Anchor of the Soul

Teary-Eyed Semantics

2012-02-03T08:03:00.000-08:00

One of the most comforting verses of scripture has to be Revelation 21:4...

"And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

Traditionally, Christians apply this statement to our future life in heaven, not to life here on earth. After all, life on earth - even the Christian's life - is filled with tears, death, sorrow, crying and pain. The contrast is drawn throughout scripture between an imperfect life here and a perfect life that awaits faithful Christians.

"For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life" (2 Cor. 5:4).

"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21).

Even in Revelation 21, there is a contrast between the "first earth" and the "new earth," and even though I believe much of the book pertained to events of the first century, these final chapters obviously have future application. We are filled with hope, and upon reading Revelation 21-22, we anticipate the fulfillment of these promises - promises of a future state of bliss in the very presence of God. No more tears or pain; no more death or sorrow. How wonderful!

And yet our "parade" is "rained upon" by those who want to contend that the promises of Revelation 21-22 were fulfilled in the days of the apostles. In fact, these same people take ALL of the statements about Jesus' final return and the bliss of heaven and argue that the language is purely symbolic and had first century application. What is their reasoning?

Well, the basis for this doctrine is that the language of, say, Revelation 21-22, was also used in the Old Testament in reference to physical events that occurred then. The prophet Isaiah spoke of a people that would be devastated and yet would once more attain glory and bliss at the hand of the Lord:

"He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth: for the Lord has spoken" (Is. 25:8)

There are other comparisons we could examine, but like I said, there are certain religious people that will use these comparisons to rebuff the traditional views of the New Testament promises of Jesus' final return, the final judgment, and the perfection of heaven. I'm not going to get into all of that right now, but I would like to focus on the language of Revelation 21:4 and Isaiah 25:8.

I admit that the two verses are similar. Isaiah, speaking of events that have passed, and John, speaking of this "new earth" that awaits the faithful, both promise that God will "wipe away tears." Does this prove that John's description of the "new earth" in Revelation 21 may have a physical, rather than an heavenly application? Does this highlight the inconsistency of our traditional reading of Revelation 21? In other words, how can we say that Revelation 21 is yet-future and then say that the very same language, found in Isaiah 25, has a completely different meaning? If Isaiah 25 referred to physical events on earth, must we also apply Revelation 21 to physical, or even spiritual events on earth - Jesus' victory over sin, the establishment of His kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, etc?

I'm sure that there are some very technical ways to address this controversy, but I'm going to address the controversy by engaging in some teary-eyed semantics. Specifically, I'd like to point out one key difference between Isaiah 25:8 and Revelation 21:4.

In Isaiah 25:8, the point is simply made that God would "wipe away the tears from all faces." However, in Revelation 21:4, not only will God wipe away the tears, but there will be "no more crying" at all.

You see, there are things that happen to all of us on an individual and even a national basis. There are tragedies that afflict us. There is pain. There is hardship. God promises to be there for us, and to help us rise above the problems of this life, to remove our tears and to give us hope. For the faithful, spiritually-focused child of God, relief is on the way. BUT...is it not true that more problems will arise in the future that will cause more tears to fall? Absolutely! Whether you apply Isaiah 25 to Israel's return from 70 years of bondage, or to the establishment of Christ's kingdom in the first century, or to some other earthly event where mourning would be turned to joy, the fact is, this moment of triumph didn't equate permanent triumph or across-the-board triumph.

In Revelation 21, God promises not only to wipe away our tears, but to put an end to tears altogether. Taken in context, this point is strengthened even further.

This may be an overly-simplistic approach, but as I was studying in Isaiah this morning, I couldn't help but notice the subtle difference between the two verses. I do believe, despite some of the Old Testament language used in the New Testament, that we as Christians are promised a life after death that is far greater than anything we've ever known or experienced; based on statements in Revelation 21 and in other places, I can't wait to hear the final trumpet blast, to rise to meet Christ in the air, and to enter that heavenly city.

What are your thoughts?

False Prophecies of the Watchtower Society (3)

2012-02-02T08:13:00.000-08:00

Here are the facts that have been established thus far in this series of articles:

The Watchtower Society (the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims to be a God-ordained prophet, and the only source of truth and salvation.
The Bible tells us how to determine whether or not the Watchtower Society is a true prophet or a false prophet; a God-ordained entity, or a divinely unauthorized entity that ought to be rejected by God-fearing people. The standard is found in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. If what the prophet says comes to pass, they are a true prophet of God, but if the prophecies and statements fail, they are a false prophet. All false prophets should be ignored/rejected by God's people!
The Watchtower Society has made a number of very detailed prophecies concerning events that were to transpire in 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. It is obvious to any honest observer that these prophecies failed. Therefore, we MUST conclude that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong for supporting the Watchtower Society, and that they must abandon their organization if they have any respect for God.
Click here to read the other two articles.

Today, I'd like to conclude this short series of articles by addressing some common arguments - or should I say "excuses" - of the Jehovah's Witnesses. In other words, IF (and that's a big if) a Jehovah's Witness will listen to you recite the prophecies of the Watchtower Society and how, based on the facts, they are supporting a false prophet, these are some of the excuses that you will hear...

Some JWs may try to deny that these prophecies were ever made. If they do, you need to remind them that you were quoting from Watchtower publications. You will have an open and shut case if you can find scans or copies of these quotes and show them. That way, there's no denying it.

Another common excuse is that the prophecies are simply misunderstood. They may contend that the prophecies had symbolic or spiritual fulfillment, and were not literal or physical. For example, regarding their famous 1914 prophecy, the statement that "the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914" ought to be interpreted spiritually. Jesus DID return and DID set up His kingdom and DID overthrow present governments...on a purely spiritual level. Really? Prove it. The fact is, those prophecies were specific and were stated in physical terms and all the JWs living back then expected a literal, physical application (which is why so many JWs said "goodbye" to the Watchtower Society when the prophecy failed).

Others will argue that these were not actual prophecies, but theories about what might come to pass. This is a common argument regarding the 1975 prophecy and one that the Watchtower Society has used from the moment their little prophecy failed. Notice what the Watchtower said BEFORE and AFTER 1975 (regarding the 1975 prophecy).

Before 1975...

"Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man's existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ...It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years." (The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, page 499)

"Yes, the end of this system is so very near. Is that not reason to increase our activity?...Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly, this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end." (Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, page 3)

After 1975...

"It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to the mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible's warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date." (Watchtower, July 15, 1976, page 440)

Do you see the pattern? The Watchtower made very detailed predictions concerning events in 1975 and even praised individual members for giving up their homes and normal routines to devote themselves to the "pioneer service." And notice the certainty with which the Watchtower Society prophesied: "...it may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years." This was a prophecy! And yet after it failed, did they apologize or admit their error? No! Obviously facing a lot of criticism and pressure from members, the organization reacted by belittling members and acting as if no prophecy had been made.

So it is no surprise that JWs today use this same line of reasoning. They want to act as if these were theories, not prophecies. But you can read the quotes for yourself and see that these were prophetic statements. A year was selected. A time of the year was selected. Events were predicted with certainty. If these weren't prophecies, then what is?

Some Witnesses will extend this reasoning; they will acknowledge that perhaps some mistakes have been made...but no prophet is perfect, right? So why focus on the mistakes when the Watchtower's overall body of work is so strong? Here's how I answer that...

Yes, prophets - even the prophets of the Bible- are flawed like the rest of us. Moses disobeyed God in striking the rock (Num. 20:8-13). Balaam went presumptuously to Balak (Num. 22:20-22). Elijah had an occasion of doubt (1 Kin. 19:1-18). Jonah lacked compassion and mercy (Jonah 1:3; 4:1-11). Peter acted hypocritically in Galatians 2:11-13. HOWEVER, prophets are flawless as God's spokesmen. Read 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:12; Jer. 1:9). In other words, prophets, in their personal lives, weren't perfect, but when they spoke as prophets they:

Never made false prophecies.
Never made incomplete prophecies that had to later be corrected or clarified.
Never misunderstood God and made false claims.
Never perpetuated falsehood.

So I'm not saying that a prophet has to be perfect as an individual, but I AM saying that when a person claims to be a prophet and yet their statements are false and their prophecies fail, they are proven to be false prophets. Again, Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the Watchtower Society is a FALSE prophet and as such does not have the approval or authority of God. Therefore, it is wrong to offer blind allegiance...or any allegiance for that matter to such an organization. If a Jehovah's Witness is honest, and if their interest is the TRUTH, then they must leave the organization and encourage others to do the same.

Has this 3-article series been helpful to you? I hope so. Let me know if you have any questions.

False Prophecies of the Watchtower Society (2)

2012-02-01T07:39:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's article, I emphasized the fact that the Watchtower Society (the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims to be a God-ordained prophet and the ONLY source of truth and salvation. But we're told in the scriptures how to determine whether or not the Watchtower Society is indeed ordained by God, or if they are a false prophet. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 indicates that if someone makes claims and prophecies that do not come to pass, they are a false prophet.

In today's article, let's put the Watchtower Society to the test; let's begin by examining their famous 1914 prophecy:

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, The Time is at Hand, 1889 edition, page 101)

"True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all preset governments will be overthrown and dissolved...In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914." (The Time is at Hand, 1908 edition, page 98)

Then, in December of 1914 (two months after the governments of the earth were supposed to be overthrown), the Watchtower backpedaled, writing, "Even if the time of our change should not come within ten years, what more should we ask? Are we not a blessed, happy people?" (Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1914, page 325).

Just a few years later, more prophecies were made, and these were even more detailed. Concerning events that would allegedly come to pass in the year 1918, the Watchtower wrote the following:

"It was as a picture or parable of what is to happen to Christendom. Until 1878 the nominal church had been in a sense God's sanctuary or Temple; but He was from then on, culminating in 1918, to remove it with a stroke or plague of erroneous doctrines and deeds divinely permitted...Nevertheless, God was to make manifest the profanation which ecclesiasticism had made of the Christian Church, and to cause the church organizations to become to Him as one dead, an unclean thing, not to be touched, or mourned. And the "children of the church" shall perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy, and by the Sword of the Spirit be made to see that they have lost their hope of life on the spirit plane--that 'the door is shut...Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity." (The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, page 484-485)

Concerning the year 1925:

"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection...1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, page 89-90, 97)

Concerning 1975:

"According to this trustworthy Bible chronology, six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E...It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the 'Lord of the Sabbath,' to run parallel to the seventh millennium of man's existence." (Life Everlasting--in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966, pages 29-30)

"Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man's existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ...It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years." (The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, page 499)

"Yes, the end of this system is so very near. Is that not reason to increase our activity?...Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly, this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end." (Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, page 3)

We have only considered a handful of the prophetic statements that the Watchtower Society has made over the years, and we have only selected some of their more famous failures, but in reality, all it takes is ONE failed prophecy to identify a false prophet -- we have named four. Prophecies were made concerning 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. These were very specific prophecies and there was no confusion as to their meaning then. It was only after the prophecies failed that the Watchtower Society would backpedal, change positions, or claim some kind of "symbolic" fulfillment (as with 1914). In some cases, individual Witnesses even sold property in anticipation of the END and were lauded for their commitment.

So...is the Watchtower Society a true prophet or a false prophet?

Comment below...

Click here to proceed to the third and final article in this series.

Failed Prophecies of the Watchtower Society (1)

2012-01-31T08:19:00.000-08:00

It was requested that I write an article on the failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society and how this is such an effective line of attack against the Jehovah's Witnesses. Indeed, I have found that the Jehovah's Witnesses will gladly discuss all of their doctrinal positions - whether it be their view of Paradise Earth or their position on the nature of Jesus Christ (see my eight lesson series on this issue) - but the fact of the matter is, you will not get very far with them if you focus exclusively on their doctrines and why they're wrong. You see, each and every Jehovah's Witness is bound to the "Watchtower" organization just as Catholics are bound to the Pope and Vatican in Rome. If you really want to have any success with the Jehovah's Witnesses, you have to sever, or at least injure, their blind allegiance to the Watchtower Society, which is the entity that governs all Jehovah's Witnesses.

While there are MANY problems with the Watchtower Society, we're going to focus in this article on their false prophecies. Now, most Jehovah's Witnesses will deny that the Watchtower Society is any kind of prophet or mouthpiece of God. Some simply do not know JW history while others will intentionally try to cover it up or act as if "the past is the past." I've talked to a few Witnesses who even claim that it doesn't matter much anyways since the Watchtower Society is in no way a governing structure.

Let's consider a few quotes...and these are from Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Society publications.

"If the six volumes of 'Scripture Studies' are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes 'The Bible in an arranged form.' That is to say they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself. Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture Studies' with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the scriptures." (from Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, page 289)

"So let the literature speak for itself. The scholarliness of it, the logical presentation of the Scriptures it sets forth and its faithful adherence to the Bible are things that should impress the reader and that should convince him that this is the Bible truth. Worldly scholarship is not the thing to be required...With these things in mind, we encourage all who seek the Bible truth to see the prime necessity of the possession of the holy spirit on the part of those who are responsible for the material that goes into the publications of our Society. The evidence of the holy spirit in the quality and content of the writings published by the Watch Tower Society should be the thing that satisfies, that convinces, together with a comparison of these things with the inspired word of God, the Holy Scriptures." (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1959, page 608)

"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?...This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was a small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, page 197)

During a legal case against the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society in 1940, the question was asked, "Who subsequently became the Editor of the magazine, the main editor of the 'Watchtower' magazine?" The answer was, "Jehovah God." I've got a scanned copy of the transcript, Kings County Clerk's index, No 15845 - year 1940.

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely t hey may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind." (The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967, page 587)

"The WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY is the greatest corporation in the world, because from the time of its organization until now the Lord has used it as his channel through which to make known the glad tidings to many thousands." (spoken by Judge Rutherford, the leader of the Watchtower organization following the death of the founder, Charles Taze Russell)

These are only the quotes I have on hand and I'm certain that there are many others like it. The point is, the Watchtower Society as an organization has always made the claim that it has prophetic power, that it is a God-ordained corporation, that what it says is FROM God and that one cannot possibly understand the truth without its help. So an individual JW who is ignorant of its organization's history may deny any blind allegiance to some prophetic, Spirit-filled organization, but these quotes are sufficient to prove the JW wrong! They will squirm when you read these quotes, and they may even grow angry, but if they will listen, this needs to be your next move...

Read to them Deuteronomy 18:21-22:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath NOT spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Also consider reading Jeremiah 23:16; 14:14-16; 29:9; Gal. 1:8 and Revelation 22:18. All of these verses make the same basic point, that if someone claims to be a prophet, or a representative of God, and yet what they say is wrong, or their prophecies fail, then they are a FALSE prophet and worthy of the condemnation of God. Remind the JW of the Watchtower's claims (listed above) and ask them this question: "If I can prove to you that the Watchtower Society has made very specific prophecies that never came to pass and that clearly failed, will you accept that the Watchtower Society is a false prophet?"

At this point, the JW will either leave and ne'er return, or they will sit and listen. Tomorrow, Lord willing, I'll tell you where to go next if the JW remains seated and lets you continue.

Click here to read the 2nd installment in this series.

God-in-a-Box

2012-01-27T21:35:00.000-08:00

I realize how difficult it is to study the Bible and ponder spiritual matters with a completely open mind and a clean slate. We all have been raised a certain way, in a certain environment, with unique experiences and circumstances, and all of these things color our perception of God and religion. There are times for ALL of us when we have a difficult time accepting what the scriptures teach - or perhaps we refuse to accept what the scriptures teach - for the simple reason that it poses a threat to OUR status-quo. I've been there, and so have you, whether you realize it or not. We find a system of faith that suits us, we settle in, we accept everything that strengthens our case, and we reject/ignore everything that challenges it.

If you don't believe this, I hope and fervently pray that you'll stop for just a moment, exhale, and be honest with yourself. Think about it. To some extent, we're all this way at least occasionally and the thing is, if you understand it and are cognizant of this ever-present temptation, you can find the truth. But if you shake your head in arrogance and act as if you're immune to the prejudices that afflict us all, as if you've got it all figured out, then let me tell you something...you're in trouble.

Here's the danger...

When you approach God with your mind already made up, you're going to twist everything in the scriptures to fit your paradigm. Rather than humbly subjecting yourself to the Almighty God, you expect God to conform to YOUR standards and expectations. You end up worshiping a god that is far different than the God of the Bible, and you embrace a faith that is far removed from God's inspired word.

In other words, when you put God in a box and say, "This is who I want God to be," you're not really serving God...because, contrary to mainstream thinking, that's not how God operates. He does not change to suit us. Remember, HE is the Creator, the Almighty, the "I AM." We must change to suit Him.

The Bible is filled with examples of individuals who put God in a box.

The Hebrews, when they witnessed God's fierce power on Mount Sinai, told Moses that they didn't want to deal with God directly. God scared them! So they requested that Moses speak to them instead (Exodus 20:18-20). Not long after, they made their own god...a golden calf that suited them better. Now they could sing and dance and be happy (Exodus 32).
Naaman the Syrian expected a "razzle and dazzle" God that would wipe away his leprosy in some grand display of power...and he was angry when Elijah told him to simply dip seven times in the dirty Jordan River (2 Kings 5:10-12).
An obvious example is Jonah. The prophet Jonah wasn't at all pleased when God wanted to extend mercy to the wicked inhabitants of Nineveh. In fact, "it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry" (Jonah 4:1-2). He wanted to serve a God that was not so merciful or compassionate.
James and John, the disciples of Jesus, wanted to "command fire to come down from heaven and consume" the Samaritans who had rejected Jesus, but Jesus rebuked them, saying, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them" (Luke 9:54-56).
Like most of the Jews of Jesus' day, the disciples had certain expectations and ideas of who the Christ would be. Their prejudices and false perceptions caused them to be so blind to Christ's true purpose that, despite Jesus' clear warnings that He would be arrested and crucified, they scattered like roaches when it came to pass. Even after His resurrection, they still didn't get it. They asked Jesus, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Ac. 1:6).
The polytheistic residents of Athens thought that Paul's description of ONE God who demands obeisance from ALL nations was ridiculous. There were some who showed some interest and wanted to study further, but many "mocked" (read Acts 17:18-32). In other words, Paul's God was too narrow and too demanding, and He didn't fit their paradigm.
And then, of course, there are the Gentiles of old who "exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom. 1:25).

We could literally look at dozens of other biblical examples, but the point is clear: we cannot put God in a box. All of these people made that very mistake. They expected God to act a certain way and to be a certain way, and when God didn't fit their paradigm, they got angry and rebelled. Thankfully, some of them did humble themselves and change.

We cannot approach God with our jaws set and our minds already made up. It is vital that we forfeit our will and embrace God as He is.

"Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands'?" (Isaiah 45:9).

"He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion. When He utters His voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens: and He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries...O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jer. 10:12-13, 23).

"For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6).

You have a choice. I have a choice. Either we can try to set aside our prejudices and be open-minded toward and accepting of God as He is, and His will as it is, or we can keep God in a box. But by keeping God in a box, we are no longer serving THE God, but a god (little "g").

You may not want to believe that God loves ALL of humanity and sent Jesus to die for ALL the world (John 3:16). You may not want to believe that God gives the most vile sinner the same hope of salvation that He has given you...that if they repent (Luke 13:3) and embrace God's will, they are just as much a saint of God as you are! That may make you feel uncomfortable. Too bad. Accept it or stop claiming to love and serve the God of the Bible.

On the other hand, you may not want to believe that God is Just, that He has wrath, that there is such a thing as sin and hell and punishment. You may choose to embrace the tenets of "universalism" - this notion that ALL will be saved no matter what. That's fine. That's your prerogative. But that's not the God of the Bible...and stop pretending that it is.

You may want to believe in a God that requires minimal devotion. A little church here, a little prayer there and God will accept you. On the contrary, Jesus says, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me" (Mt. 16:24). We're told to do all things by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), and to be "crucified with Christ" (Gal. 2:20).

I could go on, but do you get the point? Don't approach God with the attitude, "Hey, God, this is who I want you to be; take it or leave it." Heed the words of James:

"God rejects the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double minded" (James 4:6-8).

Let go of your stubborn will.

Yield.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 8)

2012-01-27T06:09:00.000-08:00

I'm about to wrap up this series of articles, whether it's today with "Part 8" or at some point in the very near future. To read the entire series, click here and follow the links through the series.

Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first."

Paul indicates that Jesus, during what we call His "final return," will descend "with the voice of an archangel." The Jehovah's Witnesses use this to prove that the voice is Jesus' own, making Him an archangel. After all, if He was God, Paul would have said that Jesus would descend "with the voice of God," right?

But notice that other noises will accompany Jesus' return. There will be a "shout" as well as the "trumpet of God." So how will this work? Will Jesus shout first, then call out with His angelic voice, and finally blow God's trumpet? Will that be the sequence? Should this be our conclusion? What will be the difference between Jesus' shout and "the voice of an archangel?" Hmmm.

I would answer by saying that it's unnecessary to assume that Jesus Himself will be the source of all three sounds. In other words, Paul simply writes that Jesus will return with these sounds - that these sounds will accompany His return.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, the point is made that Jesus will "be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels." Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that "the voice of an archangel" is actually the voice of one of these angels - rather than to conclude that Jesus is an angel (when that is never taught in scripture)?

Even the trumpet blast, so to speak, will likely be "blown" by an angel, or angels. In Matthew 24:31, even though Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, He stated that "He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet." And in Revelation 9:14, we see yet another angel with a trumpet.

Again, all I'm saying is that it's unnecessary to conclude, based on 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that Jesus is an angel simply because He will return "with the voice of an archangel." All this means is that when Jesus returns, angels and archangels (at least one) will be with Him. A trumpet will be blown. There will be a shout. It will be a loud and unmistakeable event.

Adverse Circumstances & Faith

2012-01-26T07:24:00.000-08:00

There's no hiding the fact that people of faith often struggle with adverse circumstances - circumstances that are difficult, so difficult, in fact, that we question God and are even tempted to abandon our faith. After all, if God's not going to help us, if He's not going to answer our prayers, if life is THIS HARD with faith, why should I even make the effort to serve Him?

In other words, we often allow our circumstances to determine our faith. If we're facing a lot of hardship, we might stand strong for a little while...but soon our resolve weakens and we begin to blame or question God. We become focused, not on God, but on our suffering and we give into the doubts and anger that Satan plants in our heads.

However, instead of allowing our circumstances to determine our faith, we need to allow our faith to determine our circumstances...and when the circumstances are beyond our control, we need to remain focused on what we can control...our faith in God.

Sometimes, we can control our circumstances. After all, we make decisions that have rewards or consequences. When we treat people poorly, our lives are naturally going to be filled with a greater degree of conflict. The book of Proverbs is filled with these kinds of warnings (10:12, 19; 11:2, 13; 14:16, 29; 15:1, etc). We must allow our faith to determine how we talk to others, speak to others, speak about others, think about others, treat others, and so on. That we can control. The same is true with the company we choose (Prov. 12:26). If we make immoral decisions such as to have sexual relations outside of marriage, there are consequences (Prov. 5:3-5), but if we work to maintain a strong marriage, there are rewards (5:15-20). Again, these are things we can control. If we live by faith and pattern our lives after the word of God, our circumstances will improve, generally speaking.

But there are certain things that are out of our control. We cannot keep loved ones from dying. We cannot keep the economy going strong. We cannot control what others choose to do to us. We cannot necessarily control our health (no matter how hard you try, you WILL sometimes get sick). We can't control the weather. We can't control...well, you get the point, don't you?

When the circumstances are outside of our control, we must focus on the only thing we can control - our reaction. Rather than blaming God or abandoning our faith, rather than growing bitter and angry, we need to turn to God and seek His help - true - but in the end, no matter what happens, we need to trust the Lord.

King David dealt with a lot of hardship (some of which came about because of poor decisions on his part), but he was still a man of tremendous faith who had a very tender conscience. There were times when David sought answers from God...and even when he was confused.

"Why do you stand afar off, O Lord? Why do You hide in times of trouble?" (Ps. 10:1)

"How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will You hide your face from me? (Ps. 13:1)

"My God, My God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from the words of my groaning?" (Ps. 22:1)

But in each case, despite David's questions and struggles, and despite his adverse circumstances, he never stopped trusting God. David always laid aside the confusion and reminded himself of what He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt: no matter what is happening, God is in control and He is Mighty! Each of the above psalms begin with David's distress, but they end with praise.

"But You have seen, for You observe trouble and grief...The Lord is King forever and ever..." (Ps. 10:14, 16).

"But I have trusted in Your mercy; my heart shall rejoice in Your salvation. I will sing to the Lord, because He has dealt bountifully with me" (Ps. 13:5-6).

"My praise shall be of You in the great assembly..." (Ps. 22:25).

When the circumstances are beyond our control, all we can control is how we react, and like David, we must react by focusing, not on our circumstances, not on our suffering, not on our pain, but on God, and our faith in Him!

God has blessed us so much more than we deserve. Even if you doubt that, God's gift of Jesus Christ and the salvation that we can have through His sacrifice and resurrection is enough for any of us to be blessed more than we deserve. Things may not always happen as we expect them to. We may have questions and doubts from time to time, but let's not forget that God is the Creator and Sustainer.

Do not allow what you can't control to distract you from what you CAN.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 7)

2012-01-26T06:03:00.000-08:00

Click here to follow this series of articles from the beginning. If this is a subject that interests you, you will find some great arguments that will prepare you for your next encounter with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

In this article, I want to address one of the most controversial verses in the debate over whether or not Jesus Christ is divine - John 1:1. Of course, the verse is not controversial at all among most Christians, but in any debate or conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses, the simple is made complicated...as always.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Lest there be any confusion, the "Word" is Jesus Christ.

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

We generally refer to Jesus as the "Son of God," but it's worth noting that Jesus is the Son of God only in regards to His virgin birth; He was conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:32, 35). In the Old Testament, Jesus is only referred to as the "Son" in prophecy. In fact, Jesus wasn't Jesus in the Old Testament; that name was given to Him upon His birth, and it represented His purpose in coming to earth, to be the Savior of the world (Mt. 1:21). The reason I point this out is because the JWs will often use the expression "Son of God" to prove that Jesus is a created being, born of God in the beginning. However, the expression is not about Jesus' origins in the beginning, but His origins as a human - He existed prior to the virgin birth as "the Word."

But the main point here is that Jesus - the Word - was/is God according to John 1:1. He was with God in the beginning and He was God. So He and the Father are distinct, and yet both are said to be divine.

Here's where the verse is made controversial. The Jehovah's Witnesses, in their "New World Translation" of the Bible, have added a word to the verse. Instead of saying "the Word was God," their version says, "the Word was a god." They'll argue that the term "god" refers to "a mighty one" and thereby limit Jesus to being an archangel, rather than divine.

The problem is that there is NO justification for the insertion of "a" in John 1:1. Moreover, in John 20:28, the disciple Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." If Jesus was just "a mighty one," why didn't He rebuke Thomas for calling Him "God" (theos)? So a deeper study of scripture confirms that the traditional interpretation of John 1:1 is correct - Jesus is not a God, He is God!

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 6)

2012-01-25T06:46:00.000-08:00

Most of us have had the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on our door before, and considering their relentless devotion to door-to-door evangelism, we will certainly have more encounters with them in the future. In this series of articles, my goal is to offer simple explanations and arguments regarding one of the most glaring errors of the Watchtower Society - their rejection of the deity of Christ. This article is "Part 6" in this series. If this subject interests you, I encourage you to go all the way back to the beginning, to Part 1. There are links at the end of each article that will take you to the next article in the series.

In an effort to prove that Jesus is not on par with the Father in terms of divine nature, the Jehovah's Witnesses will sometimes point to certain verses in the New Testament that seem to show Jesus as being lesser than the Father, or under the Father's authority.

For example, consider Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:3...

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

The JWs argue that because "the head of Christ is God," Jesus must not be divine! After all, if Jesus and the Father were equally divine, then this statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3 would be nonsensical. Obviously, God is greater than Jesus because God is a deity and Jesus is merely a created being. This is the argument made here and in many other places where Jesus is placed beneath the Father by the inspired authors of scripture.

So how do we answer this argument? It really is quite simple. In fact, if the JW turns to any verse where Jesus is placed beneath the Father, just turn them here to 1 Corinthians 11:3. The entire point can be answered here in this one verse, I believe. How so? Keep reading...

Is a woman any less human than a man?

Based on how the JWs use verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:3 to redefine the nature of Jesus, they are forced to also redefine the nature of woman. After all, a woman is beneath man in the same sense that Christ is beneath God. Just as man is the head of the woman, so also is the Father the head of Christ. Therefore, if this language demands that we strip Jesus of His divinity, then to be consistent we must also strip woman of her humanity.

So where does that leave women? What are they? Some kind of mutant? Oh, I know! Aliens! Are they on par with animals? Or maybe...if Jesus is less than the Father in that He (Jesus) is an angel, then maybe we ought to conclude that woman are angels. Hmmm. My wife might like that. Although that can't be true in light of Hebrews 2:7 because mankind is actually "a little lower than the angels."

Of course, I'm being a little absurd here. Couldn't you tell?

The fact is, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul is not saying that women are less human than men or that Jesus is less divine than the Father. That's not the point. The apostle is addressing the issue of role distinction. Women and men are equally human, but they have different roles. Likewise, Jesus and the Father are equally divine and yet they, too, have different roles. Consider Philippians 2:5-8...

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

Jesus is equal to God and share's all of God's attributes (vs. 6; Heb. 1:3), and yet He embraced a role of submission to the Father, the greatest illustration of that submission being the cross!

Yes, there were many times during Jesus' life when He emphasized His subjection and obedience to the Father, where He stated that the Father was greater than Him (Jn. 14:28), etc. - but again, this point says NOTHING about His divine nature. As we learn in 1 Corinthians 11:3, there can be a hierarchy in which the various members have completely different roles, and yet they share the same nature. Case in point: men and women.

So put it to the JWs when they raise this objection. Ask them to explain what women are if they're not human. Seriously...what are they?

Click here to read the next article in this series.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 5)

2012-01-24T07:45:00.000-08:00

If this topic interests you, please note that I have written four articles prior to this one in which I have addressed the Jehovah's Witnesses misconceptions of the identity of Christ. Click here to access the first article in this series.

As I have pointed out in the previous four articles, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with mainstream Christianity that Jesus is a member of the so-called "Trinity" (Father-Son-Holy Spirit), that He is divine and eternal in His existence. Instead, they believe that Jesus is a created being, an archangel to be specific. In this matter, the Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely wrong, and they are wrong NOT because their belief is different, but because it is unscriptural.

In this article, I want to focus on the issue of divine forgiveness. The Bible is clear that we as humans must forgive those who have wronged us.

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Mt. 6:14-15).

"Then Peter came to Him and said, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven'" (Mt. 18:21-22).

"...bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do" (Col. 3:13).

The fact is, there will be times when you need the forgiveness of others, and there will be times when you will need to do the forgiving. We all make mistakes, offend others, are careless in our use of words, negligent in our obligations to one another, etc - and in all of this, we need to be accepting of the role of human forgiveness.

However, there is a sense in which we as humans CANNOT forgive. You see, every one of us has at some point committed sin against God (Rom. 3:23) which means that we have all severed our relationship with God and abandoned our innocence before Him. The only way to be reunited with God in fellowship is to be forgiven, and because it is God that we have wronged, it is God that must offer the forgiveness. We must seek that forgiveness from God alone and accept it on HIS terms!

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

Other verses could be cited, but the point is, only God can offer forgiveness of sins and restore us to Himself. That is a privilege held only by the deity - by God! In other words, a sinner cannot come to me and expect me to forgive his/her sins so that they can be restored to God (contrary to what the Catholics believe). No clergyman or Christian has the right to perform this divine function!

With all of this in mind, let's turn to Mark 2:4-11...

"And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, 'Sons, your sins are forgiven you.' And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?' But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, 'Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins - He said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.'"

You see, Jesus forgave this man's sins! It's not that this paralytic had offended Jesus and was seeking His forgiveness as one person might seek forgiveness from another. This man was a sinner! And Jesus forgave him. How did the scribes react? They knew what Jesus had done, and in their minds (not realizing that Jesus was the Son of God), he had committed the ultimate act of blasphemy! In other words, they reacted to Jesus the way we might react to a Catholic priest today who offers forgiveness - it disturbed them deeply because they knew that only God had that right!

If the Jehovah's Witnesses are right in saying that Jesus is just a created being and an angel, they have a problem here in Mark 2; the JWs would have to agree with the scribes and argue that Jesus committed blasphemy. Of course, they are not willing to say that, but isn't that the natural consequence of their doctrine? By rebelling against the truth of the scriptures in one area, they have backed themselves into a corner here, and now are forcing the scriptures to conflict with one another.

Or, we can accept that Jesus is indeed divine, that He DID have the authority to forgive sins.

Keep this argument in mind the next time the Witnesses come knocking.

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 4)

2012-01-20T08:55:00.000-08:00

Click here to start at the beginning of this series on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, this series is devoted to addressing the Jehovah's Witnesses' misconceptions concerning the identity of Christ. They view Jesus as an archangel, not as a member of the Godhead.

The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the phrase "Son of God" (as it relates to Jesus) to mean that Jesus is merely a created being, an angel, and not a true member of the Godhead. However, much to the chagrin of the JW's, the phrase actually proves His deity.

We understand that in a sense, all of us are children/offspring of God because He made us in His own image (Acts 17:28). There is also a sense in which the expression "children of God" is limited to the saints (Rom. 8:17; 1 John 3:1). Even if we are more specific in talking about "sons" of God, the Bible uses such language in reference to angels (Job 1:6), to "peacemakers" (Mt. 5:9) and to all saints (Rom. 8:14).

However, when Jesus identified Himself as the "Son of God" and when He referred to God as His Father, it meant something different. Notice two examples where this is the case:

"But Jesus answered them, 'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working. Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner...Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live'" (John 5:17-19, 25).

"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered Him, saying, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'" (John 10:31-36).

In both of these passages, it's clear that when Jesus identified Himself as the Son of God, it was an expression of His "divine nature," that He was "equal with God." In other words, Jesus wasn't a son/child of God in the same sense that we are children of God; He was the "Son of God" in the sense that He possessed the seed of the Father and the attributes and characteristics of the Godhead. Likewise, we all ought to strive to be one with the Father (Jn. 17:20-21), but when Jesus said, "I and My Father are one," it meant something more...something deeper. The Jews of Jesus' day understood that and thus wanted to stone Jesus for the cause of blasphemy.

Now why does the expression "Son of God" have special meaning when used in reference to Christ? Although we've already answered this in part, I'd like to give it a little more attention here. For further clarity, let's read Hebrews 1:1-3:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Jesus Christ, as the SON of God possessed the brightness of God's glory and the express image of God's person. The phrase "express image" literally means "exact likeness." So according to the inspired record, Jesus is a duplicate of God, which is why Paul could correctly write that He (Jesus) possessed the "fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9). I like what Adam Clark's commentary says about this phrase in Hebrews 1:3...

"The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.

From these words it is evident,

1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, must be the same with the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor.

2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one αυγη, or splendor, produce another αυγη, or splendor, the produced splendor must be of the same essence with that which produces it.

3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor, cannot subsist without its απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, nor the proceeding splendor subsist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds.

4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendor must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendor. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal."

In conclusion, the Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely incorrect in using the expression "Son of God" to disprove Jesus' deity. The fact is, according to a thorough study of scripture, it actually proves Jesus' divine nature. Had Jesus NOT possessed full divinity, it would indeed have been blasphemous for Him to identify Himself as the "Son of God," and the Jews would have been right in stoning Him for it.

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 3)

2012-01-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to prove that Jesus is a created being (thereby disproving His divinity), the JW's often turn to Colossians 1:15 where the inspired apostle Paul says, "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." The argument is easy to see - Jesus was the first of God's creations, putting Him on par with angels, not God. However, with a simple consideration of context and biblical language, this argument is easily answered.

The point is this: the term "firstborn" in scripture does not necessarily mean "the first one born" (literally). Oftentimes, it simply is meant to emphasize preeminence and position. Notice how the very context of Colossians 1:15 bears this out:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fulness should dwell" (Col. 1:15-19).

What does it mean that Jesus was the firstborn? It's not that He was the first being "born" or created by God, but that He has preeminence over ALL things. Jesus is the "beginning" of creation; the word beginning is from the Greek word arche which means, "a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule" (STRONG'S, #G746). Jesus is the "chief" in "rank," or the POWER-SOURCE and originator of all creation.

Psalm 89:27 says of Christ, "Also I will make Him My firstborn, the HIGHEST of the kings of the earth." It's not that Jesus was the first created being, but that He has preeminence. Along these same lines, in Genesis 49:3, Jacob said to Reuben, "Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of power..."

I know that some of this is confusing, and that's because we are not accustomed to this kind of language. We don't necessarily give preference to our firstborn children but try to treat them all equally. But during biblical times, especially in the Old Testament, it was customary to give the firstborn a "double portion" (Deut. 21:15-17). Just read the story of Jacob and Esau and you will see how special it was to be the firstborn son - it meant superiority, preeminence, position, etc.

This is why God said of the nation of Israel, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn." The nation of Israel was by no means the first nation to come into existence, and yet Israel was chosen by God and was preeminent among the nations, making it "God's firstborn." So the term doesn't need to be applied literally; it can absolutely be used to represent POSITION; this is the manner in which it is used in Colossians 1:15.

In closing, the book of Colossians proves Jesus' deity. Earlier, we read 1:19 which says that Jesus possessed all "fulness." In Colossians 2:9, this is clarified: "For in Him (Jesus) dwells ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The term Godhead literally means divinity; Jesus possessed (and still possesses) every element of divinity and "godhood."

Keep these things in mind when studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses...

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 2)

2012-01-18T07:05:00.000-08:00

If you're interested in reading "Part 1" in this series, click here.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant that the name "Jehovah" can only rightly be applied to the Father, for in their theology, only the Father is divine - Jesus is just an "archangel" and the Holy Spirit "the active force" of God. This is an area where you can take advantage of their ignorance of the scriptures, and a great way to get them to see (the honest ones, at least) that the Watchtower Society has a system of theology that, rather than being logical and coherent, looks more like a tangled mess.

If you're studying with a JW, kick-start the line of questioning by asking them if they believe that the title of "Jehovah" can be applied to Jesus. When they respond in the negative, ask them why. They will likely respond by telling you that Jehovah is an expression of the tetragramatton (YHWH) and that it is the personal name of God Himself...and Jesus is not divine.

This is where you might turn their attention to Isaiah 8:13-14...

"The LORD (tetragramatton, YHWH) of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Here's the point: the title of Jehovah is applied to one that would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." Then turn their attention to 1 Peter 2:8 where Jesus Christ is identified as being the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. In other words, Jesus is the stone of stumbling and rock of offense...and thus the title of Jehovah, according to Isaiah, belongs to Jesus Christ as well as the Father. Jesus, then, according to their own definition and application of Jehovah, is divine.

Of course, there are many other places where this point can be made. In Isaiah 40:3, we're told: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD (tetragramatton, YHWH); make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'" Who was the one crying in the wilderness? Was it not John the Baptist, according to Matthew 3:3? Wasn't it John's mission to prepare the way for Jesus, to be that voice in the wilderness announcing the coming Savior and King? If so (and the JW will have to answer in the affirmative), the title of Jehovah is once again applied to Jesus. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jehovah, or Jesus.

Do a search of the tetragramatton in scripture and you will find many other similar cases, where it is applied in prophecy to the coming Savior, Jesus Christ. Emphasize these verses and comparisons to the JW, but don't forget to first of all hand them the shovel and let them dig their own grave, so to speak; pin them down on the concept of Jehovah and to whom it is applied. Then get into the above scriptures. If the JW is honest, they will be forced to admit, whether outwardly or inwardly, that Jesus is worthy of the personal name of God.

Click here to read the next installment in this series of articles.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 1)

2012-01-17T09:56:00.000-08:00

Today, I will begin a series of short articles addressing the manner in which the Jehovah's Witnesses misconstrue the identity of Jesus Christ. For those who may not know, the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) do not believe that Jesus was/is divine. Instead, they view Him as an archangel. In this series of articles, I'll not only address many of their arguments, but will raise arguments of my own that you might employ in your dealings with them.

Our focus in this article will be on Revelation 19:9-10. Carefully notice this exchange which took place between an angel and the apostle John:

"Then he (the angel) said to me (John), 'Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' And he said to me, 'These are the true sayings of God.' And I fell down at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

When John bowed down to worship this mighty angel, the angel rebuked him, commanding him to direct his worship to God. Jesus Himself said to Satan in Matthew 4:10, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" And so, we can safely conclude that the only being worthy of our worship is God, for He is divine. No angel or man or woman or child or creature is worthy of our worship and it would be wrong to offer such.

And yet, isn't it interesting that Jesus received worship on many occasions?

"And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 2:11).

"And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 8:2).

"While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 9:18).

"Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, 'Truly, You are the Son of God" (Mt. 14:33).

"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'Rejoice!' So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him" (Mt. 28:9, also verse 17).

These are only a few of the many examples we could consider. Now, here's the question: if the only being worthy of our worship is God, and yet Jesus received worship as a mere angel, wouldn't that make Him a false Christ? This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses must accept; they must contend that Jesus was WRONG in accepting all of this worship. If He was merely an angel, then He must have been a fallen angel for receiving worship that was only to be given to God!

Or...or we can accept what the scriptures teach, that Jesus was/is divine! What do you think?

Click here to read "Part 2" in this series of articles.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth? (Part 3)

2012-01-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

Click here to read Part 1 in this series.
Click here to read Part 2 in this series.

On one hand, the scriptures teach that Jesus, the Savior, came to earth to redeem the nation of Israel, to rise up as King, and to establish a mighty kingdom that would have roots in Jerusalem but would extend to all the earth. On the other hand, we are also told that the Messiah would be rejected by the people, cursed, scourged, and crucified as the Lamb of God. Jesus Himself seemed to be confused, for He taught the concept of a kingdom that would be established in the first century while simultaneously teaching the inevitability of suffering and persecution...even foretelling His own death.

In the first article in this series, we emphasized the "on one hand" and then in the last article (Part 2), we turned our attention to the "on the other hand." I concluded the second article with the following probing question: do these two concepts contradict. They seem to, don't they? But as I pointed out then, they actually do not contradict in any way, shape or form; rather, we can easily harmonize the ideas of Jesus as King and Jesus as the Lamb of God. In this article, I'd like to explain that.

In order to achieve harmony, we have to understand something about the kingdom of the Messiah. The kingdom that was prophesied in the Old Testament, and the kingdom that Jesus said was "at hand" then in the early part of the first century, was not the kind of kingdom to which we as earthly residents are accustomed. What I mean is that it was not an earthly kingdom in the likeness of Rome or Britain with a physical throne and territorial domain that is conquered by the threat and/or use of brute force. Rather, Jesus' kingdom was spiritual in nature, with its throne, not on earth, but in heaven, and with territory that was defined, not by geographic regions, but by the souls of men and women, conquered by the "two-edged sword," the word of God and gospel of Christ! And let it be known here at the outset: this kingdom WAS established.

Again, this is the mistake that the early Jews made, and that many denominational folks make today. They assume that the kingdom of David's descendent, Jesus (the messianic kingdom) was a physical kingdom, like that of David...only greater and farther-reaching. Obviously, Jesus didn't establish this kind of kingdom, and so it is assumed that Jesus failed and therefore will have to return a second time to "get it right."

While passages like Psalm 2 and Zechariah 14 speak of a messianic kingdom, the language must be interpreted spiritually...and the reason that we are to interpret it spiritually is because a careful and thorough study of the whole Bible mandates a spiritual interpretation.

For example, in Jeremiah 22: 24, 30, notice what is written about the royal line of David:

"'As I live,' says the Lord, 'though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off'...Thus says the Lord: 'Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendents shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah."

Coniah is the "Jehoiachin" of 2 Kings 24. He was the second-to-last king to rule in Jerusalem over the southern kingdom of Judah, and he was - as were ALL the kings of Judah - a descendent of the royal line of David. Coniah was taken as a prisoner to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. The only other man to rule after Coniah was Zedekiah, and Zedekiah was Coniah's uncle, not his son. So in other words (and this is what Jeremiah is saying in Jeremiah 22), genealogically speaking, Coniah was the LAST one in the line of David that would reign physically in Jerusalem. If that's the case (and it is, obviously), Jesus, being a descendent of David, could not possibly reign as King in Jerusalem. And yet, He would become King of Israel. Notice what is said a few verses later, in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

So, let's get this straight. Coniah was the last one in the davidic line that would reign as King in Jerusalem...and yet there would be another in the davidic line - Jesus- that WOULD reign as King.

Don't worry, we'll make sense of this in just a moment...

In Daniel 2, we find Daniel's interpretation of the dream of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The king dreamt of an image that consisted of four parts: a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and fourthly, legs of iron and clay (vs. 32-33). In the dream, a stone "cut out without hands" came and struck this image, forming a "great mountain" that "filled the earth" (vs. 35). What did all of this mean? That's what the king wanted to know, and Daniel was there to provide an answer. In short, the four different parts of the image represented four kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon) was the head of gold (vs. 38). Daniel goes on...

"...But after you (Babylon) shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything..." (vs. 39-40).

So we find a succession of four kingdoms, the first being Babylon.

Now turn to Daniel 7, to what we call Daniel's "vision of the Ancient of Days." In the beginning of the chapter, we learn that four earthly kingdoms are symbolically represented by four different animals: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and then a "fourth beast" that was "dreadful and terrible" with "ten horns" (vs. 7). You can compare the structure of Daniel 7:1-6 to what we just read in Daniel 2. In fact, here in Daniel 7, these four beasts are plainly said to represent kings, or more specifically, kingdoms (Dan. 7:17, 23).

We've already established that the first kingdom was the Babylonian empire. According to Daniel 5:28-31, the second kingdom in this line was the Medo-Persian empire. Daniel 8:20-22 indicates that the Grecian empire is the third kingdom in this line. The fourth kingdom, although not specifically named in Daniel, was the great Roman empire. History confirms all of this, that these four kingdoms existed in this order.

In both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the point is made that during the existence of the FOURTH kingdom (Rome), God would set up a kingdom.

"And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...(and then Daniel's interpretation of the stone)...And in the days of these kings (the kings of the fourth kingdom, Rome) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever" (Dan. 2:35, 44).

"I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn (one of the kings of the fourth kingdom, see vs.8) was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. And for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came TO the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. THEN to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:11-14).

And so both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 present the same timelines and the same basic facts. Four kingdoms would exist: first, the Babylonian; second, the Persian; third, the Grecian; fourth, the Roman. The Roman kingdom was going to consist of a line of kings (the Caesars, obviously). But what is most significant is that during the days of the Roman kingdom, the "Son of Man" would establish an everlasting kingdom.

BUT NOTICE - and this is CRITICAL - the point at which the kingdom would be established according to divine prophecy. The plan was NOT for Jesus to come to earth and establish Himself as King in Jerusalem on earth. Again, Jeremiah has already told us that Coniah was the last davidic king to do that. Instead, Jesus' kingdom would be established specifically when He went "TO" the Father. In other words, Jesus' reign as King would begin, not when He came FROM the Father to earth, but when He left the earth and went back to the Father. His throne would be in heaven, not Jerusalem.

And so the apostle Peter was correct when he said the following to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (just ten days after Christ's ascension):

"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sword an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne...Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear" (Ac. 2:29-30, 33).

The kingdom of Christ WAS established according to prophesy during the days of the Roman kingdom; Jesus became king, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. His kingdom was NOT like the kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece or Rome - there was no earthly throne or dominion. The kingdom of Messiah, rather than begin prevented by the Messiah's crucifixion, was established spiritually BECAUSE of the crucifixion and ultimately the resurrection and ascension. This is what Jeremiah and Daniel prophesied, what Isaiah prophesied, what Peter taught, and what Jesus Himself taught...

"Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world...'" (John 18:33, 36).

Folks, Jesus didn't come to earth to set up a physical kingdom, and then, because He was rejected, have to resort to "Plan B" (i.e. the cross). Jesus came TO be rejected, to be crucified, and to establish a SPIRITUAL kingdom that would have worldwide dominion.

And it does. The kingdom of Christ consists of all the saved of every nation who bow before the great King of kings, Jesus Christ who reigns from heaven at the right hand of the Father. So Paul was right when he told the Colossians that they had already been transferred INTO the kingdom (Col. 1:13). John was right when he identified himself and those to whom he was writing as members of the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). And Paul again was right in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 when he wrote that Jesus was and is reigning NOW...and will reign until the end, when He returns to gather the citizens of the kingdom (on earth) that we might go to spend eternity with Him in the heavenly kingdom.

Those who argue that Jesus came to establish a physical kingdom are wrong, and those who teach a FUTURE messianic kingdom on earth are equally wrong. These verses and points leave no room for doubt.

I know that there are still some questions that you might have. If so, comment below. I look forward to the exchange. NOTE: I recently preached a sermon on Isaiah 11, a chapter that has a lot of relevance to this discussion. Click here and then scroll down until you see the sermon title; stream it from the website or download and listen at your leisure.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth? (Part 2)

2012-01-12T09:44:00.000-08:00

Click here to read "Part 1" of this series.

As was explained in yesterday's article, there are many religious people who contend that Jesus came to earth for the purpose of establishing a physical kingdom but failed. Rather than embrace their King, the Jews rejected Him and He was consequently crucified between two thieves. God worked it out, however, and the possibility of spiritual salvation was extended to all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, through the precious blood of the Christ. However, even though Jesus failed the first time, it is argued that He will one day return to earth to set up His "millennial kingdom," and this time, there will be no stopping Him. Again, this is what many in the denominational world believe.

This doctrine is interesting and entertaining, and like a juggernaut, when embraced, it leads to other ideas and doctrines until eventually one's entire paradigm towards the scriptures is changed. But we cannot accept a teaching on the basis that it's entertaining, nor can we adopt a position simply because it's the "official position" of the church we attend, or the way we were raised, etc. Like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11, we need to be open-minded and honest enough to be critical of the status-quo, and to change when necessary.

The fact is, Jesus came to earth, not to set up a physical kingdom, but to be the "Lamb of God" and to die on the cross that we might be saved. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ was not "Plan B." It was THE plan from the very beginning and it was fulfilled perfectly. The evidence for what I'm saying here is overwhelming and leaves no room for doubt.

Yes, there are a number of Old Testament prophecies that foretold a King that would not only establish a kingdom (beginning in Jerusalem), but would bring about the glorification of Israel - and I'll come back and explain all this later - but the Old Testament is equally clear that Jesus would fill the role, not only of King, but of Savior. As Savior, He would suffer and die for our sins.

In Psalm 22:1, David wrote, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Of course, Jesus repeated these very words on the cross, thereby proving that it was known that Jesus would suffer. By reading the rest of Psalm 22, this fact is confirmed. The same insulting words that were hurled at Jesus as He suffered were prophesied in verse eight. Later in the psalm, we find these words: "For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots." These words did not have application to David in any way, at least not that I'm aware of. And so it was known ahead of time not only that the Messiah and King would die, but that He would die by means of crucifixion and that the Roman soldiers would cast lots for His clothes.

Another great example is Isaiah 53. The entire chapter relays in exact detail the purpose of Christ's coming to earth - His mission, His objective, His purpose was to suffer and die as the ultimate sin-sacrifice. Go ahead, just read the entire chapter. Jesus would be despised and rejected (vs. 3), would bear our griefs and sorrows (vs. 4), would be wounded and afflicted for our sins, not His own (vs. 5-6), would be led as "a lamb to the slaughter" (vs. 7), would die and be buried (vs. 9) - and all of this would happen in keeping with God's plan to offer His Son as the sin-sacrifice that we as the guilty ones might achieve true and complete redemption and fellowship with Him (vs. 10). The plan was not for Israel to embrace the Messiah, but for them to reject Him...and they did, according to plan. We could look at a number of other prophesies such as this, but the fact that God intended for Jesus to suffer and be rejected is irrefutable. The plan was not for Him to be embraced, to rise up as King and to restore Israel to its former glory, but to be rejected, crucified, and yet through it all to rise victorious over sin...and to enable us, through His blood, to do the same.

It's clear that this very concept carried over into the New Testament, that certain folks, including Jesus, were cognizant of these facts.

The angel told Mary that she would bring forth a Son and He would "save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:210. Sin is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution. Sin couldn't be conquered by physical warfare or the establishment of a physical kingdom; a sacrifice had to be made. John understood this when, by inspiration, he cried out upon seeing Jesus, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). In the Hebrew vernacular, the term "lamb" had sacrificial implications. John didn't greet Jesus as the mighty King who would lead Israel to victory over Rome, but as the humble sacrifice that would Himself conquer sin.

Jesus Himself taught a gospel that included warnings of suffering and persecution. In fact, suffering and persecution would go hand-in-hand with inheriting the kingdom (Mt. 5:10-11). Some of the most powerful evidence of the thesis of this article are the numerous conversations that Jesus had with His apostles in which He plainly articulated the suffering and death that awaited Him...

"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day" (Mt. 16:21). Ironically, just a few verses later, in the same conversation, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (vs. 28).

"You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified" (Mt. 26:2).

"Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt" (Mk. 9:12).

"Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46).

From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus knew the fate that awaited Him. He knew the prophesies, that He would be betrayed, scourged and crucified - and He viewed these horrendous acts not as signs of failure, but as proofs of victory...victory because that's why He came. There is simply not a shred of evidence anywhere in the four gospels that Jesus had any intentions on setting up a physical kingdom on earth; it was always about Calvary. Always!

We've considered a handful of the prophesies made BEFORE the time of Christ, and we've considered a few of the things that were said DURING the time of Christ. Now, let's consider some of the things written AFTER the time of Christ.

"Him (Jesus), being delivered by the determined purpose AND FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" (Ac. 2:23).

"For truly against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Ac. 4:27-28).

"...knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you..." (1 Pet. 1:18-20).

Can't you see that EVERYTHING in the Bible confirms that Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was NOT to set up a physical kingdom, but to die on the cross as the sacrificial lamb of God for the sins of the world. He didn't fail. He didn't fall short. He didn't have to resort to a "Plan B." God's redemptive plan was fulfilled perfectly in ALL that occurred.

Now...someone might respond to all of this by pointing out an apparent contradiction between yesterday's article and this article. On one hand, the scriptures indicate that Jesus came to establish a kingdom, that He identified Himself as King and promised to glorify Israel, that Zion would be exalted once more. And yet we've also seen that Jesus came, not to set up a physical kingdom, or to lead the Israelites to victory over Rome, but to be rejected, betrayed and crucified. Is this a contradiction?

In short, the answer is "No!" But the detailed explanation of how these two points harmonize will have to wait until tomorrow...

Click here to read Part 3 (the next installment) in this series.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth?

2012-01-11T10:28:00.000-08:00

I suppose it's universally accepted among those who identify themselves as Christians that Jesus Christ came to earth where He lived for over 30 years as the Son of Man and ultimately died on the cross at Calvary. But what is NOT universally agreed upon by the membership of "Christendom" is the purpose of Jesus' life on earth. Why did He come here to live among us? Sure, He preached and performed miracles and traveled all over the land of Israel inspiring some and enraging others - we can ALL agree that His life consisted of these different activities - but what was the "end game," the objective, the intended conclusion?

Many believe that Jesus came to set up a physical kingdom on earth, that the original intention of His life was to return the nation of Israel to its former glory, to reign Himself as King in Jerusalem. Of course, this is also what the Jews of Jesus' day expected from the Messiah; they anticipated a davidic King that would overthrow Roman rule and restore Israel's independence and glory. The scriptures are clear that this is what the majority of the Jews assumed...

After Jesus was born, wise men came from the east saying, "Where is He who has been born KING of the Jews?" (Mt. 2:1-2). It is interesting to note that when King Herod heard this, he was "troubled" (Mt. 2:3). Obviously, he interpreted the title of "king" (in reference to Jesus) in the physical sense; a child had been born that would one day threaten Herod's position as king. Perhaps the wise men also had this assumption.

There was an occasion during His ministry when His followers, after witnessing the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000, wanted to take matters into their own hands. John 6:15 says, "Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone." These actions were not unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the focal point of Jesus' teachings was "Repent, for the KINGDOM of heaven is at hand!"

Later, the mother of John and James came to Jesus and made the following request: "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom" (Mt. 20:21). There is no doubt that this woman (as well as James and John) viewed Jesus' impending kingdom as a physical one.

In Matthew 21, we find the so-called "triumphal entry" of Jesus into Jerusalem. How was He received? As a King (Mt. 21:4-9)! There is no doubt that when these people hailed Jesus as King that they were anxiously awaiting the day that He would drive the Roman empire into the ground and Israel, not Rome, would be supreme once more.

And then, of course, during His trial, certain Jews "began to accuse Him, saying, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King" (Lk. 23:2). Pilate responded to this charge, turning to Jesus and asking, "Are You the King of the Jews?" to which Jesus plainly replied, "It is as you say" (Lk. 23:3). Just as Herod viewed Jesus as a threat to his position, others perceived Jesus' kingdom as a threat to Rome and Caesar.

Finally, even after His death, burial and resurrection, His own disciples asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). You'd think the disciples would have learned by this point, but apparently, they, like all the other Jews at that time, viewed the impending kingdom as a physical one, based in Jerusalem.

Many religious folks today have the same concept in mind, and again, this is not completely unreasonable. Not only did Jesus devote much of His ministry to preparing people for the "kingdom of heaven," but He accepted the title of King. Furthermore, many of the Old Testament prophecies foretold a king, a kingdom and the glorification of Israel and Zion. God promised David that His kingdom would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Psalm 2, a "messianic psalm," prophesied a King, the "begotten Son of God," that would be established in Zion (Ps. 2:6-7). Then, just read Zechariah 14! "Behold, the day of the Lord is coming...And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...and in that day it shall be that living waters flow from Jerusalem...and the Lord shall be King over all the earth" (Zech. 14:1, 4, 8-9). These are only a few of the many verses that prophesied a King that would establish Himself in Zion, would bring glory to Israel, and reign over all the earth! So again, it was not unreasonable for the Jews of Jesus' day to anticipate a physical kingdom, nor is it unreasonable today for certain folks to have this concept in mind.

Having said that, we all know that Jesus did NOT set up a physical kingdom on earth. Instead, He was betrayed by one of His own disciples, arrested, put on trial, beaten, bloodied, tortured, mocked, spat upon and executed in the most gruesome and shameful way, naked and nailed to a splintery cross on Calvary.

Here's the question...

...did Jesus fail?

Some would answer, "Yes!" They would contend that Jesus' purpose was to win over the Jews, become their King, overthrow Rome (and all other worldly kingdoms for that matter), and reign from Jerusalem. That was the plan all along. But...well, it just didn't work out. The Jews rejected their Messiah and consequently Jesus suffered a cruel death on the cross. But it's okay, they say, because God used the death of Christ to bring salvation to mankind and set up the church as an afterthought...."Plan B," if you will.

Is this true? Did Jesus fail?

While some say, "Yes," I say...and let me be clear...I say, "NO!" Jesus did not fail. He absolutely succeeded in every way. Jesus fulfilled His purpose and He became King JUST AS GOD INTENDED!

I'll explain what I mean in another article tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Click here to read "Part 2" of this series...

Misplaced Blame (Josh. 7)

2012-01-10T13:17:00.000-08:00

Most of the time, when we turn to the early chapters of Joshua, it is the account of the famous "Battle of Jericho" in Joshua 6 that is studied. A story of equal value, I believe, is found in the next chapter: the story not only of the sin of Achan, but of Joshua's leadership in the conflict with Ai.

When Israel conquered Jericho, Joshua told them, "And you, by all means abstain from the accursed things, lest you become accursed when you take of the accursed things, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it" (Joshua 6:18). Despite the clarity of these instructions, one man, Achan, transgressed and brought a curse upon the whole camp of Israel. "But the children of Israel committed a trespass regarding the accursed things, for Achan the son of Carmi...took of the accursed things; so the anger of the Lord burned against the children of Israel" (Josh. 7:1). We could stop here and talk about the dangers of disobedience, or how one sin is sufficient to incur God's wrath, but it's Joshua, not Achan, that is the focus of this article.

Beginning in Joshua 7:2, we find that immediately following their victory at Jericho, Joshua began to gather "intelligence" on Ai, the city next in line to be conquered and burned to the ground by Israel. Notice that Joshua did not consult the Lord about the plan regarding Ai, nor did he receive any commands or instructions from the Lord as he did concerning the crossing of the Jordan and the conquering of Jericho. Instead, Joshua acted presumptuously by ordering an attack on Ai. Had Joshua consulted the Lord, or had he waited for the Lord to give him instructions, he would have realized that the camp was cursed due to Achan's sin. However, he knew not of Achan's sin and presumed that the Lord would bless Israel with yet another victory.

So what happened?

"...about three thousand men went up there from the people, but they fled before the men of Ai. And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men, for they chased them from before the gate as far as Shebarim, and struck them down on the descent; therefore the hearts of the people melted and became like water" (vs. 4-5).

This wasn't what Joshua expected! He expected an easy victory, not a shameful retreat! What on earth was God thinking...letting them lose the battle; this would lead to all sorts of problems! It would bolster the confidence of the nations of Canaan, sending the signal that Israel could be defeated, and furthermore, it would shatter the faith of the people of Israel and make it that much harder for Joshua to lead them effectively.

We learn in verses 6-9 that "Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face...and Joshua said, 'Alas, Lord god, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all - to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Oh, that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan! O Lord, what shall I say when Israel turns its back before its enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear it, and surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. Then what will You do for Your great name?" In other words, Joshua blamed God for their defeat.

But it wasn't God's fault...

It was Joshua's fault!

God was perturbed by Joshua's words and attitude. He told Joshua, "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?" (vs. 10) and then He proceeded to inform Joshua that the camp was cursed and therefore did not have God's blessing (vs. 11-12). Only when they removed the "accursed thing" from among them would God's blessings be restored (vs. 13).

This is a perfect example of misplaced blame.

Joshua himself had issued the command to Israel, that if anyone took any of the accursed things of Jericho that the ENTIRE camp would be cursed (Josh 6:18). And following the victory at Jericho, he didn't check to make sure that the command had been obeyed. But even then, had he simply inquired of God before presumptuously attacking Ai, this "curse" would have been brought to his attention and 36 men wouldn't have died in vain.

Was it God's fault? No, it was Joshua's...or at least, he was partly to blame, as the appointed leader of Israel. So he should have blamed himself, not God!

The lesson here is a powerful one, for many people today refuse to learn from Joshua's mistake. God has given us His law, and He has carefully explained to us the blessings of obedience as well as the consequences, both temporal and eternal, of disobedience. And yet God is blamed when people face the consequences for their own disobedience.

There are those who pay no attention to the rules of "Christian living" found in God's word. Instead of heeding the advice of Proverbs, and humbly putting into practice all the rules of the New Testament (that govern relationships, finances, thoughts, morality, etc), they choose to live how THEY want to live...and then they get upset when their life falls apart. "God, why would YOU allow this to happen to me???" Instead of taking responsibility for their actions and humbly seeking God's forgiveness and salvation, they blame God.

Then there are those who ignore God's teachings regarding the church and salvation. Instead of diligently seeking authority for all that they do, they act presumptuously. They presume that denominationalism is right, and so they participate in it by joining a denominational church. They presume that instrumental music in worship is acceptable, that churches can build fellowship halls and gymnasiums, that the collection can be taken up anytime (not just on Sundays), etc, etc, etc. Like Joshua, they fail to consult God as to whether or not these things are right; they don't turn to the Bible for authority....they just do what they want to do and assume that God will bless them. I dare say that there will be some folks on the day of Judgement that will, like Joshua, be mighty upset with God...who will blame God when they should be blaming themselves!

The lesson? Do what God says and you'll be blessed. Consult God. Don't act presumptuously.

Nearer to Salvation

2012-01-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

Anddo this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; fornow our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night isfar spent, the day is at hand. Therefore, let us cast off the works ofdarkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Romans 13:11-12).

Have you ever known someone thatsimply hated mornings? When you go in to wake them up, they pull the blanketsover their head and tell you to “go away.” They’ll hit the snooze button on their alarm clock a half-dozen times beforefinally rolling out of bed, and even then, you better leave them alone becausethey are g-r-u-m-p-y, GRUMPY! There are some people that, if left alone, wouldsleep in till lunchtime every day.

According to Romans 13:11-12, thereare people like this on a spiritual level. They may be called “Christians,” butinstead of getting to work, they continue to hit the snooze button. After all,it’s nice and warm under the covers—it’s hard to get up, push through thedrowsiness and commit to such a labor-intensive day.

Paul urged these slumbering saintsto “awake” for “the day is at hand.” The sun was poking over the easternhorizon, and they needed to get up and get ready so that they could put in afull day’s work in the vineyard of the Lord!

But what’s the motivation forgetting up and going to work, or in this case, to BATTLE? Why should we get outof bed? Why should I step out into the light when the darkness is socomfortable and the covers so warm?

Here’s the motivation: “oursalvation is nearer than when we first believed.” For the worker, Mondays arehard because you’ve got the whole work-week ahead of you. Thursdays and Fridays,on the other hand, are much, much easier because it’s almost payday and theweekend is fast-approaching.

Here in 2012, we are a year closerto inheriting the salvation that God has promised to the Faithful! Oursalvation is nearer, and it grows ever nearer as time passes by. So awake outof sleep and put on the armor of light. Labor in God’s vineyard with passionand diligence, knowing that payday is coming!

Are you ready?

Obsessing Over Church Buildings

2011-10-11T12:13:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to "church buildings" (a building owned by the local church to facilitate worship and Bible study). I know there are some who say that church buildings are wrong, especially those in the so-called "house-church movement," but I am NOT one of those people. I firmly believe that church buildings, like song books and pews and collection plates, are authorized generically by means of necessary inference and expediency. So again, there is nothing wrong with autonomous local churches making the decision to own a building in which they assemble for worship and Bible study.

However, I do believe that there are some attitudes among brethren that are indicative of an obsession of church buildings. And this really bothers me.

There are some who act as if, without a church building, the church just can't function. I heard of a congregation that split recently; the larger segment of brethren was still a small group (less than 30) and yet their first obstacle was finding a building to purchase. It was as if they weren't officially a church until they owned their own building. Then there was another scenario where a man contacted me online to seek prayers (and financial assistance) on behalf of his congregation. Why? Because there was some damage to their small building and he was worried that some of the members might leave if they didn't have good facilities in which to assemble. I have spoken to men in the past who have made efforts to establish new churches in remote areas or in areas where there are no faithful congregations, and one of the first steps in that process was securing and purchasing a nice building in which to meet, even if there was only one or two families starting out.

Here's why this bothers me: when you read through the New Testament, you see countless examples of local churches meeting in upper-rooms, in homes, outdoors and in other public places. And yet in the 21st century, it's as if such arrangements aren't good enough. What is wrong with a small congregation meeting in someone's home, or in a library, or in someone's barn? Is it that we're spoiled and have to have all the modern comforts such as AC/heat, padded pews, etc? Or is it pride in competing with all the denominational churches around us? Do we think that without a church building, we're not going to draw visitors from the community? Isn't the "gospel" the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16)?

Listen, I honestly believe that larger congregations (those numbering 50+) might have more reason to own a building. After all, it's difficult to squeeze that many people into someone's house, or even a public place such as a conference room in a library. When a congregation grows and needs a larger area in which to meet and they can afford a building, I think that there is even a degree of prudence in purchasing or constructing a "church building." But small congregations don't need to be going into debt for a church building when they could easily fit into someone's home, or a public place. I'm not saying it's wrong for small congregations to own a building. In my opinion, it's just not a wise expenditure.

Think about it. How much money goes into the church building? There is the mortgage, the electric and water bills, the lawn care, the yearly maintenance, and so on. What ends up happening so often is that most of the money collected in the weekly contribution goes to maintaining the building. Money that could be better spend on supporting an evangelist, or aiding needy saints is instead funneled into a building that isn't necessary in the first place. There are small congregations that cannot afford to hire a preacher because their money is tied up in a building. Among some of these smaller congregations that HAVE preachers, the preacher is asked to seek outside support (from other congregations) because they can't afford to provide full-support...and yet a sizable percentage of their weekly contribution is going towards the maintenance of a building. Churches that could be paying to place articles and ads in the local newspaper and engaging in all kinds of evangelism projects are unable to do so because they feel this need to OWN their own building...when they could easily meet in someone's home.

But listen, it's not just small congregations that are under the microscope here. Larger congregations are often guilty of the same problem. With larger congregations, however, their obsession is not in having a building--they can easily afford the building; their problem is that they want to have an extravagant building. Chandeliers, ornate trim, flowers and fake plants around the pulpit, outrageously expensive sound systems and recording equipment, offices for the preacher and elders, libraries and media rooms, expensive landscaping outside, digital signs and displays, high-arched ceilings and steeples, and the list goes on and on and on. Sometimes I think it's as if some brethren have the mindset of our Catholic friends.

Brethren, don't you think that sometimes we go a little too far? Aren't there better ways to spend the Lord's money? There are preachers out there in need of support. There are Christians in need. There are all kinds of evangelism projects that, with a little financing, could greatly impact the community--CD projects, newsletters, mailers, ads, billboards, flyers, etc.

Again, I'm not saying that it's wrong for a church to own its own building. But I do think that we need to stop obsessing over church buildings. Church buildings are nice to have, but they're not necessary. They are convenient and comfortable, but that doesn't make them a "must-have." And again, we need to stop using our church buildings as a substitute for the gospel of Christ.

Hopefully you can make some sense of this.

End rant.

Jesus Didn't Come to Destroy the Law

2011-09-13T07:39:00.001-07:00

Jesussays in Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or theProphets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” It is assumed that becauseJesus didn’t come to “destroy” the old law, it can still be used as a source oflaw alongside the law of the New Testament. But this is an incorrectinterpretation of Matthew 5:17.

The key to understanding this verse isthe word “fulfill.” The Greek word is plerooand it literally means, “satisfy, complete, finish.” In Matthew 5:17, Jesus isbasically referring to the Law of Moses as a contract, and He came to satisfy and complete the terms of that contract.

Consider this illustration. When youpurchase a car, you are given a contract with terms and conditions. When youmake the last payment 60 months later, you fulfillthe contract; the terms have been completely satisfied and you are now free fromthe bond of that contract.

Jesus didn’t come to disregard the termsor conditions of the Old Testament law. Rather, He came to fulfill it, and Hedid (Luke 24:27, 44). Because He fulfilled the contract in every way, we are nolonger bound to it—we can gather valuable principles from it (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor.10:11), but it is no longer a valid source of law (Col. 2:14-16).

The Iniquity of Institutionalism

2011-08-05T09:52:00.000-07:00

Churches of Christ are not all the same. That’s obvious to anyone who examines them all; there are differences on a number of issues. One thing that divides churches of Christ is the issue of “institutionalism.” As we begin this brief study, it is necessary to first of all define what we’re talking about. Institutionalism is the idea of the local church paying a human institution to do the work of the church, rather then send the money directly to the need. Generally, various local churches will all contribute to the same institution. That institution, whether big or small, will then oversee the dispersion of those funds. There are other errors typically involved with institutionalism, but in this article, we’ll try to stick to the main issue.

The local church is authorized to take up a collection of money (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The money that is collected each Sunday forms what we call a “common fund” or treasury (see Acts 4:34-35 for more on this). As certain needs arise locally or abroad, the church is authorized to draw from that treasury with the intent of meeting those needs. In other words, it is in keeping with the New Testament pattern that local churches send financial relief to meet certain needs that may arise. What are those needs? What are legitimate ways for the church to spend its money? Let’s look at a few things.

First of all, it is obvious that the local church is authorized to send relief to needy saints (NOTE: This gets into one of the other vices often tied to institutionalism, that is, the relief of saint and sinner alike, which the Bible does not authorize.). In Acts 11:28-30, the prophet Agabus came to Antioch and told the brethren there that a famine would occur in the land of Judea. Upon hearing this, the disciples decided to send relief to the “brethren” dwelling in Judea. “This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Also, in Romans 15:25-26, Paul writes, “But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem.” In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul instructed the Corinthians to take up a collection for the saints, and when he came in the future, he would take their donation to the needy saints in Jerusalem (vs. 3). There is more on this in 2 Corinthians 8-9.

Now, we’ve seen the church’s efforts in the realm of benevolence, and we’ve even noticed how the church’s benevolence was limited to needy Christians. But regarding institutionalism, here’s the question: in each case, did the churches send the relief directly to the need, or did they set up institutions (apart from the church) to oversee the dispersion of those funds? The answer is clear. No institutions were set up. The church always had oversight over the dispersion of its own funds. They made the decision and sent the money directly to the need. Where is the authority, then, for churches today to contract out their benevolence to some human institution…to surrender the oversight…the power, the control…to something other than the church?

Another example that we might consider is the support of evangelists. “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Preachers and evangelists may be supported, and the church is authorized to provide that support not only for local preachers, but for preachers working in other areas. Notice Philippians 4:15-16: “Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities.” Notice once again how the church sent the relief (this time in support of the evangelist Paul) directly to the one who needed it, Paul. There was no “missionary society” or human institution standing between the Thessalonian church and Paul.

These few points are sufficient in pointing out the iniquity of institutionalism. Instead of looking at this as a small matter, we need to have the mindset that we’re going to follow the pattern of the New Testament and do only what we’re authorized to do. Institutionalism isn’t authorized!

Another blog

2011-08-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone, I encourage you to check out the blog of a fellow Christian and evangelist. Brother Adam Litmer, who works with the University Heights church of Christ in Lexington, KY has his blog "Captive For Christ" back up and running. Here's the link:

www.adamlitmer.blogspot.com

Thanks!!!

Is a Fetus Equivalent to Human Life?

2011-07-12T10:50:00.000-07:00

Recently, the American public was outraged when Casey Anthony was found not-guilty for the murder of her daughter, Caylee. Most people believe that Casey Anthony DID kill her daughter and that she should have received the death penalty!

But why is there not similar outrage over the fact that over a million innocent children are slaughtered every year in this country? Yes, I’m talking about abortion.

One of the arguments for abortion is that the baby inside the woman’s womb is actually a “fetus.” The use of this term is meant to desensitize us; the implication is that the fetus is NOT equivalent to human life. Therefore, because it’s not a human, it can be removed like a cancerous tumor from the woman’s body.

God sees things differently, however.

In the Old Testament, the same Hebrew word (yeled) is used in reference to a child inside the womb (Ex. 21:22) and outside the womb (Ex. 2:10). In the New Testament, the Greek word (brephos) referred to the “babe” in Elisabeth’s womb as well as the “babe” Jesus who rested in the manger (Luke 1:41 à Luke 2:12).

Other arguments could be cited, but these few points alone prove that God sees no distinction between the baby before and after birth. The so-called fetus is absolutely equivalent to human life. Therefore, the act of abortion is nothing less than murder.

I agree that Caylee Anthony’s life was precious, and the one who took her life committed murder and is deserving of death. But the act of abortion is just as vile.

"Eli's Quest for Truth"

2011-07-08T05:05:00.001-07:00

As some of you know, I've got my own publishing business. While I do offer publishing services to others, the main...thrust of my company is the publication of my own books.

Here's a new book with a spiritual focus that I'm very excited about. It's called "Eli's Quest for Truth." It's a smaller, 5x8 book with just 65 pages or so. It's the story of a young Jewish man named Eli who lives in the hill country of Galilee in 28AD. When asked, "What kind of Jew are you?" Eli sets out on a quest to discover the truth about all the Jewish sects. He encounters the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Herodians, Zealots and even the Samaritans. Along the way, he learns some very important lessons.

The application is made at the end to OUR religious system today. Just as Judaism was divided in the days of old, so also is Christianity divided today. We have all kinds of denominations and the question is often asked, "What kind of Christian are you?" Eli's story illustrates this struggle and the importance of seeking God's way in the midst of so much manmade division and confusion.

This isn't a tract, per se, but does have evangelistic value. It would make a great handout, and can be read in about 30-40 minutes. I'm currently working on an audio book version of this book, and will make it available for the Kindle device soon.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Here's the link for my online book store. You may have to scroll down just a little to see the book. Seriously, this is a book that I'm very, very excited about. Please take a look at it:

http://silverfallspublishing.com/book-store.html

Would You Refuse to Study?

2011-06-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

Did you know that the majority of people out there—even religious people—have no real interest in studying the Bible. In most cases, when I ask someone if they would like to sit down and study the Bible, they refuse.

Some people refuse to study, saying that they just don’t have any time to study. I understand that people are busy; we have so many things that demand our time. But are we not told to “seek first the kingdom of God…” (Mt. 6:33)? Despite our busy schedules, most of us find time to watch our favorite TV show; many even spend several hours a night watching TV. Can we not make time to study the Bible?

Others say that they already go to church somewhere, as if home Bible studies are only for the “unchurched.” Folks, we all need to study the Bible (Heb. 5:12-14). Do you think that because you go to church that you don’t need to study, or that you have it all figured out? What if you’re wrong? What if I can help you to better understand the word of God?

Then there are the folks who act interested; they acknowledge that they should study the Bible more and straighten up. They tell me that they’ll get back with me and set up a time for me to come over and study with them. However, almost 100% of the time, I don’t hear back from them.

The Bible tells us what God expects and how to be pleasing to Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you know that your life doesn’t reflect the teachings of God’s word, call me. Let’s study.

But even if you identify yourself as a “Christian,” it’s possible that you’re wrong in your understanding of God’s word. What if you are? Paul says, after all, that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), and yet there are hundreds of different churches today! Do you know that you have the truth?

Email me at KYBibleQuestions@yahoo.com if you'd like to correspond.

Hear & Believe...Believe & Be Baptized

2011-06-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

Jesus says in John 5:24, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Based on this verse, it is clear that in order to be saved, we must HEAR the word and BELIEVE it. Both steps are necessary.

But what if I told you that faith is not necessary after all? All you have to do is HEAR the gospel; once you hear, you are saved. What if I made that argument? Wouldn’t you remind me that Jesus says here in John 5:24 that we must hear and believe? And wouldn’t you point out the innumerable verses that teach the necessity of faith? Sure you would!

Well, notice what Mark 16:16 says: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Do you see how the structure of this verse parallels that of John 5:24? In both verses, two conditions are set forth for salvation. In John 5:24, it was HEAR and BELIEVE. Here in Mark 16:16 it is BELIEVE and BE BAPTIZED.

Here’s the point. If both hearing and believing are necessary based on the clear wording of John 5:24, then both faith and baptism are necessary based on Mark 16:16. If not, why not? Yet so many religious people look at Mark 16:16 and say that baptism really isn’t necessary. “Faith only,” they say. Would they apply this same logic to John 5:24? Of course not, for then faith would be ruled out.

Dear reader, faith is necessary, but so also is baptism. Just read John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-8; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is not just recommended, it is required! And it’s not just “baptism,” it’s baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

If you have any questions, or if you want to talk more about the plan of salvation, call me at (859)274-5479 anytime. I’d love to study the Bible with you.

"Speak to the Rock"

2011-06-01T10:52:00.000-07:00

At first glance, the above phrase sounds really weird. Why would anyone speak to a rock? But this was a command given to Moses by God. In Numbers 20, when the people of Israel complained about being thirsty, God told Moses, “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock” (Num. 20:8).

The command may seem strange to us, but at least it was simple. And yet what did Moses do in response? He did gather all the people together as commanded, and yet instead of speaking to the rock, we are told that “Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod” (Num. 20:11). God said “speak to the rock” but instead, Moses “struck” it.

Here’s the question: did Moses disobey God? According to the reasoning of many religious people today, Moses did nothing wrong. After all, God never said not to strike the rock; therefore, it wasn’t wrong. This is the way so many church-going people reason. They assume that if an action isn’t condemned in the Bible, then it’s not wrong. What we need to realize is that we don’t need a “thou shalt not” to know that something is wrong. What we need is a “thou shalt” to know that it’s RIGHT. If it’s not right (authorized), then it’s wrong and we have to avoid it.

When God told Moses to “speak to the rock” He automatically ruled out everything else, including the action of striking the rock twice. What Moses did was unauthorized, and God punished him for it. We need to PROVE that what we’re doing is right by pointing to the book, chapter and verse!

Before...the Parable of the Good Samaritan

2011-05-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

One of the most famous parables of Jesus is that of the Good Samaritan, found only in Luke's gospel account, in chapter 10. I love this parable for the same reason others do: it emphasizes the importance of compassion and love...even when it's difficult. These are qualities that ought to define each and every child of God. We mustn't be arrogant, self-righteous or detached; instead we need to be sacrificial and giving.

But in this short article, I'd like to discuss the verses before the parable itself. Beginning in verse 25, we read of a conversation that took place between an unnamed lawyer and Jesus. It was this conversation that ultimately motivated Jesus to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan. And while I think that there are a lot of great lessons in the parable, there are some great lessons in the verses that precede it as well. As we read the story of the lawyer, we are giving a glimpse into his heart and I truly believe that the lawyer's mindset is shared by many religious people today.

In verse 25, we are told that "a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him..." He tested Jesus by asking the question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" This is, of course, a very important question, but only if it's backed by an honest heart. Verse 25 tells us that the lawyer wasn't honest. He didn't ask the question because he really wanted to know; he asked the question to "test" Jesus. Regretfully, I've seen this same mindset in a lot of the people I've encountered over the years. People ask questions about the Bible, and yet they are not interested in the truth. Perhaps they ask questions to stir up trouble, or to kick-start an argument. I've seen it happen in a Bible class...where someone asked a question knowing that it was a sensitive issue, knowing that it would cause a stir. Sometimes people ask questions because they want to know what you think...even though they really don't want to study. Then why ask? The point is this: it's good to ask questions, but only if we are interested in the answers...only if we are honest and willing to actually study the Bible and ultimately make the applications.

As we continue to examine the conversation that took place between Jesus and the lawyer, we see that Jesus answered the lawyer's question...with a question. "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What is written in the law?" Jesus knew that the lawyer was trying to trap Him, so Jesus turned it back on the lawyer. He didn't make it personal; He made it about the law. And that's exactly what we need to do. When people ask us questions, we need to point people to the Bible, because the Bible is all that matters anyway. Not what I think, or what I feel. Not what my parents taught me, or what the majority of people believe. Only the word of God can make us complete in God's sight (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I don't think the lawyer expected this answer. But he answered the question anyways, and he answered correctly. "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.'" Jesus affirms this answer. Now, it's important for us to understand that Jesus is not promoting generic love for God and neighbor. That would put most people in heaven. Rather, the love here involves obedience, service, charity, etc. In fact, these two laws are so important because they sum up the entire law of God. If we truly love God, we will obey all His commandments, and if we love our neighbor, we will treat them as we should (a lot of God's commandments center around our treatment of others).

But then notice verse 29. This gives us more insight into the lawyer's character. "But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?" It's this question that leads to the telling of the parable, but our focus is on the lawyer's desire to "justify himself."

We already saw in verse 25 that the lawyers isn't honest. Even though he's a religious guy and knows the law, and even though he has a spiritual inquiry for Jesus, he was not a spiritually-minded man; he wasn't an honest seeker of the truth. His desire to justify himself in verse 29 is reflective of that same mindset. He wasn't willing to change himself, nor was he interested in a paradigm other than his own. All he wanted was to live HIS way and to feel as good about it as possible.

Also, he tried to justify himself by casting doubt on the meaning of the law. By refusing to accept a specific definition of the term "neighbor," he thought that he was exempt from the command. After all, "who really is my neighbor?" I've seen religious people do this very thing. They try to make commands as vague and as confusing as possible; in doing this, they feel more justified in their disobedience. The command is still there, but they feel better about themselves. Of course, they could just obey the command, but that's unthinkable.

I've studied with some people over the years who are a lot like the lawyer. They pretend to be religious, and they may even feel righteous, and yet when you begin to discuss the Bible with them, it becomes very clear that they are not interested in the truth. Instead, they are primarily interested in justifying themselves. In the process of justifying themselves, they reveal their dishonesty, their close-mindedness, and ultimately, their refusal to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God!

Yes, the parable of the good Samaritan is wonderful, but I think the prologue to the parable...the conversation between Jesus and the lawyer...is of equal benefit.

Accepting God on HIS Terms

2011-05-20T05:42:00.000-07:00

Paul, in Romans 1, discusses a mindset that is all too common among people. Even though God reveals Himself to all of us, too many people refuse to accept God as He is. Instead they change and mold God into who they want Him to be. They change “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man” (vs. 23) and exchange “the truth of God for the lie, and [worship] and [serve] the creature rather than the Creator” (vs. 25). Even though the apostle is here speaking of the paganism and polytheism of the wicked Gentiles, he is really condemning all of us who morph God into who we want Him to be and refuse to accept God on HIS terms.

There are certain things that we can learn about God by examining “creation” (i.e. the natural world). The beauty that abounds in our world extols God’s love and His care for us. The violence of a thunderstorm reveals God’s power and might…even His wrath and judgment. But our perusal of the natural world can only take us so far in our journey to God. To know His will, He must reveal Himself to us. And He has! We have the BIBLE to tell us God’s will (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Both the natural world and the Bible tell us certain things about God. But in order for us to see God’s identity and know His will, we must work and study diligently to find Him. There is no audible voice or miraculous manifestation. We have to apply ourselves to seek God out. Matthew 7:7 says, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be added to you.” James 4:8 echoes this principle: “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” I like the way Paul put it in Acts 17:26-27 when preaching to the pagans of Athens: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” These three verses tell us that God is there, waiting for each of us to seek Him. If we seek Him, we’ll find Him. But to find Him—the real Him—we have to humble ourselves to seek the real Him…not a substitute “Him” or a convenient “Him.”

Dear reader, you may be satisfied with your version of God. But it’s the real GOD that will judge you. You may be satisfied with your religion, but only “God’s religion” will free you from sin and lead you to heaven. There is “one body…one Spirit….one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God…” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Don’t settle for mama and daddy’s religion. Don’t settle for the church that is closest to your home. Don’t be deceived into thinking that because you feel saved, that you are saved. Don’t assume anything. Start over. Seek God and accept Him on His terms. Apply HIS teachings and will to your life. It’ll be hard, and it’ll require every ounce of your being, but it’s definitely worth it. Call me at (859)274-5479 if you have any questions. I’d love to study the Bible with you.

Chapter and Verse Divisions

2011-04-12T05:29:00.000-07:00

It is obvious to anyone who has ever cracked open a Bible that the inspired text is divided into chapters and verses. Sometimes, there are even paragraph divisions with titles and subtitles. Many Bibles contain commentary, scripture references, notes from the publisher, descriptions of books, character biographies, and so on.

What is less obvious is the fact that the biblical text wasn't always divided in this manner. There was a time when the 66 books of the Bible were structured as free-flowing letters, or epistles. No big number "2" to indicate the end of chapter one and the beginning of the second chapter...there were no chapters. John 3:16...the text itself...was there, but it wasn't preceded by a number "16" and it wasn't in a "third chapter."

Chapter and verse divisions came about later in history. According to some of the research I've done, the New Testament was divided into paragraphs by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., but it wasn't until the 13th century that the actual chapter divisions emerged, thanks to the work of men like Stephen Langton, a cardinal of the Catholic Church. Regarding versification, Robert Estienne included our modern numbering system in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to be fully divided into chapters and verses. Since then, various Bible publishers have probably printed hundreds of different types of Bibles, all structured differently. Again, paragraphs with heading and sub-headings, commentary, scripture references, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with many of these manmade divisions. After all, the text itself isn't altered. In fact, the chapter and verse divisions are especially helpful when it comes to memorizing scripture, studying scripture, and preaching. As a preacher, I can't imagine preaching without the chapters and verses! All I've got to do is call out "Romans 5:8" or "1 Peter 3:21 and the members of the congregation know exactly where to go.

But at the same time, these chapter and verse breaks aren't always beneficial. Sometimes, these manmade divisions break up the inspired text in such a way that we misinterpret, misunderstand and/or isolate the free-flowing words of God. Where a new chapter begins, we assume that there is a break in the apostle's thought. Instead of studying and interpreting the content of a chapter in light of the overall context of the book, we isolate the chapter and sometimes miss out some very important questions: WHY? TO WHOM? TO WHAT END?

In the four gospels and Acts, the chapter divisions may not be as harmful (although I'm sure there are instances where they are), but in the epistles, chapter breaks are especially significant. Romans is the perfect example. Almost every chapter break in Romans is incorrectly placed and hurts our reading of it. In 1 Corinthians, chapters 12-14 address the same basic subject: attitudes towards miracles...and yet how many times have you heard someone quote the 13th chapter in a wedding ceremony..."Love suffers long and is kind..."? In Colossians 3, Paul gives commands to wives, husbands, children, fathers and bondservants, and then chapter 4 begins with a command for the masters of the bondservants. Why the break? And don't even get me started on Hebrews!

We run into similar problems with versification. Again, a part of me loves the convenience of the verse numbers, but another part of me is distracted by them. Inevitably, what ends up happening is we study a "verse" or memorize a "verse" and in so doing we totally remove it from its context. Galatians 2:16 is a case-in-point. So many denominational people use this verse to teach that works aren't necessary...but if they would read the surrounding verses (and be honest), they would see that Paul is not condemning obedience; rather, he is contrasting a system of works (the old law) and a system of faith (the new law). Hundreds of other examples could be cited. Literally.

Again, I'm not saying that the chapter and verse divisions are wrong. Personally, I love them because they're convenient. All I'm saying is that when we study the Bible, we need to keep these things in mind. Sometimes, we just need to do our best to ignore the manmade divisions. Trust me, it'll change the way you see the scriptures.

Try memorizing a large segment of scripture...even a book of the Bible. Or transcribe a book of the Bible WITHOUT the chapter and verse breaks. Then read it. See if you notice a difference. I believe you will.

Not that this has all been a sales pitch, but I will say that I HAVE published a book called, "The Undivided New Testament." This is an ASV New Testament with no chapter and verse divisions, no paragraphs with titles and subtitles, no commentary or scripture references...just the inspired text itself. I published this book because there's NOTHING like it on the market, and I felt that something like this needed to be available to the public. If you'd like to learn more about this book, go to http://silverfallspublishing.com/book-store.html. Currently, you can pre-order "The Undivided New Testament" for $13.00 (plus tax and s&h). The book should be in stock within 1-2 weeks, at which point the price will go up to $15.00.

If you'd like to purchase one of these books, great. Trust me, I'd love to sell one to you. But this article isn't just about boosting sales. I just want you to think about the dangers of dividing and sectioning off the inspired scriptures. I really, truly believe that there'd be less error in the religious world if we'd all read the scriptures with context in mind.

What do you think?

Dressing Up For Church

2011-04-06T04:21:00.000-07:00

Every Sunday morning, my wife and I spend a good portion of our time dressing up for church. I usually have to iron my black pants and button-up shirt, and then I have to work to get my tie just right. My wife usually has a skirt and shirt to iron as well. We also have four kids—three of whom are girls—that need help getting into dresses and nice clothes. Literally, we spend MOST of our time Sunday morning dressing up for church.

Obviously, I’m not opposed to dressing up for church. There’s nothing wrong with wearing formal attire for worship. But I do not believe that it’s necessary; in no way does God expect us to dress up for church…contrary to popular opinion.

Where in the New Testament does God establish a dress code for worship? It’s not there! What is there is that we are to dress modestly (1 Tim. 2:9-10), but that principle applies all the time and is not limited to the assembly. There is also the principle in James 2:1-9 about NOT judging one another based on the quality of our attire. Beyond these two principles, I see no regulations regarding how we are to dress for church.

Some argue that if we’d dress up for court or to meet the president, then we should show similar respect for God by dressing up for church. But why do we dress up for court? Because that’s the custom and expectation among men. Likewise, I dress up for church because that’s the custom...and perhaps because some men have that expectation…not because God has that expectation.

I show God respect by giving Him my best in worship. I worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) and offer unto Him the fruit of my lips as a sacrifice (Heb. 13:15). I’ll leave matters of dress and attire to each individual and never use it as a test of the heart.

Healing the Paralytic (Mark 2:1-12)

2011-03-08T06:33:00.000-08:00

Jesus healed and worked miracles on a number of people during his three years of ministry and thankfully, the scriptures record many of these instances. I think a lot of the time as we read these accounts, we become desensitized to the wonderment and marvel of miracles. We have the attitude, "Well, that's just another miracle that Jesus performed." We read over them and think very little about them. But this is a mistake. These accounts are in the inspired scriptures for our benefit, and I believe that we need to examine them more closely to find the hidden lessons.

In Mark 2:1-12, we read the story of Jesus healing the paralytic. Let's read the text before considering it... "And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house. Immediately, many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them. Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the rood where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven you.' And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?' But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, 'Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven you, or to say, Arise, take up your bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins'--He said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.' Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, 'We never saw anything like this.'"

What I love about this story is the fact that Jesus perfectly emphasized the importance of spiritual needs over physical needs. I'm sure the paralytic wanted to be healed physically, but Jesus knew that he needed spiritual healing first and foremost. Perhaps the man had been paralyzed as a result of sinful living. I don't know. I'd like to think that when Jesus told him that his sins were forgiven that he felt a wave of relief, rather than disappointment (having hoped for a miracle).

Regardless of the paralytic's condition or mindset, Jesus got His message across. Rather than perform the miracle (which would have undoubtedly wowed the crowd), he offered forgiveness to the paralytic, something that ought to be important to all of us.

Our prayers and our thinking need to reflect the right priorities. There's nothing wrong with praying for physical healing (for ourselves or others), but we need to be more eager to receive God's forgiveness, His compassion and mercy; we need to be more concerned about wisdom, self-control and spiritual strength. There's nothing wrong with wanting a good life, physically, but we need to be more motivated to pursue spiritual excellence before God.

Let me put it this way: if you had been the paralytic and you heard Jesus say, "Your sins are forgiven you," would you have been excited...or disappointed? Would you have thanked Him for His compassion and mercy, or would you have lived the rest of your life bitter and full of resentment, hating the Lord for having NOT removed your paralysis?

And today, would you rather the Lord heal your poverty and bless you materially with riches and prosperity, or heal you spiritually?

Jesus proved that He has the power and authority to forgive sins. By healing the paralytic, He proved that He was and is the Son of God. Indeed, God answers our prayers and there's nothing wrong with having physical desires and wishes, but if we learn anything from Mark 2:1-12, it's that spiritual prosperity ought to be our utmost concern.

"These Three Men...Job"

2011-03-03T08:15:00.000-08:00

"Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would only deliver themselves by their righteousness" (Ezek. 14:14). These three men are given as examples of righteousness. In this article, let's consider the righteousness of Job.

It is generally assumed that Job lived during the times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We know very little about him apart from the fact that he was a very wealthy man who lived in a place called "Uz." But these physical details of Job's life are not important; what is important is the kind of man he was spiritually. According to Job 1:1, he was "blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." So Job was not only physically rich, he was spiritually rich.

But that's not a major accomplishment, is it? I mean, it's great that Job was righteous, but God had blessed Job all around, and so it was easy for him to be righteous. He had a personal relationship with a God who gave him everything he could ever need or want. That was Satan's point: "Does Job fear God for nothing?" (Job 1:9)

We all know the story. Job lost everything. His livestock were stolen by the Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:13-15, 17), his sheep burned by fire from heaven (1:16), his servants slain (1:13-17), and his children killed in a freak accident (1:18-19). Can you imagine the sorrow that must have filled Job's heart?"

And yet the scriptures tell us that "Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped" (1:20). After being stricken with painful boils, his wife told him to curse God and die, but Job replied, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" (2:9-10)

It's true that Job's attitude wasn't always perfect. Like many of the psalmists, he came to question God's judgment. God did rebuke Job, asking him, "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (38:1-2) And yet we must conclude that Job passed the test; otherwise he would not be cited as one of the three examples of righteousness! Perhaps as humans it is natural to doubt and to question, so long as we maintain our faith in God and trust that He will ultimately see us through.

If Job could patiently endure (James 5:11), certainly we can endure the day-to-day trials that come our way.

"These Three Men...Daniel"

2011-03-02T04:47:00.001-08:00

"Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness" (Ezek. 14:14). These three men are given as examples of righteousness. In this article, let's consider the righteousness of Daniel.

Like Noah, Daniel was a righteous man living in a hostile environment. Babylon was a pagan city full of idolatry and immorality and Daniel was forced to live there after being torn from his home in Jerusalem (Dan. 1:1-6). Again, this must have been quite a burden.

But at least Daniel had other Jews around him who feared God. We read of such friends as Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, better known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. When Daniel desperately needed an interpretation to the king's dream, he turned to his three godly friends "that they might seek mercies from the God of heaven concerning this secret" (Dan. 2:17-18).

Of course, Daniel is well-known by Bible students for a number of reasons. There is the story of the handwriting on the wall as recorded in Daniel 5, and of course there is the story of the den of lions in the sixth chapter. Even though the world was against him, Daniel never backed down.

In the end, His zeal for God was exemplified before several Babylonian and Persian kings: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus, and perhaps others. King Nebuchadnezzar was a self-righteous idol-worshipper before Daniel came...but through Daniel, God humbled Nebuchadnezzar to the point that he learned to praise God (Dan. 4:34-37). Darius, likewise, was greatly impacted by Daniel's faith (Dan. 6:26-27).

Daniel is so impressive because as a young man, he surely was confronted with all sorts of "youthful lusts" in the Sin City of his day. And yet he refused to conform (Rom. 12:1-2). He was in the belly of the beast, so to speak, but not once did he falter. We would all do well to learn a lesson from Daniel, especially our young people. You CAN overcome the world! "Flee also youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22).

But it wasn't easy for Daniel, and it won't be easy for us. Like Daniel, we must be people of constant prayer (Dan. 6:10) who regularly assemble with others of like precious faith (Dan. 2:17-18; Heb. 10:24-25). We cannot win the war fighting solo. We must, like Daniel, avail ourselves to the many tools and aids that God has prepared for us. Only then will we win the fight.

Thank you, Daniel, for your wonderful example.

And thank you, God, for ensuring that Daniel's story was recorded and preserved in Your holy word.

Sheep & Goats

2011-03-01T09:36:00.000-08:00

I went to a Livestock auction in Lee City, KY last night with my brother-in-law. We're both looking into getting some goats and we were told that goats are auctioned off every Monday night at the Lee City Livestock Auction.

It was an interesting experience. There were, of course, cows (the main attraction), and pigs, but the goats and sheep had to be the most interesting of them all. As Quinn and I observed the goats and sheep, we couldn't help but think of the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:32-33, "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left." In this passage, sinners are compared to goats while saints are compared to sheep (also see John 10:1-30 for more on this comparison).

As we observed the goats and sheep at this livestock auction, the reason behind these comparisons in Matthew 25 became apparent to both of us.

The goats were a wild and raucous bunch. They were constantly fighting, running and trying to mate. When you'd reach your hand in to try to touch them, they'd often look at you with death in their eyes. Goats are known for being stubborn and wily, resistant to authority, independent and mischevious. I've heard stories of them escaping from the pasture, jumping on the hoods of cars, tugging against the lead rope, butting and knocking down little children, attacking their masters, and so on. These goats at the livestock auction were not all necessarily violent, but they were clearly the stereotypical stubborn goats that you hear about.

The sheep, on the other hand, were more gentle. They seemed to stick together and not once did I see them getting into mischief. They didn't challenge the goats on the other side of the bars. Really, they seemed very timid.

Sheep are interesting creatures. They're actually kind of "dumb" and I've heard that they'll do nothing when a predator attacks the flock...they just stand there and get killed. But despite their lack of intelligence, they are absolutely dependent upon the shepherd. Where He leads, they follow. They come running at the sound of his call and are really quite helpless without His protection and guidance. Again, goats are stubborn and resist the shepherd, but sheep are humble and needy.

Too many people are like goats. They may revel in their independence and individuality, and they may enjoy their little escapades out of "the pasture" (in sin). They may feel powerful and self-confident when they resist the leadership and guidance of a loving Shepherd, but in the end, as Matthew 25 indicates, they will be separated from the rest of the flock and destroyed in hell.

Really, we need to be like sheep. We need to give up our own will and submit to the Shepherd's hand. We must recognize our total dependence upon Him by seeking His will in the Bible, studying it daily and applying it to our lives. Others may look at us as weak, dumb, naive, etc...but we can rest assured that in the end, we will be accepted by the Lord.

Which are you?

Are you the stubborn, self-reliant, mischevious goat?

Or, are you the humble, submissive sheep, wholly dependent on the Shepherd, Jesus Christ?

"These Three Men...NOAH"

2011-02-25T06:00:00.000-08:00

"Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness" (Ezek. 14:14). These three men are given as examples of righteousness. In this article, let's consider the righteousness of Noah.

What's so amazing about Noah is that he was the only man living in his day who garnered the attention and praise of God. Everyone else was thoroughly wicked, but Noah "found grace in the eyes of the Lord" for he was "a just man, perfect in his generations" (vs. 8-9). Imagine would that would be like...to be the only God-fearing man alive. This reminds me of how "righteous Lot was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked" years later (2 Pet. 2:7). Of course, Noah couldn't really help it. Both Noah and Lot show us that even when we're surrounded by rampant evil, we can be faithful to the Lord; it may be hard, but it can be done.

But Noah didn't just get by. Scripture indicates that he was a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5). As a gospel preacher, I know how hard it can be to preach, even to saved people. I can't imagine how difficult it was for Noah, preaching to a hostile crowd regularly.

If that wasn't enough, Noah was singled out by God for the purpose of constructing the great ark (Gen. 6:13-21). A flood was coming to destroy all life and Noah had to think about that every day as he worked on the vessel that would only preserve his life and the lives of his immediate family.

Even after the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), Noah remained aboard the vessel. He only stepped off the ark when God gave him the go-ahead (Gen. 8:15-16). This is just another example of his unfailing trust in God.

How Noah did it, I don't know. But he did, and I am truly thankful for his wonderful example. Despite the obstacles we may face, I am certain that we can endure. If Noah could, so can we!

Some Thoughts From Revelation 20

2011-02-24T05:50:00.000-08:00

The 20th chapter of Revelation is the source of much controversy confusion , especially when it comes to the denominational concept of the "millennial kingdom," or 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. In this short article, I'd like to address this issue.

In the first seven verses of this chapter, we find the SOLE prooftext of the denominationalist's "millennial kingdom," which is the idea that Jesus will one day return to planet earth to set up His physical kingdom (based in Jerusalem) which will last for 1,000 years. Here in Revelation 20, John DOES mention the fact that saints would reign for 1,000 years, and He does say that Satan would be bound during this time. But nowhere does the inspired writer describe this "kingdom" as being earthly or based on earth. Nowhere is it stated that Jesus would reign in Jerusalem or that saints would experience something akin to "paradise" during this period of time. All it says is that the saints would reign with Christ and that Satan would be bound.

First of all, we have to understand that Revelation is a book of symbolism (Rev. 1:1). Those who interpret this book literally, comparing its contents to modern-day news stories are missing the point completely. The seal, trumpet and bowl judgments, the beast coming out of the sea, the sword coming out of Jesus' mouth, the frogs and mutant-locusts...every bit of this is symbolic.

Likewise, there is some symbolism in Revelation 20. Does "1,000 years" literally mean "1,000 years" or is the number symbolic? Is the binding of Satan literal? Is the devil really holed up in some pit, or is this binding symbolic? Sure, there are some literal truths in the book, but as a whole the book isn't literal.

Furthermore, these things were being written to 1st century Christians who were experiencing tribulation of their own (Rev. 1:1, 3-4, 9). To argue that the events of Revelation are yet future is to call John a liar. There may be some things towards the end of the book that have a futuristic application, and certainly the themes of Revelation can be applied and appreciated by Christians of ANY generation, but the primary audience died off thousands of years ago.

Here's the point: we have to keep Revelation 20 in context. Those who use this passage to promote a futuristic, millennial, messianic kingdom on earth are ignoring the nature, purpose, timing and audience of the book.

Furthermore, the Bible indicates that Jesus already set up His kingdom. In Mark 9:1, Jesus made the point that the kingdom would be established in THAT generation. Was Jesus a liar? Of course not. His kingdom was established in the first century, as seen in Acts 1-2. On the day of Pentecost, Peter made it very clear that Jesus had ascended to the Davidic throne, HIS throne, which was in heaven at God's right hand (Ac. 2:23-33). Paul told the Colossians that they were in the kingdom along with the rest of the saved (Col. 1:13-14). John himself, in the beginning chapter of Revelation, testified that he was in the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:25-26 that Jesus is reigning NOW, and will reign until He returns. In other words, when Jesus comes back, He will END, not BEGIN His reign.

Somebody might say, "But Jesus isn't reigning now! Where is He?" This question cuts to the heart of the issue and reflects a level of ignorance that even existed among the Jews of the first century. Jesus' kingdom is not physical; it cannot be seen. Notice what Jesus said of His kingdom to Pilate in John 18:36: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." No commentary necessary.

Now that I've addressed the issue of the kingdom, let's take a look at the binding of Satan. Yes, Revelation 20 speaks of the binding of Satan in some pit. But is this indicitive of a complete removal of Satan from the world for a definite period of time? No! Jesus Himself in Matthew 12:29 that He came to BIND the "strong man" which is Satan. In other words, Jesus, by bringing salvation to men, overcame Satan and figuratively bound him. The devil is bound even today in that his power and influence have been greatly reduced. Yet he still walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom He may devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Satan still has power, and yet the scriptures indicate that he's been bound by the Lord. The binding, you see, is symbolic. The same is true, I believe, in Revelation 20.

I'm sure much more could be said about this. In fact, tomorrow I'd like to say some more about this wonderful chapter, Revelation 20. Let me know if you have any questions or disagreements. I'd love to discuss this with you.

The Value of Memorizing BOOKS

2011-02-15T07:37:00.000-08:00

I know it sounds crazy. In fact, I would have called the idea crazy if you had suggested it to me a year ago. But there is a lot of value in memorizing whole books of the Bible. That's right. I'm not talking about memorizing a single verse or passage (series of verses)...I'm talking about entire books of the Bible, especially New Testament books.

I was listening to a sermon the other day on "How to Study the Bible" and one of the points that was made is that we ought to read the Bible without the manmade insertions. Chapter breaks and versification (sp?), for example, are manmade...as in, the original books weren't divided up into chapters and verses. But this is a hard thing to do because all of our Bibles have chapter and verse divisions. Some are even divided up into paragraphs with headings. There's nothing sinful about chapter breaks, don't get me wrong, but sometimes the way we view a book of the Bible is determined or affected based on the chapter and verse divisions. We view the chapter break as a break in the inspired writer's thought...a transition from one subject to another, and while this is sometimes true, it often isn't.

When we memorize a book of the Bible, we develop a wonderfully PURE view of the book as a whole. As we memorize verse after verse and chapter after chapter, the verse and chapter breaks vanish and we are more able to see the natural flow of the biblical text.

I recently finished memorizing the book of Colossians. It was a challenging and yet amazing experience. As I worked through each chapter I came to see the whole book in a whole new light. The verses made more sense and for the first time I could really see the progression of the book. I think I have learned more about Colossians by memorizing it than I ever could have studying it verse by verse, or by reading commentaries.

Now I'm working on Hebrews. A more challenging book to memorize, obviously, but one of my favorite books of the Bible. I'm excited about it.

Work on a few verses a day, or maybe just one verse (if it's a longer verse). Every morning (or evening, depending on when you have the time), review ALL that you have memorized. And never give up. It's hard. It takes time. But it's definitely possible, and so rewarding.

Like me, start out with a shorter book such as Philippians or Titus. Maybe James. This will help to boost your confidence. Before long, you'll be rattling off whole sections of scripture.

This isn't about bragging rights or showing off. It's about spiritual growth.

And this will lead to spiritual growth. I promise.

Church Growth (3)

2011-02-11T12:39:00.000-08:00

Before you read this article, I ask that you read the two previous articles in this series. The first article answers the questions, "what constitutes true growth?" and "what is the focus of the local church?" In the second article, I dealt with the issue of "church-hopping" and how we should react to Christians who leave their church to join ours.

Yesterday, I introduced the term "church-hopper." Today, I'd like to introduce another term: preacheritis. The suffix "itis" refers to the inflammation of something. Arthritis is the inflammation of the joints, for example. Likewise, preacheritis is the inflammation of the preacher, and no, I'm not talking about the tendency among preachers to gain weight over the years...I'm talking about the all-too-common scenario among local churches were the role of the preacher is overemphasized and overinflated.

Yes, the Bible does speak of those men who are preachers (Rom. 10:14), ministers (1 Tim. 4:6), and evangelists (2 Tim. 4:5). All three of these terms may be applied to those who preach the gospel in some capacity. Furthermore, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:14 makes the point that preachers can be paid for their efforts, and in 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul again speaks of those who "labor in word and doctrine" (in this case, elders are under consideration).

So in no way am I arguing against the role and work of preachers, nor am I condemning the concept of having men within the local church who perhaps have a special focus and function. What I am saying is that we need to properly understand these roles. Too many Christians--and I'm talking about faithful Christian in faithful congregations--are guilty of preacheritis. They place too much honor and emphasis upon the preacher.

Let me get right to it...

Where in the New Testament is it stated that preachers are to handle all of the evangelism and preaching within the local church? Where does it say that the preacher is the only one that needs to be concerned about setting up Bible studies and spreading the gospel? Is there some verse somewhere that commands preachers to write articles, pass out flyers, go door-knocking...and then forbids "regular Christians" from engaging in the same activities? If so, I've missed it.

Each of us is commanded to share our faith (Philemon 1:6). We are all instructed to "give an answer" (1 Pet. 3:15). All Christians are to be "able to teach" and able to instruct and correct those who are in error (2 Tim. 2:24-25). None of us are exempt from these commands. It is absolutely wrong to think that only the preacher is required to evangelize and teach.

When a congregation is infected with preacheritis, many problems arise. First of all, they are wrong in their view of the preacher's role, no better than denominational folks who believe and practice the "one-man pastor system."

Second, congregations end up criticizing the preacher for not meeting some unspoken quota. Preachers cannot be effective when no one is helping them. Usually, a preacher is not native to the area in which he is preaching; most likely, he has moved to location to work with a church and is unfamiliar with the area, the culture, the people, etc. Here the members have so many contacts, and the preacher has none. And yet he is expected to have some kind of magical effect as he engages in the work solo. If only the members of the church would work side-by-side with the preacher, they could accomplish SO much more, and the church would grow.

Third, congregations guilty of preacheritis...well, they won't grow. An inactive congregation that places the whole workload on some hired preacher will, at best, grow very slowly, and in most cases, not grow at all!

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul makes it abundantly clear that every member of the body has something that they are to contribute. We all have different functions, different talents, different abilities, and we are required to be ACTIVE. If you are just warming the pew every Sunday--if all you do is show up--then you are...well, I believe you're in sin. After all, what does Jesus say about those who do not bear fruit in John 15:1-2? Something to think about.

It's fine for churches to hire full-time preachers. It's great when men are qualified and elders can be appointed. But don't think for a minute that having these workers present exempts you from teaching and evangelizing.

We need to be training the men in the congregation to teach (2 Tim. 2:2). We need to be encouraging one another and involving one another in the church's work. Even the women need to be active in doing what they can to facilitate growth, and there is plenty for the women to do, believe me.

As we conclude this series of articles, I want you to think about the congregation of which you are a member. How is your church doing? If there are problems, and there usually are, then please have the courage to correct these problems. Whether it is a misunderstanding of what successful evangelism is, or a lackadaisical view of "church-hoppers," or the issue or preacheritis, please do all that you can to bring about change.

Let me know if you have any questions. My email address is kybiblequestions@yahoo.com.

Church Growth (2)

2011-02-10T08:15:00.000-08:00

Before you read this article, I ask that you read yesterday's article. As evidenced by the (2) in the title above, this is a series of articles on the issue of church growth.

When I mention the term "church-hopping" please understand that I'm not talking about the whole church getting outside and literally hopping in unison. It isn't a game or sport, although perhaps an inventive Christian could come up with something. Church-hopping is the idea of leaving one church for another church and then leaving that church for yet another church. Church-hoppers usually spend just a short time at a particular congregation before they find something there, or someone, that bothers them in some small way. Upon discovering that church's flaw (and every church has flaws, right?), they leave for another church, usually without even saying goodbye to the good brethren they worshipped with for so many weeks or months. This doesn't sound right...does it?

But sometimes I think churches are hypocrital in this area. In their desire for growth, too many churches simply accept these church-hoppers when they decide to join their church. Perhaps you've been there before...perhaps you've been guilty of this hypocrisy. Some Christians show up at church on Sunday. You recognize them...you know that they've been members at another local church for quite a while; you've seen them at area gospel meetings and you know them to be faithful brethren. They attend with your church for a few weeks and you're overjoyed when they choose to place membership. "YAY, new members! The church is growing! We must be doing something right! Maybe more will come and be with us!"

Let me ask you this, though: how do you feel when fellow church-members leave your church and hop on over to another? If you're part of a bigger congregation numbering in the 100s, you may not even notice, but in small churches, we notice. And it doesn't feel good. In fact, we feel cheated and abandoned, sometimes even disappointed with those who left.

Maybe we need to reconsider how we view church-hopping and those who engage in it. Is it right or wrong to leave your church for another? If it's wrong, then how should we react when Christians leave another church and hop over to ours? Let's look at this.

The local church is described as being a body in places like 1 Corinthians 12. As members of the body, we all perform our own function and contribute something special to the church of which we are part. In a fully-functioning body, the members are closely-knit...so much so that when "one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Cor. 12:26). Paul says in Ephesians 4:16 that "the whole body...joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working, by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."

Specifically, the Bible speaks of how we are to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:1-2) and how we help one another with spiritual/physical struggles (Jas. 5:13-16). We truly are "members of one another" (Eph. 4:25). As members of the same church, we come to know one another intimately. We develop a familial-type relationship...or at least we should. As we assemble each week, we "consider one another in order to stir up love and good works" (Heb. 10:24).

With these things in mind, how can we justify leaving one church for another merely because someone angered us, or we don't like the singing, or the sermons aren't as dynamic as I think they should be...or some other flimsy reason??? I'll tell you what it is. It's a mindset of selfishness and self-centeredness, as we've come to view the church as something that is ONLY there to serve ME and make ME feel good. Like immature children, we get our feelings hurt and instead of resolving our problems, we run away; instead of striving to improve the church, we lazily and inconsiderately leave in search of a new victim.

I'm sure you've heard lessons on Matthew 18:15-17, or at least you've read it. This is the passage where Jesus tells us how to handle problems that we may have with one abother. If someone sins against you, what do you do? Do you run away from the problem? Do you ignore it? Do you punish the rest of your local brethren by leaving the church for another? Of course not! The Bible gives us specific instructions as to how we're to handle personal disputes and offenses. We go to that brother privately in an effort to bring about reconciliation. If they're unwilling to work it out, we take one or two more with us for a second visit. Then, if the brother still refuses our efforts, we take it before the church. I wonder...which response is more common in churches today? The biblical response as outlined in Matthew 18, or the self-centered, immature response I alluded to earlier in the paragraph?

I can't tell you how many times I've seen it happen. Some Christian is offended by some other member of the church, or something doesn't go their way, or the worship isn't all that it should be, or something is said with which they disagree...and they leave. Dear reader, the local church is a BODY, a UNIT, a FAMILY. We can't just up and leave in search of greener grass.

Now, let me clarify something. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to leave one church for another. If you and your family are not receiving the encouragement that you so desperately need...and you know that you can get that encouragement at another local church, then perhaps you should make the transitation and switch membership. But here's the thing: did you first talk with the church's leadership and convey your concerns and your dissatisfaction? Did you give them an opportunity to improve? And despite the failures of your brethren, have you at least been contributing to the church and doing your best?

Or perhaps the preacher is teaching error on some issue...or at least he said something in one of his sermons with which you disagreed. I'm here to tell you that it's not right to just leave without saying a word to him about it. Yes, doctrinal error is a serious issue, and I don't want you to think that I'm being lackadaisical about it, but again, it's your obligation to at least make your concerns known to your brethren. As a preacher myself, I can say that this is one thing that especially bothers me. When you speak for 30-45 minutes every week publicly (some preachers give two sermons on Sunday), and when you are obligated to teach some class twice a week, you're bound to occasionally misspeak, or get something wrong. If someone left the church everytime I messed up in the pulpit, there'd soon be no one left. I tell the church all the time, "If I say something that you disagree with, COME TO ME, and let's talk about it."

You know, we're fighting in a spiritual WAR, and sometimes there are skirmishes that take place within the walls of the church building itself. Soldier, what are you going to do when error is taught from the pulpit? Are you going to desert your fellow soldiers and leave them to fight the battle themselves? That's a serious offense in our military...I think it's called desertion. Likewise, it's reprehensible when it happens in the church, and we need to view it as such.

So yes, there may be extreme cases where you are justified in leaving one church for another, but I think I'm quite safe in saying that the vast majority of "church-hoppers" are absolutely, positively SINNING when they engage in such weak, immature behavior.

The local church is not required to accept without question every person that attempts to place membership. This is clear in Acts 9:26. When Paul tried to join the church in Jerusalem, the brethren there were hesitant, and I personally think that they had the right to be hesitant. It took Barnabas' hearty recommendation to sway the prudent church. In similar fashion, when some Christian comes to join our church, we'd better sit down with them and ask a few questions...

Where did you attend before?

Why did you leave that church?

If you left that church over something so trivial, how long will it be before you abandon us?

And maybe, just maybe we need to refuse membership in such cases. Just a thought.

Listen, I'm all about church growth, but I want good, healthy growth. I'm not willing to lay aside my convictions regarding the scriptures simply because I want "greater numbers."

What do you think?

Church Growth (1)

2011-02-09T07:04:00.000-08:00

If you're a member of a local church, I'm sure you, like me, want your church to grow. What Christian doesn't? To have more people attending services, placing membership, participating in worship, commenting in Bible classes, is a wonderful blessing.

I've been preaching for seven years now. During that time, I've worked with four congregations. Three of the four have had an average Sunday attendance of 30 or less; one of the four averaged 50-6o on Sundays. So needless to say, I have primarily worked with smaller congregations.

In small churches, there is always a great desire for growth, moreso than in bigger churches. Churches that number in the hundreds often reach a point where they are happy with their size and as a result, they evangelize less (this is not always true, of course). The expectation, and...well, the reality...often is that growth begets growth. Larger churches seem to attract more visitors, and even faithful Christians from other, smaller churches are often drawn to these larger churches (I'll come back to this). But again, I've never worked with a large church where this attitude of complacency exists; in my seven years as a Christian and preacher, there has always been a sense of urgency.

My point in all of this is simple: I've thought a lot about church growth, and I have some thoughts that I'd like to share with you in this article.

WARNING: I'm stepping onto my soapbox now. This is an important issue to me and something that I've been passionate about for years. So please interpret what I say in light of that. The emotion in this article reflects passion, not anger.

Okay, let's get started...

First of all, I want to ask a very simple question, one that many Christians, I expect, will answer incorrectly. Is it the church's job to ensure that growth of the church occurs? Many would answer "yes," but I truly believe that this is the wrong answer. It is NOT the church's job to ensure an annual increase in membership. My basis for saying this is 1 Corinthians 1:17. This verse is always viewed in light of the baptism controversy, which is understandable since so many denominational folks misuse this verse to argue against the necessity of baptism for salvation. As Christians, sometimes we view verses such as this defensively. In other words, we interpret it in view of the controversy and we explain, not what it means, but what it doesn't mean. But dear reader, this verse means something. Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." What does this verse mean? I think it's very simple. It is not our primary function as Christians and as evangelists to convert people. It goes without saying that we want to convert people, but ultimately that should not be our focus. Instead, as Paul says, our focus should be on "preaching the gospel." You see, we can't make anyone become a Christian; that's between them and God. People choose to either accept or reject the gospel, and even though we are to "persuade" (2 Cor. 5:10-11), it is God who "adds the increase" (1 Cor. 3:6).

It bothers me when the "success" of a local church is measured by how many people are converted each year and/or how many new members are added. Certainly, if the gospel is being proclaimed and if the members are all actively striving to reach the lost, over time, growth ought to occur...you'd think. But not necessarily.

I've worked with some congregations that were located in very difficult areas as far as evangelism is concerned, but then now I am working in an area where there seems to be more potential and promise...more people are eager to study the Bible and as a result I've helped to lead a few to Christ. But was this not true in the New Testament times as well? Acts 17 is the perfect illustration of this. Paul's efforts in Thessalonica garnered very little response; in fact, the people there were quite antagonistic towards the gospel. But in Berea, the people were said to be "fair-minded" and "noble" in that they "received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily..." (vs. 11).

It's wonderful when a church is able to baptize a number of people, when Bible studies are being set up left and right and sinners are being converted to Christ and His truth. But again, we cannot base a church's success on increased numbers and expanding membership.

Ultimately, it is not our job to baptize people, our job is to preach the gospel. With this in mind, a church's success ought to be measured by the efforts that are being made and NOT by the measure of response to those efforts. Door-knocking excursions, newspaper ads and articles, radio and TV programs (when they can be afforded), pamphlets, tracts, flyers, personal invites, attempts to set up home studies, sermon CDs, etc...these are the kinds of things that churches ought to be doing. If people are baptized, FANTASTIC, but if people are not baptized, the church is still successful because it's doing it's job!

We also need to understand that baptizing someone means nothing if there is not proper teaching before and after. A person who is baptized without being properly taught is only getting wet. Likewise, a person who is baptized but then neglected and ignored after the fact, leaving the Lord as a result, reflects POOR evangelism in my opinion and reflects badly on that church's devotion to spiritual growth. This is especially bad in foreign churches. An American preacher spends two weeks in some overseas "mission field" and baptizes 50 people. They are praised for their efforts and churches line up to finance such endeavors. But I wonder what is being done after these people are converted? Are they being taught and trained? Or are they baptized and then abandoned when the American preacher returns to the States? In my humble opinion, we need to be going overseas to strengthen churches and train Christian men to evangelize themselves so that they can impact their respective communities. I'm sure much more could be said about this.

And the same is true in America all-too-often. People are converted and then there is the expection that they will learn enough in the Sunday sermons and Bible classes at church. Perhaps they will. But brethren, we need to be working with these new converts; they usually need special attention.

Alright, I'm going to wrap this up for today. There is so much more that I'd like to say about this subject, and so I'm going to make this a mini-series. Tomorrow I plan on addressing the problem of "church hopping" and whether or not we should embrace with joy those who leave another faithful church to join ours. And then I want to write about what I call "preacheritis," an all-too-common problem among faithful churches.

I'd love to hear your comments on this. Or email me at KYBibleQuestions@yahoo.com.

Is Israel God's Special Nation?

2011-02-02T13:35:00.000-08:00

In light of the ongoing riots in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood's theats against Israel, religious people are again thinking about the Jewish people. Many of these religious people feel that the physical nation of Israel is still God's chosen people just as they were in the Old Testament, but this is not the case.

Paul clearly states in Romans 10:1-2 as well as Romans 11:13-14 that the Jewish people are lost. This is true of anyone who does not accept Christ. After all, Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

The Jews may worship God the Father, but they reject Jesus who is the Son of God. In rejecting Jesis, they reject the Father. "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either..." (1 Jn. 2:23). In order for any Jew to be saved they must come to Christ and be baptized into Him (Gal. 3:27), accepting Him as the Son of God (Ac. 8:37).

Jesus died on the cross to make salvation possible for ALL men (Jn. 3:16). All those who turn to Christ are called "Christians" (Ac. 11:26). WE as Christians are called "a holy nation" (1 Pet. 2:9). In fact, the church IS spiritual Israel. We are children of Abraham (Gal. 3:9), and Paul refers to the church as "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).

There is no longer a difference between Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:28). The focus now in the kingdom of Christ is on spiritual, NOT physical Israel. Let's bear these things in mind when the subject of Israel comes up in religious discussion.

Enough of Winter

2011-01-28T07:54:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid, I loved winter. Winter meant snow days, sledding, snowball fights, hot chocolate and most of all, Christmas! But now that I am 25 years old, winter means warming up the car, scraping ice off the windshield, shoveling snow, and cold, dreary days. Sure, winter is alright for a while. Usually I enjoy the wintry weather for a month or so, but by the time January comes, I am really tired of it. Now, I'm longing for spring blossoms and warm weather.

I think life is the same way. For a while, we enjoy this world, but eventually, we grow weary of it and long for the warmth and comfort of that heavenly home that awaits the faithful. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 11:9, "Rejoice, o young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth," and in 12:1, "Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, before the difficult days come, and the years draw near when you say, 'I have no pleasure in them.'" It is common for young people, and even young Christians, to prefer this life over the life that is to come. It's like the lyrics of a Kenny Chesney song (which I despise, by the way): "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to go now."

But despite the euphoria that many feel in this world, difficulties will come. You will grow weary of temptation. The pain and setbacks of aging will eventually strike. The longer you live, the more you will find yourself saying, "Enough of winter!" Enough of this life, I want to go to heaven!

You know, I may be tired of winter, but that doesn't change the fact that winter is here. Likewise, we may be tired of this life and we may long for heaven, but that doesn't change the fact that we are here now. Paul wrote in Philippians 1:23-24, "For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." While on this earth, we must "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16). Avoid that "winter depression" that often comes upon Christians who are anxious for heaven. You will see the blossoms of the Tree of Life soon enough (Rev. 22:14). So, like Paul, make the most of your time here.

3 NEW Books by Casey Head

2011-01-27T15:45:00.001-08:00

On a personal note...

I just opened my own publishing company----Silver Falls Publishing.

Check out my website. Buy some books. You'll enjoy them. So will your kids.

www.silverfallspublishing.com

Thanks!!! And let me know if you have any questions.

Jumping Jacks for Salvation

2011-01-27T09:15:00.000-08:00

What must a person do to be saved? Well, I've been thinking about it, and I think that a person must do jumping-jacks for salvation. Yeah, that sounds good. Twenty jumping-jacks ought to do it. When you complete your twentieth jumping-jack, you become a child of God!

I know what you're thinking.

You're probably thinking, "Casey, you're crazy. The Bible doesn't say anything about doing jumping-jacks for salvation."

If that's what you're thinking...well, you're right. But neither does the Bible say anything about being saved by faith-only. "Even the demons believe--and tremble" (James 2:19). Neither does the Bible say anything about the sinner's prayer. God doesn't hear sinners (John 9:31). Not once was anyone ever told to pray for salvation.

So yes, I would be wrong in saying that one must do 20 jumping-jacks to be saved, but it is equally wrong to teach salvation by faith-only or the sinner's prayer. The fact is, one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized in order to be saved (Mk. 16:16; Ac. 2:38; Rom. 10:9-10). Any plan of salvation OTHER THAN the plan of salvation taught in the New Testament is unacceptable and will not save anybody!

Jewish Sects

2011-01-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

During Jesus' day, there were a number of Jewish sects. There were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Scribes, Herodians, Zealots and perhaps others. Which sect did Jesus join?

The Sadducees were an elite party of Judaism, comprised mainly of aristocrats and other prominent citizens. They denied the resurrection and scoffed at the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8).

The Pharisees were known for their strict observance of the law, but they were equally adamant concerning their own traditions. Scribes were men who wrote copies of the law for the people. Jesus condemned them both, saying, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Mt. 15:3), and later, He rebuked them again, saying, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Mt. 23:13-39). The Scribes and Pharisees wanted to appear righteous, but really their hearts were far from God.

The Essenes were even stricter than the Pharisees. They often lived in monastic-type communities, secluded from the rest of the world. Essenes rigorously maintained ceremonial purity, and believed that members could lead virtually spotless lives.

Was Jesus a Herodian (Mk. 3:6)? Herodians were basically Sadducees who were especially devoted to the house of King Herod. Or was our Lord a Zealot who staunchly opposed the Roman empire and craved the independence of the Jewish state (Lk. 6:15)?

Which Jewish denomination did Jesus join? The answer is, "none of the above!" He was simply a Jew whose focus was on obedience to God's law (Lk. 10:26). In fact, Jesus condemend these Jewish denominations in Matthew 15:13 when He said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted."

If Jesus was undenominational, we should be as well!

We are surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of different denominations and Christian sects. Instead of aligning ourselves with one of these denominations or sects, we should seek to align ourselves with Christ Himself. Avoid manmade denominations and seek to practice simple New Testament Christianity.

What Makes Worship "Pleasing" to God?

2011-01-20T09:16:00.000-08:00

I want you to carefully examine the question above. What do you think?

What makes worship pleasing to God?

To be frank, most religious people assume that their worship is pleasing to God because it's pleasing to them. It makes them feel good, it makes the church feel good, it's exciting, it's entertaining, it's what they're comfortable with, and hey, the Bible is opened at some point during the service, and hey, everyone claims to "love" the Lord and so therefore...it must be pleasing to God.

Think about it. How often do church-going people talk about how the choir sang so "beautifully" in last Sunday's service? Or how perfectly the piano accentuated the prayer? Or how preacher so-and-so's lesson was so moving? Or how touching the skit was that the youth group put together? Or how cute the kids were during "children's church" when the music minister asked them about Adam and Eve?

People assume that if the worship was pleasing to them, that it must be pleasing to God. If I think the choir is amazing, then God must think the choir's amazing. If I think the keyboard solo is incredible, if it tugs on my heart-strings, then God must be quite impressed as well.

Dear reader, I would contend that this approach to worship is completely incorrect.

Worship is not pleasing to God on the basis that it's pleasing to us.

Worship is pleasing to God if it's the worship that HE COMMANDED!

Consider the example of King Saul in 1 Samual 15. God, through Samuel, commanded Saul, "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing, child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (vs. 3). When Saul led the armies of Israel against Amalek, they indeed destroyed the people, but they "took Agag king of the Amalekites alive" and "spared...the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to destroy them" (vs. 8-9).

Did Saul obey God? Of course not! That's clear to any honest observer. But notice Saul's excuse when Samuel confronted him about his disobedience.

"Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, 'Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord.' But Samuel said, 'What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?' And Saul said, 'They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed" (vs. 13-15).

Sure, they had disobeyed God, but at least they had a good reason. Even though they should have killed all the livestock, they thought that it would be good to keep the best of the livestock to offer up as a sacrifice to God. I'm sure this made perfect sense to the people, and to Saul. How could God refuse such a worshipful gesture?

Well, notice Samuel plainly told Saul in verse 22, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams."

God didn't want their sacrifices, nor did He appreciate their "kind" gesture. Even though their motives may have been altruistic, God was absolutely DISPLEASED with them. All he wanted was their obedience.

GOD IS PLEASED WITH OBEDIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter how you feel or what you think. When it comes to serving and worshiping God, you have to dispose of your thinking and adopt God's thinking; get rid of your opinions, and adopt an attitude of complete submission.

Friend, there is only one right way to worship God: HIS WAY. And "His way" is revealed to us in the holy scriptures, specifically the New Testament (Mk. 7:7-9; Jn. 4:24).

Amazing Grace may sound amazing on the church organ. The church choir may belt out The Old Rugged Cross in such a way that your arms are covered up in goosebumps. The preacher's sermon on Once Saved, Always Saved may appeal to your emotions. That church member that suddenly leaps up and starts "speaking in tongues" may get your heart pumping. But that doesn't make ANY of these activities right.

Where is the New Testament authority for instrumental music in worship? (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)

Are not ALL Christians commanded to sing in worship? (ibid.)

Isn't the doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved foreign to scripture? (Gal. 5:4)

Didn't miracles cease when the New Testament was "perfected? (1 Cor. 13:8-10)

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

What makes worship "pleasing" to God? When we worship God HIS WAY!

What Jesus DIDN'T Look Like

2011-01-19T11:27:00.000-08:00

Over the years, as I have studied the Bible with people in their own homes, I have seen so many pictures and statues of Jesus. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of them as well. And while there are some subtle differences here and there, Jesus is almost always depicted as being a white man with blue eyes, a thick goatee, and long, wavy brown hair.

But is this what Jesus looked like? In short, NO! But let's take a closer look.

First of all, Jesus wasn't a white man. He was a Jew from the middle-east. Like all other middle-eastern Jews from that part of the world, Jesus would have had a darker complexion. I'm not saying he was black, but I think we can almost definitely say that he wasn't a pale white man.

And Jesus didn't have long hair, folks. Sorry to burst your bubble. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:14, says, "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" Would Paul have written such things had Jesus worn His hair long? No! If "nature" teaches that men are NOT to have long hair, then surely Jesus' hair was short. Moreover, history teaches us that the men of Jesus' day wore their hair short. Not only did they keep their hair short, but they generally did not have thick, grizzly beards either. It wasn't until the second century that beards became "fashionable" again.

Was Jesus some beautiful man with soft, pale skin? Not at all! Jesus was from the lower class and his father was a carpenter. In that day, the sons adopted their father's trade, which means that Jesus, too, would have been a carpenter. Poor carpenters are not going to have soft skin. Their skin is going to be rough and calloused, and probably dark from working long hours in the hot sun. And take it for what it's worth, but Isaiah 53:2 says regarding Jesus that "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." I take this to mean that Jesus wouldn't have been a very attractive man physically.

So what did Jesus look like? Again, we don't really know. But I think we're safe in saying that the modern-day pictures and statues of Jesus are absolutely incorrect in their depiction of Him. He was your average middle-eastern man with short hair and perhaps a short beard.

Now you might be thinking, "Casey, why does it even matter?" Well, I think it matters for two reasons.

First, the Old Testament condemned the making of any image or object that has "any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath..." (Ex. 20:4). Now, I don't believe we're bound to the old law, but this same principle is taught throughout the New Testament. We're told to "flee from idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14). The point is this: when we surround ourselves with images of Jesus and statues of Jesus, we are, I believe, engaging in a subtle form of idolatry. We're turning what ought to be spiritual into something physical; we're debasing the very concept of faith and morphing pure Christianity into something akin to pagan idol worship.

Why do we need statues of Jesus anyways? Especially when we KNOW the statues and pictures are incorrectly portraying the Lord! Is not the gospel of Christ good enough? Are we not content with Jesus as we see Him in scripture?

Second, this is an important discussion because how we view Jesus' physical appearance may affect how we view His character? So many people view Jesus as...as a wimp...as a skinny, pale, long-haired girly-man. Is it any coincidence that these same people often see Jesus as a laid-back, come-as-you-are kind of guy; as Savior but not Master, as ALL LOVE and NO JUDGEMENT? Sure, Jesus was and is a Savior of compassion and tenderness (Mt. 11:28-30), but He also overturned the tables of the moneychangers (Jn. 2) and condemned the scribes and Pharisees as "hypocrites" (Mt. 23). He spoke not only of heaven (Jn. 14:1-4) but of hell and eternal punishment (Mt. 10:28; 25:31-46). You can't live in sin and expect to be rewarded with heaven (Rom. 6:1; 1 Jn. 3:6). Homosexuals, drunkards, fornicators and the like will NOT inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). We have to stop viewing Jesus as some weakling. He is the Son of God. He is the King. He is Master and Lord of all!

What did Jesus look like? I don't know. But I do know what He DIDN'T look like.

We don't have to SEE to BELIEVE (Heb. 11:1). Our faith rests in the promises of God's word!

Don't Ruin Your Reputation Over Something Stupid

2011-01-18T09:53:00.000-08:00

I was reading in Romans 14 this morning, which, of course, is one of the most controversial chapters in the whole Bible. And yet in the midst of the controversy we find an oft-neglected verse with such a simple meaning: "Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil" (vs. 16).

In this chapter, Paul is dealing with issues of liberty, where no sin is committed one way or the other. These are matters of opinion that are not to be bound on one another. For example, it is neither right nor wrong to eat meat. However, if someone is not comfortable eating meat for conscience reasons, we are not to cause trouble over it. If a brother doesn't feel comfortable working on Saturday because he grew up in a Jewish home observing the Sabbath, so what?

Really, in all of this, the apostle is promoting unity among disciples. There are times when we need to stand up and be insistant (Ac. 15:1-2; Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 5), but there are a lot of issues that are not worth fighting over. Just let it go.

The problem is that there are a lot of good, faithful Christians out there who don't know how to let it go. They are critical of a brother with whom they disagree, and even though no sin is being committed, and even though the law of Christ is not being violated, that brother is mistreated and abused and slandered and treated as an inferior Christian. In the process, the brother who is doing the criticizing stoops to a lower-than-low level.

It's not worth it. Not only are we creating division within the church and hurting innocent brethren, our reputation is tarnished. In the eyes of others, we become harsh, judgmental, intolerant, and divisive.

Sure, we may have differences of opinion when it comes to all kinds of issues, but we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. When the law of Christ is at stake, by all means, discuss it, debate it, and be adamant about the truth...don't back down! But if it's a matter of opinion...sure, the opposing brother may be wrong, they may be weak...and talk with them if they're willing, but by all means "do not let your good be spoken of as evil."

Religious Titles

2011-01-17T10:37:00.000-08:00

In denominational churches, leaders and preachers are often given titles of distinction that run counter to the teachings of scripture.

One such title is Reverend. Please note that this word is used only once in the Bible. In Psalm 111:9, the psalmist says regarding God, "Holy and reverend is His name" God is worthy of our reverence and praise, for He is an awesome God. But no man deserves this title, and in fact, it is blasphemous to refer to any man as "reverend."

Another common religious title that ought to be avoided is Father. We see this title especially in the Catholic Church. But Matthew 23:9 says, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is Your Father, He who is in heaven." It is therefore sinful to call a man "Father" in the religious sense.

Finally, let us examine the term Pastor. It is generally assumed that all preachers are pastors, but this is not the case. The term pastor (Eph. 4:11) literally means "shephered." As seen in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2, the work of shepherding the flock is given to the elders. Elders are men who have met certain qualifications (Titus 1:5-9) and serve together as a plurality in governing the local church. A preacher may become a pastor if he meets the qualifications and is appointed along with other qualified men, but not all preachers are pastors.

If you have any questions, comments or disagreements, leave them below, or shoot me an email.

Motivation for FULL Obedience

2011-01-12T08:35:00.000-08:00

I like the Psalms.

Even though a lot of the psalms look alike, they are so wonderful because even though the psalmists relate to us their worries and concerns, they unashamedly and unreservedly worshiped and served God as the Almighty.

In Psalm 27, we find a wonderful little message.

In verse 4, David says, "One thing I have desired of the Lord, that will I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in His temple." In other words, David's favorite thing to do was to worship God...and he desperately wished that he could spend all of his time doing just that.

How many of us have this same mindset today? Do you LONG for the worship assembly just as David longed to be in the temple? Do you CRAVE to be around the people of God just as David craved to dwell in the house of the Lord? If you had your way, would you be spending more and more time in Bible study, prayer and meditation? Do you have these desires and yearnings?

I know I don't always have this same hunger for God...but I wish I did.

Well, I can. And you can. Just as David did.

Notice verse one of the same psalm: "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Why did David have such zeal for the Lord? It was his constant recognition of who God was and what God had done for him...and continued to do for him.

I'm convinced that the more we dwell on the Lord, the more we will want to serve Him.

Maybe we need to spend less time watching TV and more time studying the Bible.

Perhaps we need to MAKE TIME for private prayer and meditation, even if it means waking up thirty minutes earlier.

Maybe we need to look for more opportunities to open up our home to fellow Christians. Maybe we need to be talking to more people about Jesus. Perhaps we ought to take a little initiative and SEEK GOD rather than waiting on Him to bless us.

Hey, listen, I need to do these things, too. It's easy to become complacent...really, really easy.

So, like David, let's constantly remember the Lord so that we may develop a greater spiritual resolve in our personal lives.

Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

2011-01-10T07:02:00.000-08:00

A lot of religious people believe that the Holy Spirit literally and bodily dwells in Christians. Verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:19 affirm this belief, saying that our body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit." And so YES, the Holy Spirit dwells in faithful Christians; that cannot be argued. The real question is HOW...how does the Holy Spirit dwell in us?

I would contend that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, not literally, but representatively through the word of God. My evidence for such a position? Read on...

First of all, the New Testament tells us that God the Father and Jesus Christ dwell in us as well. Paul writes in Romans 8:10 that "Christ is in you." God is in us according to 1 John 4:4. And then Colossians 3:16 says that the word of Christ dwells in us! We dwell in God based on 1 John 4:13 and Paul declares that sin dwells in us (Romans 7:17).

Now, either ALL of this is literal or NONE of it is literal. Because what happens so often is that religious people want to say that the Holy Spirit dwells in us literally, but that the Father and Christ do NOT dwell in us literally. And let me ask you this, how does the word dwell in us? Like John, are we to "eat the book" and hope that the pages of the Bible are exempt from the normal digestive process? Of course not! The point is that the word dwells in our hearts in that we develop a relationship with the word through diligent study and meditation. Likewise, sin dwells in us when we serve sin and have a relationship with sin. The same is true with the three members of the Godhead.

So then how does the Holy Spirit dwell in us, if not literally? What evidence is there that the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is indirect and representative?

The best evidence I've seen is found in 1 Kings 8. In this great chapter, King Solomon is dedicating the newly-completed temple. He says in verses 12-13, "The Lord said He would dwell in the dark cloud. I have surely built You an exalted house, and a place for You to dwell in forever." According to Solomon, God would dwell in the temple? But now? Let's read a series of passages from this chapter...

"'Since the day that I brought My people Israel out of Egypt, I have chosen no city from any tribe of Israel in which to build a house, that My name might be there; but I chose David to be over My people Israel.' Now it was in the heart of my father David to build a temple for the name of the Lord God of Israel" (vs. 16-17).

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!" (vs. 27)

"...Hear in heaven Your dwelling place..." (vs. 30)

Solomon uses the same language here that we find in the New Testament. God would dwell in the temple just as the Holy Spirit is said to dwell in Christians. But clearly, based on the language of 1 Kings 8, God didn't literally dwell in the temple. He couldn't! Rather, the temple signified God's presence in Israel; His "name" was there. Over and over again, it is stated that God is actually and truly IN HEAVEN (see John 14:1-4, the Father's house).

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is nothing in the Bible that demands a literal and bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The evidence actually points to a representative indwelling. The Spirit dwells in us through the word (Eph. 6:17).

Maybe I've missed it somewhere. If so, let me know. Leave a question or comment.

Church Discipline

2011-01-05T09:09:00.000-08:00

I spent five years heavily involved in the Southern Baptist and United Methodist churches. If you had asked me during that time what my thoughts were on church discipline, I would have cocked my head in confusion. "Church discipline? What's that?"would have been my response. The fact is, denominational churches do not practice nor preach church discipline even though the Bible commands it in places like 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3.

One of the members of the Corinthian church was living in sin. Specificially, he "had his father's wife" (1 Cor. 5:1). In other words, he was having sexual relations with a woman that was married to his father. This was a deplorable act and Paul chided the Corinthian Christians for their lax approach to this immoral brother. Paul commanded them in verses 4-5, "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This sinful brother was not to be tolerated. Instead, he was to be "delivered to Satan." He was already serving Satan by living in sin, and it was important for the church to acknowledge the man's spiritual condition.

Why was it important to discipline this man? Well, in verses 6-7 Paul makes the point that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump...therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened." When the church tolerates sin among its members, the church becomes impure. By withdrawing from a wayward brother or sister in Christ, we are in effect purifying the church.

So what does church discipline involve? Are we just acknowledging a sinful Christian's spiritual condition and apostasy from God? No, there's more to it than that. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul adds, "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person." The inspired apostle clearly tells us that when a brother or sister in Christ is living in sin, we are to cease normal social interaction with them. Think about it. If we continue to socialize and eat with the errant Christian, will they not feel justified in their sin? Will they not have less incentive to repent if we ignore their sin and act like everything's okay?

And so 1 Corinthians 5 tells us two things regarding the errant Christian.

There is to be a public acknowledgment of the errant brother's condition in the church assembly.
On a private basis, we as Christians are not to socially interact with the errant Christian.

Later, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul says, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition he received from us," and then in verse 14, "And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed." This only reinforces what was said in 1 Corinthians 5.

How can we ignore this command? It may not be pleasant, but it is given to us by God and therefore we must submit to it.

What are your thoughts?