A Letter to the Rapture-Ready Church

In the message Jesus sent to the church in Philadelphia, we see one of only two purely positive messages of those he sent to the seven churches. Although the deeds of the Philadelphians are known by him, no correction ensues and no threat follows, only a hopeful promise. Taken together, I think the commendations and rebukes in the Letters to the Churches demonstrate that works do make a difference in how Christ reacts to those who are known by his name. We can infer, thereby, that grace is not something that ignores evidence that reveals that a heart has faith in name only (see James 2:14-26).

For those whose faith is true, Jesus promises to use his key authority to their benefit. He gives a two-fold metric to understand his judgment in the matter: 1) the faithful guard (in the sense that they observe or keep) his word, and 2) the faithful do not deny (disavow or repudiate) his name. In the case of the Philadelphians, both are done in spite of the lack of great ability (dunamis). For the non-charismatic that would probably be taken another way, but for those of us who are charismatic, we could see this as referring to a relative lack of miraculous, spiritual power. Perhaps that is encouraging news to those living in an age where our affirmation for fabulous signs and wonders far outstrips their actual occurrence.

The open door cannot refer to opportunities for gospel work (as so many commentators aver), for that would be a far too pedestrian use of Jesus' keys--particularly since the benefactors experience a lack of power as well as opposition in this world. The open door, therefore, must refer to something in regard to which Christ has unique authority (since none can close what he opens by it). Since these letters have been filled with so many warnings about the things of Christ being closed off to some, context would demand (it seems to me), to see this in regard to all that Christ has been promising by his authority in the midst of these letters. What others written to are shut out from, the Philadelphians are allowed in to.

It is implied in Christ's message to their church, that the faithful Philadelphians were taking some kind of flak from the so-called Synogogue of Satan. That, along with the reference to the Key of David, puts a markedly Jewish spin on this message. That emphasis does not make much sense to me on the basis of anything that occurred in history since the Apocalypse's writing, nor in terms of a framework of historical epochs as some try to apply to these letters. The detail must be significant nonetheless. It is ironic that those of that persuasion (Judaizers, perhaps) were the ones in fact, who will find themselves ostracized by the one who has the Davidic key.

Admittedly, this is an apparent stretch, but this could be referring to a revival of Jewish resistance to the spread of Christianity among the Jews which would occur near the time of the Rapture. We are seeing something akin to that in our own day in the continuing efforts being made in Israel to quell proselytizing among the Jewish population, particularly by Messianic Jews. If so, it will prove to be merely a last ditch effort that will be overwhelmed by the turn of events at the Rapture and God's subsequent redemptive turn toward Israel. I think that could reasonably be described in the terms of the message: "I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you."

Despite that, and whatever other trials they had to get through, the Philadelphians kept Jesus' word of perseverance. The thought conveyed is waiting patiently under command, like the person asked to stay behind for a straggler when the youth group heads out to an event. That Jesus' command to endure (as recorded elsewhere) has eschatological implications cannot be denied--the reference in this letter in conjunction with the promise of escape (rapture) can only underscore the end-times emphasis. What context, other than the end-times, is there for the all-inclusive, global trial mentioned? 

It is very difficult to find a context historically which could have justifiably the description of a "global trial" applied to it. The words used to convey the notion of global testing (tou peirasmou [the testing] and peirasai [to test]) are somewhat ambivalent in meaning. They can refer to temptation (as in an enticement), or to trial (as in an assaying pressure), or to both at the same time. The use of the definite article (tou) is supportive in understanding this phrase as referring to a specific testing or temptation, rather than to testing or temptation in general; i.e. the trial. What is in mind in this message, it seems to me, is a singular kind of testing, the scope and nature of which is such that it will leave no doubt that it is occurring when it does occur.

The test will come upon all the inhabited earth to try those that dwell there. Whereas it is possible to see this as an idiomatic reference to the Roman Empire, I see this more along the lines of a Hebraism (e.g. Exodus 8:21) or just straightforwardly referring to the entire world (as does the word's usage in Acts 17:31 or Hebrews 1:6). The inclusivity of the statement means that anyone on earth at that time will experience the trial, at least in some fashion. One would have to not be living on earth to be kept [out] from such a trial, which I think is the best reading of the promise contained: "I also will keep you from the hour of testing..."

Whereas Chapter 7 of the Apocalypse (and Chapter 12 too) does demonstrate that it is possible to live through the trial on earth protected by God in the midst of it, it also reveals (as does Chapter 12) that for the largest proportion of believers, escape means removal from the scene. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 describes the escape in as great a detail as we have in all of scripture. Taken together the picture clarifies. A trial, so significant and singular in nature as to be unmistakable, will come upon the entire earth, but those believers, Philadelphian in character, will be kept from that trial by God taking them out from the earth. Rapture!

It is clear to me that the Church in Philadelphia is ultimately a symbol for the church extant and ready when the end comes with its trial of trials. Since it is my belief that the churches which were sent these messages are contemporaneous and representative of different types of the whole, all the churches will be there at the end. However, it is to the church in Philadelphia--the ready church--that promise rather than warning is issued. Those that embrace the promise of removal and overcome get to be with God always, like pillars in his Temple. But even though the letter to the church in Philadelphia is particularly a message to the end-times Church, its message would have been inspirational to any church at any time being stretched by the need to endure under pressure.

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."    Revelation 2:20 NASB 

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

It's All About Knowing God

When it comes to God, relationship is the thing.

Righteousness is of utmost importance, but righteousness is not being a better you for God. God alone is good, God alone is righteous.

All we can do is fellowship with God as he lets us, as he accepts us. Walking with him, in fellowship with him, takes us to the places we need to be. Righteous places.

Life is a grinding lesson. Through friction and fracturing, Solomonic truth seeps into our stiffened brains and hardened hearts. Nothing that we think matters really matters at all. We have to lose stuff in this process. Conceits crumble off us. Cohesiveness is a casualty. Those who don't lose don't learn.

All that does matter is actually knowing Christ, our Savior. Pulling that off means relinquishing all fidelity to anything that had it and ceding it to him.

We have notions--things have to be a certain way, we have to have certain things, we have to have certain experiences.

Our notions are just potions.

What we need is to know him, truly, for what he is, as he is.

Foreknowledge and Counterfactuals

Counterfactual knowledge is the awareness of what would be if something other than what happened had happened--seeing, if you will, the alternate timeline that would have arisen if another choice had been made or other circumstances had existed. Is it real? It's hard to say, even in regard to God (though I will try). He is certainly analytical enough to prognosticate in that fashion (as we are under many circumstances), and he has the added benefit of being able to see everything, including our thoughts and intents and not just our outward actions.

Before we can get anywhere with this, however, we must first determine how God uses statements in the Bible we consider counterfactual. Is he actually dispensing information concerning an alternate "what-if" reality, a window on his thoughts about possibilities, or is he merely making points rhetorically? If it were any other person speaking that way we would know the answer was "rhetorical," with the all-knowing God we must pause before reaching such a conclusion. Does God know certainly what any of us would do if we were in different circumstances?

It would be easy enough to say yes, if for no other reason than not to offend God and honor our conceptions of his omniscience and sovereignty, but that isn't really the point. God is about truth, and in particular the truth he tells us about himself. Humans attributing to God what he doesn't claim for himself, even to make him appear "bigger" or "better" doesn't really honor him--at best it would be presumptuous, at worst it would be idolatrous! Is God actually, clearly telling us that he knows what we would do in any given circumstance?

There is scriptural warrant to think he does, cases in point:

Deuteronomy 31:20-22 - God knew the intents of the heart and what history those intents would end up making as a result;

Psalm 139 - God's knows the thoughts and actions of David before they occurred;
Ezekiel 3:6b-9 - God knew the hearts of Israel and took steps within Ezekiel's to counteract them;

Matthew 11:20-24 - Jesus knew that people who did not repent in the past would have repented if they had seen Christ in action. [Now, that is not to say they would have come to faith in Christ, just that the incredibly wicked would not have acted in ways that demanded their immediate destruction rather than waiting until the end of time];

John 2:24-25 - Jesus understood the inner workings of man's intents and desires, and how to thwart their consummation in action;

1 Corinthians 10:13-14 -  God knows what temptation a person can bear and does not allow more than a believer can withstand by promising an available escape.

On the other hand:
Genesis 22:12 - God had to see the determination to act and the act initiated before he could say that he knew that Abraham would not withhold Isaac;
Exodus 13:17-18 - God spoke uncertainly about what the people might do and avoided learning what they would actually do;
Deuteronomy 8:2 - God had to see the heart actualized before he knew for certain what was in it.

I don't know that God meant to establish parallel truth by making counterfactual statements in the Bible. It easy to see these statements as other than the revelation of absolute, certain descriptions of alternate reality. There are obvious other purposes to those counterfactually structured statements that may be more fundamental to their meaning than the apparent counterfactual aspect. As always in biblical interpretation, intent of the (ultimate) author is of paramount importance.

If God had to see something done before he could know it certainly, as seems to be the case in some of the texts cited above, then I think it is safe to say that counterfactuals represent the discernment of God rather than the revelation of an alternate, possible history. Is God accurate in his assessments? Absolutely, but an assessment of a person's character and reactions is not the same as the statement of fact as in a historical narrative. Therefore, counterfactuals in the Bible do not represent an unveiling of Middle Knowledge, but merely the discernment of the all-wise, all-seeing God.

Foreknowledge is based on what God actually sees outside of time, not on permutations of possibilities that he cogitated within the counsels of his own mind before he created. If we posit that God knows with certainty what we would do in any circumstance, that he deliberated through what-ifs of creaturely freedom before he chose what became, we don't have freedom but merely a different way to see Compatibilism. If God has true (that is absolutely certain) counterfactual knowledge of free human action, not founded on what humans actually did, then foreknowledge is "rigged" and compatibilism is true.

When Emotions Run Away With Us IV

Judas
Judas was an opportunist. That's the way I see him anyway. Jesus Christ Superstar made him the hero of the drama, but he was anything but in real life. He was a thief, and a shameless coattail rider. Jesus was nothing but his avenue to a better life. When it dawned on him that possibility wasn't going to pan out, he shifted gears without any hesitation and started shopping his connection to Jesus for personal profit.

What was motivating him (beside the Devil, that is)? Emotionally, I would say Judas was driven by avarice. His appetite for personal gain overwhelmed every other concern and experience, and in his case, that's saying a lot. Think of what Judas saw and heard! Up in smoke all of it went because he was blinded by avarice. Those that are greedy for gain end up with destruction instead. As for Judas, so for anyone.

Barnabas
Barnabas had a great name in life, not nearly as great in history. He could have had both (not that we should desire such, but you know what I mean). He ran with the handpicked agent of God to the Gentiles, who understood God's voice and the Spirit's leading. Yet, over a favorite cousin, Barnabas got into such a sharp contention with Paul that the two had to separate-- Paul on to earth shaking ministry, Barnabas on to relative obscurity in his hometown in Cyprus.

What got in his way? Nepotism, pure and simple. He let his emotional attachment to family override other concerns and rejected the more objective judgment of his fellow missionary. As I read history, Paul was right and Barnabas wasn't. When we let our attachment to family override other ministry concerns, we don't help the family member and we undermine the ministry. Wouldn't it be nice if preachers today could learn this lesson?

Emotions are not the basis upon which decisions should be made. Where can we expect to go when we let the caboose lead the train? The biblical examples we've looked at teach us that. Though emotions are God given, they can't run the show.

When Emotions Run Away With Us III

Solomon
Solomon had an auspicious start. His promise would have made him unique in history if he lived up to it. His name is great, no doubt, but so were his follies. The few things that God said a king of God's people should not do, Solomon did with relish. Hording silver and gold, horses, and whores (oops, I meant "wives" and concubines) was enthusiastically pursued: humility, faithfulness and obedience were tossed aside in his never ending search for broader experience and self-fulfillment.

Solomon may have been a poster boy for Maslow's theory, but he was a disgrace to the kingdom of God. He let his emotional, self-absorbed quest for fulfillment overwhelm every other consideration in life. The result was a kingdom at odds with him, an existential depression with life, and a broken fellowship with God. Are dreams of self-fulfillment really that important? What will such emotional satisfaction profit a man if it cost him his soul?

Jonah
Living under the shadow of ruthless conquerors, who had designs on you, your family, your nation can put a burr under any one's saddle. As conquerors go, I think it's safe to say the Assyrians put the ooh! in ruthless. Is any wonder that a person living in such a shadow would have implacable hatred for those pagan enemies, even to the extent of not wanting a warning word from God promising judgment to reach them?

The silence of God is not having a chance. In hearing, faith can erupt. Think, "September 12th, 2001;" how did you feel about Arabs and Muslims that day? Were your thoughts evangelistic? Vengeance belongs with God, it's an emotional fury we can't handle. It blinds us to the eternal significance of our enemies' souls. Instead of being like Ananias in Damascus, vengeance makes us like Jonah in the drink. Do we want to see God's enemies become his friends, or are we blinded by vengeance, and useless to the miracle of grace.

Still more to come...

When Emotions Run Away With Us II

David
David took a voracious bite out of life I think his faith in God motivated. He fought for God, and every time he went into battle, even with long odds, God gave him victory. Eventually, there weren't too many enemies left. He sought out any of his bosom buddy Jonathan's heirs, and showed his sole remaining son royal hospitality, alleviating any nagging issues of loyalty and conscience he may have had. He had a grand dream to build a magnificent temple for the ark of the covenant, but God said, "Good thought, but let your son do it."

David was a man of vision and action. He'd seen it all, done it all, gone as far as he could fulfilling every dream he had, and still had a lot of living to do. People like David love new challenges, but languish under routine. Despite his spectacular history, David came to a pass where boredom set in and just couldn't motivate himself for one more charge. He avoided the necessary and eschewed his responsibility.

Against folk wisdom, his life shows us that character is not discovered in the struggle, but rather, in the aftermath of success. David let boredom get the best of him, he forsook responsibility and necessity for idleness. At that point grievous sin was a foregone conclusion: lust, adultery, betrayal, and manslaughter were waiting in the wings. Boredom unchallenged could lead to the same for any of us.

Still more to come...

When Emotions Run Away With Us

God is an emotional being. He's created us, in his image, with the capacity for emotions as well. Unfortunately, in our fallen condition, sometimes ours get overwhelming, or run away with us, and the results are often not pretty. Sometimes we become blubbering, incapacitated, tear factories. At other times we become focused, pursuers of ungodly ends. Runaway emotions seldom lead to good decisions, often lead to sin, and so we should endeavor not to let them get away from us as have some notable biblical examples.

Cain
Cain had some problems with sibling rivalry, and seems to me to be the first model of the sociopath. He was arrogant in regard to God and willful with respect to his own life. A stinging rejection of what he tried to shove down God's throat, combined with the ringing endorsement of his brother, Abel's offering to God touched off the anger button in Cain's psyche.

There's good reason the Word says don't let the sun go down on our anger. When we live in anger, stew in it, embrace it and make it our companion in life it will lead us to misery. Sin couches at the door looking to get the advantage over us. Anger, like my kids, leaves the door wide open for the undesirable to come in. When angry, we make rash choices and follow courses that don't lead us toward God. It's OK to be angry, it's not OK to sin.

Saul
Saul seemed to be an incredibly humble individual when he was young. I don't think it was true humility, but the distortion that arises when we compare ourselves with ourselves. When we do that and our circumstances are humble, we appear meek: when our circumstances change, so does such false humility-- into arrogance and jealousy. That is what happened to Saul.

If Saul had sought the approval that came from God, rather than worrying about the accolades of man, I wouldn't be writing this piece. But Saul was not a man after God's heart; in fact, he cared less about God's rejection than he did about being given second billing in the song of some schoolgirls. God is a jealous god. We, however, don't handle the emotion all that well. Let it run away with us and we end up running away from God, just like Saul.

Stay tuned, more to come...

The Waiting Is the Hardest Part

When God said, "Don't eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," do you think he intended to keep humans in ignorance for eternity? In light of 1 Corinthians 13:12, I believe the correct answer is no. Eventually, had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit (at least if you believe it wasn't a foregone conclusion that they would), I think God would have invited them to partake of everything he had, but all things must wait until their time.

For many years, Abram and Sarai, who became Abraham and Sarah, were folk indistinguishable from any others alive in their day, but stirred by encounters with the living God, they became people of incredible faith. During the process of that growth, they kept the faith and held out for the promise of God for a long time against astounding odds. At some point in time, however, anticipation fatigue set in and they became impatient. The result was Ishmael and endless blood and warfare. God wasn't holding out on them, they just needed to hold on until it was time. Isaac became their laughter of joy soon enough, but their impatience left a mark time hasn't erased to this very day.

Saul, had nothing going on. His complete lack of extraordinariness literally stood head and shoulders above the rest of Israel. Out of the blue, God raised him to a perch he never could have ascended to himself. One would think God asking him to wait for a sacrifice until his prophet, Samuel, showed up wasn't asking all that much, but Saul couldn't restrain himself against the expectation (and fear). How sad for him and his entire family.

Seldom does our impatience portend the same disasters that these three examples did, but it can. The one who can't wait for the Lord, ends up the drug addict, the gambler, the fornicator, the willful, the false. What does waiting cost: hunger, boredom, anxiety, seeming a loser? The easiest thing to do is cash in your chips and follow the expedited, humanly conceived path to gettin' 'er done. The problem is that those chips were the promise of God, and you may well not get them back if you didn't have the foresight to hold on to them. There are many difficulties on the path of faith, the waiting may be the hardest part.

Choose to Believe

"What is it to believe? It is to have such confidence in what the Lord has said that we take Him at His word, simply because He said it." ...Smith Wigglesworth (emphasis added)


What is it that the Lord wants from people? Nothing more, nothing less than faith. Oh, I know there are other aspects to holiness and righteousness, but at the most basic, the most fundamental, everything comes down to faith. Works never were and never will be the issue, for God is more than willing to look at us, not on their basis, but through grace. The only issue, as far as humans are concerned, that is ultimately determinative with God is faith. It was that way in the beginning, it is still that way, and will be until the end of time when all things are made new.

When Adam and Eve were in the garden, the issue to be decided was not whether or not they would toe the line of obedience, but whether or not they had confidence in what the Lord said. To undermine them, the Devil had to first assault the character of God and pull the rug out from under grandpa's and grandma's confidence in his word (note vs. 4-5). That accomplished, disobedience was a foregone conclusion. It is impossible to remain obedient under testing if one has diminished or no trust in God's character and word.

Humankind gets things all topsy-turvy when it comes to God. We project upon him our own performance orientation, and make him the cosmic task master who's ever eyeing our stats and looking to cut us from the team; however, with God it's never, "what have you done for me lately?" What can we ever truly do for him anyway? No, we may be servants of the Most High, but our relationship with him is never subject to performance reviews.

Our moments of trial and ordeal come down not to our feats but to our faith. Everyone needs, in those times in the valley of decision, to take stock of his or herself and talk to themselves about what they think of God and his word. When Eve did so, she talked herself clean out of faith: we need to learn from her error and instead choose to believe.

A Test Any of Us Can Pass

Not long ago, I experienced an unexpected shock when I preached about God testing the faithful. It seems there were some in the audience who did not believe that God would ever test his children. The thought that He would led to a minor dust storm. To bring a clearing breeze, and to shine some biblical light on the subject, let me offer the following thoughts.

The biblical concept of God testing his children has nothing to do with entrapment. God does not tempt us to do evil, only to say "gotcha!" when we fail. The process of testing is actually one of love-- God searching for that which most delights Him. It is most akin to assaying or refining, or even panning for gold. When God tests us He is attempting to uncover and reveal the best that is in us, our delightful streaks.

God never sets out to prove our unworthiness; instead, he is highlighting what's good about us. Why would God do such a thing? It's not like he doesn't already know! Since he is omniscient and does know, our testing must be directed at some audience other than God. Who could that be? Angels, why yes, but also... us.

Our hearts are so contorted, we don't even understand ourselves. In moments when we honestly see ourselves (any of us not blinded by pride that is) we feel the painful awareness of our own multiplicitous failings. When God tests us he is allowing us to see something beyond that, something that he sees-- that in him we are becoming something more. Sanctified, and truly something wonderful to behold.

That God tests his children along these lines cannot be denied. It is attested to by scripture: Exodus 15:25; 16:4; 20:20 Deuteronomy 8:2,16; 13:3 Judges 2:22; 3:1,4 I Chronicles 29:17 Psalms 7:9; 11:5; 17:3; 26:2; 66:10 Proverbs 17:3 Isaiah 28:16 (even Christ was) Jeremiah 11:20; 12:3; 20:12 Daniel 12:10 Zechariah 13:9 I Thessalonians 2:4 Hebrews 11:17 James 1:2-4, 12 I Peter 1:6-7; 4:12 

So God absolutely tests his children, but don't let yourself get anxious about it, it's a test any of us can pass.