The Olivet Discourse: Pregnant Refugees

A common feature of all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse is the pronouncement of woe upon the pregnant and nursing. It is situated in about the same place in the unfolding story in Matthew and Mark, but is located in a slightly different place in Luke. It doesn't appear to be a different detail, so can it be used to "align" all three accounts? I think that it could, but if it is, it removes any possibility at all that the Lucan account was referring to events foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

If the woe is the same woe in all three accounts, then Matthew and Mark's reference to the gospel being preached to all nations is a detail skipped over by Luke. The surrounding of Jerusalem and its desolation mentioned by Luke is just a different way of saying "the abomination of desolation" as stated by Matthew and Mark. Even though the Lucan description of this section would fit the events of 66-70 CE, the phrase "all that is written will be fulfilled" doesn't fit at all with 70 CE. Considering that at our late date all that is written still hasn't been fulfilled makes that especially so!

The only way to keep the preterist hope alive, therefore, is to see the woe on the pregnant and nursing as referring to two distinct occurrences of such a plight. Otherwise, the language of the end which dictates the interpretation of Matthew and Mark, would carry for Luke's account as well. The dual fulfillment of things like the "Abomination of Desolation" (seemingly fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, yet used by Christ to refer to something yet undone) perhaps allows for such an approach, but I think it strains credulity to apply it to the pregnant refugees.

So in the end, I must dismiss it, and with it, the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse: The End

The synoptic accounts introduce the actual ending sign in the Olivet Discourse differently from one another. Matthew gives us a detail that Mark and Luke do not mention. Mark and Luke merely mention enduring to the end to be saved (as does Matthew just before its unique statement), whereas Matthew further states that the Great Commission will be completed, "and then the end will come." A break that can only be inferred in Mark and Luke is thereby clearly delineated in Matthew.

So, let's review the schema of the Olivet Discourse as I've interpreted it.

The Discourse is Jesus' answer to the question, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” In the early segments of his answer, Jesus reveals two general signs which lead up to the end:

1) Birth pangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, falling away, false prophets and lawlessness occurring throughout the age. Like birth pangs they will increase in frequency and intensity through the age. My interpretation of the seals of the Revelation being mostly historical fits in quite well with this description--once a seal has been broken, it's effects continue throughout the age; and

2) The Gospel being preached to the entirety of the world. This effort began at the Day of Pentecost and has moved forward throughout the age (note my interpretation of the First Seal). Regardless of whether progress is assessed by every ethnic group being reached or by every habitable place having a witness, the sign that we are not at the end yet is the continuing effort to complete the Great Commission. Once it has been accomplished, the end is here!

The break between the signs leading up the end and the end itself is communicated by the phrase: "then [tote, again] the end will come." The end, in this case, is not a hard stop like a period in punctuation, but is more like a period in history. The end is actually a finite span over which the very last things will occur. What the breaks tells us is that final period will not begin until the Gospel has been preached everywhere.

What occurs during that final period which is the end? Daniel's 70th Week is what is indicated by the reference to Daniel's Abomination. Therefore, what is actually outlined in the Olivet Discourse is a Labor Period followed by a Delivery Period which culminates in the Return of Christ. The Labor Period is long and drawn out, and has been going for almost 2000 years. The Delivery Period has not begun yet (since the Great Commission has not been accomplished yet), but once it does it will last only seven years, and finish with Christ in Jerusalem ruling and reigning here on earth.

The Olivet Discourse: Persecution and Its Effects

The three accounts of the Olivet Discourse seem to have different takes on the persecution that is mentioned as a sign by Jesus (Matthew, Mark and Luke). After using birth pangs to metaphorically describe the progression of signs, Matthew's account has Jesus saying that "then" (Koine: tote) persecution will occur. Whereas Mark's account does not describe the persecution in terms of sequence in relation to the rest of the action, Luke's account has the persecution occurring before (pro) the birth pang signs. Is persecution, and all that is associated with it, to occur before or after the birth pangs?

The force of the "then" in Matthew's account is "at that time," rather than "afterwards"; therefore, Matthew is locating the beginning of persecution at the time of the things that had been mentioned before. Mark seems to be addressing the persecution as if it was occurring within the stream of events mentioned previously (false Christs, wars, earthquakes, famines, etc). Luke places the persecution as occuring before (at least) the terrors and the signs in the heavens (v. 11). So, there isn't really any difference, after all.

We are told that believers will be handed over (betrayed would be the implication from Mark 13:12 and Luke 21:16) to be afflicted (persecuted, as in NIV, is not as precise), and killed. Luke specifically (v.12) places this as occurring very early in the scheme of things, and in doing so, certainly emphasizes early Jewish opposition to Christianity (note: synagogues). However, that cannot be the exclusive scope of the persecution since kings and governors (plural) are also mentioned in the same phrase. Mark and Matthew are less specific, implying that persecution will be the case near the end or even throughout the period in question.

We are also told that believers will be hated (Matthew 24:9). The word refers to moral choice, i.e., picking one above others, and is the same word used to convey the same thought in Luke 14:26. The notion is that the world will like everything better than it likes Christians. This will be the case globally, in all nations. It serves as an interesting counterpoint to the gospel being preached in all nations (v 14).

Packed into the reference to “all nations” is a broad sense of elapsing time; for how long does it take to be hated in each and every one of the cultural/linguistic groups (Koine: "panton ton ethnon")? One has to become known to each and every one in order to be detested in each and every one. Therefore, to see this discourse merely in terms of Rome in the first century is a mistake. When this was written, there were boundaries and there were barbarians--it was known and understood that Rome did not include all of them. 

At that time (tote, again) many will fall (into a snare), which implies not so much apostasy as it does deceit, which is reinforced by the mention of false prophets. Associated with this fall is their betrayal (handing over) and detesting of one another. So, false prophets will arise and cause many believers to stray resulting in internecine detestation and betrayal. Anything in any age which foments hatred toward brothers or sisters in Christ is false absolutely, it's source will always prove to be devilish rather than from God. Listening to it will turn the persecuted into persecutors!

Through the multiplication of lawlessness or a lack of restraint (wickedness is not a good translation), love will be made cold. The voice of the verb is passive, and so refers to action that is being done unto the subject or is arising from the action of another. Therefore, the chilling believers referenced are not volitionally active, their love does not grow cold by choice, but chills as an effect of being exposed to the multiplication of lawlessness. The wear and tear of exposure to lawlessness is insidious and lethal.

What is shocking to me in all this is the use of the word “many” (Koine: polus). It refers to a whole bunch, to a great number. Jesus was saying that things will progress at the time in question in such a lawless fashion that the occurrence itself chills the love (agape) of many or most! It is possible, maybe even probable, for believers to fall into despair and lose hope in the face of lawlessness and to end up hating the lawless. What happens to the Great Commission, and Christlikeness, in such a circumstance?

Given such a description, one has to wonder if Jesus will find faith when he returns? Life lived in this age leading up to the coming of Christ will be an assault on our faith. There is a challenge to meet, there is an occasion to rise to, there is something to be proven, and it won't be done for us. But the one who bears under the assault to the end will be saved! 

According to the Olivet Discourse, then, persecution of those bearing the name of Christ will start in the midst of the signs stated in the first third of the address and will proceed until the end of the age. We know the entire span of the age is envisioned because disciples cannot be hated by all nations until all nations have been confronted by the gospel, and because we are told that those who endure to the end will be saved. Being hated is something all true Christians ought to anticipate throughout all time and everywhere, but when it comes our way, we can't let it turn us into a hater in response.

The Olivet Discourse: When Is the Answer

I have stated that the question which Jesus was actually responding to in the Olivet Discourse was: "What would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age?" The entire address is taken up with his response to that and the question about the destruction of Temple was entirely ignored. That may seem hard to swallow, but as I will demonstrate, it does produce a coherent, consistent interpretation of the whole discourse. Regardless, however one may interpret this passage, to be on the mark, that interpretation must end up with Jesus back here in a new age--anything else misses the point.

Although it seems out of place in the setting, Jesus was not speaking only to those who were with him, but also to all of us who would come later in time and hear his answer through the transmission of its witnesses. This is revealed by the breadth of his answer. John was the only one of that bunch that lived more than another 50 years (at least according to tradition), and the scope of Jesus' answer is actually much longer than that when it’s carefully examined. In fact, it is so broad that we are encompassed within its detail today, and in a very real sense, those that were hearing him were stand-ins for all of us.

Jesus described that scope (v. 4-8) as encompassing wars, famines, earthquakes and false Messiahs (all in the plural). However, Jesus stated that such, even in the plural, would not be a reason for any eschatological alarms to be sounded. The end was not yet, even after a multiplication of such things. In his account, Luke adds pestilence, terrors and signs in the heavens to the mix, all in the plural as well. We have been seeing these things throughout history, and are still seeing those things today, yet they still should not be alarming because they're not the telling sign of the end of the age.

Furthermore, the occurrences of these signs are represented as akin to the progression of labor, but just the beginning of it (v. 8). Labor starts slowly and builds in a cyclical pattern of increasing intensity, and culminates in a grand conclusion. The process can be quite lengthy, a few hours if one is lucky, over a day if not. A proper reading of these signs must incorporate a lengthy process (i.e, labor) of repetitively building events (wars, famines, earthquakes, false messiahs) that themselves take a lengthy time to develop, and that's just the start. Clearly, Jesus envisioned a very a long time in his answer.

He also spoke of false prophets arising and leading many astray (v. 11). History has seen its share of those, although it seems to me, the most significant (e.g., Muhammed, Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell) arose long after the Temple was destroyed. If the termination of the prophesy is the end of the age and Jesus' return, these false prophets, as well as historical false messiahs, such as Bar Kochba, Menachem Schneerson, and even Sun Myung Moon would have been in view by Jesus as he spoke about such, such a long time ago.

In these issues alone, I have already demonstrated the difficulty of compressing all of these signs into the short span of time before 70 CE, but let us remember that the terminus of the prophetic answer was the end of age and Jesus' return. This is certainly reinforced by Jesus tying the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v.14) to his answer. Even now, we're only just reaching the point where this sign is even remotely fulfilled and the end will not come before it is accomplished. Preterism, it seems clear to me, is a non-starter in interpreting Matthew 24.

Jesus also referenced the desolation mentioned by Daniel (v. 15) as a sign. At the time Jesus spoke this, Antiochus and the Maccabees were a well-known and understood aspect of history, and yet Jesus spoke of Daniel's desolation as happening in the future. As Jesus would have used the term, it referred to an idol being placed in the Temple and the altar being desecrated. Jesus was saying that Antiochus' actions were not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, but that it would be fulfilled as the most salient sign of the imminent end of the age.

History tells us that Rome's actions at the Temple in 70 CE were not the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy either, because they do not fit the bill. Whereas the Romans burned the place, killed its defenders on its grounds and dismantled it, they did not set up Daniel’s desolation. Hadrian's efforts in 130 CE to put a Roman face on a formerly Jewish city weren't even close to fulfilling Jesus' reference to Daniel, and nothing has occurred throughout the rest of history that is even remotely similar to Daniel's description. That means that the Abomination of Desolation, as cited by Christ, is something yet to happen.

It is common among naysayers, and preterists too, to say that Jesus and his first followers anticipated the end occurring quickly, within their lifetimes at most. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, and they see that event as the scope of the Olivet Discourse. Preterists see it as fulfilled, the unbelieving see it as reportage after the fact, but either way, the events of 70 CE don’t line up with the facts as Jesus stated them. Neither viewpoint can be true!

What is true is that the Gospel has not yet to be proclaimed to all nations, the desolation spoken of by Daniel has not yet occurred, and Jesus has not yet appeared. So the age has not ended and this prophetic discourse, therefore, is still in force.

A Radical Invitation

Has the first word of the biblical salvation message has been lost through disuse? Given the climate and message of today's evangelical church, one has to wonder. Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The Apostles preached, "Repent!" Even when just counseling the woman caught in adultery Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." Let me ask you, is that the kind of thing you preach?

Where is the "REPENT!" in today's preaching? It just isn't part of the evangelical fabric that's in fashion these days. Have we become so afraid that people will not respond to that nasty little word that we have abandoned it and now depend on manipulation and marketing instead? When we rely on such measly human efforts that utilize enticement and stroke the flesh, what sacrifice is any respondent prepared to make?

The discipleship crisis the American church is in today starts with the message that initially enlists today's supposed disciples. Folks that enter thinking they don't have to turn, won't turn after they enter. I'm not a fan of fire and brimstone preaching--faith, not fear, is the only motivation that sustains a life of following Jesus--but to become a Christian a person must embrace their own death and trust Christ to raise them to a new (and better) life. People today, though all-modern-and-educated, must  still hear and respond to the call to repent and follow Jesus, as any disciple in any former age did.

Christianity is about a radical change in direction, a night and day difference in one's life. The result of a new birth cannot be the same old, same old, for birth means leaving an old way of life for a new one, or it's not birth at all. For those would who style themselves as radical and innovative preachers in this day and age, the message that actually matches that characterization starts with the word REPENT! Now that's a radical invitation that stands a shot at producing new life.

Sugar-coating the Bread of Life

Sugar coating: originally a process in the food industry whereby sugar or syrup was applied in some fashion to the surface of a food product, making the product sweeter and thereby more delectable. Often used in conjunction with food that was less tasty or desirable in order to increase its consumption; e.g., the breakfast cereal industry, or as in the song in Mary Poppins.

Why would the salvation wrought by Christ need to be sugar-coated? In itself, of itself, it already promises knowing our Creator personally, living forever without disease, decay or death, and being free from doing stupid things we will rue but do regardless (among other things). Could there be a sweeter deal? Salvation is an absolute dream come true, but being a disciple of Christ comes at a cost even though it is truly free.

Salvation entails the saved acknowledging that they don't run the show and so they bow to the leadership of Jesus.

In this day where willfulness is celebrated and self is elevated, the temptation is to assume that most of the people we're trying to coax into the Kingdom of God won't buy into such an arrangement. So, repentance is soft-pedaled, sin and judgment is back-pedaled, and continuing on in life as it was with Jesus merely added is floor-pedaled. Can such a vitamin supplement approach to the gospel actually cleanse the conscience or ready the soul for a welcome in the age to come?

It's not those who call Jesus, "Lord" who are saved but those who actually do as he says.

Buying into the gospel means selling everything else we had before the gospel came into our lives and going full-bore after Jesus. Families may ostracize or desert us. Riches may have to be abandoned. Sexual pleasures will not be guaranteed to us. Just because we had a dream doesn't mean that God has that same dream for us or is bound to help us to achieve it. This the price of Jesus being Lord.

A gospel that doesn't stop us in our tracks is not going to get us on the right track.

I like toast with breakfast. As a kid, I particularly liked cinnamon toast. When mom made it, most of the sugary coating was shaken off back into the bowl. When I got my hands on it, I usually found a way to load those tasty slabs of cinnamon goodness with more sugary sweetness. If mom ever saw what I was doing she would never have stood for it, but then she cared about my health and wanted me to enjoy having teeth for the rest of my life. 

Making adjustments to the gospel makes what is adjusted no gospel at all. If we truly care for those we try to win with the gospel and want them to be whole throughout all eternity, we need to stick to the truth that sets sinners free. Coming to grips with who and what Jesus is and following him exclusively is food and drink indeed. If we want to feed the folk we preach to something that can nourish them eternally, we need to stop sugar-coating the Bread of Life, and start preaching Jesus as Lord straight up.

Does God Love Our Children Less Than We Do?

Does the God who breathed life into them love our children less than we do? We would never write them off, or send them into flames no matter what they had done. Yet, it appears that God is willing to. Do we love and care for them more than he does? No, but we certainly tolerate sin and the company of sinners more than he does.

Whatever is not of faith is sin, so faith is the key for our children. If our children do not come to trust God there will be nothing that can be done for them. There is no obligation that could be enforced upon God in the name of love which could cause him to give eternal life (freedom) to those who do not trust him. Could God allow the evil of sin and rebellion to continue just because some of those who have faith happened to have children who did not? Not without resigning his throne as God!

Since the Fall, however, no one is able to believe (at least effectively) without divine enablement. The Spirit of God attending the word of Christ is the instigator of such enablement, so if our children do not hear that word and come to faith thereby they have no possibility of life. Oh, they may be graced under a parental umbrella for a spell, but there are no reliable coattails to heaven. Those who do not trust God can have no eternal hope.

The love of God is broad and deep, but its object is humans made in his image with creaturely freedom. It is important to God that our children be in his image and have creaturely freedom. Everyone made like that must come to the place where, freely, they trust God and choose to follow him. Our children must come to that place or be separated from God forever.

Perhaps we could never bear to write-off our children and would always find a way to preserve them and commune with them. We are not God. We do not see what he sees and do not have the pure moral clarity he does. God does love our children, but not with sin-stained, sentimental affection like we are apt to. He loved them enough to make them in his image and to redeem that image eternally through the sacrifice of Christ.

God wants our children with him forever, but that is not possible if they do not trust him.

Leapfrogging Into the Great Commission

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."   Mark 16:15 NASB

I like the way the Great Commission is stated in Mark, particularly as it is rendered in the KJV, namely, "...preach the gospel to every creature." In commanding the reader to do so, the text is not telling him or her to preach to every snail, lizard and iguana Dr. Doolittle-like, but to proclaim the gospel's life giving message to every single human being. That is a daunting task, even today, with the means of communicating that message so much more broadly than ever before.

It can be hard to wrap our heads around such a humungous task. It's so over-the-top, so all-encompassing, so out of reach, that it can become irrelevant. The temptation, I think, is to chalk it up to being just a theory that we never really anticipate becoming reality. Can you honestly say that the Great Commission smacks of reality and is thereby relevant to you?

If not, let me offer what may be a new way of looking at this mission to you. According to a modern statistical theory, any human being on the planet is separated from any other human being by a mere six degrees of separation. In other words, every person is networked to every other person by a maximum of six interpersonal links of association. According to this model, I know someone (1) who knows someone (2) who knows someone (3) who knows someone (4) who knows someone (5) who knows that one in consideration but who is unknown to me (6).

So how can we reach every creature with the Gospel? How were you reached? Doubtless, you became acquainted in some fashion with someone who knew Jesus. In making that connection, you were in a position to hear about Christ. I submit to you, then, that evangelism is, or should be thought of as, the process by which someone becomes connected to someone who knows Jesus.

In such a framework, the Great Commission becomes a task whereby the church lessens the degrees of separation that exist between one who does not know of Christ and one who does know Jesus. Our mission under such a regimen is to leapfrog the degrees of separation by sending people who do know Jesus into masses of people who do not know Jesus, until the degrees of separation between those of one class and those of the other reduce to one. Ultimately, that would give "every creature" an opportunity to hear about Jesus, and bring the Great Commission from the realm of fleetingly impossible into the realm of the probable.

The key to the Great Commission is to simply send people in the know into as many culturally distinctive groups who do not know as is possible and let them get to know people in that group and to share the gospel with them. If we do this at a great enough rate, ultimately, every single person alive will know someone who knows Jesus. Finishing the Great Commission is only a hare's breath away at that point. Tell me, are you sufficiently engaged in going and sending to make this happen in our age?

Communicating the Gospel

What does it take to communicate the Gospel? The message is rather simple: God came to earth in the form of a man named Jesus, lived sinlessly as that man, willingly accepted the weight of every other man's sins upon his own shoulders, died the death that was due that sin, and then rose from the dead on the third day thereby demonstrating that he'd overcome that sin and the death due it. To everyone that believes that good news and thereby embraces Jesus as Lord (and follows him), the victory over sin and death he achieved is shared with them.

Now a lot of effort has been and is made to analyse, criticize, synthesize and publicize what makes communication successful. That is particularly true in regard to the Gospel, because it accomplishes nothing if it's not shared. As would be expected in a venture that is so reliant on communication, the church world is up to its eyes in books, conferences, magazines, blogs, and courses on effective, relevant communication. Are those efforts misplaced? 

I find it remarkable that Jesus, our prime example, at the critical moment in extending his ministry, did not commission communicators to help him fulfill his vision. He neither relied on the instruction of experts in the field, nor enlisted those so instructed to do his bidding. Instead, gasp, he chose friends to help him, and not even well-spoken ones at that! That is counterintuitive at best, not at all what a wise leader should do--so why did Jesus do it?

Obviously, the quality of communication is not what converts sinners. Could it be that a church's true evangelistic success (that is on people actually becoming born again) depends more on whether or not Jesus has friends in that congregation than on how well that church markets its message? Is this not a Spirit thing after all? If his friends are not capable of communicating the gospel message with effect, and the onus seems to be on their bad technique, it may well be that it's not the gospel they are actually trying to communicate.

Miracles Among Masses: Authority

Among the charismatic, over the last 100 years, a phenomenon known as the healing evangelist or miracle crusade has become common place. More or less, such ministry is an attempt to replicate the ministry of Christ (primarily) and (to a degree) the Apostles. Imo, the result has been less than stellar, many (most) of the miracles less than miraculous, and the practitioners a lot more than shoddy. The concept of replicating the works of Christ, is a noble endeavor: the practice, the miracle crusade, doesn't seem very noble at all to me.

Since I'm not ready or willing to saddle the practitioners with the accusation of outright fraud, what do I think is the problem with their doctrine and practice? First, I think there is a misapplication of the concept of authority in their sense of mission; and second, I think there is an ignorance of what inspiration entails in their practice. Let me develop these thoughts, with this presuppostion: Neither Christ nor the Apostles (in Acts) ever commanded things that did not happen. Therefore, a command or declaration that something is so that doesn't become so in short order is not in the pattern of Christ or the Apostles.

Authority can only go so far. Jesus had as much authority as any human will ever possess. He stilled the wind and waves, cursed the fig, forgave sins, and raised the dead. And yet for all his authority, he was stopped cold in Nazareth. Why? Was he not as in touch with Spirit as he ever was in Nazareth? Was he not as perfectly obedient to his heavenly Father there? Did he not have as much authority as he had anywhere else he went?

Jesus was stymied in Nazareth, not because of any issue of authority, but because of unbelief in the potential receivers of God's miraculous blessing. God is certainly under no obligation to put on a demonstrative show for the entertainment of those who would persist in unbelief anyhow. Besides, even Adam in sinless innocence was not forced by God to believe in God or his word--something tells me it wouldn't be belief if it was imposed. So, though unbelief in people doesn't diminish God's authority in the least, it does prevent them from receiving his gracious ministrations or knowing him intimately.

We have the authority we need, and all the authority we're going to get in our Great Commission. Authority in itself, however, will never be the issue that determines our success, it is merely the invitation for us to proceed. We have no power over the belief or unbelief of people, and in that regard, we'll see what Jesus saw: some believe, some will believe, and some won't believe no matter what we do or don't do. All we can do is not give them a reason for unbelief, and in dependence, follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.

I'll complete my thoughts in my next post.

God Is No Will Rogers

I find that most people are likable. There are jerks out there, don't get me wrong, but I think they're the exception, not the rule. Not that everyone doesn't have his or her faults, they would be fiction rather than fact if that were the case. Regardless, I wouldn't want any harm to befall any of them, despite their faults.

It is easy to project that kind of Will Rogers outlook onto God, and think he feels similarly. I don't think he does, though: in fact, he hates the soul that sins. The earth shudders, 200,000 men, women and children vanish into eternity suddenly, ignorant of gospel--did God lift a mitigating finger? Not that I can tell. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, does he shed a tear for lost Indonesians, Haitians, Chinese, or Pashtuns?

Does God love the world? The Bible says he does, the sacrifice of Christ put forward as the ultimate evidence. Furthermore, the scriptures also say God wants the world to hear of his love in Christ, but what about the multitude of lost slipping into eternity without so much as ever hearing a word about Christ? Where is the love there?

To say that it is the church's responsibility does nothing to allay the problem; not anymore than a bartender who served the obviously impaired can say the blame for the roadside tragedy that ensued lies only with the drunk. What kind of God is it that would leave such a monumental task in the hands of the flawed, the failing, and the faith-challenged? It would be a bizarre kind of love indeed, if that were the case.

Calvinists at least have logical cover, and can slough off such questions by adjusting the meaning of words in the scriptures. God's love doesn't extend to the unelected anymore than does Christ's blood (as long as any, all, whole, and world do not really mean any, all, whole, and world, that is). That is a game that should not be played by those seeking truth.

Is it possible for man to be more magnanimous than God? No, it is impossible that any man can be more virtuous than God; it is also impossible that any man be more righteous. God knows what he's doing in balancing competing considerations. Those he foreknew, he has also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. God may be no Will Rogers, but I don't think he can be less!

Chronology of Apocalypse: Historical

One of my congregants thought an itemized chronology of the end times would be helpful. Maybe it would, so here it goes, starting with those things prophesied which have already occurred (not enough to make me a partial preterist, however).

30 CE - Jesus ascends to the throne room of God bearing the sacrifice of his own blood, and receives all authority and dominion from his heavenly Father.

30 CE - Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to endue his followers with power and turns them lose on their global mission to spread the Gospel to every nation. The rider on the white horse sets out to overcome.

70 CE - The Temple in Jerusalem in destroyed, signifying the end of the Mosaic Covenant and the transition to the Age of the Gentiles. From that time to the time (which has not yet occurred) the Temple is reestablished, God's redemptive work is focused on Gentiles, with a mere trickle of Jews coming to Christ.

95 CE - The last handpicked witness of Christ sets forth the last Apostolic testimony concerning Christ. His vision mirrored, although is much more extensive than, that of Daniel who was the last prophet who saw the glory of the Davidic Kingdom.

192 CE - The Emperor Commodus rises to the throne and destroys the reality of the Pax Romana. Never again will Roman realms be as peaceful or the empire as coherent as they were before his rule. Never again would the world know such a golden age. The second seal was broken.

313 CE - Constantine issues the Edict of Milan that made it legal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. In 316 he intervenes in the Donatist controversy and calls the Council of Nicea in 325. A marriage of church and state began to be apparent, but no doubt was left in 380 by the enactments of the edicts of Theodosius. The Whore of Babylon had settled in Rome.

1315 CE - The Little Ice Age starts, bringing recurring cycles of famine and death to the temperate zones (particularly of Christendom) which were dependent on cereal grains. The third seal had been broken.

1347 CE - Someplace in the East, a disease became particularly pestilent and was carried by vermin across the civilized globe. Truly an epidemic of biblical proportions, within just a few years the Black Death had taken at least a quarter of the world's population. The fourth seal had been broken.

1535 CE - Although persecution and martyrdom was not unknown from the earliest days of the church (e.g. James, Stephen, Peter, Paul, the Roman persecutions under Decius and Diocletian), nor in the Middle Ages (e.g. the Waldenses, the Lollards, the Hussites), it was the scale of death of true believers initiated with the Huguenot Persecutions that warrants an emphasis on martyrdom. The influx of martyred souls into the presence of God in the 1500's signifies the fifth seal being broken.

1917 CE - Anticipating the British occupation of Palestine during WWI, the Balfour Declaration officially undoes almost 1800 years of Roman policy excluding the Jews from Palestine. It is the signal event that revealed the end of the end times was upon us.

1933 CE - Hitler rises to power, the seventh king in the Antichrist Scheme. In 1938 he stepped up his campaign against the Jews to wholesale physical violence, confiscation of property, imprisonment, and death. Ultimately, two-thirds of the Jews within his reach were killed.

1948 CE - The State of Israel declares its independence and a nation is born in a day.

1967 CE - Israel captures East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai in the Six Day War. Israel was well on the way to capturing Cairo and Damascus in the Yom Kippur War which followed in 1973. In both wars, against overwhelming odds, Israel all but miraculously defeated all her enemies. She has since signed formal peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), but as yet has to sign a covenant with many which would give her unfettered access to the Temple Mount.

Yet To Come... the Rapture

The Failure of Preterism in the Olivet Discourse

Important aspects of the Olivet Discourse which factor into this article:

1) The occassion of the discourse was a question from the disciples after Jesus stated that not one stone would be left upon the other in Herod's Temple complex. Though Luke and Mark record virtually the same question, the detail of the question in Matthew tells us most specifically what was asked, and what Jesus was responding to. Matthew's question: "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" directs us to the end of time rather than to 70 CE.

2) The woe upon the pregnant and nursing seems clearly to refer to the same circumstance in all three accounts, and therefore can serve to "align" the details of three accounts. In doing so, it makes Luke's unique language describing the misfortune coming upon the Jews and Jerusalem merely a different description the same events presented in Matthew and Mark. Therefore, there is no description whatsoever in the Olivet Discourse of events occurring in 70 CE.

Specific Prophecies that Prevent a Preterist Intepretation

• "The beginning of birth pangs" in regard to earthquakes in various places, famines, and plagues seems a lot to jam into the space of time from 30 to 70 CE
• "A great falling away" which never occurred before 70 CE
• "The Gospel preached to every nation," which only now is a possibility ("then the end will come")
• "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel" has not been fulfilled yet
• "Great tribulation like never before and never again" could in no way describe events before 1940 because of the nature of the Holocaust
• "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" could not have happened before 1940
• "The Son of Man comes in the clouds" has not occurred even yet
• "Angels gathering the elect" (from the earth and heaven) has not occurred yet
• "When we see all these things happening, this generation will not pass until all these things take place" binds the prophecies in the discourse into a unit (at least from the gospel being preached to all nations) that will be seen in its entirety by the generation that sees these signs

A preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is unwarranted and untenable. The Olivet Discourse starts with some general discriptions of what history would hold for the disciples until the end came. The end itself would not come before the Gospel had been preached to all the nations, and when the end finally came, it would be most saliently signified by the Abomination of Desolation which is described by Daniel. The end itself, is nothing other than the Return of Christ, and that just has not happened yet!

The Perfumed Christ

...in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect... (1 Peter 3:15 NIV)

We are called to be witnesses, those that bear testimony to the world concerning Christ Jesus. Sometimes, we stumble over what that testimony should be. On the one hand, we know how important it is to preach Christ, to share the narrative of Christ's life, death and resurrection, because that is what one must believe in order to be saved. We can do so abridged, bulleted, almost creedally, i.e. "Jesus was was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, killed and buried under Pontius Pilate, descended into hell, raised bodily from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven and seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, coming back again one day to judge the quick and the dead." We can even do so insincerely; which, believe it or not, has some value even if it is not likely to produce the best fruit. Regardless, witness Christ we must!

On the other hand, we can bear personal witness, i.e. "I believed on Christ and this is what it has done to me." Generally, this kind of witness finds it's platform in suppostions the world puts forth about us: "they're drunk," "he's crazy," "he's a criminal," "why are you so optimistic?" Personal testimony is likely to go farther, imo, than mere narratives about Christ because it comes with its own evidence in the one bearing the testimony. It's a one-two punch! The only drawback is that there actually has to be more than words coming from the witness. There has to be the evidence of something in the witness that elicits a question.

Ultimately, that something is hope. Not just the garden variety of optimism or even anticipation born of conviction, it has to be something much more than that. What? You may ask. I think the Apostle Paul describes it well in calling it "Christ in you, the hope of glory." As important as signs and wonders are to our witness, they can be the bad fruit of rotten trees. A testimony of Christ borne of a bad spirit does nothing to lift up Christ. What cannot be faked, and what puts off an unmistakable aroma is Christ in you. Folk may act Christian-like, or say Christian things, but there's something about people with Christ in them! It's intriguing, and alluring, and begs a question from the observers around them.

We, however, live in a world of many smells. We exude many ourselves. Therein lies a difficulty and challenge to us. We're in the world but are not to be of it. We're here to bear testimony to the world, but can't get carried away in it. Our witness loses potency and efficacy if what we exude looks, well, normal--no different than anyone else. The call is not to wear a doily on our head and ride around in a horse and buggy, but despite tooling around in a normal conveyance, with non-descript coiffs, to put off the unique aroma of Christ in us. That gets masked by an unholy, earthy musk if our hearts are not set apart to the Lord. The French perfected perfume to cover body odor, but I hate the smelly stuff. An unsanctified heart is a perfume that covers the sweet aroma of Christ.

Saving the Enemy

My analysis of biblical end-times prophecy has brought me to theorize that the Antichrist will start out as a nominal Muslim and that his initial empire will be among the Muslim nations in the Levant. Such a thought holds the potential of eliciting an animosity toward Muslims in those persuaded by it. Seeing them as the accomplices of the Antichrist's end-times villainy doesn't cast them in the best of light after all.

I've also stated that opposing the rise of the Antichrist is like spitting into the wind. I believe the rise of the Antichrist will seem logical and even good in its day, and it is part of God's stated plan to wind up redemption history an initiate redeemed eternity. God wants all men saved and all the saved in eternity with him. To poke a finger in the dike trying to withstand the rise of the Antichrist is tantamount to crying "Nahchetlawd" instead of "Maranatha!"

With this in view, what should our attitude be toward the Muslim tribe? Is God's attitude and reaction to Saul of Tarsus any clue? This post by my blogging friend, Dr. Michael Davis, may be of some help in answering those questions. The old iconic image of an alarm clock, with its two bells sounding the alarm, might be a useful illustration. A resurgence of jihadist Islam sounds one ominous tone; the miraculous, Holy Spirit launched rescue mission among Muslims closed off from the evangelistic forays of the church sounds another.

The harmonious ringing of discordant alarms says to the the church, "Wake up, our redemption draws nigh!"

Is Yours the Gospel of the Born Again?

Technically, we could define gospel as the good news about Christ. Generally, that is what we focus upon as Evangelicals-- why not? Good News is in our name. I have begun to wonder if in doing so we have actually stripped the gospel of its power. We take it as a story, that if believed, results in a change of one's status before God from lost to found. We have pressed this line of theology hard since WWII, and it seems to me, we need to consider whether or not the fractured, frayed, weak condition of the Evangelical church is the result.

A noted internal study at Willow Creek a couple of years ago framed the issue quite well, for more than their own congregation, I think. Church-going Evangelicals look more and more indistinguishable from unchurced Harry and Mary everyday. Our approach to gospel isn't producing change in hearers lives. We have had, in fact, a fruitless season of harvest. I think we have entirely lost track of a simple verity: Jesus said we must be born again.

So then, what does it mean to be born again? Is it a Toyota moment? Not too many evangelicals would like the feeling of that! Is it just an idiomatic expression which refers to believing the story. If one believes, then our Cartesian soteriology assumes rebirth-- I believe, therefore I'm born again. We might not say it that way in our theological tomes, but I think that may be the practical reality of our approach to gospel. I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind, nor is it the picture the NT paints of the born again.

It seems to me that the born again should know they're born again, and that it should not be that hard for even the non-born again to perceive it. After all, there are effects on the mind and heart; there is an awakening of an intimate perception of the Father and the Son; there is the experience of change, akin to going from dry to wet when one jumps in a lake (not a very evangelistic image, I understand). Jesus spoke of such in crystal clear terms in regard to Zaccheus, though wee man that he was.

It's hard for the promoters of that story, such as myself, to resign ourselves to waiting upon the Lord to do that secret Spiritual thing in the soul of people that truly makes them born again. We want to know right now whether or not the hearers of that story buy the story, and we want those folk to respond right now to the telling of it. The result has been an at first slow, but now precipitating decay into methodology that delivers assent to the story while downplaying the true nature of being born again. Is it any wonder the church looks so much like the world around her?

Church As Family

The word says that God sets the lonely in families. Families are a mark of his compassion and grace. Of all his inventions for the benefit of humanity, in my my mind, none beats the family. In America, however, we suffer a debilitating disease, which infects the broader West as well-- family has lost it's cachet and is not valued as highly as it once was. We have actually become anti-family in many ways, and our disease is wasting our society.

That situation is not limited to our families of birth but applies to our families of rebirth as well.

There seems to me to be a panic among religious prognosticators in the West concerning the future of Church. They read the tea leaves and blare their trumpets, "if something isn't done soon, we'll lose the next generation!" So, much discussion has ensued about the proper paradigm for the church in our day. What can be done to make the church relevant, resilient, and resurgent in the generations coming of age?

If God never said anything about the subject, our brainstorming might be appropriate, but he has spoken in his Word and we should at least have a clue. No model is offered there for church other than that of family. In any age, in any culture, church is meant to be seen as the family of God. Believers are brothers and sisters in the Lord, we all share one heavenly Father, and are instructed to love each other in a familial manner. If church is an institution, the institution it is has to be is the family.

The paradigm that works to produce the body God desires is the Church As Family. Fan clubs for religious superstars, social service agencies aiming to treat societal ills, social clubs giving members a place to belong, playgrounds, spas, mass entertainment venues, or religious businesses opening branches everywhere possible in an effort to dominate the market are not models taught by Jesus or described by the Word. Even if one found organizational success in adopting these unscriptural modalities, that would not equate to divine endorsement.

To be honest, I don't know why we even think in terms of trying to satisfy some element of population that isn't satisfied with a biblical paradigm. If those not satisfied don't drop their self-indulgent notions and submit to Christ as Lord and the Word as the rule of faith and conduct, do they even belong in the church? Church is the family of God, anyone not an actual brother or sister is merely a visitor. Some accommodation may be made for a visitor, but who turns their ongoing family-life upside down because a visitor drops in?

Some might say, "do it for evangelism," however, most evangelism doesn't occur within the confines of church services. Besides, evangelism is not presenting something other than Christ crucified and risen, nor calling for something less than repentance and faith concerning him. Believing in Christ and yielding to his Lordship is how we become part of the family. The unrepentant, the unyielding, those not surrendered, and the self-serving are not saved whether they're in church or out, accommodating them can only mean not accommodating Christ.  

Christianity isn't a popularity contest and following Christ isn't going to win anyone friends amongst those that don't follow Christ. The truth is what sets people free, and seeing brothers and sisters love one another is what makes the world know we're actually followers of Christ. If we actually want to build on the foundation Paul laid, then church has to be family. Anything else is wood, hay and stubble good for nothing but smoke and flame.

Bring on the Wooden Spoon

It's humid today in Pennsylvania, downright soupy. In fact, the air's so thick, if God was minded to, he could drop a big wooden spoon out of the heavenlies and give everything a good stir. Maybe that's just what we need--a heavenly stirring! A whirling breeze exchanging the stale for the fresh, the energy of air on the move, roiling up the grace of new savors throughout the pot. As much as a change in the weather of wind and air would be nice, a change in the weather of Spirit would be even nicer.

Am I longing for revival? Perhaps, but there are some drawbacks that make me pause. Revivals have occurred frequently throughout the age of the church, so much so, that we can look at their characteristics and make some observations. There are some negatives!

Revivals fade. Generally speaking, they last for for about 3-6 years, and then, in about the same amount of time, whatever spiritual impact they've made on society has vanished, like the Titanic on the northern Atlantic. It might have been a big deal while it was afloat, but there wasn't even an oil slick marking it's passing shortly thereafter.

Revivals spoil the taste of their participants. Like candy does before a meal, revival makes everything else, even of substance, seem tasteless. The intensity and excitement of the revival experience hooks the desire of the participant like heroin does the addict. Afterwards ennui sets in, and the one revived becomes bored with, even critical of, the taste of life in the interregnum between revivals.

Revivals infect people with a self-centered spirituality. Participants become like kids in an amusement park. They bounce from one thing to the next looking for a bigger thrill. Experiences are compared on the basis of the thrill delivered. Preachers transform into carnival barkers, cheerleading about the rush to be felt at their meetings. Some turn into reverse-engineers trying to replicate and improve the thrill gotten at another venue. Spirituality riding on a roller coaster!

Revival displaces Jesus as the object of one's affections. Idolatry pure and simple: some of the "revived" relish revival more than they do friendship with Jesus! Their eyes on not fixed on the author and perfecter, but on the next possibility of revival.

Then, I look up from this soup, flicking my hands in frustration, spattering the world around me with sweat and tears, and realize just how badly we need a stirring. Our biggest thrill should be knowing the King of Glory personally, as a friend, rather than the gifts he lavishes on us, but we're thrilled with little if anything at all. Something's gotta change!

We could use some renewing:
A new start of obedience;
A fresh dedication to sharpening one another;
A new sensitivity to the Holy Spirit;
A new enthusiasm for knowing Christ personally;
A new hunger for making Him known to others.

All things being equal, I guess my hope is that God would bring out the big wooden spoon and stir up a revival.

Christianity Is Selling Death

I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. When I hear someone ask, "What does your church have to offer me or my family?" it's about all I can do to not have my head explode. It's not like it's anything new, Jesus had to put up with the same kind of self-centeredness, but that doesn't make it easier to take. Church is not a supermarket.

What consumer benefits a church might offer has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is the place God desires a believer to be in order to grow and serve. God has a divine appointment for each of us, and finding it should be our goal. Then, with patience and grace, serving God and our brothers and sisters there should be our occupation until (and only if) God appoints us some place else.

We certainly have no right to treat our brothers and sisters as disposable and divorce ourselves from their fellowship because we've decided we can get a better deal somewhere else. God is the one who has made us parts of the body and he alone gets to appoint us to our place in the body. What business does any church leader have, then, of dangling a carrot, trying to coax a believer to make a decision about where they belong on a basis other than God's appointment? 

And evangelism is not soliciting suitors like Tamar enticed Judah. We can't initially camouflage the message of repentance and surrender only to unveil the truth of  obedience and sacrifice later. Can it be any wonder that when it's time to pay the piper, such converts are as a fickle and disloyal as the rest of our hedonistic, consumer-driven society. If we tickle the flesh to get folk in, we'll get nothing but a giggle from them when they're called upon to stand up and be counted for Christ.

The gospel is good news and every biblically legitimate means needs to be employed to get it to everyone, but the often unspoken stark truth about its message is that embracing it means buying into your own death. The old-fashioned notion of fire and brimstone is unpopular these days because it's just not marketable. I don't care for it myself, it doesn't reflect biblical preaching in my mind, but the biblical message isn't any more palatable. The message Jesus preached to potential followers: "deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me."

I'm dumbfounded amidst a church world that doesn't understand it's own message. I mean, really, how can such a thing as church marketing even exist? It's not just oxymoronic, it's plain moronic too! No, it's even worse, it's faithless, and it's ruining the heritage of God. Let the self-centered consumers and ravenous church hawkers beware, you will reap what you sow. 

So, we can build cathedrals of wood, hay and stubble, selling emptiness to the empty-headed and empty-hearted, but if we want to do what Jesus did, then we must come to terms with this: Christianity is actually selling death.

Waking Up from the American Dream

A hotly debated issue these days is the relevance of the church in post-modern society. On one side of that argument, there’s a new movement that purports fitting seamlessly in with the world in the name of evangelism. Folk who believe that perspective cite the Apostle Paul as the foremost promoter of relevance, but clearly, Paul never promoted living worldly lifestyles in the name of evangelism. He merely said, more or less, "when you're eating with a heathen eat what the heathen eats."

I see no liberty to translate that into "watch what they watch," "buy what they buy," "pursue what they pursue," "do what they do." No, we're called to be different than the world. If our lifestyle looks like the unbelievers around us, it’s not a good sign-- it means were in sync with the world and out of sync with God. His ways are not mankind's ways, so Christians need to make His ways their ways rather than the world's! 

If our manner of life and our aspirations look in all practical measures just like the unbelieving world around us, why would any of them buy into the gospel we promote? In that case, they already live exactly the same way that we do but without the hassle of religion. What point would there be in adding religious trappings that don't actually make a difference to their lifestyle? The long and short of it: Christians ought to stand out from the world even while they're living in it--different values, different activities, different dreams. 

The difference is what, in fact, makes evangelism attractive to the world. The hope we have must strike a different chord than the hope they have or they won't be puzzled enough by ours to ask us about it. They won't find our dream intriguing in the least. If we're serious about bringing people to a life-saving, life-transforming faith in Christ, we're going to have to wake up from the American dream and start living God’s.