the physical end of the universe, but instead, the end of the Old Covenant age that was growing old and ready to disappear. (Heb 8:13) Consider the following:
Revelation 6:12-17 (NASB) I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
If this passage is to be interpreted literally/naturally, do you notice the glaring problem? A dark sun, a blood-red moon, stars crashing onto planet earth, the sky splitting and rolling up while every mountain moves out of its place… and yet people are hiding under rocks? Are you kidding me? What rocks? Why in the world would anyone hide under a rock after the entire Milky Way had obliterated our planet? This de-creation language is poetic and symbolic but it was never intended to be taken naturally/physically. Yes, judgment was clearly coming upon the generation of Christ-killers and it was devasting just as Peter and the inspired Bible authors foretold, but not one star ever fell from the sky.
If you would like proof that these things happened within the predicted timing (this generation), I highly recommend the following short book with a really long title, “The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and IrresistibleProof of the Divine Origin of Christianity including a narrative of the calamities which befell the Jews, so far as they tend to verify our Lord’spredictions relative to that event. With a brief description of the city and the temple” written in 1805 by George Peter Holford. With titles so verbose who needs to read the book? 🙂
We have unambiguous historical proof that these events did indeed take place “soon” as Jesus returned with both blessings and cursings. The holy city was destroyed along with the temple that will never be rebuilt. The sun never again shined on the Jewish nation that killed their Messiah as 1.1 million Jews died the most horrific holocaust that nation would ever see.
So the next time you sing this song or any song for that matter, ask yourself if each verse is Biblically supported. If truth matters, it seems that we ought to become more theologically discerning. Music is a simply marvelous venue with which to dispense sound theology, but if it a song is not theologically sound, the danger is that it can easily escape our filters and become inculcated into our views.
Perhaps “the earth shall soon dissolve like snow” should in-fact be permanently replaced with:
Why do so many of these otherwise inspiring songs, begin or end with lyrics like, “Gather around, wait for the sound, the King is coming”, or other similar, “Jesus is coming soon” type lyrics? Though these kinds of emotionally charged words of imminent anticipation are guaranteed to tug a crowd’s heartstrings and send them into a frenzy, the question is, how long will it be before we begin to seriously scrutinize the underlying eschatological system that constantly produces these failed expectations?
Few seem to wonder why, if Jesus has been imminently coming for 2,000 years, that He still hasn’t returned. Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick, and right now the sickness of failed expectations is causing too many Christians to question the veracity of the Bible. Let me be clear that I truly appreciate groups like Warr Acres and their commitment to Jesus. What frustrates me is that these uplifting songs are tainted with what I believe is poor eschatology. I’ve been hearing “The King is coming” since the early 70s. Matter of fact, James wrote, “The coming of the Lord is at hand…the judge is standing at the door”, almost 2,000 years ago. (James 5:8-9)
Seriously, I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but what do you believe Jesus waiting for? Perhaps, according to some, the complete disintegration of our culture? The decline of the Gospel’s influence? If He’s supposedly waiting for a low point, why didn’t He return before the 16th-century reformation? Or why didn’t he return before the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock just prior to Christianity’s explosion into the new world? Or why not just after the Civil War when brother killed brother to the tune of 750,000? Or after 100 million died due to WW1 and the Spanish flu pandemic?
The fact is that the world isn’t getting worse in spite of the constant insistence by many Christians who have been misled to believe that the worse things become the closer we are to the return of Christ. I’m sorry, but this is just plain bad eschatology.
Where is the overcoming nature of the Gospel which is found in the Epistles of John?
What’s interesting is that, in the midst of our eschatological schizophrenia, we sing songs with the following overcoming type lyrics:
Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God…
Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God…
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
What can stand against?
Yes, indeed, who can stand against? The reality is that many of us don’t believe a word of it because we believe that the Antichrist-led one-world government is coming, natural disasters are about to increase and world chaos will soon overcome us.
Until we undergo a rather expansive and systematic eschatological makeover and begin to believe that no one can ever stop the advance of the Gospel, our society will continue to decline and we will continue to blindly sing “Gather around, wait for the sound, the King is coming”. The power of the Gospel is being compromised and this is having a rather chilling effect.
Perhaps those who say they take the Bible literally will one day take the following verse literally instead of trying to rewrite it to fit their eschatological conclusions. In the meantime, how many more hundreds or even thousands of years before the Church figures out how long a generation is? (Matthew 24:34) Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
For an alternative view that maintains the integrity of God’s Word, consider the following podcast in which the events surrounding the close of the Canon near the end of the age are kept in context. Historical Review (AD 64-66)
Take a few moments to listen to this famous John F. Kennedy speech. In it, President Kennedy talks about secret societies, secret oaths, secret proceedings and a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means to accomplish a grand scheme of world domination.
Questions abound. Was he speaking, as many presume, about the machinations of the infamous New World Order? Were shadow organizations like Skull and Bones, the Bilderbergers and the Illuminati, in JFK’s cross-hairs? Was he assassinated because he was exposing the NWO and it’s shadowy FED Reserve banking system? Was Kennedy warning us of an impending anti-Christ led one-world government? Many believe that a cabal of rich bankers and megalomaniacs, who are secretly plotting and successfully engineering their plans of world dominion, were directly responsible for JFK’s assassination. Watch this short video and draw your own conclusions as to whether President Kennedy was warning us of this impending NWO takeover or something else more pertinent at the time. JFK has been heralded as the man who exposed these nefariously intentioned globalists. Listen and decide.
Were you aware (as is pointed out at the end of the video) that this April 21, 1961 speech was actually 2,249 words, not just the 181 words that have been carefully edited to foster the above assumptions? Most are as shocked as I was to find that this speech had nothing whatsoever to do with exposing the Rothschilds, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or any of the aforementioned clandestine players. Kennedy’s actual target? Sorry to disappoint you, but he was speaking of the inherent and imminent threat of Communism as the tensions were being played out in the cold war. Don’t believe me? Then listen to the entire unedited speech (below) – (for the text version click HERE).
When I first became aware of this dirty little secret propagated by conspiratorialists like Alex Jones, Edward G. Griffin, and Texe Marrs, I was really miffed. How dare these agenda-driven provocateurs attempt to dupe us into subscribing blindly to their paranoia at our expense and their financial gain! They’ve created quite a cottage industry. And the sad reality is that truth doesn’t sell nearly like sensationalism. So, since this myth fits neatly into our pre-programmed perceptions of a coming one-world government (promulgated by doom and gloom premillennial eschatology), most never bother to do any fact-checking. Christians have become a rather gullible lot.
So, why is this JFK matter important? Because it is one of the NWO conspiracy theory building blocks. If John F. Kennedy gave his life for the cause which conspiratorialists insist was the case, i.e. opposing the monolithic cabal of international “banksters”, then we, who love freedom, should be compelled to take action in fighting this grandiose beast. However, if JFK was actually speaking of the communist agenda, this changes the landscape a great deal. For context, the following is the entire unedited Waldorf-Astoria Hotel speech delivered on April 21, 1961 speech.
As with most conspiracies, certain things must be believed before other things, less demonstrable (coincidental anomalies), will become convincing. In other words, if the cornerstone of a theory is found to be riddled with major cracks, all the peripheral stones (anomalies) laid neatly atop the foundation can no longer be supported and thus the entire structure collapses. (So it is with most conspiracy theories, especially ones with a massive scope.) Once the structure ceases to exist, the stones which appeared to have ominous meaning and purpose as part of the overall framework, become nothing more than random, isolated rocks strewn across the ground. And therefore, the beautiful conspiratorial edifice becomes nothing more than a pile of rather meaningless rubble. Such has been the case with the misuse and abuse of the actions and speeches of JFK.
What I have found is that most who think that JFK was warning us of an impending world takeover by these shadowy overlords, also subscribe to a host of other conjoined false flag conspiracies like:
1. 9/11 was an inside job 2. The Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax(complete with crisis actors) 3. The Aurora movie theater rampage was a hoax 4. TheBoston Marathon bombing was a hoax (complete with crisis actors and fake blood) Each of the above events, I am constantly told, were nothing more than false flag operations with the sole intent to turn the populous against our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And, over the past 13 years since 9/11, because the government bureaucracy has burgeoned while our freedoms have dwindled (this cannot be disputed), one need not wonder why people have become more suspicious, cynical and easily persuaded that “they” are out to get us.
So, after coming to the realization that this particular speech, and JFK’s presidency as a whole, was not centered around opposing the international bankers, the FED and all the exclusive organizations that are presumed to further their cause, have your presuppositions been compromised as mine were? I began to wonder how many other pieces of the conspiratorial puzzle may have been similarly manipulated? What other issues have been carefully crafted to cause us to buy into this kind of paranoia?
Listen, I’m not arguing that conspiracies are always confined to active imaginations, forever ordering facts to fit one’s predetermined paradigm. But what I am saying, is that I think we need to be more diligent to put, not only the establishment to the test, but also those who summarily oppose them. It must not be assumed that just because someone or some group is anti-establishment, that they don’t have agendas clouding reality.
Following is an interview that I found rather intriguing. Yes, both the interviewer and interviewee are decidedly left-leaning (to some this means among other things, untruthful, – and I reject this broad-brush assumption), but I think they expose an underlying narrative that is controlling the perceptions of many on the far right. These conspiratorial views of a nefarious worldwide cabal of evil Bond villains meld quite nicely with the apocalyptic beliefs of many Christians and because of this, we often scrutinize the building blocks of conspiratorialism far less than we ought. In other words, just because some movement opposes the establishment does not make those who do so decidedly and singularly altruistic. Follow the money and you will find that noted conspiracists (who congeal and coalesce everything into a monolithic agenda) have plenty of profit incentives no less than those they constantly attempt to demonize. And, as a footnote, I think there ought to be a distinction between being part of the extreme right-wing and being a Libertarian. Standing for free markets and morality-based capitalism doesn’t mean one must necessarily subscribe to the conspiratorial paranoia. Though many libertarians are deeply embroiled in conspiracism (partly because of their distrust of the establishment), this should not, in my view, be an integral component of Libertarianism. The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” appears to be the script which many of the conspiratorialists like Alex Jones are reading.
I have learned to constantly confront my worldview with competing and opposing worldviews. It’s the only way to remain intellectually honest.
But the tendency is to do the opposite. We want to continually reinforce our beliefs, not challenge them. This produces fertile ground for the propagation of false narratives, basically connecting dots that are, in fact, unrelated. Watching the above video is an example of that process being played out. Though I don’t subscribe to very much of what these men believe, I have come to realize that we can learn a great deal from those with whom we disagree.
For a fuller discussion of this entire JFK issue, clickHERE and HERE. The latter of these links deals with many JFK misquotes like the one below.
I just got a call from the Windows Service Center notifying me that my computer was sending out infected files. Holy Trojan Horse, Batman!
This chap said he was authorized to stop these viruses from spreading. He said, “Are you at your computer right now?” This kind gentleman was about to relieve me of my viruses, trojans and other dangerous files. “I can take care of it quickly”, he said rather confidently, “Just follow my instructions.”
It was a Pakistani sounding guy who said his name was Benjamin Watson. When I laughed out loud he said, “Why are you laughing?” I said, “What a coincidence. My name is Habib Patel and I’m from Islamabad”. LoL
After my continued prying (since at that point I was still a bit dazed and confused) he finally coughed up his phone number which he said proves he’s with the Windows Service Center. (832) 426-2444. So he said, “Go ahead and call that number to verify.” So I said, “What does that prove other than the fact that you have a phone number?” (After I got off the phone, I called the number. After 9 rings, some fellow who sounded like he was in a cave with bin Laden said, “Windows Service Center, can I help you?” See, it was totally legit!!! 🙂
Then, when I asked him how he got my phone number, he said that it was provided at the time I bought my computer. Everybody signs paperwork, right? So I asked him how he got that information and he told me that it came from Microsoft…because the Windows Service Center is a subsidiary of Microsoft. So he went back to his original script and hammered, “If we don’t get this threat removed immediately, it’s going to jeopardize the use of your computer and will affect countless other computers.”
Lastly, I asked for his URL. Even novices know what that is, right? He said that he wasn’t authorized to give out that kind of information. He clearly thought it was like a badge number or something. That’s how knowledgeable this scammer was about computers. So I asked for his website and he said they didn’t have one. By this point, confident I was in the throws of an elaborate scam, I said, “Repeat after me. Ohwa — tadger — QR.” Then I proceeded to tell him that I would report this to the FBI.
This is the scam in action. Amazing how smooth they are. I have to admit, he had me at least questioning for a while. They basically prove to you that you have some problems with your computer (which EVERY computer does and means very little). Then they get you to go to a legitimate website to download a piece of software that gives them FULL control over your computer. After that, you do that you are DONE and I don’t mean that your problems are over. They have just begun and you are in a world of hurt.
One of the best scams I’ve witnessed in a long time. Please don’t fall for it!
*UPDATE: Today (January 23, 2018) I received 4 calls supposedly from Apple Computer. Even the caller ID showed Apple Computer Corp. Of course, it was some Pakistani in a boiler room cranking out the same kind of nonsense as mentioned above. He told me that my Apple ID had been compromised blah, blah blah. So I asked him when he was going to get a real job instead of trying to scam people out of their hard-earned money. Click.
The bottom line: If you receive a phone call from Microsoft, Apple, the IRS or the Social Security Admin, hang up. They will all contact you by mail if they need to get in touch with you.
Charles Meek, a PCA attendee and founder of the first apologetics website (www.faithfacts.org), has written a very challenging book, “Christian Hope through Fulfilled Bible Prophecy.” After attempting to field a constant barrage of eschatological questions, Charles decided to embark on a thorough study of his own. As noted by his subtitle, “Is Your Church Teaching Error about the Last Days and Second Coming?”, Charles believes that the Church needs an eschatological overhaul. This area has been the church’s Achilles heel for far too long. Charles’ arguments are strong and his commitment to the Bible is even stronger. The link below is a short preamble to this most excellent book.
Does this stuff really matter? Yes, I think it does. I believe Biblical inspiration and God’s perceived faithfulness is unwittingly being compromised by today’s most popular view, and something is severely amiss. Taking a quick look at the abysmal record of the “experts” proves that there are serious issues with the current system. Charles does a formidable job of helping to right the ship while restoring Scriptural credibility.
This chart says it all. Look at the headlines (you’ll have to click on the above chart for a larger view) that accompanied the 2013 Russell 3000 climb. The bad news was everywhere but look at the results. As they say, even broken clocks are right twice a day.
As 2014 dawned, the market went into a correction mode. Then we trudged through a 6% market correction with the possibility that another of even greater magnitude may be imminent. Who knows. But the point is that we need to listen to reason. Being intimidated by sensational headlines might be hazardous to your health. Being a realist means not ignoring negative signposts. However, that also means that one must take a comprehensive, balanced approach while not making decisions based upon ominous-sounding headlines.
In a recent article, “Crash of 2014: Like 1929, you’ll never hear it coming” (Feb 24, 2014), Paul B. Farrell, in his usual doomsday fashion, sounded the alarm. Could Farrell be right? Sure, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. He’s listed a number of financial “experts” who agree that this bull run is over. Soros has apparently doubled down on a serious S&P decline.
But what happens if Farrell’s fear-mongering comes and goes with no crash? How many trillions will be lost if he’s wrong? All he wants to talk about are funds lost in a crash. He mentions the trillions lost in 2008 and early 2009. But if they hadn’t turned so frightful and stayed invested, they not only wouldn’t have lost but would have been rewarded handsomely.
Will Farrell ever own up to his prognostication if the sky doesn’t fall in 2014? Most of these guys don’t. They just wait in the wings before sounding their next alarm.
Be careful, be informed, but most of all don’t react emotionally. Fear and greed are not the stuff of sound decisions.
BTW, what happened to the plethora of impending crash predictions over the past twenty-five years? How long have they been predicting the U.S. currency collapse?
Back in 1991, financial guru Larry Burkett, in “The Coming Financial Earthquake“, predicted an imminent financial earthquake? What prompted such a godly, astute man, to make such a faulty prediction, which ended up negatively affecting the lives of untold thousands if not millions? Could the answer be rooted in Burkett’s gloom and doom eschatological presuppositions? The pervading negativity over western Christianity appears out of control. Clearly, we have serious economic problems, but are they truly insurmountable? It’s my view that this infatuation with the end of the world, which many believe is imminent, seems to be causing Christians to lose focus and subconsciously raise the white flag.
JANUARY 2018 UPDATE: After hearing nothing but doom and gloom over the past 4 years (actually it’s been never-ending), things have not panned out quite as badly as has been predicted. By the year-end 2013, the DOW was up 26.3% to a close of 16,576, which was the largest increase since 1995. However, 4 years later, with everybody constantly warning of impending collapse, the DOW is hovering just over 26,000. Who knows how long it will ride, but the fact is that many of the precious-metal doomsayers (many of whom have a vested interest in bear markets) have cost those who have heeded their advice a great deal of money.
The above market chart superimposes the 17 months of the DOW Jones as it led up to the 1929 market crash, our most recent 17 months (Feb/2014). The implication? Get the heck out of dodge because the market’s about to crash!
Have you ever noticed that we’re always about to enter the next great depression? That we’re ever on the verge of a currency collapse? Or that food shortages and massive civil unrest are just a few ticks away? Better start buying guns, ammo, water, freeze-dried foods and stock up on your gold bullion! I never really understood the benefit of having a safe lined with gold during periods of anarchy and societal upheaval. It might be an inflation hedge but it’s not all that nutritious. 🙂 But I digress.
More false dire predictions from John Paul Jackson
Is this “scary parallel” really a reliable indicator warning us of an impending epic tidal wave? Is it really that simple to predict the future? If it’s that easy, why bother with all the technical analyses and all the financial mumbo-jumbo just scour these mountain charts and begin predicting away! It’s as easy as 1-2-3. And you thought the amazing Ronco slicer/dicer was cool!
Ever wonder why the chartster who first recognized this “frightening” similarity, used this particular 17 month time frame? Why not compare the period 24 or 36 months prior to the 1929 precipitous drop? What’s so magical about 17 months? Could it be because the comparisons wouldn’t have been as startlingly similar? Inquiring minds wanna know.
So before jumping off the bridge or cashing in your equities, let’s interject a little common sense into the equation. Consider the following analogy:
Johnny Jones just had a massive, fatal heart attack. Johnny was a 53 year 5’11”, 180lb white male, with a body mass index of 26 and body fat ratio of 20%. All pretty average numbers. So, from this can we successfully predict that every 50-55 year old man with similar stats, is about to die of heart failure? Why not?
Because we haven’t taken into consideration ANY of the vital internal factors that may have contributed to this man’s demise. Did he have coronary artery disease or a heart defect? How about diabetes? Was his blood pressure abnormally high? Did he routinely get too little sleep? Was he under severe job pressures? How about his relationships? Did he exercise regularly?
These kinds of underlying issues are at the heart of the matter. 🙂 So, in comparison, by using one market chart to make predictions, what have we effectively done? We have ignored all the vital factors surrounding the market. Interest rates. P/E ratios. Liquidity. Inflation. Debt ratios. Economic outlook. Legislative climate. Tax policy. Investor sentiment. Fundamentals. Earning growth or decline.
So which of these many factors are known by simply looking at the above market graph? NONE! And that’s the point.
Could we be entering shark infested market waters? Sure, it’s possible, but without considering ALL these factors, I’m simply questioning the prudence of using one chart to predict a massive stock market collapse. Investor sentiment could clearly be negatively affected by this sort of headline, but unless we’re shorting the market hoping for a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn’t this kind of one-note-wonder decision-making, seems rather simpleminded?
Oh really? “Bearish significance” of a time manipulated chart that just so happens to coincide so perfectly? Come on now. All that can be read into one chart with no regard to the zillions of other factors? Something smells rather wharf-like. And given the fact that this 1929 scare piece is still the top story at www.Marketwatch.com, proves that sensationalism sells.
Listen I can’t look into this man’s heart. I don’t know what his motivations are. All I know is that some people are doing everything in their power to sell newsletters, doomsday kits, precious metals and freeze-dried apples. Just because it may prove financially rewarding to shock the world, it seems rather disingenuous to me.
This market may in fact soon be rushed by ambulance to the ER, but chances are that this “scary parallel” won’t have proved to be all that predictive. This internet driven 24/7 information age, is wonderful in many regards, but it can also seriously skew our outlook. I believe that if we don’t begin to temper or even mute the constant drum beat of doom by these fear mongers, we’re all going to be prime candidates for a myocardial infarction! Obviously it’s not healthy to ignore pessimistic data, but it’s the kind of information that’s used to predict declines that is important. And this, in my view, is not it. Not alone anyway.
In closing, let me make clear that I’m not in the least suggesting that you buy, sell or hold. Just don’t be frightened by a single, time-manipulated chart. Perhaps a little prudence is in order.
When discussing biblical matters, how often have do you hear the common refrain, “Well, that’s just your opinion”? So what are the often unstated assertions behind this seemingly innocuous statement? Perhaps, that capturing truth is as difficult as nailing jello to a tree? And, only those overcome with arrogance and self-delusion are audacious enough to claim they’ve discovered the doctrinal Holy Grail?
So, are we hopelessly constrained to the land of opinion with no prayer of certainty about anything? Is there anything that can be known?
Is it possible to develop sound doctrinal conclusions?
Those of us committed to biblical inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) agree that objective truth exists, but the $64,000 question is, how can we KNOW when we’ve found it? To those who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, it’s not just a matter of opinion that Lazarus was raised from the dead or that Saul (the Apostle Paul) was struck by a blinding light before his conversion. But aside from these historical facts, is doctrine relegated to the land of the subjective where it’s always just a matter of opinion?
Considering the following divergence of views, and given the fact that honorable, intelligent believers rest on both sides, developing a degree of conviction may seem daunting and perhaps imprudent. Arminianism vs. Calvinism; premillennialism vs preterism; trinitarianism vs. oneness; infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism; immersion vs. pouring vs. no baptism at all; charismatic gifts are for today vs. the frozen chosen cessantionists…and the list goes on into perpetuity.
Clearly, there are Scriptural issues that, because of complexity, may not warrant dogmatism, but the question remains: Are there bedrock issues which are at least in part, not confined to the land of ethereal subjectivity? In other words, are there building blocks of truth which may ultimately lead one to sound conclusions, or is this the wishful thinking of an arrogant dreamer?
If theological positions are simply matters of opinion, and firm conclusions are merely the fabric of one’s presuppositional persuasions, what inherent value is there in spending countless hours studying the Bible? Reading it, yes. Hiding it in our heart, yes. But why bother with the in-depth study if at best, we can merely develop what amounts to another opinion that may or may not be true? So, if beyond the historical accounts (and some who say they hold to biblical inspiration even spiritualize them e.g. Genesis 1-11 being considered allegorical), we can’t KNOW anything? If not, then why bother?
Seriously, if my conclusions are nothing but a byproduct of my own proclivities, preferences, and presuppositions, and the Bible is as malleable as Silly Putty (which some seem to think), why toil in endless hours of futility?
For example, if I state a doctrinal belief and someone disagrees, are we at an impenetrable impasse with no hope of resolution? Or are there objective methods whereby we can determine if our views are errant?
Let me pause for a moment and offer this disclaimer. I am not talking about the acquisition of truth to either puff one up or to lord over others. There is plenty of mean-spiritedness being passed as a pursuit for doctrinal purity to go around the world twice over. And this makes all of us uneasy. However, regardless how irresponsible and un-Christlike some people act, I do not believe this overrides the fact that, not only does TRUTH exist, but we are exhorted to search for it like a buried treasure.
Is truth possible to approximate?
I recently heard a famous person (billionaire, actually) speak about “your own truth” as if truth is completely subjective.
The Greek word translated truth, altheia, is used 98 times in the New Testament and means “objectively, in reality, certainty and in fact.” Consider a few of the 98:
Luke 1:3-4 (NASB) 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact TRUTH about the things you have been taught.
John 4:23-24 (NASB) “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and TRUTH; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and TRUTH.” John 14:6 (ESV) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 8:31-32 (NASB) So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will make you free.”
2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of TRUTH.
If Jesus exhorted us to worship God in truth, isn’t it implied that we should be able to find it? So how can we KNOW THE TRUTH and be set free by it, if all doctrines are simply matters of personal preference? “Accurately handling the word of truth” is the task of all workmen! God apparently wants us to dig and actually find it!
Given these exhortations, there must be objective standards whereby we can know the truth. And further, by following certain objective methods of discovery (hermeneutics), we can make judgments as to what is and is not true. So, how again do we know when we’ve attained even a small portion of truth?
An unhealthy reliance on the experts
A few years ago, excited after undergoing a rather significant eschatological paradigm shift (which revitalized my spiritual life), I presented my findings to numerous people. Instead of the responses I anticipated like, “That’s amazing, let me check it out more thoroughly” or “I’ve never heard that before but it sounds interesting,” many inevitably said, “Who else believes this?” Admittedly, I was dumbfounded. However, I shouldn’t have been, because this is often how many of us determine what to believe. We find those who we believe are eminently more qualified than us and follow them. And it was no different in the first century.
So, if Paul, an inspired Apostle who was personally visited by the living Christ was exhorting the Corinthians to stop this kind of authority worship, should we not heed his poignant words?
Let’s break down this “Who else believe this?” question which is founded on two beliefs:
1. We don’t believe we have the intellectual capacity and/or educational tools necessary to discover the truth on our own.
2. There are trusted theological gurus to whom we must rely upon. So we must rely on others who we presume are more gifted.
I have no problem not being the “go to” Bible answer man. 🙂 The truth is that we don’t need more gurus but rather more Christian who can confidently rightfully divide the Word. The problem is that most Christians don’t have the confidence to search the Scriptures to “see if these things are so”. (Acts 17:11) They are forced by either laziness or a lack of confidence (I think it’s more often the latter) to rely too heavily upon the opinions of others. And since they haven’t attempted to diligently divide the word of God, there’s not the kind of sincere conviction there ought to be. And one becomes tossed by the winds of the “experts”. So when they find a different guru, their views change. And this fluidity ultimately produces an unhealthy ambivalence.
But don’t misunderstand me at this point. I believe seeking the counsel of trusted advisers is a must. Matter of fact, it’s only prudent to have trusted advisors. So, I’m not in the least suggesting that should avoid consulting those gifted in a particular field or discipline. I regularly listen to the broadcasts of a wide array of preachers and Bible teachers and I have quite a few mature believers whom I consult on a regular basis. Being influenced by those holding various perspectives is healthy and prudent. However, blindly following strong personalities can be unhealthy. This is a very delicate balancing act.
So what I am painstakingly trying to point out, is that too many of us may be relying almost entirely on “experts” (pastors, apologists, theologians, and well-known church figures). If we depend on someone else to do our groundwork (I realize we can’t be the master of all trades), the conclusions we acquire never fully become our own. And therefore, instead of becoming convictions these beliefs are easily shattered by our next Bible answer man.
So it’s often not all that apparent to us that we have become conviction-less followers. Sure, we may vehemently defend a particular view as if that view is closely held. But it all should become obvious when we realize how easily we adopt new views when we change allegiances. That’s why I think it’s of vital importance for us to do the work necessary to develop sound conclusions on our own.
As it currently stands, most of us are content with absorbing the doctrines of those stalwarts of the faith we’ve come to respect. And thus, it most often comes down to credibility. Instead of confidently saying, “Let me study the Scriptures to ‘see if these things are so’”, we tend to line up behind our beloved Bible teacher. I’m of Beth Moore, and I’m of R.C. Sproul and I’m of Charles Stanley or I’m of David Jeremiah. So, with repetitive redundancy let me share this verse once more.
I have a friend, Ed Ferner (www.christeternalchristianchurch.com), who, every time I ask him a question, instead of immediately going to the Bible commentaries and/or consulting someone of “stature”, he’s confident enough to fly solo. And he invariably returns with a very well thought-out answer. And this has always impressed me.
Like Ed, we must begin attempting to ferret these things out with the tools God has given us. Never in the history of Christianity have we had so many Bible tools at our disposal. Never have we had this much access and we don’t even need to leave our computer screen to access a goldmine of resources.
So, how can we learn to more effectively utilize Bible tools to develop truth convictions even if they may deviate from the views of our pastor or our favorite Bible teacher?
The experts have their biases too
Recognizing that no one is void of potentially faulty preconceptions which may derail their conclusions, should spur us to study on our own. And it should be a warning sign that we must not rely solely on them.
What may come as a surprise is that there’s not a living soul among us great or small who is immune from presuppositions and biases that may shield them from the truth. And that includes giants of the faith like Luther, Zwingli, and Spurgeon. These men are no less objectively-challenged than we are. J.I. Packer made that very case inFundamentalism and the Word of God.
We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world. . . . It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has molded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be “catholic” tradition, or “critical” tradition, or “ecumenical” tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures.
And so it is that we all suffer to some extent from false premises that can subliminally derail our objectivity. The first step is coming to that realization. Recognizing that we and those leaders we respect have blind spots allow the Holy Spirit to speak clearly through the Bible. Yes, easier said than done but nonetheless necessary. Truth must not be viewed as illusory.
So, to the degree any of us are able to circumvent and/or mute our “already formed minds” and extract the truth from God’s Word, we will move ever closer to sound doctrine. Intelligence, training, and expertise can be valuable assets in this endeavor, but they can also become nooses around the neck of truth if one isn’t careful.
Seminary training, for example, can be an invaluable tool, but if the indoctrination that most always occurs, is not recognized, it can be a blinding influence. In my many conversations with seminarians, one thing has been clear; by design, the schools are more interested in graduating students that agree with a specific set of tenets than they are producing free-thinking Bereans. So, although there’s nothing inherently wrong with following one’s past, it must be recognized that former training can hamstring one’s ability to consider another point of view.
We can be successful Bereans
At this point, I believe we must shed the typical defeatist mindset (which in many cases we’re not cognizant of), which has reached epidemic proportions. So taken are we with our pastor or favorite Bible expositor, that we automatically and immediately assimilate whatever conclusions they reach and make them our own. Rarely is anyone in authority questioned. After all, since they have the training, expertise and the intellect that most of us lack, there’s no wonder why we follow blindly. And, there’s nothing wrong with following. It’s the “blindly” part that is disconcerting.
Even though we are endowed with the same Holy Spirit as those in positions of influence, there’s an unwritten and unstated policy that we must not rock the boat…lest we become censured or worse. The quest for peace is a very necessary goal. Too many churches have been split over non-essential doctrines. However, shouldn’t it be possible to share competing views while maintaining Christ-like attitudes? Must we maintain the status quo at all costs? At too many churches the subtle overtone if one doesn’t espouse the party line, is there other other churches that may find your views palatable, so please don’t make waves here. This is at least part of the reason things never change and errors are propagated in perpetuity.
And to be clear, I’m not in the least suggesting anyone be argumentative, condescending or purposefully disruptive. That is simply not God-honoring behavior. However, if challenges are always discouraged because the quest for peace and unity trumps our passion for sound doctrine, truth WILL be sacrificed. I believe respectful dialogue should be encouraged and instead of short-circuiting the debate process, those incapable of maintaining a spirit of love and respect ought to be the ones encouraged to get an attitude adjustment. So, instead of silencing opposing views, it seems better to allow respectful discourse while helping those ill-equipped to handle disagreement. Learning how to dialogue when differences arise, should be part of the maturation process. But, unfortunately, since dissent is rarely tolerated, people don’t learn how to love one another in disagreement. In so doing, both truth and maturity are sacrificed.
As a case in point, consider the various eschatological positions. Although “end times” viewpoints are not considered foundational, premillennialism (the dominant position of our day) has been woven so thoroughly into the fabric of our faith, that to deviate from it is considered heterodox. So daring to espouse another eschatological system, not only puts one at serious risk of being disfellowshiped but if uncovering eschatological truth is perceived as nearly impossible, the risk/reward relationship is simply too great. So at this juncture, most people determine that the benefit (truth) is not worth ostracization.
Sound interpretation principles
But here’s the good news. There are in fact objective tools of interpretation that will point us to the truth (if we let them). The truth is not only attainable but the Bible exhorts us to find it. And when we do, it must not be expressed in a manner of arrogance or condescension, but with all humility and love. The Apostle Paul, arguably the greatest theologian who ever lived, said love must be at the epicenter of all our doctrinal pursuits. So with that as a backdrop, never forgetting this mindset, let me share some foundational hermeneutical (science of interpretation) tools that I believe are as dependable as mathematical laws.
1.The Bible is inspired / God-breathed – it has divine origin and is not subject to the whims of man. We need not go outside the Bible to obtain truth. Extra-Biblical sources, though at times beneficial, only enhance that which can be gleaned from Scripture. If those sources are used to override Scripture, they, not Scripture, become the supreme authority.
2.God cannot lie (He occasionally conceals, but He does not mislead). The implications of this truth are taken for granted, but the fact remains, this fact must not be taken for granted. This is inherent in God’s prophetic word. As He stated through Ezekiel, “and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it,” declares the Lord GOD.'” We simply must not accept any theology that assumes God to be less than truthful.
Titus 1:2 (NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,
Hebrews 6:18 (NASB) so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
3. The Bible never contradicts itself. This is the law of non-contradiction. Contradictory Biblical statements cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. In other words, if A=B, then A and B are mutually exclusive. God operates within the bounds of pure logic. Since there are no contradictions in the Bible, the apparent contradictions must be rectified. The following verse is often used to justify circumvention of this law, but only because it has been seriously misinterpreted. How often have you heard someone use “My thoughts are not your thoughts” to argue that God operates outside the bounds of logic or time? This is not in the least what was being conveyed. Go back and read the below verse in context. You will find that God is telling us simply that He is Holy and righteous and we are not.
Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB) “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
So the above verses are not an indictment against logic. Though God’s attributes and His supreme purposes are clearly not shared by His creatures, this in no way means that God operates in violation of the principles of logic or the chronology of time. The law of non-contradiction must not be violated. Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts” makes the intent clear. It has everything to do with the contrast between God’s righteousness and our inherent sinfulness.
4.Context is king – We must read the Bible through the lens of the author, not through our 21st-century glasses. The Bible cannot mean what it never meant. The recent attempt to read modern day events into the Bible must be nixed. Word meanings are always defined by context. Often verses are excised and cherry-picked from a passage and manipulated to conform to a predetermined paradigm. How often when you come across “you” in the Bible, is it our natural inclination to think we are the “you” to whom the Biblical author is speaking of. We must always remember that, though the Bible was written and preserved FOR us, it was not written directly TO us. Ignoring this fact may be one of the biggest impediments to discovering truth.
For example, consider the following from Matthew’s Gospel. Notice the number of times YOU is referred to by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Not recognizing that the “you” are His disciples, but instead wrongly assuming that the “you” is some sort of generic multi-generational “you”, will make certain you won’t understand this prophetic section of the Bible.
Do YOU see all these things? (verse 2)
Truly I tell YOU (verse 2)
Watch out that no one deceives YOU (4)
?YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars (6)
but see to it that YOU are not alarmed (6)?
?Then YOU will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death (9)
YOU will be hated by all nations because of me (9)
“So when YOU see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation (15)
Pray that YOUR flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath (20)
At that time if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. (23)
See, I have told YOU ahead of time. (25?)
So if anyone tells YOU, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (26)
As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, YOU know that summer is near. (32)
Even so, when YOU see all these things (33)
YOU know that itis near, right at the door (33)
Truly I tell YOU, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (34)
Therefore keep watch, because YOU do not know on what day your Lord will come (42)
So YOU also must be ready (44)
because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (44)
5.Time is like clockwork – It is never allegorized. In understanding Bible prophecy, time is absolutely pivotal. Not only must the events prophesied take place, but they must occur within the timing specified by the prophet, lest he is labeled a false prophet. Notice the contrast between the next two verses, one from the OT and other from the NT.
Daniel 8:26 (NKJV) “And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For it refers to many days in the future.”
Among other reasons, the vision was sealed because the prophetic fulfillment wouldn’t be confirmed for hundreds of years. Look at the contrast of the next verse.
Revelation 22:10 (NKJV) And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
Contrary to what God told Daniel, John’s vision was to remain unsealed because the time was at hand. “At hand” simply cannot be stretched thousands of years. I dealt with this issue extensively HERE. Any eschatological system that disregards this principle is doomed to misinterpretation.
When something was predicted “shortly”, if it did not take place “shortly”, the prophet was found wanting. Perhaps this is the most glaring problem in most eschatological models. If this principle is abused in order to make an eschatological system work, that system must be rejected.
6.Interpret the unclear through the lens of the clear – Ignoring this principle has created the many cults that proliferate today. The Bible is self-interpreting.
7. Understanding genres of literature within Scripture– Poetic, apocalyptic historical, doctrinal, metaphorical, prophecy and law. Confusing these will cause serious misinterpretation.
Isaiah 13:9-10 (NKJV) Behold, the day of the Lord comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine… 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the Lord of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.
If this was interpreted literally and not apocalyptically, Isaiah would have been charged with false prophecy since neither the heavens nor earth were dislodged from their orbits. God’s wrath was literally poured out against the Babylonians in their destruction at the hands of the Medes but not in the astrological ways it was couched.
Isaiah 34:3-4 (NKJV) 3 Also their slain shall be thrown out; Their stench shall rise from their corpses, And the mountains shall be melted with their blood. 4 All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree.
Again, if even one star collided with planet earth we would have ceased to exist. There are many similar examples of forms of speech, and they too must be interpreted within the confines of their genre. Jesus was not literally a loaf of bread or a door and He wasn’t telling them to literally drink His blood and eat His flesh. These are figures of speech. Failure to recognize the way God used apocalyptic language has become a major stumbling block to many Christians especially those living in the past 100 years.
As we consider these things, I’d like to appeal to Jesus as He stood before Pilate. “Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Jesus came into the world to testify to THE TRUTH. He was the embodiment of truth.
In closing let me offer one objective lesson that applies some of these principles.
Revelation 1:1 (NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
The things that follow verse 1 simply must have taken place a couple thousand years ago. How do we KNOW this to be true and how do we know that others who disagree are in conflict with Scripture? By applying the below rules which I covered in greater detail. 1. The Bible is inspired. 2. God is incapable of lying. 3 The Bible is never contradictory. 4. We must consider the context. 5. Time is NEVER allegorized. 6. We must interpret the unclear through the clear. 7. We must consider the type of literature. So, next time someone says, “That’s just your opinion”, don’t let it ride if your conclusion is based on these objective principles. If they want to argue with Jesus, then that’s their prerogative. It is not a matter of opinion that Jesus, after His ascension while sitting at the right hand of the Father, said, “Thing which MUST TAKE PLACE SOON.” This is not up for debate. If someone says, “Well, you have your verses and I have mine,” challenge them to put “their verses” to the test. Since we know that the Bible is not contradictory, and we must interpret the unclear through the clear, is Revelation 1:1 not supremely clear?
In my view, we simply cannot allow people to continue to get away with violating rules of interpretation without being challenged.
We may not like the implication of the above because it might disturb what we’ve been taught and it might throw our paradigm into a tizzy, but we have a choice to make. Are we going to ignore the rules and the referees or are we going to play the game within the confines of the rules? I think it’s time to challenge those who aren’t playing by the rules. Truth matters and the integrity of the Bible weighs in the balance. It’s not a matter of opinion.
Come back with me to 1973 when Middle East tensions were overflowing and U.S. gas lines ever growing, and most high profile Christian leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Hal Lindsey, assured us that we were experiencing the last days “birth pangs” which was ushering in the end of our planet. God help the pregnant mother or Sabbath traveler, for these days of God’s imminent wrathful outpouring would plunge the entire world into total chaos. Armageddon, the Beast and the whole of Revelation were being fulfilled before our very eyes. With Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earthfresh in mind, the prophetic events were lined up in harmonic convergence as the antichrist was about to be revealed and all Heaven would soon break loose.
In my daily commute down Fletcher Avenue toward USF, I’d often gaze heavenward wondering if this would be THE day… the most highly anticipated DAY since Jesus’s incarnation. Enduring life’s travails not much longer, in a very little while Jesus would descend on the clouds as He’d meet us in the air. How exciting living at a time when Jesus’ long-anticipated return would finally arrive! Two thousand years of pent-up expectations would be fulfilled at last.
Pat Terry, an early 1970’s Christian musician, put it this way in “I Can’t Wait to See Jesus” (listen below).
I can’t wait to see Jesus
In His glory as he bursts from the sky
I can’t wait to be held in his arms,
and see the glimmer in his eye.
I can’t wait to hear trumpets
’cause I know what they mean when they sound
I can’t wait to cast off my burdens,
and feel my feet leave the ground.
I can’t wait to see heaven
and to walk those streets of gold
I can’t wait to check into my mansion,
and get my sleeping bag unrolled.
And just as exhilarating was the chorus which still gives me goosebumps!
Tell me how it’s gonna be,
read it from the Bible again
I can’t wait to see Jesus,
’cause Jesus is coming again
Oh, Jesus is coming again Oh, Jesus is coming again.
In the early to mid AD 60s (not the 1960s), a little more than three decades post cross, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul (whom I believe authored Hebrews) made three very poignant eschatological statements (pertaining to end times/last days): “The end of all things is near” (1 Peter 4:7); “In a very little while He who is coming will come and will not delay”(Heb 10:37); and “Children it is the last hour”(1 John 2:18). So it’s clear that Jesus must be returning soon, right? After all, the end is at hand, isn’t it?
Well, not so fast. This photo was taken only 40 years ago, almost 2,000 years after Peter wrote that verse! And this strikes right at the heart of the eschatological chaos.
The timing of Jesus’ return has wreaked havoc on the Church’s credibility for far too long. Why can’t we get it right? There’s an elephant in the room of our interpretative methods that I ignored back then, and most Christians still ignore today. It’s called “audience relevance” (primacy of the original audience), and though we occasionally give lip service to it, for the most part, we gloss over it as though we are the audience to whom it was written. There is a sense of egocentricity such that we believe we are at the epicenter of God’s revealed word.
When reading Philippians, Hebrews or Jude, we often forget that we’re reading someone else’s mail i.e. letters and epistles to first century churches. Passing over the realization that these letters were written, delivered by courier and read by Christians nearly 2,000 years ago, appears to be at the root of our eschatological confusion. The fact that the New Testament didn’t arrive on our doorstep with the morning’s paper, may seem patently obvious, but it’s at the core of the most common interpretative mistakes.
This 27 book NT (New Testament) compilation, was not only time sensitive and fully relevant to first-century believers, but if not read in context, cannot be properly understood today. The Bible was penned and preserved for our edification (2 Tim 3:16), but it was NOT written directly TO US. Again, this may seem obviously apparent, but in our constant attempt to make Scriptural application, we often fail to consider the New Testament’s first-century context. And nowhere is this issue more problematic than in our eschatological presuppositions. Remember, the Bible can’t mean what it never meant. So we should be compelled to interpret it in the context of the original recipients.
Considering the “end is near” sign held by this man above, how could something have been at hand in AD 64 and also at hand in AD 1974? How could “the end of all things” be nearthen and still be near today? How could it have been the last hour during the reign of Nero and be our last hour during the presidency of BarackObama? Unless we have two time continuums, it can’t! But most of us never consider this huge circus animal with the long trunk, plunked right in the middle of our interpretational reading room.
Have you ever wondered why we attempt to invent so many ways to camouflage the elephant and act as though it doesn’t exist? I’d be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an excuse explaining why the NT eschatological time indicators (near, shortly, quickly, at hand etc.) had no relevance at the time they were written.
The most brilliant disappearing act (which only seems to fool Christians since atheists use it rather effectively as a blunt force tool to bludgeon the unwitting) is constructed using one lone verse from Peter’s second Epistle… which should be noted, was written a year AFTER Peter wrote, “The end of all things is near.” For decades, that fact alone had me scratching my ever-balding head.
So, on the heels of warning them of the imminent end of the Old Covenant age, Peter, we are told, abruptly reversed course and try to cover his tracks when he wrote:
2 Peter 3:8 (NASB) But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
For generations, this one tiny verse has been successfully employed to cloak the elephant… arguing that the plethora of “time statements” (associated with Bible prophecy) scattered throughout the NT, aren’t to be taken seriously or literally. After all, they argue, with God time is irrelevant.
But if this is truly the case, one wonders why the inspired NT authors would have used any near-term time sensitive words. Why wouldn’t Peter have simply written, “The end of all things will one day be at hand”? Why risk the potential confusion caused by the possibility that the persecuted recipients might not realize that near could have meant thousands of years? Can you imagine receiving a letter from this inspired Apostle warning you to be sober-minded because the “end of all things is near”, only to receive a 2nd letter a year later saying, “Just kidding. After all with God time is irrelevant. The scoffers were right and Jesus didn’t hold to His “this generation” time constraint, so never mind.” It this exact kind of prophetic schizophrenia that we insult Peter with.
I heard one pastor reason, regarding the passage, “Be patient for the coming of the Lord is at hand… the judge is standing at the door”(James 5:8-9), contend that James was merely using inspirational language to exhort believers then and in of all future generations to be vigilant. So whether in AD 314, 1514 or 2014, was James just challenging those in every time period to remain in a steady state of expectancy? Are you beginning to notice the giant pachyderm yet? Is his trunk beginning to knock things off your shelves as it did mine?
Though I realize it wasn’t this dear pastor’s intent, he was effectively implying that God inspired Peter, Paul, John and in this case, James, to lie in order to motivate the beleaguered first century Christians to remain watchful. Is this truly the interpretational road we should be traveling? This is the very definition of situational ethics, where the ends, motivating the persecuted, justifies the means, lying. Is this profoundly dangerous logic beginning to concern you as it did me? Since we mustn’t subscribe to Biblical contradictions, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we treat this problem seriously. This dominant end times system which relies on denying that the near term time references are relevant has become so sacrosanct, that to even question any of its underlying tenets, rises to the charge of heresy. However, to ignore the serious issues with a view that has been responsible for error after error seems rather ostrich-like. If you hadn’t considered it before, this argument that God used the same time words in completely different manners depending on their prophetic significance, is dubious at best. Does God use different weights and measures?
In other words, if the Greek work tachos which means soon, quickly etc., is assumed to be thousands of years in one verse yet in another it means quickly, we have a problem.
(Acts 22:18 NASB)and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly [tachos], because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’
Was the Apostle Paul being exhorted to get out of Jerusalem whenever he felt like at some time during his lifetime? Or was he told to get out of Jerusalem right away?
(Acts 12:7 NASB)And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly [tachos].” And his chains fell off his hands.
When the angel told to “get up quickly” was Peter supposed to take his time because, after all, a day to the Lord is as a thousand years? This would be absurd. So then when coming to the next passage which contains the same Greek word, how would you handle it?
(Revelation 1:1,3 NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon[tachos]take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,… 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near[eggus].
Can we with any degree of intellectual honesty, assume that “things which must take place soon” that it could be thousands of years? And notice verse 3 as John followed up with “the time is near”. Time doesn’t permit but we could also do a word study on “eggus” and see how it’s used throughout the NT. I can tell you that every time, without exception, that eggus, whether in an apocalyptic verse or not, always is means near. But, what I’ve found sad is that Christians have developed this elasticizing hermeneutic of time sensitive words to the point when, if you contend that they should be interpreted consistently you will get push back.
Case in point. At a Bible study a number of years ago, after I offered an interpretation of Matthew 24 that was consistent with the imminent eschatological “time statements” (like Rev 1:1,3 above), the leader simply said, “We can’t go there. We can’t go there.” Case closed. No discussion allowed. Censorship at its finest.
But the question that wasn’t answered then and remains outstanding today, is, why can’t we go there? It wasn’t as if I was questioning the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, or any of the non-negotiable tenets of our faith. I simply offered an historically-based eschatological explanation that fit the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24; Luke 17; Mk 13) like a glove. Jesus said emphatically that “all these things” (the temple’s dissolution, wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilence, earth quakes, apostasy, the abomination of desolation, false Christs etc.) must happen within a generation. And after explaining using credible historical sources that everything happened well within a generation (40 years) of Jesus’s declaration, with no further dialogue allowed, I was simply asked, for the sake of peace and unity, to censure myself. Is this a truly healthy way to deal with these eschatological differences? Clearly, we need to always be respectful and courteous toward one another, but to cut off dialogue at a Bible study, seems less than prudent. If we were as passionate about truth as we are of avoiding disagreement, we might not be in this mess. And few would argue with a straight face that the current eschatological landscape is not in need of a gross overhaul. The elephant hasn’t budged! So when Jesus said, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”, arguing that Jesus was actually referring to a far distant generation, is not any more Berean-like than censuring dialogue. Sadly, this mindset is far too typical. Being a respectful Berean is not well tolerated if one offers another point of view that holds our feet to the Scriptural fire. At this point, you may think that phrases such as “things that must shortly take place”… for “the time is near”, simply cannot mean what they appear to mean. But don’t fall for that trap. If we aren’t willing to let the Bible speak for itself without reading our presuppositions into it, how will we ever know that we have the truth?
Many feel justified in questioning the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church and its top-down hierarchical structure that squelches debate, but is the Protestant Church really that much different? Cancelling make come more from a local level in the church, but it’s still just as effective in shutting down opposition. At this point, I need to be crystal clear. Make no mistake, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God as explained in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. And only in that context must these things be challenged. God is neither the author of confusion nor deception and His Word is not enveloped in smoke and mirrors. God doesn’t use words arbitrarily maintaining opposite meanings. If near means near in one passage, it simply cannot mean a very long time in another. This method is decidedly dishonest. And hopefully, once you reach this article’s conclusion, you will, at the very least, have a new appreciation for the uncanny accuracy of God’s prophetic Word. Above all, I want to exalt the miraculous nature of the Bible, not tear it down. So, with that as a backdrop, let’s trudge on.
Before looking at five potential scenarios regarding the interpretation of these many eschatologically time sensitive phrases, let me pose a question for contemplation. If time was irrelevant in the manner in which God always communicates with man, why then did He ONLY inspire the NT authors to use words of imminence? In other words, why don’t we find even one NT phrase like that used by Daniel, “many days yet to come” (Daniel 8:26)? Why do the NT authors ONLY couch prophecy in imminent terms if fulfillment wasn’t for 2 millennia into the future? I hope you realize that we’re dealing with the heart of biblical inspiration. In the OT, we find statements of both nearness and distance. Daniel’s “many days yet to come” is contrasted with Isaiah’s “the day of the Lord is near”. Time mattered to the OT prophets, so why do we presume that God stopped communicating clearly and in ways that can be understood? Why, if all mysteries since the foundation of the world were revealed in the person of Christ (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26), would the NT time statements be seemingly clouded in subterfuge?
Now, consider this stark contrast between an Old and New Testament prophetic use of time.
Daniel 8:26 (NKJV) “And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For it refers to many daysin the future.”
Revelation 22:10 (NKJV) And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
Do you see the issue? Daniel was told to seal up the vision because it was “many days in the future” and John was told not to seal up the vision because “the time is near”. What’s going on here? If Daniel’s prophecy was hundreds of years from fulfillment, sealing the vision would seem natural since he/they wouldn’t have been able to understand the context of its fulfillment. However, since most today believe the Revelation’s fulfillment is still future (after nearly 2,000 years), why then was John told to keep it unsealed? And, further, how could the time of fulfillment have been near in the first century? Doesn’t this unnerve you even a little bit? At this point, most of us throw our hands in the air and assume that if the experts with years of education can’t come to a consensus, what hope do we have? But the truth is that paradigm, not intelligence, is the greatest obstacle to understanding Bible prophecy. Most of us have developed errant presuppositions that force us to challenge God’s ability to communicate accurately. So once we begin to consider the fact that God may have communicated clearly and unambiguously, we can start to deconstruct the false components of our interpretational paradigm. As I mentioned earlier, quite a few year ago I chose that path deciding that it was time to question this apparent contradiction that “at hand” or “in a very little while” actually meant thousands of years.
Therefore, shouldn’t we wonder why, if time is supposedly irrelevant to God, He would inspire these men to associate their visions with time? And further, why would these various OT prophetic pronouncements have been fulfilled according to their time-sensitive dictates, if they weren’t anchored to chronological reality? Not surprisingly, the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah were fulfilled like clockwork. Daniel’s “many days yet to come” was fulfilled hundreds of years in the future, and Isaiah’s “the day of the Lord is near” was fulfilled imminently as the Medes dispensed with the Babylonians in Isaiah’s day.
Now that the elephant is in plain view, let’s deal head-on with the potential explanations for the NT eschatological imminence. Anyone reading through the NT even once has been bombarded with these near-term expectations. Although this list may not be exhaustive, it covers 5 major possibilities. Admittedly, explanation #3 seemed too outrageous to include, but because I just heard a pastor use it, I decided to give it a critical review. As you read through the five, choose which one best fits your explanation.
God the Father knew Jesus’s return was thousands of year’s future, but for motivational purposes, He chose to communicate imminence. (2 Peter 3:8)
God the Father didn’t know when Jesus would return. Matter of fact, He also didn’t know that the Jews would reject Christ and that He would therefore have to resort to a plan B, the Church. (A Dispensationalist view)
God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but chose only to communicate the speed in which Jesus would return with no regard to the timing. (translates “tachos” in Revelation 1:1 as lightning quick speed not soon or shortly. In other words, Jesus could wait thousands of years before He acted but then when He began carrying out His last days plans, He would do it at the speed of light.
God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but Jesus, in his humanity, was unaware of not only the day and hour but also of the millennium in which He would return. (C.S. Lewis’s conundrum)
God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, and unambiguously and accurately communicated the imminence of Christ’s return through both Jesus and the NT authors. While on earth, Jesus didn’t know the exact day or hour of His coming, but He knew the generation. (Fulfilled view)
Which one do you think is the most Biblical? As you consider these various explanations, you may immediately notice the following pitfalls found in these possibilities.
God is not sovereign because His plans are contingent upon the actions of His free moral agents. Therefore, God is reactive not proactive. And, if God didn’t know that Jesus would be rejected due to man’s free will, why would anyone think that the Jews might reject their Messiah again and again?
Because of Jesus’ human limitations, God was not able to communicate everything with Him clearly. This poses serious issues within the Trinity.
Due to God’s timeless nature, He was unable to communicate accurate time-sensitive predictions with His followers. Because God is above and beyond time, His references to time are ambiguous. Again, this questions the omniscience and sovereignty of God.
God intentionally misled His beleaguered followers because He determined that it was more important to motivate them in their times of distress than to tell them the truth. Now we’re in very deep, shark-infested waters!
Since Jesus’ return in the minds of most is marked by the obliteration of our planet at time’s end, how could Peter’s words “the end of all things is near” possibly be true? If Jesus was prophesiying solely about the end of the space time continuum, then clearly Peter was mistaken. Again, this challenges biblical inerrancy and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Most Christians opt for explanation #1 (God knew the day and the hour was thousands of years future but chose to convey imminence) without fully considering the serious implications, some of which we’ve already explored. Sugarcoat it all we want, the truth is that if God knew Jesus’ return wasn’t going to be imminent, but He nonetheless inspired every New Testament author to write that it was imminent, this is simply a lie. We can make up pithy excuses but this is the bottom line.
Yes, I realize that this probably makes you as uncomfortable as it did me, but this reality must be confronted if we have any prayer of being intellectually honest as we rightly attempt to handling God’s Word. God is not the author of lies and/or misdirection. If even one of an eschatological system’s interpretational building blocks presumes God to be a liar, the whole edifice crumbles.
Hebrews 6:18 (NASB) so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. Titus 1:2 (NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,
Numbers 23:19 (NASB) “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
The atheist who put the below video together, attacks Christians and Christianity at this very point. The vast majority of believers have heard the time is irrelevant to God excuse for so long, they are oblivious to its absurdity. But we must, no matter how emotionally taxing, be prepared to answer the atheist… as well as the confused Christians for that matter.
1 Peter 3:15 (NKJV) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and alwaysbeready togivea defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
So we can continue to use 2 Peter 3:8 to cloak the elephant, but the fact remains that the integrity of the Bible is hanging in the balance and the elephant isn’t going anywhere. Heavily persecuted 1st century Christ-followers were clinging to the imminent hope of deliverance, and if we assume they were lied to by creating false expectations, we’re playing right into the hands of the atheists. And lest we forget, when stalwarts of the Gospel like the Apostle Paul wrote things like the following, they were received by real people who were eagerly waiting for the revelation of Jesus: “The time is short…for the form of this world is passing away”(1 Cor 7:29-31), “Now these things …were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come”(1 Cor 10:11), and “The Lord is near”(Phil 4:5).
In the light of being repeatedly told that these events were imminent, how do you think these AD 60s believers would have responded to Peter’s second epistle, if 2 Peter 3:8 was supposed to wash away all their time-sensitive expectations? “Really, Peter? If time is of no consequence, why have we received a steady diet of near-term promises from all the inspired writers? And Why in the world did you write, “The end of all things is near” if you had no clue when Jesus would return?”
Consider this analogy to help drive the point home. Your garage just caught fire and after calling 911, the dispatcher tells you that the fire trucks are on the way and will be there shortly. Would you sing the fire department’s praises if they never arrived and your house burned to the ground? Would it make your misery any less profound to find out that those trucks were not only never dispatched, but there was never any intent to send them?
How would you have reacted to the following excuse from the fire department? “We often get busy, and in our line of work, for us a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day. Time is really of no consequence to us.” Seriously, how would you respond to that excuse? Perhaps a logical reaction might be, “That’s incredibly cruel for giving us false hope. Why would you have said you’d be there soon if you had no such intention?” Is God less caring than a poorly run local fire squad?
How is this scenario any different from explanation #1? How utterly cruel would it have been for God to have promised near-term rescue and vindication if He never had the slightest intention of fulfilling His promises? Approx. two decades ago as this kind of eschatological confusion began weighing heavily upon my faith, I subtly started to distrust the Bible. At the onset it wasn’t all that overt, but it, in consort with some other nagging issues, became profoundly debilitating. If this was in fact the way God treated His first-century followers whose lives were in constant peril, then I wondered about His faithfulness to me. In other words, if the ones who received the short-term promises were intentionally jilted, why should I have any confidence that God would be faithful to me and my family in the light of me never receiving such promises? I’m happy to report that I finally worked through this intense struggle, but not before undergoing a significant eschatological paradigm change that began at this very point.
And lest we not realize how intense the first century anticipatory hopes were, let’s look at the eager expectation that the Apostle Paul recognized among his readers. “…to those who eagerly await Him” (Heb 9:28); “awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor 1:7); “…from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;” (Phil 3:20);“…waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” (Rom 8:23)
Since we know that “hope deferred makes the heart sick”, how sick and weary is the body of Christ after 2,000 years of this kind of unfulfilled expectation…if in fact we presume that Jesus’s coming was as it has been characterized, speaking of the world’s end (and not the end of the age)?
So, if Peter was inspired to write 2 Peter 3:8 to placate the scoffers who insisted Jesus was not only late but He would never return, then why a year earlier would Peter have written, “The end of all things is at hand”? Was Peter truly in effect saying, “All bets are off fellas, I was wrong? When I wrote you my first letter I really didn’t mean the end was imminent, because, after all, God’s timing is not our timing.”
Consider Peter’s other statements carrying imminence lest we think 1 Peter 4:7 was a red herring:
1 Peter 1:20 (NKJV) He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
1 Peter 4:5 (NKJV)“but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead
1 Peter 4:17 (NKJV) For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?
1 Peter 5:1 (YLT) Elders who are among you, I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Christ, and of the glory about to be revealed a partaker,
2 Peter 3:11-12 (NKJV) Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
As we read through all these statements implying imminent expectation which should have been weighing heavily upon their conduct, does it make sense that Peter was attempting to use the “time is irrelevant” argument against the scoffers? Was he really waving a magic wand at all of the eschatological time references throughout the NT (many written by him), attempting to make them disappear? If this was the intent of 2 Peter 3:8, then the following is an addendum that could have been attached to Peter’s 2nd epistle.
“I know Jesus told us that He would come before we finished going through the cities of Israel (Matt 10:23), while some of us were still alive (Matt 16:28) and all within a generation (Matt 24:34), but we all know that time is relative in God’s economy. At the time I wrote that first letter warning you of our near-term end, I actually believed that the end was very near. But then the Holy Spirit brought Psalm 90:4 to mind, telling me that “near” to God could be very far off to us.
“Now, I realize how incredibly confusing this may be and that it may appear like an excuse… so, since many may have been misled by my first epistle which was riddled with imminent expectations, I simply have to set the record straight and get the word out to all those who are actually anticipating Jesus’ soon return. I must correct the errant presumptions that I and others have created. Many of you persecuted believers who received letters from James, John and Paul, are losing your lives and I don’t want to give you false hope. And to be quite frank, no help is coming. Yes, in some other distant generation many days from now, but no rescue is planned in your lifetime.
“I realize that the Apostle Paul promised our embattled Thessalonian brothers vindication, but I now realize that He was referring only to their metaphorical absolution at the end of time. Even though he said he would give relief to YOU, he wasn’t really speaking directly to the Thessalonians, but actually only to those living in a time many days to come.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 (NASB) 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
“Further, it must be that when Jesus spoke of the eschatological end within “this generation” while some of his larger contingency was still alive, He must have been communicating allegorically. He had to have meant “that generation” or “some distant generation” even though for emphasis sake He prefaced “this generation” with “Truly I say to you.”I realize that Jesus never used time metaphorically and that the Bible has never allegorilized time (and God expressly prohibited it in Ezek 12:21-28), but since Jesus is God, and God is not bound by time, that’s really what He must have meant. After all, He made those definitive statements while still restricted by His humanity.
“So, the scoffers have every right to scoff because they are correct. It’s been 34 years since Jesus said,“this generation will not pass away until ALL of these things are fulfilled,” and the truth is that His return is nowhere in sight. Jesus won’t be coming in the time all of us expected.
“Therefore, in the future, though we must admit that their scoffing is justifiable, as long as we don’t take any of the time constraints literally, we will negate their vain attempts to discredit Jesus’ words. So whether God says something is going to happen either near or far, well, we just can’t hold God to this kind of human standard. Yes, I realize that means there’s no true test for a prophet since all prophets are exempt from these kinds of time restrictions, but these are harsh realities that must be conveyed…lest the scoffers continue to repeat their accusations charging Jesus and the rest of us as false prophets. So move along and be about your business to love the Lord. And remember, when God says renders a time-sensitive declaration , He may or may not do it within the time He specifies. It’s His divine prerogative!”
Do you see how ludicrous this excuse is when it is broken down and exposed? Does God really need us apologizing for Him? In an attempt to do the opposite, those who interpret 2 Peter 3:8 in this manner, do nothing but assault the integrity of God’s Word and accentuate His unfaithfulness. It strikes at the heart of inspiration. I truly can’t think of a more abused and heavily manipulated verse than 2 Peter 3:8. So, since I hope it is clear to you that option #1 is simply not viable, let’s move on to the other possibilities.
Explanation #2 (God the Father didn’t know when Jesus would return) proves that God is not ultimately sovereign. If God is subject to the whims of His creation, and has no idea what they will do, He clearly is not sovereign. Some dispensationalists have argued that the prophetic time clock stopped when the Jews rejected Christ, only to be restarted when Israel became a nation in ‘48. This excuse is so riddled with problems that I don’t have time to deal with them here.
Suffice it to say, I hope you reject any option that denies God’s sovereignty. He never resorts to a plan B. What I find truly baffling is that those who hold this view apparently haven’t stopped to realize that if we, as free moral agents, could stop the prophetic clock once, we can do it again and again. Once man is elevated to this kind of supremacy, God is relegated to position of inferiority. So how could any prophet declare a prophetic event if it can always be short-circuited by non-compliant men? What would have happened if the Medes had chosen not to comply with God’s sovereign plan and therefore never attacked the Babylonians? Wouldn’t that have made Isaiah a false prophet? I realize how ludicrous this 3rd explanation is, but I felt it was necessary to include it since people actually believe it. If you have to become an open theist to support your dispensational views, something is seriously wrong.
Explanation #3 God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, and only communicated how fast it would be, with no regard to the timing. This one appears even more outrageous than the God can’t tell time option. Recently I heard a pastor who began a new series on the book of Revelation, espouse this very point. How did he arrive at this conclusion you ask? He began with Revelation 1:1 and instead of translating “tachos” as “soon”, he said it meant “really fast”.
Revelation 1:1 (NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon (tachos) take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
So, according to this view, the timing of the Revelation was never in plain view. God was apparently telling John that, once these things began to take place, Jesus would return with lightning quick speed. Tachos (where we get tachometer) can, in fact, mean the speed in which something is executed, but, based upon the context of all its usages, this is not primarily how the word is used throughout the New Testament. It always refers to the duration of time and not the speed. Also, it must be noted that all words must be interpreted in context. All one has to do is drop down two verses to realize that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of execution and everything to do with the timing of the events. I’ll come back to that thought in a moment.
Consider the parable of the widow and her persistence in obtaining legal protection from the ruthless judge. Though this parable clearly concerns prayer, many have missed its eschatologically-based subject matter. This “end times” parable, referenced “the elect” who would cry to the Lord for justice against their oppressors. Pay particular attention to the timing of the promised vindication as well as the usage of tachos.
Luke 18:7-8 (NASB) now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?8 “I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly(tachos). However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”
Is there an interpreter on the planet (who isn’t trying to sell their stash of Left Behind books) who actually believes “quickly” means, that when God finally gets around to avenging His elect, he’ll do it really fast? In other words, once God began His avenging, He was supposedly going to do it faster than a speeding bullet? 🙂 But this simply doesn’t fit the context of the parable. Jesus’s use of quickly (or some translations render it “speedily”, is in reference to the time of “delay” mentioned in verse 7. Would God continue to delay forever? No, He would bring about justice soon! He doesn’t wait 2,000 years and then do it really fast. I truly can’t believe I’m having to deal with this argument.
What value would it have been to the elect for Jesus to have delayed a few thousand years after they were dead and gone and then vindicated them with amazing speed when it didn’t matter? I think it’s clear from the context that this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with “How fast?” and everything to do with “How long?”
Notice the same theme in Revelation 6’s opening of the fifth seal. This question of “How long?” is reiterated by the martyred souls who are under the altar. This scene is depicted some 32 years after the Olivet, not 65 years as too many presume. (Those who believe the Revelation was written in the mid AD 90s, please go HERE. There is far too much internal and external evidence which points to an early to mid AD 60s date)
The following passage is a recapitulation of the above parable, but at that moment in the vision it was only a short time from fulfillment. The saints had already been martyred.
Revelation 6:9-11 (NASB) When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.
During the Olivet, the plight of these souls who had suffered severe persecution to the point of death had already been predicted.
Matthew 24:9 (NASB) “Then they will deliver YOU to tribulation, and will kill YOU, and YOU will be hated by all nations because of My name.
So, again, the outstanding question is, “How long, Jesus? The dead saints were under the altar asking how long before their blood would be avenged. And what was Jesus’ answer? “When I come it’s going to be really fast!” No, that’s not at all what was promised. Jesus said only“a little while longer”! And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of Jesus’s return and everything to do with the time before the martyrs would be avenged. “A little while longer” cannot possibly be misconstrued with the speed of the avenging.
The “How long?” answer has staggering implications which are totally ignored in the various versions of Leftbehindology. In Circa AD 62 (the approx. date of the Revelation), Jesus told them how long until their avenging (shortly), yet instead of believing Him, some attempt to change the plain meaning of words simply to conform the Bible to their paradigm.
Nobody was asking how fast they would be avenged. Waiting a little while is not a function of speed but of time. I don’t mean to be condescending or mean-spirited, but how can anyone read Revelation 1:1 and believe that Jesus is ignoring the “How long?” question and answering “How fast?”. For the sake of redundancy lest we lose focus, let’s look at the text one more time.
Revelation 1:1 (NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon (tachos) take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
It must take place FAST? For those who adhere to this interpretation, let me ask you a question. Why would it have been important for Jesus to have said how fast He was going to avenge the martyred saints? Was Jesus correcting their understanding? Did they think He was going to return slowly? If there has already been a 2,000 year delay, what difference would it make how fast Jesus returns? So, even if one could finagle “tachos” to mean speed, how in the heavens can one cram the speed of His return into verse 3?
Revelation 1:3 (NASB) Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near(eggus).
There’s no possibility whatsoever that one can force eggus to fit into this speed motif. It simply means “the time is near”. So at this point, hopefully you will reject this 3rd excuse as well. As an aside, the pastor whom I mentioned earlier, never dealt with the imminence in verse 3. I wonder why? Perhaps he couldn’t fit it into his 2,000 year delay but really fast model.
So, on we trudge to explanation #4, forever attempting to find yet another way to disguise the elephant: God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but Jesus, in his humanity, was unaware of not only the day and hour but also the millennium in which He would return.
Jesus’s “no man knows the day or the hour” statement, has been so thoroughly exaggerated and contorted that what people say it means bears no resemblance to reality. How can neither knowing the day nor the hour be used to argue that no one would have a clue within centuries or millennia of Jesus’s return? As a matter of fact, during Jesus’ entire Olivet monologue, since Jesus specifically answered the disciple’s whenquestion, why do we continue to insist that Jesus had no clue of the timing? In a recent blog post, “The End of the Beginning”, I thoroughly dealt with this issue and put to bed the notion that Jesus had no idea when He would return. Please take time to read it. I think we do the Bible injustice by propagating this myth.
So, for the sake of brevity, I won’t deal in great detail with this false assumption here. Suffice it to say, the disciples asked Jesus one basic question which had 3 components, not three separate, unrelated questions (as some have insisted). And they got one very detailed answer culminating in a specific time frame. After Jesus told the twelve that the massive temple complex would be utterly obliterated (“not one stone left upon another”), the natural question was, “When will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:3)
Why is it that so many appear to either miss or ignore Jesus’s very first sentence of explanation? It set the tone for everything that was to follow. What was it? Did Jesus immediately begin detailing the litany of events that would follow? No. He offered a simple warning that, in and of itself, set the timing of fulfillment.
“See to it that no one misleads YOU.” Wait a minute! Do you see the issue? How many times have you heard pastors and teachers say that the things contained in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation are still future to us? If that’s the case, what difference would it have made to them? If “all these things” pertained to a distant generation removed from the immediate context by 2,000 years, what relevance would any of it had on the disciples? As we hearken back to Daniel’s vision, there was never any concern that Daniel be misled. Why? Because the prophesied events would take place well after Daniel was pushing up daisies. So the mere fact that Jesus warns His followers about being misled, tells you when those things were expected to occur.
The truth is that everything Jesus said was absolutely vital to the disciples because it applied directly to them and their generation. That’s why He cautioned them to be diligent so they wouldn’t be misled.
Matthew 24:34 (NASB) “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
I’d say that’s a rather emphatic time-sensitive answer, wouldn’t you? So, again, how is it so many pastors try to argue that not knowing the exact day and hour is equivalent to not having a remote idea within a few millennia? The answer is actually rather simple. They don’t like or understand the implications. So just like they attempt to explain away the meaning of “soon”, “shortly” and “at hand”, they play all kinds of extracurricular games with the above verse. C.S. Lewis called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. And for good reason, if none of the events outlined in the Olivet actually transpired within that first century generation.
Just before Jesus finished detailing the events that would take place within that generation, He offered the following analogy of the fig tree (Luke adds “and all the trees” lest you think this is a prophecy about the nation of Israel).
Matthew 24:32-33 (NASB) “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, rightat the door.
It’s true that Jesus never knew the day nor the hour of His return while He was living on planet earth, but as can be seen above, if His disciples were to “see all these things” and be able to “recognize that He is near, right at the door”, He clearly knew far more than He is credited to have known. In approx. 3 decades, James would corroborate those very words when he wrote:
James 5:8-9 (NASB) YOU too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
If that doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will. Yes, the implication may startle you, but it is certainly contrary to what C.S. Lewis wrote in “The World’s Last Night. “He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
Jesus was not only not wrong, but when He was sitting at the right hand of the Father after His ascension, He knew the day and the hour of His return and He revealed to John that the contents of His vision would soon take place because the time was near. So, don’t let C.S. Lewis, your pastor or anyone else convince you that Jesus didn’t have a clue when He would return.
Well, that leaves us with explanation #5: God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, and unambiguously and accurately communicated the imminence of Christ’s return through both Jesus and the NT authors. While on earth, Jesus didn’t know the day or hour of His coming, but He knew the generation. After His ascension He knew how short the time really was.
I’ve not found too many who aren’t at first extremely uncomfortable with this possibility, especially since it shatters their paradigm and means that “all these things” had to have taken place within that generation. It strikes at the heart of so many issues that most simply refuse to seriously consider it. So they limp back to option #1 in full knowledge that, untenable as it is, many others believe it so it must somehow have merit.
Let me offer one more word of caution from Ezekiel 12 lest you still cling to one of those first four explanations.
Ezekiel 12:21-23 (NASB)21 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb you people have concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The days are long and every vision fails‘? 23 “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel.” But tell them, “The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision.
God was sick and tired of Israel constantly distorting His time sensitive promises. He would tell them that something was about to happen and they would ignore Him and say, “the days are long and every vision fails”. They were incessantly thumbing their noses at God just like spoiled children saying that though God said things were near, they were actually very far off. Sound familiar? Isn’t this today’s approved interpretational method?
For this reason, God, in diametric opposition, said,“The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision.” They were trying to use the old“a day is as a thousand years”to God,slight of hand. And God would not stand for their excuses. He became angry because they weren’t heeding His timely edicts.
Ezekiel 12:24-25 (NASB) “For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25 “For I the Lord will speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it,” declares the Lord GOD.'”
God said that whatever He spoke would take place in the time span predicted.“It will no longer be delayed”! This was decried by God almost 700 years before the birth of Christ. Yet, what do most Christians say today about the plethora of time sensitive prophesies in the NT, ALL of which are accompanied by these time sensitive words like “shortly”, “at hand”, “soon” and “in a very little while”?
“Hath God really said?” Sounds kind of like the serpent, doesn’t it? God supposedly didn’t really mean shortly, soon or at hand when speaking of his coming, for He was speaking in His own eternal timelessness. Even writing this sardonically makes me tremble. The only way to judge a false prophet was to decide whether what they predicted took place in the time period predicted. If the timing of the prophecy was to be summarily ignored because time was irrelevant, then how could anyone claiming to speak for God be deemed a false prophet? If a prophet said something was going to happen soon and it didn’t, all hell broke loose against them. So it’s clear that the timing of a prophecy is every bit as important as the nature of what was predicted. But you wouldn’t know it by the way we interpret the Bible today.
Are we unwittingly calling these NT authors false prophets by assuming their prophesies have been delayed thousands of years? I have been wrong about many things throughout my life, but one thing seems abundantly clear, “will not delay” and “must take place shortly” simply cannot mean anything other than what they imply. This “God can’t tell time” mantra is striking at the very nature of God’s inspired Word and is unintentionally challenging God’s faithfulness. Notice what God says next as he spoke through Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 12:2-28 (NASB)Furthermore, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 27 “Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ 28 “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,”‘” declares the Lord GOD.
Could God have been any more redundantly emphatic? It seems that God was sending a very clear message that His prophesies would come to pass in the exact time they were predicted. So how is it that the accepted eschatology of our day is in such direct contradiction to these words given toEzekiel?
Our last order of business is to deal directly with the context of 2 Peter 3:8. Two things are usually missed. One has to do with considering only half the verse and the other regards the very next verse.
2 Peter 3:8-9 (NASB) But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years,and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
If we take this verse to mean that “shortly” can mean thousands of years, then we must consider the fact that in the second part of the verse it would turn Daniel’s “many days yet to come” into less than one day.
So, in other words, any reference to time (near means far and far means near) would be so ambiguous that it would have no relevance whatsoever. Is that truly what Peter is arguing? Should Daniel have expected the things that would not happen for “many days yet to come” to occur “shortly”? I don’t know how else to say it, but this is simply ludicrous and makes a complete mockery of God’s Word.
If we consider the context of Second Peter, it had been approx 34 years since Jesus’s emphatic statement that He would return in a generation. Time was running out and the scoffers were mocking the fact that, since it had been so LONG (since Jesus made that statement), it was clear (to them) that Jesus wasn’t going to ever return. The scoffers were fully aware of the stated timing of the Lord’s parousia.
So Peter was in effect saying, “Listen fellas, yes, this generation is coming to a close, but the fact is that Jesus is still right on schedule.” The Temple is still standing and my judgment upon this wicked and perverse generation is not far off. That’s why Peter followed with “The Lord is not SLOW” to fulfill His promises.” If Peter was arguing the way most have interpreted 2 Peter 3:8, he would have said, “The Lord is not FAST” to fulfill all that He promised.
Peter wasn’t hedging his bets. He was all in. He was fully convinced that the end of all things was even nearer than they were when he wrote his first epistle a year earlier. He knew that the timely vindication of the martyrs was absolutely crucial to the integrity of God’s prophetic word.
I think there’s something very wrong when those who actually believe God are censured and considered heretical, while those in the mainstream Church are deemed “orthodox”. The first century Jews missed the timing of Jesus’s incarnation because they didn’t understand the nature of His first coming. Is it possible that 21st century Christians are making the same mistake with regard to Jesus’w coming in judgment because we are confused as to the nature of His coming?
There are those who have so flippantly and ignorantly mocked people for believing that God can tell time and God did fulfill His promises like clockwork. My hope is that they will realize the implications of their scoffing. The people holding their eschatological feet to the fire are not the problem. So bent on holding on their view, they are unwittingly scoffing at the faithfulness of God. If the first-century scoffers gained traction and provoked Peter’s rebuke because it had been 34 years and Jesus was late, how should those who believe that Jesus is 1,984 years late and counting view their own unbelief? Because that’st he crux of the matter. Faith to believe that no matter how it seems because of the confusion, that God was abundantly faithful to His beleaguered first-century followers.
So how could we have possibly gone this far afield where up is down and left is right? I realize that the implications make us uncomfortable. However, shouldn’t our end game be to exalt and honor the integrity and the inspiration of God’s Word rather than to merely attempt to preserve our eschatological presuppositions?
Lastly, consider the words of two renowned 19th century theologians as they considered the 2 peter 3:8 excuse. First from Milton S. Terry:
The language is a poetical citation from Psalm 90:4, and is adduced to show that the lapse of time does not invalidate the promises of God. . . . But this is very different from saying that when the everlasting God promises something shortly, and declares that it is close at hand, He may mean that it is a thousand years in the future. Whatever He has promised indefinitely He may take a thousand years or more to fulfill; but what He affirms to be at the door let no man declare to be far away. ((Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 406.) Originally written in 1883)
And now let’s read what J. Stuart Russell had to say:
Few passages have suffered more from misconstruction than this, which has been made to speak a language inconsistent with its obvious intention, and even incompatible with a strict regard to veracity.
There is probably an allusion here to the words of the Psalmist, in which he contrasts the brevity of human life with the eternity of the divine existence. . . . But surely it would be the height of absurdity to regard this sublime poetic image as a calculus for the divine measurement of time, or as giving us a warrant for wholly disregarding definitions of time in the predictions and promises of God.
Yet it is not unusual to quote these words as an argument or excuse for the total disregard for the element of time in the prophetic writings. Even in cases where a certain time is specified in the prediction, or where such limitations as ‘shortly,’ or ‘speedily,’ or ‘at hand’ are expressed, the passage before us is appealed to in justification of an arbitrary treatment of such notes of time, so that soon may mean late, and near may mean distant, and short may mean long, and vice versa. . . .
It is surely unnecessary to repudiate in the strongest manner such a non-natural method of interpreting the language of Scripture. It is worse than ungrammatical and unreasonable, it is immoral. It is to suggest that God has two weights and measures in His dealings with men, and that in His mode of reckoning there is an ambiguity and variableness which will make it impossible to tell ‘What manner of time the Spirit of Christ in the prophets may signify’[cf. 1 Pet. 1:11]…
The Scriptures themselves, however, give no countenance to such a method of interpretation. Faithfulness is one of the attributes most frequently ascribed to the ‘covenant-keeping God,’ and the divine faithfulness is that which the apostle in this very passage affirms. . . . The apostle does not say that when the Lord promises a thing for today He may not fulfill His promise for a thousand years: that would be slackness; that would be a breach of promise. He does not say that because God is infinite and everlasting, therefore He reckons with a different arithmetic from ours, or speaks to us in a double sense, or uses two different weights and measures in His dealings with mankind. The very reverse is the truth. . . .
It is evident that the object of the apostle in this passage is to give his readers the strongest assurance that the impending catastrophe of the last days were on the very eve of fulfillment. The veracity and faithfulness of God were the guarantees of the punctual performance of the promise. To have intimated that time was a variable quantity in the promise of God would have been to stultify and neutralize his own teaching, which was that ‘the Lord is not slack concerning His promise.’ ((J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, [1887] 1983), 321ff. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 134–35.))
A number of years ago, after finally acknowledging the elephant in the room, I determined that the song I began this blog with, would have been more appropriately sung by those heavily persecuted AD 60s Christians who were promised near-term vindication and heavenly glorification. Their endurance was about to be rewarded. And they could not wait to see Jesus!
I can’t wait to see Jesus
In His glory as he bursts from the sky
I can’t wait to be held in his arms,
and see the glimmer in his eye.
I can’t wait to hear trumpets
’cause I know what they mean when they sound
I can’t wait to cast off my burdens,
and feel my feet leave the ground.
I can’t wait to see heaven
and to walk those streets of gold
I can’t wait to check into my mansion,
and get my sleeping bag unrolled.
Tell me how it’s gonna be, read it from the Bible again I can’t wait to see Jesus, ’cause Jesus is coming again
Oh, Jesus is coming again Oh, Jesus is coming again.
1 John 3:2 (NASB) Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NASB) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. Philippians 3:21 (NASB) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (NASB)Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.Romans 8:18 (YLT) For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us; Did you know that there is historical precedent for all these things taking place in and around AD 66 leading up to the destruction of the Temple in the fall of AD 70?
In closing, think about this. If God was not faithful to THEM (persecuted 1st century Christians who were promised near term vindication), why do you think He will be faithful to YOU. If we so frivolously disregard the plain meanings of biblically inspired words simply to fit our eschatological preconceptions, how can we expect to look the liberal Bible critics in the eye? You may think this is about eschatology, but the fact is there’s a whole lot more at stake. This is a fight for the inspiration and integrity of Bible.For those who continue to insist that near can mean farandsooncan meanmany days in the future, I’ll leave you with this famous quote from a former president. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.“ Hold on to your eschatology if you must, but please stop using 2 Peter 3:8 to hide the elephant. He’s making quite a mess of our interpretational reading rooms and he’s severely compromising the credibility of God’s infallible Word.
p.s. If you truly want to see how the world sees us through the lens of our eschatological failings, check out the following from an atheist blog review of Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth. I don’t condone their conclusions, but I think they make some valid points that we all should consider.
If you’d like a straightforward Biblical answer to the seeming conundrum I’ve presented here, I would highly recommend Christian Hope Through Fulfilled Eschatology. Written by friend and PCA Elder, Charles Meek, this very readable and well argued eschatological masterpiece, presents a Biblical case that keeps the “time statements” intact while proving God’s real-time faithfulness. This book clearly and completely answers both the atheist as well as the premillennialist. If you are willing to consider a viable alternative to the failed system that has dominated the Church for a century, this book will provide answers to your most perplexing eschatological questions. Charles began www.faithfacts.org, one of the first apologetics websites, to defend Christianity from skeptics and to bolster the faith of those committed to Christ. In so doing, he was confronted with the eschatological issues that have plagued the church. This book arose from a time of concerted study and introspection. Charles just mentioned that he received an email from a Dallas Theological Seminary grad letting him know that he left behind Left Behind (after reading this book).
In the mid-1800s,
became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” 
The above market chart superimposes the 17 months of the DOW Jones as it led up to the 1929 market crash, our most recent 17 months (Feb/2014). The implication? Get the heck out of dodge because the market’s about to crash! 
Church and the world. . . . It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; 
the dispatcher tells you that the fire trucks are on the way and will be there shortly. Would you sing the fire department’s praises if they never arrived and your house burned to the ground? Would it make your misery any less profound to find out that those trucks were not only never dispatched, but there was never any intent to send them? 
