Monday, February 26, 2024

The Great Commission


18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:18-20

The Great Commission? Do I really want to bite this one off? Will I dare to attack The Great Commission with literalism? I know of nothing better than to attack the whole of the Bible with literalism. What is the alternative? If God does not really mean what he says, where logically are we left? To guess whatever we want, to add whatever we want, to emphasize whatever we want, and thus to sometimes ignore the plain things he has said and taught. It is a very healthy thing to go back to the text and see what sense we might make of the context. That is called applying the historical/grammatical interpretation to the scriptures.

 

Our earliest forefathers tended to take the literal interpretation. But by the time of Augustine, literalism had fallen to a symbolic interpretation where our forefathers were allowed to freely imagine what might be meant. Augustine, I am told, was more literal in his beginnings, but became allegorical (symbolical), changing from a pre-millennialist to a post-millennialist. I do remember in the Confessions that Augustine devised six sermons to depict each one of the six waterpots that Jesus had changed into wine (Jn. 2). Imagine, if you will, a time when looking at the waterpots suggested sermons from God. Even with the great return to Scripture during the Reformation, there was little interest in looking afresh at the Scriptures; meanings of great passages had already been chosen. There were traditions challenged (confessing to a priest), and some doctrines examined (communion was looked at intensely), but for the most part, the bulk of the gospel was carried forward without a lot of fresh examination.

 

It is my conclusion, then, that every piece of Scripture ought to be examined under that light of literalism. Is our view really in line with what God is saying? If not, how can we change our view to agreement with God? The unexamined life is not worth living according to Socrates, but I say the unexamined Bible is scarcely worth following. Let me therefore examine the passage and see what is actually taught, that we together should follow it.

 

Matthew 28
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

Summary
Followers of Jesus have noticed that Jesus is raised from the dead, beginning with women (v. 1), who had the appearance of angels (v. 5 and following) to confirm the resurrection. The angels directed the women to tell his disciples (the eleven?). Jesus appears to the women (v. 9), and also sends them to the brethren (the eleven?). Jesus appears to all the eleven in Galilee (v.16), and they worshipped, but some doubted (v. 17). Jesus came (again? v. 18) and spoke to the eleven, giving The Great Commission.

 

Statement
Jesus meets with the eleven, imparting a last command to them regarding the building of the church. It is today known worldwide as the Great Commission. This is the context of what happens before the giving of the commission. Jesus is giving his last teaching to the eleven disciples. He imparts to them nothing new, for had they not practiced going, and teaching, and baptizing? But he then adds new things. The command of the passage is definitely to make disciples. But there is something accompanying the making disciples command that cannot be ignored. Jesus points to things only the leaders of the church were doing. Going, baptizing, and teaching were all things they were already doing. Making disciples was to become the new emphasis. Teaching them whatever Jesus commanded you (the you is again referring to those that Jesus was speaking to, the eleven) and that he will be with them always (v.28).

 

I have seen a long history of people misapplying the Great Commission. Often they wrest make disciples ought of context, but I have even heard preachers who wrest teaching out of context. They maintain that anything which may build a little bit of character is making disciples; they maintain that teaching here is not the gift of teaching. In my studies, I came across this tidbit about the verbs of the Great Commission:

This one Greek sentence (vv. 19–20) continues with two present participles—“baptizing” (baptizontes) and “teaching” (didaskontes)—that are grammatically dependent on the main verb, “make disciples.” They do not specify two results of the formation of disciples, but at a minimum they describe two simultaneous actions that accompany disciple-making. More probably, they depict the two primary but separate means, but not necessarily the only means, by which obedient disciples will fulfil Jesus’ basic command to make disciples.1

 

If I am understanding Harris correctly, he states clearly that these verbs, “teaching” and “baptizing” must accompany “make disciples”. It would be inappropriate to try to separate them as so many unwittingly do. He goes on to say that these are probably the means, but not the only means, by which obedient disciples will fulfill Jesus’ command.

 

Note: What a comfort it must have been for the eleven to know that they might always trust the Lord to be with them, all throughout their days. I note that Jesus did not give the Great Commission to all his followers. He chose to give it to the eleven disciples, the men whom he had spent years training exactly for this moment.  Acts appears to me to be the fulfillment of that Great Commission, as it largely depicts the acts of the apostles as they strive to carry out the commission.

 

Conclusion: The Great Commission is not given to every believer, except in the sense that it is the overall plan of God for the church. Every believer should have that plan incorporated into their lives, or at least be tacit support for the commission. This interpretation goes against many traditions and customs which are taught today without question. Evidently, from the scriptures, this was the very plan of Christ, handed off to the eleven, who then spread it about the church. It was taken up in Acts by some, namely Stephen, Philip, and one Saul of Tarsus. In the epistles, we find Timothy and Titus picking up leadership skills, and helping to implement the Great Commission. It evidently is still carried on today by leaders in the church, though as I pointed out, all Christians should have the same overall goal for the church.

 

Why not everyone? Let us follow the command closely and see. Go (v.19), it says. The Greek indicates this word might better be translated as “going or having gone”. Who are they that Jesus is speaking to that already have gone? Answer: The eleven. Not many others, unless we were to count the seventy sent out, are eligible to fit this category. Next, the verse says. “teach” (v. 19). Again, teach might be better rendered “teaching”. Who were those involved for years in teaching? Again, the answer is the eleven. Next the command is baptizing (v.19). Who were the baptizers? Again, the eleven seems to be the consistent answer. Now we come to the explosive words, “make disciples”. My understanding is that this is the main command of the passage. The real command Jesus is giving the eleven is to make disciples.

 

Look again at the context. How do they make disciples? They were the men who were “going”. They were the men who were “teaching”. They were the men who were “baptizing”.  I cannot think of any others who might fit these criteria. And we are left with the fact that Jesus was speaking to the eleven. In what sense were they making disciples? They were taking the people they had gone to, taught, and baptized. Those were the ones that they were commanded to “make disciples”. I would suggest that the making disciples was a foundational act, where they taught and built into the lives of the new believers’ basic doctrine.

 

Over the years I have heard lessons where “making disciples” becomes a term which means anything the speaker wants. But the text here is talking about building foundational doctrines into the new believers’ lives. Sometimes imaginative speakers have said bringing someone to church, or to a Bible class is making disciples. And in a remote sense they are correct. But they are no longer using the word as Jesus was—taking someone who is a new believer, and building into their whole character something which would make disciples. They are confusing their terms, swapping them out so that they may make the point that we all make disciples.

 

Now this is not so wrong. In the first place many who teach so are highly motivated to preach and lead others to Christ. They correctly see the church’s mission as carrying out the Great Commission. In their confusion, they become willing to look at any act of education in the church as “making disciples”. But it is only remotely true, and certainly not following the command of the commission. Has everyone gone? No. Has everyone taught? No. Has everyone baptized? No. Then we are forced to the logical conclusion that not everyone makes disciples. There is no other clear conclusion that can be made.

 

Paul refers often to gifting in the body. Making disciples is not included on any of the lists. I speculate that is because making disciples results as the synthesis of many gifts: teaching, preaching, healing, and the working of miracles. Was not one of the first mass evangelisms done as a result of Peter healing the lame man? I am but speculating, it does seem to me that several gifts must be involved in making disciples. Paul ends 1 Corinthians 12 with these questions: Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? (1 Cor. 12:29,30) It seems to me, again speculating and not wanting to overstate the Word, that he might, had “making disciples” been included in the list, have also added: “Do all make disciples?”

 

Peter, in Acts 10, may be describing the Great Commission. It is interesting to read what he says. “Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” (v. 41,42) Peter does refer to a composition of gifts which seems to preclude many people from being able to make disciples. Not that he refers to preaching and testifying. While all people might be correctly imagined to have witnessing as part of their gifts, in no way can preaching be imagined to be the same. If Peter is referring to the Great Commission here, it is obvious that making disciples is being done by those who are preaching and witnessing.

 

In the second place, I often note that such teachers often carry a great burden for the lost. They want to share this burden and sometimes feel that if everyone only shared the burden as they do, then the world might be reached for Christ. A noble aspiration, but it does not really fit the Biblical narrative. Thinking of making disciples as being the leader’s main job is probably close to the truth. We support our leaders and missionaries in carrying out the Great Commission, but it is not a mandate for every believer to go, to teach, to baptize, or to make disciples. It is a difficult responsibility, requiring many gifts, to go, teach, baptize and make disciples. It is the place of the church, and especially the leaders, to stand against the hatred of the world and dare to preach the love of Christ.

 

I recently heard a man, exclaiming in his being carried away with his vision, that if everyone engaged in disciple making his church would double every year, and shortly the world would be reached for Christ. Unfortunately, a large dose of reality needs to hit this man. John 15:20 says, “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” We very much live in a world of dominant darkness. If they crucified Jesus, what will they do to you?

 

There is a definite reason the world cannot be reached for Christ. The world hates the idea of Jesus, and it hates those of us who would carry the message. The Bible remains the number one banned book in the world. Our challenge is to reach sinners in the darkened world, not to convert the world. It simply is not going to happen, though many Americans have believed such. In the 1800’s the Christians worked hard to produce heaven on earth, believing if they did so, then Christ would come. But only when they had “perfected the world”.  In the twentieth century, Christians joined with Woodrow Wilson to build a world of heavenly attractions that would be worthy of Christ’s return. The result was WW2, the war that devastated the world. We are not ever going to produce a good world. Our challenge remains to carry beacons of light into the darkened room, hoping that some might hear. But never ever will we reach the whole world.

 

Where is the proper place for the desire for evangelism? I have spent my life telling others about the Jesus who found me, in hopes that good news might find its way into their hearts. Many have come, but most do not listen. It is the same problem that Jesus faced. By all accounts the greatest task church leaders face today is how best to implement the Great Commission. But along with that perhaps we should not strive quite as hard to train those not gifted in making disciples. Instead, those of us who have a heart for evangelism might better spend our time crying out together to the God alone who is capable of carrying out revival. In our last great revival (I think it was an awakening), God chose an unlikely group for salvation: the dirty scroungy hippies. Who could have foreseen his sovereign choice? Certainly, the church would not have made such a choice. But there it is. God is the primary agent of all true revivals. I am convinced that our gathering together and asking for revival is one big step to see it happen. May God see us and favor us again with his blessings of revival.

 

In a sense, it never depends on us. It always depends on God. But our faithfulness is needed, and that tension remains. Are we being faithful in what he has called us to do? And are we pleading to his sovereignty that he will bring revival? He is always in charge. We are but beggars, lifted to divine heights, but still beggars telling other beggars where to get bread. It might do to soberly remember what the world did to our Christ when he offered himself.

 

I can quite imagine that my short Bible study from a literal viewpoint could be upsetting. I can imagine some Christians strongly resisting the force of the passage, perhaps exclaiming, “But the tradition of the church is so well established.” Yes, tradition says one thing. But the Bible is clearly saying something else. Though I freely admit possibly not to be correct in every literal interpretation, and along those lines I would welcome discussion, it is no good saying, “tradition says I am right”. We ought to be “rightly dividing the Word of truth” and it there solely that disagreement should occur.

 

1 Harris, Murray James. Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament (p. 38). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

 

 


Sunday, February 18, 2024

 Sovereignty and the Will of Man- Old Testament Style

 

So you are dying to figure out how sovereignty and free will work together? So am I, but according to the passages I am going to present, we may never understand how they work. This literal lesson is how the Bible beautifully presents the sovereignty of God and the will of man. I remember when I was a young Christian I thought I could almost understand how they work together, but every attempt I made to explain how they might work together collapsed when I tried to present it. In the Old Testament story of David numbering Israel, the story is likewise presented and I can almost see how it works, but in the end, its working is still inexplicable.

Background:
David is nearly the last of his life, and for some reason he wants Israel to be numbered. Joab, the leader of the military whom David could not find the political power to be rid of, is actually the hero of the story. He tries desperately to get King David to change his mind, and his noble attempts to do so were recorded in Chronicles and in Samuel. “And Joab answered, The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel (1 Chronicles 21:3)? Also: And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing (2 Samuel 24:3)?

The three responsible agents:

1.      God himself is responsible
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24:1

2.      Satan is responsible
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

3.      David takes responsibility three times
 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
1 Chronicles 21:8

And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.
1 Chronicles 21:17

And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
2 Samuel 24:10

Question: who is responsible?

David? For he confesses his sin at least the three times. Satan? For the scripture plainly says he provoked David to number Israel. God? For the scripture plainly says he was angry against Israel, and he moved David to number Judah and Israel. All three are implicated, and we must accept the charge of scripture. All three are responsible for the numbering of Israel. How can that be? SomeONE must be responsible. Not all three. It just is not logical.

Logical it isn’t. Yet, I can sort of see how all three might be responsible. God, angry at Israel, moves David to number Israel. Perhaps he did it somehow through inciting Satan to tempt David. We are not told even this much, yet my imagination lets me see how the three of them may have been responsible at the same time. I can almost explain it, just as I thought I could explain it those decades ago when I first tried to understand sovereignty and free will. But in the end, it is like gazing at a fresh bowl of jello, and trying to scoop it up with my fingers, only to watch a chaotic mess result. God is God and man makes choices; more than that we are not allowed to know.

But when I contemplate these verses, I can appreciate the sovereignty of God working hand in hand with the will of man. I understand it not. Nor can any man understand it. But surely we can appreciate it. I believe this text provides a great teaching for the rest of scripture. All throughout the New Testament endless speculation arises on the sovereignty of God and the will of man. I believe the Bible presents this Old Testament to make us appreciate that, on some level beyond our comprehension, harmony between the two does exist. What a wonderful scripture passage!

But I would be remiss without explaining that God had a whole other plan mixed in with this. He intended to make the future site of the temple to be exactly where he wanted. David, who wanted to build a temple for God was denied that privilege. But David got to buy the actual site, and to save Jerusalem from further effects of the plague. Today, the Moslem temple, Dome of the Rock, sits almost precisely on the site God designated for his own temple. Recent digs suggest that the Moslems only built partially on the site of the temple, perhaps explaining Revelation 11:2, “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” The verse is obscure, and will no doubt be revealed in its time, but it does seem as if the court itself is part of the site of the Moslem temple. But perhaps part of the holy temple site is not taken by the Moslems? Could the Jews use that part to rebuild on? Watch Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, February 12, 2024

 

Abiding- Another Look


I am a consistently frustrated literalist. I insist that the Bible has a story to tell. We need to be looking at the context of that story—its details, the circumstances, and the whole background to see what the Bible actually says. The problem with today’s passage is huge, and complicated by the fact that it is a wonderful deep passage that has so much application to Christians. But I insist that each passage carries its own meaning and if we are to find the meaning that God wants us to have, quite apart from devotional application, then we have to go through the principles of seeing what actually is taking place. Application has many provinces and beautiful sermons are often built with applications to Christians built in, but that should not stop us from examining what God is actually saying. In the passage we are looking at today, all too often the actual story is skipped so that the wonderous applications of abiding are taught. Today’s literalist lesson is on John 15.

John 15 (NIV)

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c]

26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

I was deeply dissatisfied with my first attempt at writing on this great passage. I find, that though I glory in the truth of the passage, I also glory in having heard some great lessons taught about Christian abiding. It is a majestic passage, but the timing of the words makes it difficult for this literalist to grasp. Noting the full context needs to be always down before interpreting the passage. Also, the passage has lots of applications to Christians, and that is a difficulty when we are sifting context. John later talks about abiding too Christians specifically in 1 John 2:28, “28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” Abiding in him remains one of the sweetest themes of the Christian life. John extends its meaning plainly to all Christians throughout 1 John.

Is there anything more majestic than telling us that Jesus is the Vine, and the Father is the gardner? We are the branches, being pruned and differentiated, that the harvest might be even more fruitful. But in this passage a question may be asked. Are we really the branches Jesus is referring to here? It may surprise you, but comparing Israel and God and the vine has appeared before in Isaiah. Israel depicted as a vine was not new. Jesus was probably taking the picture of Israel being the vineyard from Isaiah, changing it slightly as the Master Teacher does. Look at the words of Isaiah:

Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:

And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.

What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:

And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

In mine ears said the Lord of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.

10 Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah.
Isaiah 5:1-10

Having freely explained the majesty of this passage, I find myself hesitant to apply context to it, for it does say something differently than is usually looked at. And I have not a single problem with what is said devotionally about abiding and pruning—I only want to point out the context, because I think that the impact of Jesus’ last words are sometimes missed. What is the context of what is said? Can we find the meaning Jesus was giving to the eleven during this discourse?

And that is what keeps me persevering. John is my favorite gospel, if not my favorite book of the Bible. At one point in my life I set out to memorize the entire gospel, giving up in chapter ten somewhere. I can hardly wait to meet John and see what sort of person this is, that terms himself the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. I love what has been called the Upper Room Discourse. What I want to do today is make John 15 come alive in the way that it was written. Let’s leave the wonderous applications to Christians for another time. I have just finished Bruce Wilkenson’s Secrets of the Vine, and found it challenging and applicable. Bruce tends to have that effect with his worship and graceful thoughts of love and vines and abiding. For now, I just want to stick to the text.

I have printed the KJV of John 15 above and will be referring to it without repeating it again. Please use it to check for understanding. Briefly summing up chapter 13, Jesus, in the middle of the last supper, predicts his betrayal by Judas, saying to him, “Whatever thou doest, do it quickly.” Peter attempts to make himself “shine” as faithful to Jesus, but is told by Jesus himself that he, Peter, will deny Christ three times. Chapter fourteen begins his discourse, and Jesus actually is finishing dealing with the comments of four disciples. He has already dealt with Peter’s objection, who strenuously says that he will follow Jesus even unto death. Thomas objects that they do not know where Jesus is going and how can they know the way. Next, Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. Last, Judas (not Iscariot), asks Jesus how he will manifest himself to the disciples without manifesting himself to the world. Jesus uses the question to introduce again the idea of the Holy Spirit. Overall, it is as if Jesus is dealing with the last minute questions and objections of the disciples before he begins his majestic sermon.

At the very end of chapter fourteen, Jesus reminds the disciples that he will not say much more, because the prince of this world was coming.  Who is the prince of this world? Well, we know Judas was coming with the Jewish soldiers and the leaders. Evidently, at least in their minds if not physical presence, the prince of the world was very present. This is the context. This is the last remark of Jesus before starting on his vine description. Jesus, aware that he has but little time left, wants to leave a sound message to his disciples. We have the Old Testament allusions to Israel being the vine, with God being the owner and keeper of the vineyard. Coupling these facts together, the conclusion is that the vine Jesus was talking about had to do more with the picture of Israel than it does with Christians. Certainly we make the application to Christians in many fine ways, but the focus I have is simply what was Jesus talking about?

I believe the branches are best looked at as parts, or characters of Israel itself. When Jesus is talking about remaining in him, he is not directly referencing Christians here. What he seems to be talking about is the very time he finds himself in. Judas, in his betrayal, has not remained in the vineyard. The leaders who have not remained in the vineyard, are those being talked about. Remain in me, or if you will, abide in me he tells the disciples. What is he saying but that others, Judas and the leaders, are making choices of not remaining in him, and are subjected to being like a branch that does not remain in the fire and are thrown into the fire to be burned (verse 6).

Here is perhaps the most exciting truth I find from textual evidence. I have seen others write about the possibility of someone losing their salvation, taken directly from verse six. Yet, the context strongly suggests that Jesus is talking about Israel, and those who are following him compared to those who are not. Christians though they are faithless, will still find him to be faithful. I need not worry about losing my salvation from this verse.

Now, please note I am not saying we are not to similarly abide in Him. Rather the epistle of 1 John makes it clear that the thoughts of abiding for Christians is something for everyone of us to ponder. And bringing back those verses of 1 John to this passage makes us notice many fine things about abiding and being fruitful. Well and good. But Jesus is talking about something else altogether. When he says in verse 2, “He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful,” is he not thinking of Peter? He has just finished admonitioning Peter and telling him of his upcoming denial. Is it not probable that he had Peter in mind when he referenced pruning so it would be more fruitful? He had already told Peter that he would make him to be a fisher of men. Were his denials and his restoration all part of the process of being pruned?

He calls the disciples his friends. No longer, he says, do I call you servants. I am aware that we are termed friends of God, even sons of God in other passages. But look at the context. Do not forget, Jesus has said he is running out of time for words. He is looking at the hand-picked disciples that he is about to leave and calls them friends, promoting them from servant status. If it were me saying this, I would be choked up with tears, hardly able to express the words. And though we have no evidence of tears being shed, is this not one place where the raw emotion of Jesus is being freely expressed? He is directly saying to the men he has given years of himself to train, that they shall be his friends. What does that mean? Probably it would be best looked at as if Jesus was strongly suggesting these 11 were to be in a very special category of friendship.

I can call my pastor my friend. Everything we communicate about seems to be open and honest and friendly. Yet, we do not know each other that well, and do not spend much time together. I mostly sit at his feet, wondering at the wisdom that God has gifted him with. I do not think Jesus was talking about “friend” in this way. Rather, these were men he knew well, had spent years with, walking and talking and teaching and correcting. He knew these men in a special way, and they knew him, perhaps more intimately than any others. When Jesus gives them the designation of friends, I cannot help thinking he means so much more than just a casual acquaintance. He is preparing to leave the world, he has just given them a first promise of the Holy Spirit, and he is turning over the job of telling the world about the gospel to these eleven men.

In thinking this passage through, I was reminded of a verse in Matthew that perhaps tells us how serious Jesus was about this new term, friends. Jesus was referencing the future in Matthew as Peter has just asked a question about his and the disciples’ destiny, “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28).These disciples, eleven of them at this time, were promised to one day rule all of Israel from twelve thrones that they would be given. Friendship, indeed!

If Christ is the vineyard, the branches are Israel, and the present circumstances are revealing branches which are fit for nothing but to be cast into the fire. Namely, Judas and the leaders of the Jews coming to crucify the Christ. God will take the waste parts of Israel and remove them from the vineyard, casting them into the fire. But what about the rest of what Christ says in this chapter to his disciples?

If Jesus is truly talking to his disciples about Israel and remaining in the vine, then the rest of the passage about the vine ought to fit that context. Does it?  Certainly, his command to remain in him is directed directly at the disciples. Similarly, he bids them to remain in his love. He also commands them to love one another. He tells them that they are appointed for a “special mission” to go and bear fruit. He promises that the Father will give them whatever they ask. They are to love each other.

But I want us to appreciate a little more strongly the words he has just said. In the middle of these commands, Jesus reminds them that “greater love hath no man than this that he should lay down his life for his friends”. Remember he just called them friends, pointing out that they were no longer servants. Now, he reminds them of the future that they do not yet guess. He is going to lay down his own life directly for the friends whom he loves. He was very much looking at the cross, waiting for his betrayers to show up.

Now the Master Teacher talks at length about how his disciples will be hated by the world. Jesus teaches them that the world will hate them because they first hated Jesus. The context of Jesus talking to his disciples in his last words fits this whole chapter. He was not teaching Christians to abide; later John does that very thing wonderfully throughout his epistle. Rather he was placing in context the behavior of both his friends and his enemies. He explains that Israel is fundamentally dividing over the issue of Christ, that some are remaining in the vine, but some are worthless branches to be cut out. And that is the literal message of John 15.

Does it fit when we apply it to Christians? Somewhat. I have already noted that the part about losing your salvation, of being declared worthless and cast into the fire, does not fit with the security of salvation taught elsewhere. But when we note the context, and see that Jesus was likely referring to Israel and his disciples, then the verse makes much more sense. Again, another gift of literalism.

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, January 25, 2024

A Literal Look at John 14:3

A Literal Look at John 14:3

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Today, I would like to take another look at a very famous verse, one that is quoted all the time. In fact, these verses are often quoted as favorites. I remember from my days working in the mission in Los Angeles that when the homeless got the chance to sing, “I have a mansion just over the hilltop”, they did so with obvious excitement and enthusiasm. The homeless were looking to their promised home. The promises of a mansion (I do love so the translation of KJV here!) occur just before verse three.

Let’s look at this passage literally.

Who is talking?

Answer:
Jesus

To whom is he speaking?

Answer:
to his disciples, eleven in number since Judas has just left to betray him

What is the context of the passage?

Answer:
 The immediate context is that they are in the upper room, celebrating the Passover a day early since Jesus was going to be the Passover Lamb the next day. The disciples are given the opportunity to ask questions and there are three questions given by three different disciples. First Peter asks where Jesus is going (13:38), and Jesus replies that he is going to a place where Peter cannot follow him now but will later. The second question is asked by Thomas with a comment by Philip. In the middle of all of this, Jesus makes an astounding proclamation.
After telling Peter that he is going to a place Peter cannot follow, Jesus expands on that idea in the first of John 14:

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.  And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Here Jesus is telling the disciples he is going someplace where Jesus himself will prepare a place for us, that he may come again and take us there. What does that mean?

Is he talking about his coming violent death? It cannot be so, though that might have been very much on his mind. Let’s imagine a bit to try to figure out what he was saying. Where is Jesus ultimately going? To the Father. Where is the Father? In heaven. So, Jesus must be talking about going to heaven.

What is he going to do in heaven? He clearly teaches that he is going to prepare a place for us. Why? Jesus goes to prepare a place for us that where he is, we may be also.

Now comes the hard question. When does all this take place?

Answer:
It takes place when he comes again.

It cannot be at death, which a few church fathers have suggested, for it follows his “coming again”. It must still be a future event since he has not yet come. When he comes, he will receive us that where he is there we may be also.

Hence, the only conceivable time is near the second coming. But we know that when Jesus returns, he will come here to earth to reign. We saints will will be with him on earth and not at all in heaven. So, after he visibly returns to earth, and reigns in Jerusalem, we will be at his feet, not in heaven. He must be talking about the rapture, since it is the only possible time we have to spend with Jesus in heaven. It cannot be now, for we are waiting for him to come back. It cannot be after the hour of temptation because Jesus will be taking over leadership of the earth, and we will be with him. That only leaves some special time apart from the second coming. The only possible time is the Rapture before the tribulation.

Where does this promise best fit?

Answer:
The passage best fits as a promise of the rapture. Yesterday, we learned that the whole church is to be kept from the “hour of temptation”. Here in John 14, we learn that Jesus will take us to heaven, preserving us from that hour of Jacob’s trouble, the hour of judgment come upon the whole earth. The curiosity, for me in these two passages, is that neither one of them is thought of as “rapture verses”. Yet, a literal look at each shows a very different picture painted by our Lord. He is coming to gather his people up and preserve them from the judgment time, the 70th week of Daniel. After all, one of the major points of becoming a Christian is to avoid the judgment of God. It makes sense that God would choose not to put his people through this incomparable judgment coming upon the earth.

Evaluation:

I recently read a Bible commentator insisting that if Christ “comes” for his people, he will come twice, not once. My objection to the rather bizarre charge is that I have never heard of a single pretribulationalist claiming that Christ comes twice to the earth. He does gather his people in the rapture, from the four corners of the earth. There is no mention of a “coming” to the earth—rather he is drawing his people out from the earth, where we will get to be in heaven for about seven years. When he does return to the earth, his saints will be right behind him according to Revelation 19:14, which says,  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. As it says in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the rapture happens that so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Another thought occurs to me. I hear sometimes comments by others about those saints who have passed on. They will frequently say that someone has “gone to heaven” and think they will be there for eternity. Not so. We will all be taken to heaven (For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.) where the Christ Son will show off his bride to the Father. Every one of his will be able to appreciate our Christ in the glory of his heaven as we behold visibly that groom which the Father has given to us. What a delight! What a party we will have!




 

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

A Literal Look at the Letters to the Seven Churches

The letters to the seven churches occur in Revelation 2 and 3. Revelation is perhaps the most difficult book of the Bible to decipher. It is full of symbols, hidden meanings, and all those incredible lists of sevens. I think it good to bring a literal look just to the first chapters, to see what message is to the churches. Traditionally, scholars have looked at these seven letters and have seen a typical pattern that might fit our church history.

I am going to ignore that for the lesson purposes. I am just interested today in the rewards that are given to the churches. Each of the churches, whether or not they represent other periods of history, are given a tangible reward for enduring or being faithful. I want to see what a literal interpretation will tell us about those rewards. Sit back and prepare to be a bit dazzled.

Chapter Two Revelation

Who was the author of these letters?

Answer:

Jesus is probably the only one to fit the description given in verse 1: “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand” Who else besides Jesus would be able to judge these churches? And who else would have the seven stars of the churches in his hand? It must be Jesus.

The first church is the church at Ephesus.

What does he offer to give to the church at Ephesus?

Answer:
verse 7, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life”.

Very nice! Jesus is offering rewards to the church at Ephesus. But I ask, do these rewards differ in any way for Ephesus? Apparently, this eating of the tree of life is given to all Christians, without exception.

The second church is the church at Smyrna.

What does he offer to give the church at Smyrna?

Answer:
 verse 10, “I will give thee a crown of life”. Again, same question, to whom does God give the crown of life? Every Christian receives a crown of life, without exception.

The third church is the church at Pergamos.

What does he give the church at Pergamos?

Answer:
He promises two things. Verse 17, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written.” The church is promised two things, hidden manna, and a white stone with a new name on it. Can other Christians expect these things too? Of course.

The fourth church is the church at Thyatira.

What does he give the church at Thyatira?

Answer:

Verse 26: “to him will I give power over the nations.” In verse 28, he says also, “And I will give him the morning star.”  I note that the morning star is a reference to Jesus, who is our bright and morning star. Does every Christian receive the morning star? Undoubtedly, for that is who makes us Christians.

Chapter Three Revelation

The fifth church is the church at Sardis

What does he give the church at Sardis?

Answer:

Verse 5: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Jesus will confess the names of the saints at Sardis before the Father and his angels. Does every faithful Christian get the same? Of course.

The seventh church (we are skipping number six and doing seven first} is the church at Laodicea.

What does he give the church at Laodicea?

Answer:

Verse 21: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Do Christians in general get to reign with Christ? Are we going to be with him where he is? The answer is yes. We expect to be with Christ throughout eternity.

The sixth church (saved for last) is the church at Philadelphia.

What does he give to the church at Philadelphia?

Answer:

Verses 9, 10: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

He is going to show those who have worshiped falsely the faithful and true Christians. In verse ten he promises to keep the church from the hour of temptation that is coming on the whole earth. Can we expect the Lord to validate that we Christians have followed the Truth? Yes!

And in light of every promise of the letters to the churches applying across to all Christians, so must this promise of “keeping us from the hour of temptation” apply to Christian generally.

Summation

In every letter to the churches we see that God is providing and blessing them exactly the way he will bless all of the faithful believing Christians. In the sixth letter, he promises that he will show those who worshipped him in truth to the hosts of heaven and earth.

But he also promises the church at Philadelphia that he is going to keep them from “the hour of temptation” coming upon all the world. Thus, we conclude that since all the other promises apply to Christians generally, this promise must also apply.

Therefore, we have the direct promise of God that he intends to take the church away from the earth when he is pouring judgment out on the world. This is a huge conclusion, for the rapture is getting great debate. Is it not wonderful, that hidden in Revelation, this promise to the church to “keep them from the hour of trial” is given?

The rapture is definitely being promised to the church. He will keep us from the hour of temptation that is coming upon the whole earth. Will you join with me as I delight in watching for the Author and Finisher of our faith? Sometimes when we look for the literal view, we find much more than we expected. This is one of those passages. Literalism.

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, March 08, 2023

Thoughts about the Awakenings

March 8, 2023 

I am excited about my new book, forthcoming sometime late this month? That is just a projection, and I am working cleaning up the manuscript, and fixing errors on the book cover. I chose the title, "America's Awakenings" for it. Jonathon Edwards wrote books defending the First Awakening, which I realized was too emotional for the times. I started wondering about the other awakenings, knowing almost nothing about them though I had been a Christian for decades, and an avid reader.

To my surprise, I found out that every awakening had its emotional excesses. I was no longer surprised by the lack of willingness to write about them. People were evidently just fearful to write about such emotional moments. But in my seventy years I have noted that people are often emotional and rarely rational. Does God not clearly see that and answer us according to our needs?

I go to great lengths in my book to state my Baptist background and stress that I am not charismatic. I have no doubt whatever that emotions are seized upon and ruthlessly used by the enemy. But I also recognize that God has long been working through emotions- remember the seventy that were gripped with prophesying? They included Saul, who evidently lost all reason while he was caught up in an emotional state. 

Tell me what you think. Finding that emotions were used of God so often in the awakenings was a game changer for me.

Pat


Saturday, March 04, 2023

So You Think You are Important?

 

So I was reading a Robert Parker “Spenser” novel recently, and I found an intriguing scene in which Spenser is observing a Hollywood man with a pinky ring in a restaurant, with, of course, a pretty woman by his side. His ostentatious manners, bragging about his recent trip to Europe, and his deplorable treatment of his waiter, all lent to the very realistic scene of a self-made man. I remember sitting next to pompous people who seem to have a deep love relationship with themselves, and I guess we, as humans, have had this problem a long while (See Narcissus).  Reflecting on this scene, I thought about the many people who do literally think the sun rises and sets on their whims.

At the extreme of the selfish spectrum are the murderers, for what can be more selfish than taking away someone else’s life, but there are many of our society who are not that extreme. Rather their selfishness is forged one quiet link at a time, eventually building a chain that would make Ebenezer’s ghost jealous. Their outlook is on themselves, and they never bother to notice what they miss by such a selfish focus. I do think that C.S. Lewis had it right in his caricatures of sinful people—such people even manage to perform acts of charity from a selfish basis.

It is not that man cannot do good; it is that the good is never done from the right mind set. Love of God ought to drive every one of our actions. Lewis perfectly captures the wrong motivation of people in The Great Divorce. A mother may love her son, but in the end, unless the love is properly placed under God, it is not love at all, but an extension of the mother’s selfish person. I do confess that I find this most hard to see when I look at others, but the Bible tells us that God looks on the heart rather than on the outward appearance. Now we usually see that outward appearance, and seldom do we catch more than a glimmer of what is going on inside. In that day, we shall see God as he is, and perhaps we will see the hearts of those in rebellion against God clearly, for the first time.

But that thought should be very scary; I know it is to me. The idea of God opening up my life, and seeing all the secrets of my heart, the heart that I know all too well, that idea is frightening to me. I use that fear to drive me to live this day, the only day that I have control of to live for God. I cannot change my sins of yesteryear, nor even of yesterday, and I do not know what the uncertain tides of the future may bring, but I can take the now, this present day, and turn it towards worshipping and loving my God.

It is almost as if success breeds failure. Men, charmed by the constant success of life with its growing potency, are lifted up to dizzying heights far beyond the common man. Yet, that lifting up, that soaring beyond expectation—is the very thing that damns their souls irrevocably. I read something recently where someone was praying for his children—not that they should be rich and famous, but that they should be righteous.

But it is an uncommon person who has the wisdom to seek first righteousness. Many of us seem to get lost in the details of life—as if the pressing needs of daily living quench the youthful quest for righteousness. I look at someone like Elvis, and I thank God that I do not have his wonderful talent for singing. You might at first be bewildered at my thankfulness, but I look at the enormous temptations that came to a young man with his immense success. Wine, women, and song were literally his to do with as he would, and his dismal record in living his life illustrates that the temptation was too much. I do thank God that I did not have to face those temptations; it is the very rare young person who finds himself strong enough to remain as a young Joseph, fleeing from acts of unrighteousness. I look at the Bible, and I understand when it says give me neither riches nor poverty, not riches lest I look on my wealth and forget my God, not poverty lest I forget and curse my God in my need. May God give us our portions, and the wisdom to be satisfied with them.

I have noticed the same thing in presidents. What man is there that does not become irrevocably conceited and proud by the time he reaches the highest office in the land? How much better that he should learn righteousness before power! Both Coolidge and Truman seem to be men capable of steering their own characters through the morass of entanglements that come from too much power. But in the many other biographies of presidents that I have read, it seems to me to be the exceptional president who is able to put his character and integrity before the temptations of power.

Luther pictured any man coming to the Bible, and being changed by the Word of God as God would have it. He pictured a people of priests, actionable and responsible before God, made righteous by faith alone, and that frightened the aristocratical church as badly as anything Luther ever did. Their very power base, largely founded on unrighteousness, was threatened by the idea of common people becoming priests. If people could go directly to the God to be made righteous, what power would remain to the church? I see the power of the church being so twisted that those who did read the good news of the Bible reeled in horror at the atrocities of the church. Luther was just one of many who were appalled at the things done in the name of Christ. I do wonder if the greatest deed that Luther and Calvin and the other great reformers did was to make the Bible available in common language for everyone to read. No longer did common citizens have to depend on the church to find out what the Bible said.

So what of the Bible? What does it say to those of us who dwell overlong on ourselves? The Bible teaches us that we have nothing of merit where we can stand before God. The answer is simple wisdom: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Someone once remarked that the next time you think you are invaluable, put your finger in a bowl of water, and then take it out, seeing what impression you have made. Our value in ourselves is absolutely nothing. Some wise man once observed that you and I are a bunch of zeroes until we get behind the right One. And, it is at that point that our only value, our only worth, our only conceit should reside. I am behind the right One.

When we at last come to the realization of our utter worthlessness before him, is it not ironic that at the same point he declares our worth? For who else has the Incarnation come, but for man? Chafer1 reminds us that at the cross, God declared the price of man to be higher than anything conceivable, as God himself willingly endured the judgments against man, and that God stretched himself even more than at Creation, paying the highest price, namely giving his all, that you and I might be redeemed. There was no greater price that God could have paid—he did everything possible for us in delivering himself to the cross. Now that is grace!

Yes, you are important! Made that way by God, but you only find that importance in him, and if you are going about, prideful over being that self-made man, you are missing everything that would define you as important. If you are such, you are in danger of being a zero who is never going to get behind the right one.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

1. SCRIPTURE discloses the fact that the power and resources of God are more taxed by all that enters into the salvation of the soul than His power and resources were taxed in the creation of the material universe. In salvation God has wrought to the extreme limit of His might. He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. He could do no more.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry (2008-07-19). Grace (Kindle Locations 447-449). Taft Software, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Can I Trust the Bible?

 The Christian Bible. Is it what it claims to be? Is it really the communication of God to man, through 40 different and distinct authors, over the incredible period of about 1,500 years? Well, this short answer is not meant to cover all the reasons why the Bible earns our complete trust, but there is a wonderful book that has been out for many years, called, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. I would recommend it for your delightful study, if you wish to study the reasons the Bible is reliable. Nevertheless, I would like to point to some of the most unusual features of the Bible that might make it highly trustworthy.

First, I would like to point out its collection into one book is unknown when compared to any other book. Forty different authors wrote over a period greater than 1,400 years to make this book. Prophets and priests wrote parts of the book, this book that we call the Bible. Kings and slaves wrote part of this book, and musical people and wise people wrote part of this book, and religious leaders and religious zealots wrote part of this book, this book that we call the Bible. Songs and poetry fill this book, but prophecy and narratives also fill this book. We even find fishermen and tax collectors filling this book, this book that we call the Bible. From every avenue of ancient culture, from every person, from least to greatest, from the enemies of Christ to his best friends, we have a collection that is united in one purpose. All Scripture is pointing to the grace of God which is in Christ Jesus. Jesus himself proclaimed, “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think that you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” No other book could ever compare to that!

Second, the prophecies of the coming Christ border on spectacular. To name just a few: he was pierced for our sorrows, he was born in Bethlehem, he fled to Egypt as an infant, that out of Egypt he was called. These prophecies are one of the most amazing parts of the Bible. Josh McDowell does a fine job of documenting the prophecies in chapter nine of his book, and I do not want to repeat it here. There is an interesting story about probability that I do recall from his book. Mathematicians took just eight of the several score of prophecies and tried to figure the odds of eight prophecies coming true. The odds were compared to covering the state of Texas in two feet of silver dollars, with one dollar marked, and then releasing a blind-folded man to randomly pick that one marked dollar. Spectacular is not a big enough word to describe all the Christological prophecies that were fulfilled. John, the apostle, spoke of himself in third person, saying of his gospel, “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.”

Third, there is what I term the seamlessness of the Bible, and by that I mean its continuity. Remember that it was written by 40 different writers over a period of approximately 1,400 years. The really strange thing is that a single-themed book would, or could, be produced. Yet, when I read the Bible, that is exactly what I find. A great many themes are started in Genesis, and completed all the way in Revelation. For instance, sin separates man and God in Genesis, but in Revelation, Jesus brings that separation to an end. The tree of life figures prominently in Genesis, and we see it again, all the way to the end of the book, in Revelation. The earth is new in Genesis, old and passing away in Revelation, with a new heaven and a new earth to be revealed. God clothes Adam and Eve after their sin, and in Revelation, the saints are clothed in white robes, signifying the righteousness of God. A single author is what it takes to unify all these themes, and though there were 40 writers, I think that we are forced to the conclusion that there is but one Author. Paul, the apostle, signified the veracity of scriptures famously, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”


The last testimony of the reliability of the Bible is in the millions of lives that have been changed by it. Look at Chuck Colson, who had a complete turnaround in his life when confronted with the Bible. Oh, you say, that is just one man. But any astute student of history will tell you that every generation has had its Chuck Colsons. Every generation has been filled with people who have found something in this great book which forever changes their lives. Look at the world around you, and tell me which book is forbidden in many countries of the world. Which book cannot be taught in many countries, and which book can you be thrown into jail for even owning? The testimony is from both those who have learned to love the Word, and those who hate it to such a point that they would ban it. Millions of lives have been separated by the words of this book, and I find that most persuasive as to its reliability. Peter tells us of the testimony of his disciples, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 

Reliable? Yes! Foundational? Yes! A Stumbling Block? Only to those who willfully disregard God’s message. Perhaps it’s time to take up the Bible with a new eye. Or at least a renewed eye—taking a fresh look at an old message. Maybe God does have something to say to you, and maybe it really matters enough for you to pay attention.


So you want to know what I believe?


          Just take your Bible and open up to any verse. Read the verse. Ask yourself the question, “Now I wonder what Pat would say about this verse.”

 

          You may rest assured that Pat indeed believes the verse. 

 

          “But what sense does Pat believe the verse?”

 

          I would answer to you that I believe it in the plain simple sense, trying to read it just as it was written.

 

 

          But you might ask, “What about difficult things like the trinity?”

          

          My answer is that I read my Bible. I find that Jesus claims to be equal with the Father, that the Holy Spirit is God also. I believe.

 

          “But that’s absurd,” you say. “You have to explain the triune nature of God somehow, because it is so important.”

 

          “If it is so important, then why did God Himself not explain it to us?” I answer. “Maybe, just maybe, He desired that we trust HIM for what we cannot explain.”

 

          “Oh,” you say. “I never thought of that before. You are saying that we should trust God for what is not explained.”

 

          “Exactly,” I reply. “The Scriptures tell us many things about God. We can build a systematic theology based on agreement of many of these things. Many of the early creeds did just that. But when we try to build out a systematic theology too far it becomes much more problematic. Just look at the disagreements between many of our godly historical figures.”

 

          You say, “But I am a bit dubious. Perhaps you can help me with other examples.”

 

          “I would be glad to point to another example. What is heaven like? I find myself, particularly in my older age, thinking of how God is going to make our lives. If I read my Bible right, we are to live with Christ (Paul says reign) in Jerusalem someday. We will partake of the water which is everlasting, and live with Him eternally. I often find myself, and hear others also, speculating what that life is going to be like. But too much speculation is not good for it goes beyond the ken of Scripture. If I go too far in assuming what that life will be like, I am sinning.”

 

          “How do you mean it goes beyond the ken of Scripture? I can see how one might get carried away. The Biblical allusions to heaven are many, and I like to dream also.”

 

          “Easy. Scripture says, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” We will not know the extent of the wonderful estate God has prepared for us until we get there. 

 

          “I chose this example deliberately, because it is rather easy to understand. Jesus tells us that he goes now to prepare for us “many mansions”. But we do not know what that means. I suspect that God has some rather tremendous surprises in store for us, but what they are I cannot guess. I rather think that God desires his children to be surprised.”

 

          “Okay, I get it. You are saying the mysteries of God sometimes need to stay His mysteries until the time comes “when we shall know even as we also are known.” Do you have more examples?”

 

          “Yes, you are getting exactly what I am saying. There are many other examples in the Scriptures where men of God have greatly differed over the years. One is the ordinance of communion. Some older churches think that communion is partaking of the actual blood and body of our Lord. Others think the passage is meant to be taken symbolically. But I read, “This is my body which is broken for you”, and I believe.”

 

          “So which viewpoint do you choose, the older church model, the symbolic model, or the one between?”

 

          “I say to you that it is not necessary to choose one of the viewpoints. It is necessary for me to believe what God says. I find it very easy to believe Him, because I assent to doing so, and I do not want to go beyond the scripture. Perhaps the Catholic view is correct, perhaps the Lutheran, or perhaps the symbolic. God asks us to simply do the ordinance, believing His scriptures. This I aim to do.”

 

          “Oh I see. You are saying that you should again let God decide how it is—rather your job is to have faith in the ordinance. Do you have another example?” 

 

          “Yes, an example that I think most Christians will readily see. In my neighborhood, a very rich man has paid for billboards all over town proclaiming the Lord’s coming to be on a certain date in May. This particular soul has once before proclaimed the date of the Lord’s coming, and though shown to be wrong, has evidently not learned his lesson. Jesus himself clearly teaches us that “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Jesus is careful to tell us signs and that we will know the “season” of his return, but the Father has reserved to himself that date that the Son shall return. Many saints of God have gone astray when they have picked dates for his return, and they have always been wrong.

 

          “Simply put, the Bible says that Christ will return as a thief in the night, and Paul tells us that we shall all be changed in a twinkling.  Again, it is my job to believe the Scripture and not to go beyond it. He is coming as “a thief in the night” and we saints are responsible to know the season of His coming, but not the day. “For no man knows the day.”

 

          “So are you saying we shouldn’t have developed creeds?”

 

          “No, not at all. I am saying, though, that there are many areas of Bible study that are unclear; sometimes the more we work to clear them up with our understanding, the more harm we do to the total of Scripture. God says it; that should be more than enough for the believer. I have a wonderful quote from A. W. Tozer on the same subject:

 

It is a sure road to sterile passivity. God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "O Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.

 

We believers have a main job: to preach the gospel to every person with the full expectation that many will hear the Word, believe, and begin to discover the deep love of God for themselves; it ought to be more than enough to keep us busy. “Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.”