To give a quick reply, in Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25) he gives the "signs" that will foretell the end of times. To summarize:
1. Many false claimants to be the Messiah will come.
2. Global instability (Wars and rumors of wars)
3. Famines
4. Earthquakes.
5. Great persecution of Christ-followers.
6. Increasing wickedness causing "the love of most to grow cold." (seems to be referring to the love of God.)
7. Global preaching of the gospel (leaving no one without an excuse)
8. Desecration of the Jewish Temple. The "Abomination of Desolation" refers to a desecration of the Temple like that of Antiochus IV of Syria (165 BC) who sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Jewish Temple and dedicated the Temple to the pagan god Zeus. The AntiChrist is being foretold as one who will do something even worse. Obviously, this prophecy requires a rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem which has not yet happened.
9. Great distress.
10. False prophets will perform many signs and miracles.
11. The final sign is disturbance in the skies. Sun darkened...moon as blood...stars fall from sky. These are phenomenological descriptions (what is seen is being described, not what has happened.) In other words, something like a nuclear holocaust will cause dramatic effects in the perceived sky. Jesus is using the language of the day to describe these cataclysms.
Jesus follows up this list with the following instruction:
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Here is our time marker...the generation which sees these signs will not pass away before the completion of events. In other words, once the Temple is erected, these events will take place within the lifespan of a man. A generation can be reckoned in a variety of ways. The generation under judgment in the wilderness was 40 years. The generation of captivity in Babylon was 70 years. The upper maximum of a man's life is fixed now at 120 years (Gen. 6).
Back to your question. How close are we? We already see indications of most of these signs. Certainly we see great political instability in the world. We see many global disasters, both natural disasters and famines. Wars and rumors of wars abound. Radicalized Islam has certainly contributed to this global instability. There are several signs which have not taken place. However, the plate is set and these signs could progress rapidly.
The two limits that I see are the lack of a Jewish Temple and the failure to complete the message of preaching the gospel to all people. There are still many unreached people groups, although the work of Bible translation and missions work is moving forward. Computer technology has propelled this process. There are ongoing Temple excavations. Zionists in Israel are highly motivated to see the Temple rise, not so much as a religious institution, but a national symbol. This may explain how the AntiChrist will make quick inroads into the Temple, if it is largely a secular cathedral. I would say when we see that Temple rise, start counting.
Jesus does give us a warning near the end of Matthew 24:
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Jesus warns us not to be too precise in our attempt to date these events. Yet, at the same time, the apostle Paul warns us not to be clueless. In 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul seems to contradict Jesus:
1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.
I don't believe that this is a contradiction, but rather the other side of a continuum. Jesus speaks of a thief in the sense that the events will go zero to sixty...there will be a quick escalation of these signs of the times as they start to unfurl. Paul is addressing Christ-followers and reminds us that Jesus has given us signs to interpret the times. We should not be clueless in discerning these signs.
I'll give you one other marker to look for. The book of Revelation describes 144,000 Jews for Jesus, 12,000 from each tribe. As of yet, the modern State of Israel has not subdivided itself into territorial districts. However, it makes sense that at some point they will do so. It also makes sense that when they do, they will "resurrect" the old tribal names. When you see a modern map of Israel with names like Asher, Naphtali, Levi, Judah, Reuben, Simeon, etc., we are inching closer to these events.
Bottom Line: We are getting close, but not yet. Keep looking on the evening news...the signs will be obvious.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Was Mary Magdalene a prositute?
Question:
Is there truth to the theory that Mary Magdalene had a shady past? If so, where does the bible support this? If, not where did this idea come from?
Answer:
Mary Magdalene was a woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). The name Magdalene likely indicates that she came from Magdala, a city on the southwest coast of the Sea of Galilee. After Jesus cast seven demons from her, she became one of His followers.
Mary Magdalene has been associated with the "woman in the city who was a sinner" (Luke 7:37) who washed Jesus' feet, but there is no scriptural basis for this. The city of Magdala did have a reputation for prostitution. This information, coupled with the fact that Luke first mentions Mary Magdalene immediately following his account of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50), has led some to equate the two women. John 11:2, however, identifies the women in Luke 7:36-50 as Mary of Bethany, not Mary Magdalene. NOW, A BIT OF HISTORY!!!
In 591, Pope Gregory the Great stated that all three Mary's described in the gospels, they were in fact one woman, Mary Magdalene, and this is how she became labeled as a prostitute, or the unnamed sinner. However the Second Vatican Council removed the prostitute label in 1969 after much debate and Biblical evidence that there was more than one Mary and that Mary of Magdalene and the unnamed sinner were two different figures.
Is there truth to the theory that Mary Magdalene had a shady past? If so, where does the bible support this? If, not where did this idea come from?
Answer:
Mary Magdalene was a woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). The name Magdalene likely indicates that she came from Magdala, a city on the southwest coast of the Sea of Galilee. After Jesus cast seven demons from her, she became one of His followers.
Mary Magdalene has been associated with the "woman in the city who was a sinner" (Luke 7:37) who washed Jesus' feet, but there is no scriptural basis for this. The city of Magdala did have a reputation for prostitution. This information, coupled with the fact that Luke first mentions Mary Magdalene immediately following his account of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50), has led some to equate the two women. John 11:2, however, identifies the women in Luke 7:36-50 as Mary of Bethany, not Mary Magdalene. NOW, A BIT OF HISTORY!!!
In 591, Pope Gregory the Great stated that all three Mary's described in the gospels, they were in fact one woman, Mary Magdalene, and this is how she became labeled as a prostitute, or the unnamed sinner. However the Second Vatican Council removed the prostitute label in 1969 after much debate and Biblical evidence that there was more than one Mary and that Mary of Magdalene and the unnamed sinner were two different figures.
Are there incompatible callings of the Disciples?
Question:
The book of John describes Jesus meeting Simon after his brother Andrew found him and told him about Jesus. Jesus then calls him Peter. Matthew, Mark and Luke describe Jesus seeing Andrew and Simon fishing and calls them to follow Him. Does this mean that Andrew and Simon did not follow Jesus after the encounter described in John and went back to fishing until Jesus called them later in the encounter described in the other Gospels or is there another answer?
Answer:
No need to reinvent the wheel on this one. I came across an excellent answer on Apologetics Press' website. The key assertion is that the synoptic (Matthew, Mark, Luke) gospels and John's gospel describe different events with calls with a different purpose. Click on the following link for a fuller explanation:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3344
The book of John describes Jesus meeting Simon after his brother Andrew found him and told him about Jesus. Jesus then calls him Peter. Matthew, Mark and Luke describe Jesus seeing Andrew and Simon fishing and calls them to follow Him. Does this mean that Andrew and Simon did not follow Jesus after the encounter described in John and went back to fishing until Jesus called them later in the encounter described in the other Gospels or is there another answer?
Answer:
No need to reinvent the wheel on this one. I came across an excellent answer on Apologetics Press' website. The key assertion is that the synoptic (Matthew, Mark, Luke) gospels and John's gospel describe different events with calls with a different purpose. Click on the following link for a fuller explanation:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3344
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Deliver such a one over to Satan
Question:
My question is in reference to 1 Corinthians 5:5 which says "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This "such a one" is apparently someone who has taken his father's wife? What is Paul saying here? By delivering this person to Satan for the destruction of his flesh his spirit may be saved?
Answer:
Clearly, this passage is, at first blush, counter-intuitive. Our instinct would be to remove an unrepentant sinner from any leadership, but keep this person engaged in church so that there is an ongoing influcence. This makes sense to us within the context of our "tolerant" culture, yet it is clearly not Paul's teaching. Paul, in several of his writings, makes a sharp contrast between God's kingdom and the kingdom of Satan. This is especially apparent in Ephesians 2:1-2:
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
By "delivering one to Satan" Paul is speaking of excommunication, removing a person from the kingdom community of the church. How does this serve to "destroy the flesh" and save the spirit?
Tragically, this concept of destroying the flesh in order to promote spiritual salvation was misapplied by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and others during the Spanish Inquisition resulting in the barbaric torture of many thousands and the death of 3-5,000 people. What was Paul saying, if not setting up an "inquisition." It seems clear that Paul is referring to the destructive effects of sin, including the toll it takes on the body. Consider Paul's words in Romans 1:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
In essence, Paul is saying, do not allow an unrepentant sinner to "play church" and go on sinning. Exclude such a persona and let him or her reap the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences of their sin. One can see how such "separation" safeguards the body. But how does it result in salvation...a real spiritual benefit for the excommunicated one? Sometimes we have to hit bottom before we can or will make a change. In the recovery community there is talk of "raising the bottom." For example, if the spouse of an alcholic stops covering for them and enabling their bad behaviors, the substance abuser comes to their bottom more quickly. They may lose their job, because you don't help them lie to their boss, but say, "Yeah, Joe's here, but he can't come to work...he is sleeping off a binge!" That's raising the bottom by making a "functional" alcoholic unable to function with the addiction. I believe that is what Paul is talking about...tough love.
There is a challenge that we face that makes it difficult for us to gain the full benefits of this text. During the early first century, there was a unified church under strong apostolic leadership. Discipline worked as God intended. Tragically, the church is now fractured and greatly weakened. Our church maintains high standards and we do practice discipline when needed. However, rarely does this "tough love" result in the positive impact Paul described. The unrepentant sinner just finds another church and maintains the same sinful behaviors in secret. Rarely is there coordination of discipline between churches. Furthermore, in our society, such coordination would be deemed "blackballing" and would probably result in a lawsuit. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is not subject to our culture or our laws and precedents. God has many means by which to raise the bottom on us, even in the current situation. And God's purpose is always redemptive and motivated by love.
My question is in reference to 1 Corinthians 5:5 which says "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This "such a one" is apparently someone who has taken his father's wife? What is Paul saying here? By delivering this person to Satan for the destruction of his flesh his spirit may be saved?
Answer:
Clearly, this passage is, at first blush, counter-intuitive. Our instinct would be to remove an unrepentant sinner from any leadership, but keep this person engaged in church so that there is an ongoing influcence. This makes sense to us within the context of our "tolerant" culture, yet it is clearly not Paul's teaching. Paul, in several of his writings, makes a sharp contrast between God's kingdom and the kingdom of Satan. This is especially apparent in Ephesians 2:1-2:
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
By "delivering one to Satan" Paul is speaking of excommunication, removing a person from the kingdom community of the church. How does this serve to "destroy the flesh" and save the spirit?
Tragically, this concept of destroying the flesh in order to promote spiritual salvation was misapplied by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and others during the Spanish Inquisition resulting in the barbaric torture of many thousands and the death of 3-5,000 people. What was Paul saying, if not setting up an "inquisition." It seems clear that Paul is referring to the destructive effects of sin, including the toll it takes on the body. Consider Paul's words in Romans 1:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
In essence, Paul is saying, do not allow an unrepentant sinner to "play church" and go on sinning. Exclude such a persona and let him or her reap the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences of their sin. One can see how such "separation" safeguards the body. But how does it result in salvation...a real spiritual benefit for the excommunicated one? Sometimes we have to hit bottom before we can or will make a change. In the recovery community there is talk of "raising the bottom." For example, if the spouse of an alcholic stops covering for them and enabling their bad behaviors, the substance abuser comes to their bottom more quickly. They may lose their job, because you don't help them lie to their boss, but say, "Yeah, Joe's here, but he can't come to work...he is sleeping off a binge!" That's raising the bottom by making a "functional" alcoholic unable to function with the addiction. I believe that is what Paul is talking about...tough love.
There is a challenge that we face that makes it difficult for us to gain the full benefits of this text. During the early first century, there was a unified church under strong apostolic leadership. Discipline worked as God intended. Tragically, the church is now fractured and greatly weakened. Our church maintains high standards and we do practice discipline when needed. However, rarely does this "tough love" result in the positive impact Paul described. The unrepentant sinner just finds another church and maintains the same sinful behaviors in secret. Rarely is there coordination of discipline between churches. Furthermore, in our society, such coordination would be deemed "blackballing" and would probably result in a lawsuit. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is not subject to our culture or our laws and precedents. God has many means by which to raise the bottom on us, even in the current situation. And God's purpose is always redemptive and motivated by love.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Cliff-hanger
Question:
Why are there seemingly contradictory accounts as to how Judas died? In Matthew 27, Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. However in Acts 1, Luke states that Judas fell from a cliff and burst open. Which is true, and what do we do with the other one if all scripture is infallible?
Answer:
In Acts 1:12-26, Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, describes the process by which the vacancy left by Judas was filled. Luke was a medical doctor and we often find that he provides details that other biblical authors do not…Luke was a trained observer used to documenting his findings. The detail that Luke provides has to do with the circumstances of Judas’ death. Matthew gives a very brief account in Mt. 27:5:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Luke provides a much more detailed account, and a seemingly contradictory one:
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
It is interesting that Luke adds the detail that Judas hanged himself over the very field that was bought with the money by which Jesus was betrayed. It is confusing that Luke mentions Judas’ body falling headlong and bursting open, a completely different description than Matthew’s brief one. Bible scholars suggest that this was probably a complex event. Judas hanged himself from a tree, perhaps stretching over a cliff. The bough was weak, the branch broke and Judas died in the manner Luke described. Other scholars have suggested that it might be that Luke is describing a post-mortem, CSI style. Judas hanged himself, but as his body decayed it bloated, burst and he fell headlong. These may seem like fudges. However, we have to take the overall reliability of Scripture into account. It is not hard to believe that there is a way to harmonize these accounts when you consider the trustworthiness of Scripture as a whole.
If you want to listen to this explanation as part of a broader discussion on the selection of Matthias as a replacement to Judas, listen to the January 2nd edition of Soaring Through the Bible.
http://www.southshorechurch.com/uploadimages/MP3/soaring_20100102.mp3
Why are there seemingly contradictory accounts as to how Judas died? In Matthew 27, Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. However in Acts 1, Luke states that Judas fell from a cliff and burst open. Which is true, and what do we do with the other one if all scripture is infallible?
Answer:
In Acts 1:12-26, Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, describes the process by which the vacancy left by Judas was filled. Luke was a medical doctor and we often find that he provides details that other biblical authors do not…Luke was a trained observer used to documenting his findings. The detail that Luke provides has to do with the circumstances of Judas’ death. Matthew gives a very brief account in Mt. 27:5:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Luke provides a much more detailed account, and a seemingly contradictory one:
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
It is interesting that Luke adds the detail that Judas hanged himself over the very field that was bought with the money by which Jesus was betrayed. It is confusing that Luke mentions Judas’ body falling headlong and bursting open, a completely different description than Matthew’s brief one. Bible scholars suggest that this was probably a complex event. Judas hanged himself from a tree, perhaps stretching over a cliff. The bough was weak, the branch broke and Judas died in the manner Luke described. Other scholars have suggested that it might be that Luke is describing a post-mortem, CSI style. Judas hanged himself, but as his body decayed it bloated, burst and he fell headlong. These may seem like fudges. However, we have to take the overall reliability of Scripture into account. It is not hard to believe that there is a way to harmonize these accounts when you consider the trustworthiness of Scripture as a whole.
If you want to listen to this explanation as part of a broader discussion on the selection of Matthias as a replacement to Judas, listen to the January 2nd edition of Soaring Through the Bible.
http://www.southshorechurch.com/uploadimages/MP3/soaring_20100102.mp3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
