Friday 30 November 2012

The Rapture: Is it Really Biblical? (Part: 3)

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
(Titus 2: 13, KJV)
 

In this third part of this series on dealing with some of the Scripture texts that Dispensationalists use for the Rapture, let's look at Titus 2: 13 and Hebrews 9: 28 passages that supposedly point to this great event called the Rapture. 

Titus 2: 13. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The words "blessed hope" here refers to the hope we have in the Gospel (see Col. 1: 5, 23). Now as for the phrase "glorious appearing" this speaks about the Second Coming of Christ.  The words "appear" or "appearing" is mention several times throughout the Epistles of the New Testament (see 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 1, 8; Heb. 9: 28; 1 Peter 1: 7; 5: 4; 1 John 2: 28; 3: 2). Each one of these verses refer to the Second Coming of Christ. Not once is the Rapture ever mentioned in these Epistles that supposedly points to the event of the Rapture. Matthew Poole has this to say about Titus 2: 13: 

"Ver. 13. Looking for that blessed hope; the object or end of our hope, the salvation of our souls, Ga 5:5; Col 1:5.   And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.  

1. It is he whom God hath appointed to be the judge of the quick and dead.  

2. 'epifaneia, by us translated appearing, is attributed only to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity, 2Th 2:8; 1Ti 6:14 2Ti 4:1,8. From this text the Divine nature of Christ is irrefragably concluded; he is not only called God, but megav yeov, the great God, which cannot be understood of a made God."[1] 

Hebrews 9: 28. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." The first part of this verse talks about how Christ was the One who was offered once to bear our sins on the Cross. Now in the second half, we see the phrase "shall he appear the second time," which speaks of the Second Advent of Christ. Again, quoting Matthew Poole: 

 "And unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin; and to his believing, penitent expectants, such as long for his coming, Php 3:20; Tit 2:13, stretching out their heads, as the mother of Sisera, Jg 5:28, with a holy impatience of seeing him, such as by faith and prayer are hastening it, Ro 8:23; 2Co 5:1-10 1Pe 1:3-9, shall he once more visibly appear to them and the world, Ac 1:11; Re 1:7, gloriously, without need to suffer or die again for them, having at his departure after his first coming, carried all their sins into the land of forgetfulness."[2] 

As the reader can see for him or herself, there is no indication ever given in Hebrews 9 that teaches the Dispensationalist's view of the supposed "Rapture." If the Rapture is an important key doctrine to the teaching in God's Word on the End Times, then there should be passages of Scriptures that support that view. But there just isn't any Scripture to back up that notion.



[1] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).
[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).

Thursday 29 November 2012

The Rapture: Is it Really Biblical? (Part: 2)

"And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."
(1 Thessalonians 1: 10, KJV)
 

In yesterday's blog we looked at John 14: 1-3 and 1 Corinthians 15: 51-53. Today we are going to look at 1 Thessalonians 1: 10; 2: 19; 4: 13-18; 5: 9, 23. No doubt, these Thessalonian passages are perhaps the most popular verses used by dispensationalists to support their doctrine on the Rapture, especially chapter 4: 13-18. So let us look at these passages from this First Epistle to the Thessalonians and see whether they refer to the teaching on the Rapture. 

1 Thessalonians 1: 10. After reading the entire chapter, it becomes apparent that the Rapture is not in view here. There are two parts of this verse I want to focus on as follows: (1.) "And to wait for his Son from heaven"; (2.) "Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come." The first part, "to wait for his son" is usually automatically assumed by advocates of Dispensationalists as referring to the Rapture. But there is nothing in this chapter that even hints at this. The chapter refers to the power of the Gospel.  

 "Which delivered us from the wrath to come: if we read the word as our translation hath it, delivered, it looks to what Christ hath already done and suffered for our deliverance. If in the present tense, as the Greek now hath it, it implies a continued act: he is delivering us from the wrath to come, either by his intercession, or by supplies of his grace delivering us from the power of sin and temptations, and so preserving us in a state of salvation. Or if we read the word in the future tense, who will deliver us, as we often find the present tense both in the Hebrew and Greek to have a future signification, it refers to his last coming; and therefore the saints need not be afraid of the terror of that day, but wait for it; for though the wrath to come is greater than ever yet brake forth in the world, Ro 2:5, yet a drop of it shall not fall upon them. Though they may meet with temporal afflictions and chastisements at present, and may be assaulted by the wrath of men, yet they shall be free from the wrath to come. And this will be done by a powerful rescue of Christ, as the word imports, ruomenon, notwithstanding all the danger and difficulty that may attend it."[1] 

1 Thessalonians 2: 19. The verse reads as follows, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?” (To be Continued...)



[1] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).

Wednesday 28 November 2012

The Rapture: Is it Really Biblical? (Part: 1)

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
(1 Thess. 4: 17, KJV)

I have been a strong believer and advocate of the "Rapture" for a number of years, until of recently. Just prior to my time I spent at NBBI, from 2002 to 2005, I began to question this doctrine on the Rapture. It is only now for the first time that I am writing my view on the Rapture. There are a number of Scripture references that Dispensationalists use to advocate their teaching on the Rapture, an event that will happen just prior to the Second Coming of the Lord. The Scriptures are as follows: John 14: 1-3; Romans 8: 19-20; 1 Cor. 1: 7-8; 15: 51-53; 16: 22; Phil. 3: 20-21; 4: 5; Col. 3: 4; 1 Thess. 1: 10; 2: 19; 4: 13-18; 5: 9, 23; 2 Thess. 2: 1, 3; 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 1, 8; Titus 2: 13; Hebrews 9: 28; James 5: 7-9; 1 Peter 1: 7, 13; 5: 4; 1 John 2: 28-3: 2; Jude 21; Rev. 2: 25; 3: 10. In this blog I will only focus on a few of the verses here that Dispensationalists use to support their doctrine of the Rapture.  

John 14: 1-3. Particularily verse 3 which reads, "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." The Dispensationalist will argue that this verse speaks about the Rapture, for, according to them, it talks about the return of the Lord to receive His people at the event of the Rapture just prior to the seven year Tribulation period. However, this is not what these verses in John 14: 1-3 are teaching. A simple reading of the entire chapter will reveal that nothing is even mentioned about the Rapture. If the Dispensationalist is so insistent on using this passage of Scripture as a proof text for the Rapture, then where is the evidence in this chapter to support this teaching? The truth is, there is none. All these verses are saying is that the Lord is assuring His people that He has a place for us in heaven and will return for us at His Second Coming. Matthew Poole has this to say about John 14: 3: 

"Ver. 3. The particle if in this place denotes no uncertainty of the thing whereof he had before assured them; but in this place hath either the force of although, or after that: When, or after that, I have died, ascended, and by all these acts, as also by my intercession, shall have made places in Heaven fully ready for you, I will in the last day return again, as Judge of the quick and the dead, and take you up into heaven, 1Th 4:16,17; that you may be made partakers of my glory, Joh 17:22. This is called, Ro 8:17, a being glorified together with him; and elsewhere, a reigning with him. So as this is a third argument by which our Lord comforteth his disciples as to their trouble conceived for the want of His bodily presence with them, from the certainty of his return to them, and the end and consequent of his return: the end was to receive them to himself; the consequent, their eternal abiding with Christ where he was."[1] 

1 Corinthians 15: 51-53. "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." It is important to know that this chapter is known as the "resurrection chapter." As you can tell by what the verses are describing, it is talking about the change that will occur in believers at the Resurrection of the saints. There is no connection mentioned here in these verses to the Rapture. Even more telling is they say the resurrection of the saints will happen at the Rapture, which is false. For Paul says in the same chapter, verses 23-24, "But each in its own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at his coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power." The phrase, "at His coming" refers to Christ's Second Coming when Jesus will return with a multitude of angelic hosts to judge the world in righteousness and sin. Dispensationalists teach that after the rapture will be a seven year Tribulation period, but the  phrase, "then comes the end" destroys this teaching. According to Scripture, at the end of this age is the age to come--eternity (Matt. 12: 32; Mark 10: 30; Luke 20: 34-35; Eph. 1: 20-21; 1 Tim. 6: 17, 19--the line of demarcation is Matt. 13: 39, 40, 49). Concerning verse 52, Matthew Poole makes this insightful statement: 

"Ver. 52. This change will be on the sudden, in a moment; either upon the will and command of Christ, which shall be as effectual to call persons out of their graves, as a trumpet is to call persons together; or rather, upon a sound made like to the sound of a trumpet, as it was at the giving of the law upon Sinai, Ex 19:16. We read of this last trump, Mt 24:31; 1Th 4:16. There shall (saith the apostle) be such a sound made; and upon the making of it, the saints, that are dead, shall be raised out of their graves; not with such bodies as they carried thither, (which were corruptible), but with such bodies as shall be no more subject to corruption; and those who at that time shall be alive, shall one way or another be changed, and be also put into an incorruptible state."[2]

We see here that the Dispensationalist's teaching on the Rapture is backwards. For it is the wicked who are taken and the righteous who are left behind (Matt. 24: 37-41; Luke 17: 34-37; Matt. 13: 24-30, 47-50). "The word translated “left,” in Matthew 24: 37-41 and Luke 17: 34-37, is the Greek aphiemi (αφιεται), which, in one of its three chief meanings, means “to send forth, let go, forgive, or pardon.” ... The word translated “taken,” in Matthew 24: 37-41 and Luke 17: 34-37, is the Greek paralambano (παραλαμβανεται), which means “taken violently in judgment,” as can be seen in Matthew 27: 27 of the “taking” of Jesus by the soldiers to be scourged, and in John 19: 16 of the “taking” of Jesus being crucified."[3]


[1] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).
[2] Matthew Poole, Ibid., (Power Bible CD, 5.2).
[3] Timothy Klaver, The Berean Desk: The Rapture in the Synoptic Gospels? 

Tuesday 27 November 2012

What it Means to Surrender to God?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
(Matthew 16: 25, KJV) 
 
 
In some Christian circles the topic of surrendering to the Lord has to do with more of an outward show, such as being slain in the spirit, speaking in tongues, or some other showy gift as a so called witness to all who watch that you have supposedly surrendered to the Lord. Then the next group of Christians think surrendering to the Lord means living under the yoke of rules and regulations in a legalistic manner. They do this with very little to no joy at all. Lastly, there is the group of believers who think doing a lot of good things for people is surrendering to the Lord, but do it rather for themselves, instead of doing it unto the Lord. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule here though.  

So what can we draw from today's text on what it means to truly surrender to the Lord? Today's text says, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 16: 25). The phrase "save his life" does not necessarily imply one preserving his life physically. However, some of God's children have been called to lay down their physical lives for the sake of the Gospel. The problem with a lot of God's people today is that they count their lives too precious to give up to God for the cause of the Gospel. Chapter 10: 39 corresponds to Matthew 16: 25. It states: "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." The People's New Testament Commentary has this to say about the phrase "He that findeth his life..." in light of Matthew 10: 39: 

"He that findeth his life shall lose it. Whoever counts his life of so much value that he will preserve it by sacrificing his Christian integrity, or will renounce his religion to save his life, will find in the end that he has lost his soul forever for the sake of a few fleeting years; while he who gives up all things, even life itself, will find an abundant reward in the life eternal. All self-seeking is self-losing. The Divine law is always to give in order to receive."[1] 

Matthew Poole adds this thought: 

"Ver. 39. Joh 12:25, giveth us a commentary upon these words thus, He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. He in this text is said to find his life, who thinks that he hath found, that is, saved it, who is so much in love with his life that, rather than he will lose it, he will lose God's favour, deny the Lord that brought him, deny the most fundamental truths of the gospel. The man that doth thus (saith Christ) shall lose it; possibly he shall not obtain the end he aims at here, but if he doth he shall lose eternal life. When, on the contrary, he that is valiant for the truth shall sometimes be preserved, notwithstanding his enemies' rage; but if this happens not, yet he shall have life eternal, his mortality shall be swallowed up in life."[2] 

As one can see, discipleship is serious business, when it comes to following the Lord. There is no room for half-hearted Christianity. It is either all or nothing. Either we live for ourselves or for the Lord. There are three things to consider about surrendering your life to God. They are...

1. The Condition of  Our Surrender.

The condition of our surrender to God is to be absolute. We cannot surrender to the Lord on our "terms," for the "terms" that we are to surrender by, are God's terms, and His terms alone! It is the Lord who has written the terms, not man! We are required to surrender our "whole person" to the Lord. This is nonegotiable. The Apostle Paul gives the terms in Romans 12: 1: "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (NASB).

2. The Cost of Our Surrender.

What is the cost of our surrender to God? It will cost you everything that you hold dear that will get in the way of the absolute devotion and fellowship the Lord expects of you and I. It means death to the self life and life to the life we have in Christ! "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2: 20, NASB). In context to this truth here in Galatians 2: 20, three times the word "crucified" is mentioned: We are to be "crucified with Christ" (2: 20); we are to "have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (5: 24); and lastly, we are to understand that "the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (6: 14). Concerning the "cost" Paul writes: "But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,..." (Phil. 3: 7-8, NASB). See the truth being conveyed here by Paul. To put it simply: cost is almost always associated with loss. Without "loss" there is really no "cost." And a so called "surrender" one makes to God that costs him or her nothing is really just that, "nothing." Let our attitude in our surrender to God be that of David's "I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God which cost me nothing" (2 Sam. 24: 24; 1 Chron. 21; 24). So may it be said of our life as well.

3. The Commitment of Our Surrender.

Our commitment to our Lord is also to be absolute. It is never to be done half heartedly. Paul's commitment in his surrender to God was uncompromising: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Phil. 1: 21, NASB). In the same letter to the Philippians, Paul says this about the purpose of his commitment to Christ: "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3: 10, NASB). Again, Paul writes, "I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 14). Oh to be all the more committed in our daily surrender to our most precious Lord. Let us daily love and praise Him in our resolve to follow Him.
 



[1] Unkown, The People's New Testament Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).
[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD, 5.2).

Monday 26 November 2012

Greater or Better than the Son?

"I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
(John 14: 28, KJV) 

The Watchtower has a teaching that denies the deity of Christ. One of their favorite verses they will quote as a proof text is the theme text above. They will argue that the Son is not God because the Father is "greater" than the Son. What they are implying here is that the Father is "better" than the Son, because He is God, while the Son is not. According to the Watchtower publication Let God be True, Jehovah is greater than Jesus not only in regard to office but also in regard to His person. Jehovah is intrinsically greater than Jesus.[1] So the question is, does John 14: 28 disprove the deity of Christ?  

No, not at all. First, let's look at the words greater and better. The title for this blog, "Greater or Better?" is reminiscent of the two recent blogs I had written about Christ's superiority over angels. Regarding the terms greater and better. They are defined as follows. Greater in the context of the Scripture passage above would mean in regards to the Father's position over the Son; Better here in keeping with the context would refer to the Father's person being more superior than the Son. So does greater mean Jehovah is better in person than the Son? Is the Son less than the Father in person as God? 

No, not in the least. Because the Watchtower does not know Jehovah, they continually misrepresent Christ. John 14: 28 is a classic example of this. They either totally miss what other Scriptures say about Jesus Christ, or they purposefully ignore them. If the Father is better than the Son in person, because He is God and the Son is not; then how does one explain honestly, "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 30). This verse points out the equality of the Son with the Father; whereas, John 1: 1; 8: 58 points out the eternality of the Son with the Father in His pre-existence and equality. Since the Lord Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son" of the Father, that automatically puts Him in equal footing with the Father. For example, let's say an earthly king had an only son. Naturally, the father who is the king would be greater in position than the son, but never in person. For when the king dies, the son will inherit the throne and become king in his father's place, which makes him now equal in position as his father was. Even the Jews understand this truth: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5: 18).  

Another eye-opening Scripture is Philippians 2: 6, which states: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In "form" the Son is referred to here as God. Now as for the word "equal," this re-enforces the truth. The Athanasian Creed affirms that Christ is "equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood."[2] 

Again, quoting Mr. Rhodes on Philippians 2: 6. 

“Paul’s affirmation that Christ was “in the form of God” is extremely significant. Christ in His essential being is and has always been eternal God—just as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Theologian Charles Ryrie notes that the word form in the Geek connotes “that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing. Thus here it means that our Lord in his preincarnate state possessed essential deity.” Reformed theologian Benjamin Warfield comments that the word form is a term “which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is.” Used of God, the words refer to “the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call ‘God,’ specifically God, rather than some other being—an angel, say, or a man.”[3] 

Here below are two definitions that elaborate in more detail on the term “form” in Philippians 2: 6. 

3444. μορφη morphe; gen. morphes, fem. noun. Form, shape. Morphe appears with schema (4976), fashion, the whole outward appearance, in Phil 2:6-8. These two word stand for the form and fashion of a person or thing. A form would exist were it alone in the universe even if there were none to behold it. There may be a concept (to nooumenon, pres. act. part. of noeo [3539], to conceive, exercise the mind) without becoming apparent or externally visible. The nooumenon, conceptual, may remain such or may become phainomenon (pres. act. part. of phaino [5316], to appear), visible, with a shape, which can be observed. The use of morphe and schema implies that an appearance is made in a visible form and fashion. 

Morphe in Phil 2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphe) of God who was not God. However, morphe is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphe Theou, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5) took at His incarnation the morphen doulou (doulos [1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. huparchon, "being" in the form of God. Huparcho (5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. nothing appeared that was not an obj. reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphe) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schema) of man. The schema, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (John 1:1a, 14a). See Sept.: Dan 4:36; 5:6, 9, 10. 

In Mark 16:12, the expression en hetera morphe (en [1722], in; hetera [2087], qualitatively another; morphe, the same as metemorphothe, aor. pass. of metamorphoo [3339], in another form, means that Christ was transformed (Matt 17:2; Mark 9:2; Sept.: Isa 44:13). The transfiguration upon the mount was a prophetic anticipation of that which we shall all experience at Christ's return (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor 15:52). This form in which the risen Lord appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13ff.) was a human form but different from that which Jesus had during His life on earth, yet He was readily recognized by His disciples.”[4] 

This next quote by Mr. Wuest, powerfully builds on the definition above. 

“[This is the mind] which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His inner being [that of absolute deity], and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, this being on an equality with deity ]in the expression of the divine essence], but himself He emptied, himself He made void, having take the outward expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His nature [as deity], entering into a new state of existence, that of mankind. And being found to be in outward guise as man, He stooped very low, having become obedient [to God the Father] to the extent of death, even such a death as that upon a cross. (Phil. 2:6-8)”[5] 

As one can see from what has been said in this blog that Jesus Christ is every bit as much God as the Father is. He is equal in every way. Only in Christ’s humanity was the Father “greater” than the Son, but only for the short while He sojourned here on earth. So the Watchtower’s assertion that John 14: 28 is proof against the deity of Christ is false. The Father was "greater" in position than the Son, while the son made Himself "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 9), and took upon himself humanity. But never is it indicated in Scripture that the Father was better or more superior in person than the Son of God. The case above speaks for itself.



[1] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009), pgs. 145-146.
[2] Ron Rhodes, Ibid., page 146.
[3] Ron Rhodes, Ibid., page 148.
[4] Ed. Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 997.
[5] Kenneth Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, p. 462-463.
 

Friday 23 November 2012

Is Love More than a Feeling, Behavior, or Action?



When it comes to expressing "love," we feel it, show it, and do it. Love is known in the Word of God as the chief fruit of all the fruits of the Spirit (see Gal. 5: 22-23). It is the fruit that makes all the other ones possible to cultivate in our lives as believers. However, it is also one of the most misunderstood fruits of the Spirit. Let us consider briefly what some of these misunderstandings are about love. 

1. Our FEELINGS in Relation to our LOVE: To begin with, people often equate love to a feeling. In other words, their love for others is dictated by how they "feel" about that person at that moment. They associate love to just a mere feeling. It is true that our feelings are sometimes closely connected to how we love others. However, our feelings are often subject to change. For example, a loving relationship between a husband and wife. One moment the wife feels love for her husband, while in another moment she does not feel love for her husband, even though in reality she does love her husband. So you see, feelings cannot determine one's love for another. It is not that it is wrong to feel love towards others, It just should not be the determining factor in how we love others. The fact is love is much more than a feeling or an emotion. Love is something we choose to express towards our spouses, family members, friends, and should also be shown towards strangers in a certain measure. Love should dominate our feelings, instead of letting our feelings dominate our love. For loving others according to our feelings can have disastrous results, if left unchecked and uncorrected. 

2. Our BEHAVIOR in Relation to our LOVE: Sometimes when the topic of love is brought up, the subject of how one behaves is too. Many have been mislead to believe that how one behaves is another way to show how one loves. However, one's behavior does not determine one's love.  A person can have outstanding behavior in the presence of all who know him or her, yet not have an ounce of love demonstrated in that behavior. For that individual's motive could be strictly out of duty, obligation, or for some selfish gain. Though one's behavior may be good and right, but one's motive behind the behavior could be wrong. Much like feelings, behavior also has its place in how our love is to be demonstrated to others. In retrospect, Love should be the driving force behind our behavior. For example, I work with a young man who is mentally delayed. When I do things for him, it ought to be done out of brotherly love, not just out of duty or obligation.  Behavior ought not to be the driving force behind our love, but rather our love should be the driving force behind our behavior. 

3. Our ACTION in Relation to our LOVE: Now both behavior and action have something in common. Our behavior is a personal action; whereas, our action towards others is a public action. Some people wrongly assume that how we treat and what we do for others is without a doubt one of the greatest ways to show our love to others. But Paul warns, "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Cor. 13: 3, NIV). So doing great works of kindness towards others and even willing to lay down our life for some cause is not an indication of our love. No matter how good someone's actions are does not mean it was motivated by genuine love. Our outward action to others should be done in Christ like love, not out of law, duty, or for some selfish motive.  The Lord Jesus says, "My commandment is this: Love each other as I have loved you." (John 15: 12, NIV). "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men." (Col. 3: 23; see also Eph. 6: 7). As one can see, love is an action verb, not just a word written on a page.  

To conclude, love is the combination of all three points above and is much more than that. It is a feeling, a behavior, as well as an action. But such feelings, behavior, and action need to be ruled by love. True love is more than the world’s kind of cheap love that only sticks around when things are going well, then quickly fades once things go wrong. It is a selfish kind of love that is based on conditions. It says, I will love you if you are beautiful, or I will love you if you do things for me, or lastly, I will love you if you have sex with me. This is not real genuine love. True love is unconditional love. It is not based on conditions. It freely bestows its blessing on the receiver. It loves without being asked to, it loves without any complaint, it loves the unlovable. Love loves completely, even when the loved one doesn’t deserve it.

Thursday 22 November 2012

The Zodiac and the Bible

"Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?"
(Job 38: 32, KJV)
 

In the last blog, I dealt with the Mayan prophecy about the end of the world happening on Friday December 21, 2012. There was included in the Mayan Long-Count Calendar the zodiac. Since the Mayans were pagan. It follows that their use of the zodiac would be also pagan. However, what a lot of people are not aware of is the true origin of the Zodiac. Most people think the Zodiac and its twelve signs originated from pagan sources, but this is not at all true.  

As you can see from today's text, the term "Zodiac" is called the "Mazzaroth" in the oldest book in the Bible, Job. The name Mazzaroth in the above text refers to the twelve signs. The Zodiac signs and their true meaning has on the most part been lost. The Zodiac we see in books and magazines and other sources today is the corrupt pagan versions. Nevertheless what is interesting is that such authors as Henry M. Morris and Ken Fleming as well as others were still able to decipher and reconstruct from the twelve signs of the paganized Zodiac the true and original meaning of the Mazzaroth.  

So there are two primary versions of the Zodiac, the pagan zodiac and the Zodiac that originated from God. According to Genesis 1: 14, which reads, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." (KJV). Does this not sound familiar? This is exactly what the zodiac was used for by the ancient Mayans in their calendars. To measure time, such as "signs, seasons, days, and years." It is important to note that there are two other terms that the zodiac goes by. Astrology and Horoscopes. Christian Apologists, Robert Morey defines the term "Astrology" as follows: 

"Astrology is the belief that the destinies of nations and individuals are determined by relative positions of the stars. These destinies can be discovered by a detailed examination of horoscopes which have been drawn by professional astrologers."[1] 

In other words, the pagan form of the zodiac was used for divination purposes which the Bible condemns (see Deut. 18: 9-10; 2 Kings 17: 17). For it is known among the ancients that many pagans worship the stars and planets in the heavens, even naming them their gods such as Astarte, Moloch, and Baal and all the starry hosts. For example, Mr. Morey makes this comment: 

"King Rehoboam of Judah not only erected images of Taurus but also of Aries the goat (2 Chron. 11:15; Lev. 17:7). The god Molech (Milchom, Moloch, Malcham) to whom human sacrifices were made was another astrological god who was worshipped (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-6). It represented the sun and was worshipped by casting live children into the fire in its belly. 

The worship of Moloch and "Rephan" or Saturn is condemned in Acts 7:43: "You have lifted up the shrine of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore, I will send you into exile beyond Babylon." When godly kings such as Josiah arose in Israel, they cleansed the nation of the elements of astrology. Several astrological deities are mentioned in the following account: 

"The king [Josiah] ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the Lord all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel. He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah and on those around Jerusalem those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry hosts. He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the Lord to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah (2 Kings 23:4-7)." 

The Old Testament refers to Israel's frequent involvement in Baal worship nearly one hundred times. Baal was the Phoenician sun-god. Apostate Israel went so far as to build houses dedicated to the worship of the sun (Baal) and even to install horses and chariots dedicated to sun worship (2 Kings 23:11)."[2] 

Mr. Morey then goes on in more detail about these pagan gods in the starry heavens. Indeed, not only does Israel have a sad history of worshipping false gods, but North America has its own sad commentary both historically and at present in also worshipping false gods. Oh, that the people in my country (myself included) would make it a point to warn others against worshipping the false gods of materialism, hedonism, false religions, and many other things that become idols in our lives. Oh that we would be wise like righteous Josiah who removed the false images and false gods from his land.  

“With appropriate reservations, therefore, a narrative such as the following might be inferred from the 12 main signs and their respective decans. 

Virgo. “A Deliverer will come into the human family someday, born as a man, yet supernaturally conceived of a virgin, seed of a woman, yet Son of God.” 

Libra. “Since man is a sinner and under the curse, an adequate price must be paid to redeem him and balance the scales of divine justice.” 

Scorpio. “The price of redemption must be the death of the Deliverer, since man is under the condemnation of death, and yet, in dying, He must also destroy the Serpent who led man into sin.” 

Sagittarius. “To prevent the coming of the Deliverer in the human family, the great dragon will seek to corrupt mankind into a race of demon-possessed monsters and murderers.” 

Capricornus. “Man will finally become so sinful as to leave no remedy but complete inundation in his entire world.” 

Aquarius. “The floodgates of heaven will pour forth waters to cleanse an evil world, but representatives of the land animals will survive to fill the earth again.” 

Pisces. “From the waters will emerge the true people of God, as God retains His kingly throne despite all the attacks of Satan.” 

Aries. “In the fullness of time, the seed of the woman will come, ready to die as the sacrifice for man’s sins, paying the great price to redeem His bride and destroy the works of the dragon.” 

Taurus. “Having paid the price, the slain Ram will rise as the mighty Bull, to execute judgment on all ungodliness and to rule supreme.” 

Gemini. “As both Son of God and Son of Man, the second Adam will claim His bride as did the first Adam, taking her to himself forever.” 

Cancer. “All the redeemed will come to Him from all times and places, secure eternally in His presence, enjoying His love and fellowship.” 

Leo. “As eternal king and Lord of lords, He will utterly vanquish and destroy the serpent and all his followers, reigning forever and ever.” 

This suggested original message of Mazzaroth is only a suggestion, of course, but in view of all the unkown factors involved, seems to be a reasonable reconstruction, consistent both with what is known of primeval revelation and with later Scripture. In any case, there seems to be sufficient correlation to indicate the primeval divine origin of this “gospel in the stars,” but later corrupted into the pagan tales and symbols of astrology.”[3]



[1] Robert A. Morey, Horoscopes and the Christian, (Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1981), pg. 7.
[2] Robert A. Morey, Ibid., page 9.
[3] Henry M. Morris, Henry M. Morris III,  Many Infallible Proofs: Evidences for the Christian Faith, (Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR, 1996), pgs. 374-376.

Wednesday 21 November 2012

The Mayan Prophecy and the Bible


Over the past couple years there has been a lot of hype over the Mayan Long-Count Calendar that supposedly predicts the end of the world as we know it. This prophecy is perhaps the most popular and most talked about in the world today. It is popular among many New Agers and UFO enthusiasts, and a number of cults around the world. The date predicted for the end of the world is Friday December 21, 2012. So is there any merit to this date that has been set for the supposed end of the world? Let's explore this subject together and see what the Word of God says about it.
There are two popular views that are promoted today surrounding the December 21, 2012 date. They are as follows: (1.) The Pole-Shift Theory along with a number of scientific predictions as well; (2.) and the Mayan Calendar prediction. There are a number of other religions as well as other ancient prophecies that also supposedly speak of this date. In this blog entry, I will be just looking at the Mayan prophecy and what the Word of God has to say about it?
What is the Mayan Long-Count Calendar?
There are three primary calendars that the Maya's relied on for their main time-tracking calendars. They are as follows: (1.) The Solar Calendar, known as the Haab', or Vague Year, was based on the celestial cycle. (2.) The ceremonial or sacred calendar called the Tsolk'in, was related to the Venus' cycle. (3.) The Long-Count calendar was used to document the "world age cycles" that repeat over and over. 
The Mayan Long-Count Calendar consists of a time period of 26, 000 years from beginning to end with five cycles of 5,125 years. Writing on this subject, author Lloyd B. Hildebrand makes this insightful comment below:
"The Mayans saw the 26, 000-year period...as being divided into five cycles, and each of these cycles was believed to be approximately 5, 125 years long; each was also considered to be its own "world age" or "creation cycle." The Aztec Calendar (the sun stone), which we will discuss more fully in a later chapter, shows each of these cycles as being ruled and destroyed by one of the five natural elements.
The following chart shows the various divisions related to the long-count calendar:
1. The Precession of the Equinoxes -- 26, 000 years. This period is known as the Grand Cosmic Year.
2. The Five Creation Cycles -- 5, 125 years each. (The Fifth Great Cycle began in 3114 BC, and it will end on December 21, 2012.)
3. Baktuns -- Cycles o 394 years (or 144, 000 days) each.
4. Each era lasts approximately 2, 152 Years.”[1]

What is even more interesting is the fact that the Mayans were sometimes referred to as the "Lords of Time." And according to many researchers, they have earned that title. The Mayans had an incredible accuracy in keeping time as seen in their calendars. Another notable author, Mark Hitchcock had this to say about the time keeping abilities of the Mayans:
"The Maya weren't just interested in time, they were obsessed with it. They were galactic masters. The Mayan calendar keepers painstakingly charted the cycles of the moon, the sun, and Venus. Their uncanny accuracy was not duplicated until modern times. As Lawrence Joseph notes, "Without telescopes or any other apparatus, Mayan astronomers calculated the length of the lunar month to be 29.53020 days, within 34 seconds of what we now know to its actual length of 29.53059 days. Overall, the 2000-year-old Mayan calendar is believed by many to be more accurate than the 500-year-old Gregorian calendar we use today." Their solar year was estimated to be 365.2450 days minus an error of .0002. Our modern calendar calculates it as 365.2425 plus an error of .0003. And the Mayan astronomers did all of this without the help of telescopes, computers, or calculators.
The Maya didn't keep track of time for just a few years, or even a few decades. They kept track of time for centuries, even millennia, up to 26, 000 years. "For the Maya, time was holy. It had its own set of qualities that reflected in events. Time formed history, not the other way around...Time was not a succession of days; it was the enactment of a cosmic plan. The Mayan time codes are very elaborate and precise.
Like most premodern cultures, the Maya viewed history not as the linear passage of time but as a series of cycles that repeated over and over again. For them, it was all about numbers and cycles. Their calendars meticulously measured cycles."[2]

So what does all this add up to? Well, according to the Mayan Long-Count calendar, we are nearing the end of the fifth cycle, which is going to end on Friday December 21, 2012. What is actually going to happen? The answer will be seen in my next point below.
What is going to Happen at the End of this Fifth Cycle?

To put it simply and boldly, the world is NOT going to END on that given DATE for Friday December 21, 2012. What is going to happen at the end of this Fifth Cycle? Simple, it is just going to end that Cycle on the Mayan Long-Count calendar just like the 20th century ended on our Gregorian calendar date back in December 31, 1999 at 12: 00am. Perhaps you might say who am I to say the world won't end on that date. Well, I can say that because I am not saying it in my own authority, nor am I appealing to any man's authority. I am appealing to a much higher Authority, the Authority of God's Word! This of course leads to my last point below.

What does God's Word say about setting Dates for the End of the World?
There has been a lot of speculations and predictions of doom and gloom surrounding the date for Friday December 21, 2012. Now whether such wild speculations and predictions are true remains to be seen. For there has been a number of modern day Doomsday prophets who have predicted the date for the end of the world. And each one has been proven to be wrong. The Scriptures are clear "of that day and hour no one knows,..." (Matt. 24: 36, NASB). In the same chapter in Matthew, we read these words, "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming...For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will." (24: 42, 44, see also v. 50). Another passage of Scripture further adds, "Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come" (Mark 13: 33, NASB). As you can see from the above Scriptures that it is abundantly clear that "man" cannot predict "the actual date" when the world is going to end. It is not for man to know, but for God alone to know "that day and hour" when He will return. However, the verses above do instruct God's people to "be on the alert," "be ready," and "take heed, [pay attention]." In other words, the Lord expects His people to be not distracted by the things of this world, but to be watchful and prepared for the Second Coming of Christ.



[1] Lloyd B. Hildebrand, 2012: Is this the End, (Bridge Logos, Alachua, Florida, 2009), pg. 7.  
[2] Mark Hitchcock, 2012: The Bible and the End of the World, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009), pgs. 31-32.  
 

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."
(Jude 9, KJV)
 
The Watchtower teaches that Michael the archangel is the Lord Jesus Christ. The organization's primary magazine, bearing the same title as the organization, The Watchtower makes these following statements: "Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel."[1] Again, another Watchtower magazine says, "Jesus Christ, whom we understand from the Scriptures to be Michael the archangel..."[2] God's Word mentions Michael the archangel only five times (see Dan. 10: 13, 21; 12: 1; Jude 9; Rev. 12: 7). One of their arguments for Michael the archangel being identified as the Lord Jesus Christ is presented this way: 

"Why do we conclude that Jesus is the archangel Michael? God's Word mentions only one archangel, and it speaks of that angel in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus: "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet." (1 Thessalonians 4:16). At Jude 9 we find that this archangel's name is Michael."[3] 

Another publication by the Jehovah's Witness further argues on the same point: 

"At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as "the archangel's call," and Jude 9 says that hte archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression "archangel" is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)"[4] 

This of course leads us to the question, "Is this really what the Scriptures teach about the Lord Jesus Christ?" Let us consider five reasons why the Lord Jesus Christ is not Michael the archangel. The five points are as follows. 

(1.) The Lord Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son of God" (John 1: 14, 18). This is never said of the archangel Michael. Also, Hebrews specifically states in chapter one verse six, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." Notice this verse states "ALL" angels of God are to worship Him, that is the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes Michael the archangel. 

(2.) Since the Lord Jesus is the only unique "Son of God" ("only one of a kind"); whereas, Michael the archangel is "one of the chief princes" among a number of princes (Dan. 10: 13; 12: 1). According to Jewish tradition, there are seven archangels of which only two angels are mentioned by name in the Bible: Michael and Gabriel. The Scriptures only identify Michael as an archangel; whereas Gabriel is not mentioned as one. 

(3.) The Lord Jesus Christ is only one who has the authority to rebuke the Devil, "Get thee behind me, Satan" (Matt. 16: 23); whereas, Michael the archangel would not rebuke Satan. Instead, he said, "The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9). This shows that Michael did not have the authority to rebuke the Devil. Another important point about the Lord Jesus' authority is that only He has the "authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9: 6, NASB). The Jewish scribes [teachers] considered this blasphemy for Jesus to claim that He can forgive sins. "Who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2: 7). Since the Lord Jesus Christ is "God...manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3: 16). It is only right to conclude that Jesus is indeed God and is able to forgive sins. No where in the Scriptures do we ever read of the archangel Michael having the authority to forgive sins. 

(4.) No where do we find in the Holy Scriptures the Lord Jesus Christ being identified as Michael the archangel. The phrase "with the voice of the archangel" (1 Thess. 4: 16, KJV). This only states that the Lord Jesus' voice will sound "like" an archangel's voice. To insinuate that this is Michael the archangel is to read into the text what is not there. As stated earlier, since there is more than one archangel, "one of the chief princes", then which one is being referred to here? (See Dan. 10: 13). This of course refutes the Watchtower's book Reasoning from the Scriptures argument, "...the expression "archangel" is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one." (pg. 218).  Now as for Daniel 12: 1, It is important to note the "great prince,...Michael" mentioned in this Scripture passage speaks of him as the guardian who "standeth for the children of thy people [Israel]." The Lord's chosen earthly people. 

(5.) If the Lord Jesus was Michael the archangel, that would make Satan higher in rank than Him, the very Son of God! For Satan's rank is the "anointed cherub" the highest in rank over all God's angels, not over the Son of God (see Isa. 14: 12-17; Ezek. 28: 12-19).



[1] The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, page 17.
[2] The Watchtower, February 15, 1979, page 31.
[3] The Watchtower, April 15, 1991, page 28.
[4] Reasoning from the Scriptures, (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1989), pg. 218.