John Edwards

Freewill and the Sovereignty of God

2011-06-09T10:57:00.003+10:00

Man's will doesn't diminish God's sovereignty at all - it confirms it.

If man didn't have a will, then God doesn't have a will either - because man was made in God's image.

But since man has a will, it is confirmed that God has a will - since man was made in God's image.

God is holy, and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy - and He has appointed a day of judgment. The necessity for judgment confirms that man has a will. If the only will that existed was God's will, then there should be no necessity for judgment - for God can't judge Himself!

Illustration:

The fact that I own freehold title to my land diminishes nothing of the Crown's sovereignty - it confirms it.

Crown sovereignty is the source of my freehold title. Crown sovereignty sets the limits of my title. Even though I have title, I'm still subject to judgment by the Crown if I break laws on my own land.

Similarly, anything that God sovereignly decides to do, confirms His sovereignty, rather than denies it.

Since God sovereignly decided to make man in His own image, and gave man a will, then the fact that man has a will is evidence of the sovereign action of God who gave man a will in the first place.

Seeing man is sovereignly given a will, it follows that man is also subject to sovereign, divine law - and to judgment.

Illustration:

It's appropriate for a father to tell his child who lives in his house, what to do. But when the child is grown, married and lives in his own house, the father now knocks on his son's door before entering. He is still his father - but his son has his own house now.

God created sons to be mature sons - not undeveloped children. He delights when we use our will with the same ethics with which He uses His.

Illustration:

Marriage is an example of God sovereignly subjecting Himself to the limitations of a subsequent principle - without diminishing anything of His sovereignty. When a man and woman decide to get married, God puts them together - and forever thereafter God relates to the couple as one, respecting the decision the couple made to get married.

God remains sovereign over both individuals, yet He no longer treats them as though they were not a couple. In all His actions towards the couple, He is now duty-bound to regard them no longer as individuals alone but also as a couple.

After they were married, the sovereign God now frames His own actions towards the couple by the terms of a subsequent law - the law of marriage.

The fact that God's regard for the couple must now be framed by the fact that the couple had decided to get married, takes nothing away from the sovereignty of God - it confirms His sovereignty, because it was God who sovereignly decided to create the law of marriage in the first place.

Their decision to marry forever shapes the way God sees them - yet within the provisions of that framework, the couple remains subject to sovereign, divine law.

Similarly, God's sovereign decision to make man in His own image, giving him a will, takes nothing away from His sovereignty, but confirms it. Man's will can affect the way God relates to man - and yet it is still subject to sovereign, divine law and judgment.

Man's will has limitations though - it can't achieve as much as God's. Man is subject to time and death - but God can predict man's choices and He can control certain political destinies spanning generations - not by removing man's will, but by working with it, by keeping someone alive or not - as He did with Pharaoh, and as He did with the unbelieving nation of Israel. He didn't remove their will, but He kept them alive for His own time and purposes.

Pharaoh was like a cleaner-fish in an aquarium. A cleaner fish does what it does by nature - it goes along cleaning up the mess from the other fish in the aquarium. It goes along happily doing what it does, unaware that it is fulfilling someone else's purpose - its owner's purpose.

Similarly Pharaoh was doing his own will, unaware that God, who could have judged him earlier, instead allowed him to rise to a prominent position for His own purpose (so that God's judgment and deliverance would be public).

God couldn't have judged Pharaoh if Pharaoh hadn't had a will of his own. Pharaoh had a will of his own, and was therefore subject to Sovereign judgment - yet God still worked-out His purpose in history by delaying Pharaoh's judgment and allowing him to rise to prominence for such a time.

In the same way, natural Israel was allowed to exist, despite its self-will and unbelief - so that God's judgment and the salvation of believers could both be demonstrated. That's what Romans 9 is about.

Indeed God's salvation plan did not originate with a man's will or running - but with God Himself. He sovereignly offered salvation upon His own sovereign basis - faith. Man's will and running had nothing to do with deciding that basis - God Himself decided it. And faith to live by is not a work: it's a gift for all to receive. Receiving a gift is not a work. The door of faith is open. Whosoever will may come.

Everything in life is a gift. Faith is a gift - and it is offered to all. Therefore if some don't have faith, it's not neccessarily because God hadn't offered it to them - some simply may not have liked to take advantage of the offer. Yet even this is within God's sovereign allowance.

I feel that I'm taking Scriptures on face value, in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and without manipulation.

The Essence of the Gospel Message - Especially as Pertains to the Theme of the Coming Kingdom - Luke 1:67-75

2010-05-20T01:26:00.000+10:00

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Here's another idea for further thought - about Messianic prophecies, the return of Christ and the coming Kingdom.

Let's imagine a military General promised, "I shall return", and the oppressed people take comfort in knowing that the general will subdue their enemies when he comes. The day the General returns, people are declaring every man to his neighbour that the promise has been fulfilled and the day of their liberation from their enemies has come. But it may take several weeks, or longer, before all their enemies are actually subdued. Nevertheless, the announcement was still true that the day of their promised liberation had come on the day the General arrived.

Perhaps in a similar way, the Messianic prophecies of God's coming judgment and coming Kingdom were indeed fulfilled when Jesus was born in the manger in Bethlehem - but in like manner as the military General's landing was only the start of his promised mopping-up operation, so the birth of Christ, and the earthly ministry of Christ, and the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Christ, were only the beginning of the total fulfillment of the full-package of the Messianic promises - the remainder being fulfilled throughout Church history to a limited extent perhaps, but ultimately and fully at the return of Christ.

The Gospel as a message comprises of the package-deal message, even though the ultimate fulfillment of each of the components of the message may in history be separated by thousands of years or longer. But of course there is an individual receiving of the full package deal in a spiritual, intrinsic, down-payment sort of a way, in the here and now. Perhaps there may even be corporate realizations of many aspects of the promises in regions, or in times of history. But the fullest sense of the promises won't be received until the coming of Christ and His Kingdom. Nevertheless, intrinsically the promises were fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

So when Zechariah prophesied that the birth of a baby fulfilled the promises that Israel would be delivered out of the hands of their enemies, it was as true as it was to say a country's promise of liberation was fulfilled the moment the military General's feet landed on the beach. Yes, Jesus' birth, in fact even John's birth, intrinsically fulfilled or in a sense heralded the promise to deliver Israel out of the hand of all their enemies - but historically it won't happen in fulness until the return of Christ. It will also only happen for the remnant who believe. Some of the remnant may experience it to varying degrees and at various times before the return of Christ too. It may also be experienced in a spiritual sense. But in any sense, it's true to say the promises were fulfilled by Christ.

It could be the same with end-times prophecy, such as Malachi, Daniel and the Olivet Discourse, and maybe even the Book of Revelation. Perhaps some events which historically may end-up being separated by thousands of years or longer, are described almost as if they were a single event - because the package-deal is intrinsically one and the same even though God in His longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, has extended the time.

Maybe that's why Jesus' answer to the question of His coming and His answer to the question of the destruction of the Temple make the events seem like one event - because intrinsically they are, even though historically they have ended-up being separated by a period of time.

Maybe that's why Daniel's prophecy about the mountain filling the earth sounds like something that happened right away, when historically the coming of Christ as a baby and as a prophet and as the Lamb of God to take away our sins - and His coming as King of kings and Lord of lords - may end-up being separated by thousands of years.

Maybe that's why Malachi's prophecy about Elijah coming and the Lord suddenly coming to His temple - before the great and noteable day of the Lord - are both made to sound almost like one day - because intrinsically that was the package-deal message of the day, even though historically there may be a time-period of thousands of years, due to God's longsuffering, not willing that any should perish.

If so, then regardless of where we are at in the timeline of ultimate history, our message is and should be still intrinsically the same - the same as John's, Jesus's, and the Apostles'. Hallelujah! It's the same Gospel message!

It's a message of fulfillment and of yet-to-be fulfilled, at the same time. It's a message of redemption and of judgment. It's a message of individually receiving Jesus and of the imminent ultimate realization of His kingdom - both intrinsically wrapped in the same packaging, as on offer, although the historical timing will differ, by how long nobody knows.

If so, then let's recover the same message of hope, of joy, of gladness, of realization, of promise - hallelujah!

Just an idea for further expansion.

Jesus Explained and Upheld the Law of the Sabbath - Matthew 12:1-12

2010-05-19T16:56:00.000+10:00

None of Jesus' actions nor statements about the sabbath meant that He was breaking, improving on, or replacing the Law of the sabbath. Rather, Jesus' statements about the sabbath explained the Law of the sabbath.

Jesus was ministering to Jews who were still under the Old Covenant, and His statements need to be understood in that context.

The manner in which the spiritual meaning of the sabbath finds fulfillment in the lives of New Testament believers is another subject. But the point in the Book of Matthew and in this particular Blog post is that Jesus refuted the Pharisees' wrong application of the Law of the sabbath by explaining, upholding, obeying, and fulfilling the true meaning of the law of the sabbath - and at the time, He expected His disciples also to do no less.

Nothing Jesus ever said or did broke the Law or improved on the Law. He exemplified Law-keeping and taught Law-keeping on every point, exactly as it was originally intended.

Matthew 12:2
2 ...which was not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

Only in the Pharisees' minds was it unlawful to pick corn on the sabbath day under these circumstances.

Jesus explained that it was "lawful" - i.e., it was consistent with the law of the sabbath - to do good on the sabbath day - e.g., by healing the sick or lifting a sheep that has fallen into a pit.

Jesus said the Pharisees were condemning the guiltless, i.e., He was saying that His discipls were in fact guiltless under Moses' Law.

In order to explain the true meaning of the Law in regard to the sabbath, Jesus appealed to three sections of the Scriptures: He appealed to the writings of Moses in the Law itself; He illustrated it by an incident in the life of David; and He backed it up with a Scripture from the prophets - plus He added an appeal to a commonsense behaviour which even the Pharisees themselves were doing.

Jesus showed in the Law that the laws of the sabbath were never meant to over-arch the sacredness of other important functions in the house of God. Even under the Law, there were certain things which a person could do on the sabbath day without incurring guilt (verse 5).

An incident in the life of David illustrated the principle that some laws - such as those governing the use of the shewbread in the Temple - were not necessarily enforced in moments of life-and-death emergency.

The prophet illustrated the spirit in which the Law was intended, by saying, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice".

On top of all that, the Pharisees themselves had enough commonsense to lift a sheep from a pit on the sabbath day. Therefore they were actually being hypocritical.

Seeing then that the Law itself, when understood correctly, vindicated the disciples who were picking corn on the sabbath day - how much were they vindicated seeing a greater than the Temple was with them!

The Pharisees were misapplying the Law and hypocritically condemning the guiltless. But the truth under the Law always was that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. That was not some new idea which Jesus was introducing - Jesus was merely explaining the truth as it always was under the Law.

The son of man is Lord of the sabbath - without breaking the Law! In fact, the Law itself - and principles in the Law - upholds the Lordship of the son of man over the sabbath!

The Law itself allowed that the Temple and its required functions could over-arch certain requirements of the law pertaining to the sabbath - how much more, now that a greater than the Temple was here! This put the laws of the sabbaths and the disciples' actions that day, in proper perspective.

Daniel 12:4 - What Kind of Knowledge?

2010-05-18T12:54:00.000+10:00

For those who claim we must be in the final generation because Daniel 12:4 prophesied an increase in knowledge, my question is - what kind of knowledge?

Although electronic technology has increased in recent generations, other kinds of knowledge may have been lost.

For example, although new jargon in the English language is being invented, old vocabulary is simultaneously being lost.

"In one century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to offering remedial English in college," said Ross Mahan.

Even in languages like Cebuano and Japanese, a lot of older vocabulary is being lost to younger speakers.

The knowledge of herbal remedies is another area where we may be losing knowledge.

And what about practical skills knowledge? Many who know how to operate computer systems have missed-out on skills that were more widely known by previous generations, such as sewing or carpentry.

The knowledge of how to use an electric jigsaw may have increased - but would you say there has been a decline in the numbers of people who know how to make tongue-in-groove furniture?

I've slipped and slided on mountain walking tracks, while hilltribe children laughed at my ineptness and women observed with amusement, while even balancing heavy jars on their heads without using hands. Sure, I might know the Western way of explaining physics - but they obviously knew a thing or two about physics which I didn't know!

Another huge area where we are seeing a loss of knowledge is in languages. Someone has estimated that 90% of the world's 6,000 languages could be lost within 100 years:

"Many linguists predict that at least half of the world's 6,000 or so languages will be dead or dying by the year 2050. Languages are becoming extinct at twice the rate of endangered mammals and four times the rate of endangered birds. If this trend continues, the world of the future could be dominated by a dozen or fewer languages.

Even higher rates of linguistic devastation are possible. Michael Krauss, director of the Alaska Native Language Center, suggests that as many as 90 percent of languages could become moribund or extinct by 2100. According to Krauss, 20 percent to 40 percent of languages are already moribund, and only 5 percent to l0 percent are "safe" in the sense of being widely spoken or having official status. If people "become wise and turn it around," Krauss says, the number of dead or dying languages could be more like 50 percent by 2100 and that's the best-case scenario.

The definition of a healthy language is one that acquires new speakers. No matter how many adults use the language, if it isn't passed to the next generation, its fate is already sealed. Although a language may continue to exist for a long time as a second or ceremonial language, it is moribund as soon as children stop learning it. For example, out of twenty native Alaskan languages, only two are still being learned by children.

Fewer Languages, Fewer Thoughts

Although language extinction is sad for the people involved, why should the rest of us care? What effect win other people's language loss have on the future of people who speak English, for example? Replacing a minor language with a more widespread one may even seem like a good thing, allowing people to communicate with each other more easily. But language diversity is as important in its way as biological diversity.

Andrew Woodfield, director of the Centre for Theories of Language and Learning in Bristol, England, suggested in a 1995 seminar on language conservation that people do not yet know all the ways in which linguistic diversity is important. "The fact is, no one knows exactly what riches are hidden inside the less-studied languages," he says.

Woodfield compares one argument for conserving unstudied endangered plants--that they may be medically valuable--with the argument for conserving endangered languages. "We have inductive evidence based on past studies of well-known languages that there will be riches, even though we do not know what they will be. It seems paradoxical but it's true. By allowing languages to die out, the human race is destroying things it doesn't understand," he argues.

Stephen Wurm, in his introduction to the Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing [see access, page 12], tells the story of one medical cure that depended on knowledge of a traditional language. Northern Australia experienced an outbreak of severe skin ulcers that resisted conventional treatment. Aborigines acquainted with the nurse told her about a lotion derived from a local medicinal plant that would cure the ulcers. Being a woman of broad experience, the woman didn't dismiss this claim for non-Western medical knowledge. Instead, she applied the lotion, which healed the ulcers.

This incident and similar ones have resulted in a general search throughout Australia for medicinal plants known to aboriginal people through their languages and traditional cultures. The search has to be fast because most Australian languages are dying. When they go, the medical knowledge stored in them will go too.

As Michael Krauss expresses it, the web of languages is a "microcosm of highly specialized information. Every language has its own take on the world. One language is not simply a different set of words for the same things." Just as we depend on biological complexity for our physical survival, we depend on linguistic complexity for our cultural survival.

Does Mainstreaming Require Language Death?

Some language loss, like species loss, is natural and predictable. No language exists forever. Just as plants and animals have appeared and disappeared over the millennia, languages evolve, grow, and spread, and eventually dwindle and die. Sometimes they're replaced by their "descendant" languages, as Italian gradually replaced Latin. Other times they're forced out, as the ancient Etruscan language was when Latin speakers overran the Italian peninsula.

Language extinction is accelerating today for some of the same reasons as species extinction--population pressures and the spread of industrialization. The global economy often forces small, unindustrialized communities to choose between their traditional language and participation in the larger world. East Africans need to speak Swahili for success; Central Europeans need to speak Russian; and lately, the whole world seems to need to speak English. Sometimes these languages coexist with the local language. More often, they eventually replace it as older speakers die and younger ones adopt the more-useful tongue.

As Nicolas Ostler points out, "Modem media have produced a strange phenomenon, giving children a source of knowledge about the world which is independent of the knowledge that comes from their elders in their own community. [Since] it conveys a sense of wealth that is not available in most places ... it is not surprising that children are seduced by it..."
- Rosemarie Ostler

I think the type of knowledge which Daniel foresaw an increase in is the knowledge of God, and an increase in knowledge about Daniel's prophecy. I think the running to and fro which he foresaw was probably activity in relation to God's Word or to prophecy. That's been the general understanding of this verse, by many great men of God throughout church history (see Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Matthew Henry Commentary; Geneva Study Bible; and Jamieson Faucett and Brown Commentary).

The view that it refers to modern technology is only a modern view. It was never the standard take on that verse throghout church history.

And even if the modern view is the right view, we still can't assert on that basis that our generation must certainly be the last - because we can only compare current increases in the level of technology with past levels - we can't compare it with any future leaps in technology which may come in a future generation.

There was a time when the knowledge of God began to increase in Israel, just as Daniel foresaw. When John began to preach, the people who sat in darkness saw a great light. When Jesus began to preach, a great light shone. Through the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles it came to pass in Israel that no-one needed to say, 'Know the Lord', for they were all getting to know Him. God was writing His laws on the hearts of the multitudes who were being born from above.

The Gentiles were also grafted-in, and the knowledge of God increased among the Gentiles. Within Paul's own lifetimes it came to pass that the Gospel was preached to every nation under heaven. Within a few centuries, idolatry was virtually eliminated from Europe. And now in 2010 more nations and tribes are hearing about God than ever before.

Daniel's main concern however, was the nation of Israel. His prophecy therefore was most likely fulfilled by the events of the first century, when the New Covenant was first made with Israel, through Jesus Christ. Truly, the knowledge [of God] increased and many began heeding God's prophetic Word - the Gospel.

Since the day of Pentecost therefore, we have been in "the last days", the "last hour". Jesus could come at any hour, irrespective of any increases or decreases in human knowledge be it technology, languages, natural science or anything such like. The son of man cometh at an hour when you think not. And no-one knows the year, season, day nor hour.

Daniel 9:27 & Mark 13:14 - Fulfilled or Future?

2010-05-18T11:16:00.000+10:00

May I ask a question about your above explanation, in hopes that through your response I might attain what is lacking in my understanding?

Why do we need to look for a future fulfillment of a prophecy which has already been fulfilled?

My understanding is that although Antiochus Epiphanes did indeed set-up an abomination in the Temple, that was not the abomination which Daniel prophesied about, because Israel did not go into desolations after that event. Daniel's prophecy stated that the setting-up of the abomination would be followed by the desolation of the nation.

Jesus never mentioned a future special seven-year period of God's dealings with Israel, so my feeling is that it takes considerable licence to say that "Jesus predicted that this 'abomination of desolation'...would occur at the midway point..."

There was however one moment in history when an abomination was set-up where it ought not to have been, which was followed by the nation being made desolate for nearly 2,000 years - and that was in AD70, exactly as Jesus predicted.

So why should we expect a future repeat-fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 and of Mark 13:14?

And is it really the "general understanding of prophecy" that it must be fulfilled by a future European ruler? That wasn't the general understanding of men of God like Wesley, Matthew Henry, Jamieson Faucett and Brown. They believed it was fulfilled by the events of AD70, just as Jesus predicted.

The choice with which I am confronted is not a choice whether to believe the Bible or not - rather, it is a choice whether to believe in a modern, popular view or to believe in the general understanding of prophecy adhered to for centuries by many of the great reformers, revivalists, missionaries and evangelists of the Church.

So I'm still left with the question - is there a solid basis in Scripture for the assertion that a temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem before Jesus can return?

I sincerely hope you can help me clear this up, using actual Scriptures, with good hermneneutics, good exegesis, and drawing on generally accepted commentary by great men of God throughout church-history, rather than merely quoting the assertions of a popular, modern view.

Otherwise I will probably tend towards the general understanding of prophecy rather then the popular modern view - meaning, I am considering the view that Jesus could come back today if the Father wills, even though no replica temple has been built.

Daniel 12:4

2010-05-18T09:33:00.000+10:00

Has human knowledge increased in our generation?

"In one century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to offering remedial English in college." ~ Ross Mahan

Daniel's prophecy was probably about an increase in knowledge about God generally and about Daniel's prophecy specifically. Running to and fro probably referred to activity in relation to the Word of God or directly to Daniel's prophecy.

Must Jesus Return Within the Israel-1948 Generation?

2010-05-18T01:04:00.000+10:00

In my 31 years as a Christian, I've heard so many predictions about the end of the world, and all of them have one thing in common - they've all flopped. So what I am looking for is a Biblical reason why we should be so sure that the predictions which are being bandied around today about our generation are more reliable. Otherwise, I don't want to pass them on! Good idea, don't you think.

A verse popularly used to assert that Jesus must return in our generation is the verse about the fig tree. Do you mind if I express my feelings about that popular assertion, in hopes that by your response I might further enhance my understanding? I wonder how conclusive it really is that Jesus' parable of the fig-tree was a prediction about the rebirth of the State of Israel in 1948.

I know figs were once used as an illustration by the prophet Jeremiah. But far from talking about the rebirth of the nation, it was talking about God's decision that Israel should go into captivity (Jeremiah 24).

I know the vineyard was once used as an illustration by the prophet Isaiah. But on that occasion it was a vineyard of grapes and not figs that was mentioned - and neither did it talk about the rebirth of the nation, but rather the destruction of the nation (Isaiah 5).

I know fig trees were mentioned by the prophet Nahum, but that time it was not about Israel, but about the Gentile city of Nineveh. And once again, it was about the destruction of the city (Nahum 3:12).

I know Jesus told a parable about a fig tree that was fruitless for three years. Once again, it wasn't talking about the rebirth of Israel, rather it was a warning to Israel's leaders of the very opposite!

I know Jesus cursed a fig tree. But it doesn't say the event was symbolic about Israel; and even if it was, it didn't prophesy the rebirth of Israel, because Jesus said to the fig tree, "Let no man eat fruit from you henceforth and forever".

So I've observed two things in the Bible about the fig tree: Firstly, a fig tree didn't always symbolize Israel: it also represented a Gentile nation - but a statement was always included which explained the meaning that the fig tree was intended to have in the context; and Secondly, I've noticed that everytime the fig tree was used symbolically in the Bible, it was talking about the captivity or destruction of a nation, rather than its rebirth.

With that background in mind, allow me to now express my current feelings about the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet discourse, which you quoted. Knowing that a fig tree does not automatically symbolize Israel, the first thing I do is look for a statement to indicate that it was intended in this context to be about Israel - but I find an absence of a explanatory statement in the passage which conclusively identifies the fig-tree as Israel.

But even if it IS talking about Israel, I then look for support for your assertion that the blossoming of its branches is about the REBIRTH of Israel (even though in every other symbolic use of the fig-tree in the Bible, the context is always about the captivity or destruction and not the rebirth of a nation). Again, I don't find anything in the Olivet discourse which conclusively explains that the blossoming of the branches is about the rebirth of Israel.

To the contrary, it seems to be about the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, rather than about its rebirth as a nation (because Jesus explained, "So likewise ye, when ye see THESE THINGS come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand". What were "these things"? It refers back to the things Jesus had just finished describing - which was all about the destruction of Jerusalem, not its rebirth. I'm keeping in mind that Jesus was answering the disciples' questions not only about His coming but also about the signs of the destruction of the Temple and city.

But even if the blossoming of the fig tree IS talking about the rebirth of Israel rather than about its destruction, I then look for evidence in the text that events of 1948 could have fulfilled this. But I notice in Luke's account, that He said, "Behold the fig tree, and ALL THE TREES; when THEY now shoot forth, ye see and know..." So Jesus never talked about the fig-tree being the only tree to shoot forth its branches - rather, He mentioned ALL THE TREES. So apparently Jesus wasn't intending to be deliberate in His use of the fig-tree over other trees, in His parable.

But even if He WAS being deliberate in His mention not only of all ALL THE TREES shooting forth their branches but also in His menion specifically of the FIG TREE shooting forth its branches, and even if it does indeed refer to the rebirth of Israel, then it must mean that not only Israel but ALL the nations of the earth would also be rebirth. This did not happen in 1948.

So, is the parable of the fig tree and all the trees a prophecy about the rebirth of Israel in 1948? Dake's Annotated Reference Bible comments: "...this could not possibly be the meaning".

I think there is a perception that the view which you have alluded to has long been the established and accepted view - but actually it's only a relatively recent deviation from what for many centuries was the standard view held by many of the church's great reformers, revivalists, missionaries and evangelists.

For example, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible; Matthew Henry's Commentary; and Jamieson Faucett and Brown's Commentary do not take the view which you have asserted in regard to the Olivet discourse.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Dake, Wesley, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, nor am I saying the modern assertion isn't possible. I'm merely expressing my feeling that I don't see the popular modern take on the fig-tree verse in the Olivet discourse as being in itself substantial enough to be used as a basis for the assertion that Jesus must return within the 1948 generation. He said it's not for us to know the years, seasons, day, nor hour.

Am I still doing okay?

Signs of the Times

2010-05-17T22:43:00.000+10:00

Do you share my feeling that the literal meaning of the KJV rendering of Rev.6:6 necessitates a fulfillment while the Roman Empire was in existence and somewhere in the Roman Empire?

When I first read that verse in Revelation, it didn't change my eschatological view either - because I didn't have a presupposed view at the time. However, I can remember having a sense for many years whenever reading that verse that the details in the verse - details such as the standard of measurement; currency and the price specified - seemed deliberate, and seemed to set parameters for the timeframe in which it would be possible for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

That's if all the details are applied in their literal meaning. My view on whether or not a text should be taken literally is that a text should be taken literally unless the genre of the literature is a genre which is not meant to be taken literally, such as poetry. But even then, preferably there ought to be something in the text itself that indicates it shouldn't be taken literally. A need to make the meaning fit our presupposed idea is not a legitimate reason for not taking a text literally.

My view of Bible-translation is that a translator doesn't have the right to decide that a particular detail in the original is unimportant. I believe every detail in the original is inspired. So if the original says wheat will sell for "one penny" then it isn't allowable for a translator to change it to read "a day's wages". His job is to translate, not interpret. Even though a day's wages may have been equal to one penny at the time of writing, that isn't the detail which John heard in his vision - he specifically heard, "a penny". The difference can mean thousands of years of discrepancy in the intended time-frame of the prophecy's fulfillment!

Whilst I was reading the Bible on Sunday night, after studying a different topic for about half an hour, I then asked the Lord to teach me something about eschatology. The reason I asked Him, is because nowadays there is so much talk about "signs" and about the current global crisis and the end of the world.

I felt Him say, "Matthew 16". There I found that when the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, He told them that it's a wicked and adulterous generation which seeks a sign, and that no sign would be given to it, except the sign of Jonas.

So that's the first point I learned - Jesus has no intention of giving unbelievers spectacular signs. That flies in the face of what we're hearing end-times preachers say today: they are claiming that the tsunamis, earthquakes, the volcano, and the global financial crisis are spectacular signs that God is giving to warn unbelievers of the end of the world. When all along what Jesus actually said is, "...there shall no sign be given to it..." When preachers ignore that, and try to see eschatological significance in every disaster that happens, it's no wonder their predictions tend to flop!

Then I read that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for not being able to discern the "signs of the times". In other words, the only genuine signs which would ever be given were already in place and should have been evident to them. Obviously these signs had nothing to do with natural disasters!

I also noticed something about the word "times". Jesus was obviously not talking exclusively about the time of the last generation before His return - otherwise, how could He rebuke them for not discerning the signs of the times? Jesus was obviously talking about that time in which they lived.

Then I noticed that in the same chapter, Jesus goes on to speak about His coming. So that sets the scope of the time-period which Jesus was discussing. He was talking about the time in which the Pharisees then lived, and He was talking about all the time inbetween up until the time of His coming. It was in this period of time - inclusive - that Jesus said there would be no sign given. So once again He gave no indication that we should expect natural disasters which would be a conclusive sign of the last generation before His return.

The only extra sign Jesus said would be given would be the sign of the prophet Jonas, which happend to be fulfilled by Jesus spending three days in the belly of the earth followed by His resurrection. The death-burial-and resurrection of Jesus ought to be signs enough! whereof the Apostles were witnesses.

So what I learned on Sunday night is that Jesus seemed to make a disclaimer that any spectacular signs would ever be given which would be conclusive evidence of the last generation before His return.

That ought to put the significance of today's catastrophes in perspective!

Later-on Jesus did mention the signs of earthquakes, famines, wars etc., in Matthew 24. But notice these were not signs that would be given to the Pharisees or to this generation generally - because Jesus had already said that no sign would be given to it. The purpose of these signs specified by Jesus was in answer to specific questions not only about His coming, but also about the timing of the destruction of the Temple.

The language of most of this passage of Scripture is specific to Jerusalem. It isn't talking about Gentiles living in the uttermost parts of the earth! For example, Jesus said they wouldn't even have had time yet to finish preaching in all the towns of Israel before this event happens; and the final sign would be that they would see armies besieging Jerusalem - and then they should flee. That has no relevance to Christians living in Australia at the time of the second coming. But it would be relevant to first-century disciples living in Jerusalem.

He told them to pray their flight wouldn't fall on a sabbath. He said it would be a really difficult time for anyone who was pregnant. Why would Jesus bother to say such things if He was talking about the event of His second coming? In that advent, it matters not what day of the week it is nor whether or not someone is pregnant. But if you're about to flee the city of Jerusalem, then it's relevant! He was answering the question about the destruction of the Temple. And it came to pass exactly as Jesus said.

In the same passage Jesus also talked about His coming - and I don't find it easy to distinguish which of His statements refer to the destruction of the Temple and which of His statements refer to His coming. So it may be that Jesus was saying phenomenon such as earthquakes, wars, etc would also accompany the entire Gospel age as signs to the disciples of the nature of the days - the whole Gospel era is intrinsically the "last hour".

I don't find it easy to distinguish everything in Matthew 24, but at least I can see that the text doesn't prove as conclusively as we've been led to believe that phenomena such as volcanoes, global financial crises, and other catastrophes of 2010 have any value as signs of the last generation before Christ returns or as signs that world-events are about to escalate into great tribulation in our generation. It could happen - but it's not conclusive, based on this text.

So that means the text can't be used as a basis for making predictions about our generation. It's still true that "no man knows the day or the hour" and that "it's not for you to know the years nor the seasons which the Father has placed in His own power".

The term "The Great Tribulation" isn't even in the Bible in the KJV. In modern translations the terms exists - but not in the KJV. The KJV mentions "tribulation" generally, and "great tribulation" specifically at the time of the siege of Jerusalem - but it doesn't mention a special period called "The Great Tribulation" just prior to the return of the Lord.

I've pointed these things out to preachers recently, and they have responded by saying that they feel no need to differ from the generally accepted view. But the thing is, their view has only been the "generally accepted view" since their view was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible, and by Hal Lyndsey's book, and supported by recent Bible versions. Prior to that, the generally accepted view for centuries was the view expressed in the Matthew Henry Commentary, or in Wesley's Explanatory Notes of the Bible, or in Jamieson Faucett and Brown's Commentary. Our generation hasn't only lost some of the great songs and hymns of the church - it has also lost some of the historically accepted understandings of some key passages of Scripture. And a possible cause - or effect - of this, is that this generation is also by-and-large reading a text which takes licence which obscure the literal meaning in some key passages of Scripture.

Just a thought!

The Lord promises, "Call unto me and I will answer thee and show thee great and mighty things which thou knowest not". I love it when He does it!

NIV vs. KJV Eschatology

2010-05-17T14:47:00.000+10:00

Rev. 6:6 in the KJV says:

"...a measure of wheat for a penny..."

It was a prophecy about an imment crisis in wheat prices.

Notice three specifics about that translation:

(1) The unit of measure is specified - it was called the "measure" - the Grecian measure (which was more or less equal to one quart, and was the standard unit of measurement at the time of writing);

(2) The currency is specified - it was the "penny" - the Roman denarius; and

(3) The exact price is specified - "one penny".

Now notice how the NIV renders the verse:

"...a quart of wheat for a day's wages..."

Notice three specifics about that rendering:

(1) It made the unit of measurement unimportant, changing it from the Grecian "measure" - to the "quart";

(2) It eliminated any specific currency altogether; and

(3) Instead of specifying the price as "one penny" it broadened the price to "a day's wages" without being any more specific.

The licence taken by the NIV rendering leaves the meaning wide-open for anyone to think the prophecy might be fulfilled virtually anywhere, at any time - regardless of the unit of measurement, the currency, the actual price of the wheat, and regardless of what might be happening elsewhere in the world - so long as in the reader's own locality of concern the price of an equivalent quantity of wheat is equivalent to a day's wages in his location. The problem with that is it makes it virtually impossible to ever really know for sure whether the prophecy has been fulfilled even if we are seeing it apparently being fulfilled before our eyes.

Whereas if we take every point of the KJV translation literally, it means, as John Wesley explained, that:

"This must have been fulfilled while the Grecian measure and the Roman money were still in use; as also where that measure was the common measure, and this money the current coin" [underlining added].

Taking the KJV literally means therefore that the prophecy probably had to have been fulfilled soon after the time of writing and somewhere in the Roman Empire. When the price of one Grecian measure of wheat began selling for one Roman denarius, the readers would therefore know that the prophecy was being fulfilled.

Modern Bible versions such as the NIV may therefore be contributing factors in today's end-times views, and may be a cause of some of today's oft-repeated cycle of failed end-times predictions. But back in the day when the KJV was more widely in use, the standard understanding of many such prophetic passages of Scripture was quite different. Matthew Henry's bible commentary as well as Jamieson Faucett and Brown's commentary agree with Wesley's explanation above.

Is Progressive Taxation to Help the Poorer Fair?

2010-05-14T20:57:00.000+10:00

I don't take it for granted that "the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates to help the poorer", as some say.

Even if the wealthy are taxed at the same rate, they are still paying more tax than the not-so-wealthy are paying.

And seeing they are wealthy, presumably it's because they are clever entrepreneurs - so why take even more money off those who are most capable of using the money to create jobs? Is the Government really going to create jobs better than the nation's most experienced business-operators?

Leaving the money in the entrepreneurs' capable hands would eventually increase the Government's revenues anyway - because the nation's wealthiest are known for using their money to create more money - and hence, pay more taxes - unlike the poor who tend to use their money for day-to-day needs rather than for creating more money.

From an ethical point of view, it's interesting that in the Law given to Israel by God through Moses, a progressive tax was never imposed on society to help the poor - it was always a flat 10% for everybody without discrimination as to industry or amount of profit. That was the pattern in God's Word - the standard of justice and compassion.

So I don't think it ought to be taken for granted that the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates to help the poor. It's certainly worth considering whether there isn't a fairer and more successful way of delivering for the poor.

Compassion isn't justice if you're unfairly using someone else's money to do it.

Revelation 6:5,6

2010-05-14T10:34:00.000+10:00

5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A MEASURE of wheat for A PENNY, three MEASURES of barley for A PENNY; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

I wonder when this prophecy was fulfilled.

It's interesting to note that modern misrenderings of the above verses (such as the NIV) allow room for popular, modern end-times views; whereas the proper rendering of these verses (such as the KJV) lends stronger support to the more historically standard end-times view.

The proper rendering specifies that the unit of measurement was to be the “measure” – not a quart, nor a bushel, nor a loaf; it specifies that the currency in use was to be the "penny" – not “a day’s wages” in general, and certainly not the Dollar, nor the Euro, nor any other currency; and it specifies that the price of a measure of wheat was to be precisely "one penny" – nothing more, nothing less.

As John Wesley explained: “The word translated measure, was a Grecian measure…the Roman penny, as much as a labourer then earned in a day…THIS MUST HAVE BEEN FULFILLED WHILE THE GRECIAN MEASURE AND THE ROMAN MONEY WERE STILL IN USE; AS ALSO WHERE THAT MEASURE WAS THE COMMON MEASURE, AND THIS MONEY THE CURRENT COIN".

In other words, the prophecy, if taken literally, most likely had to have been fulfilled somewhere in the Roman Empire soon after John wrote to the seven churches.

But should the text be taken literally? Approaching any text with integrity normally requires that we take the text to literally mean what it says, unless the text itself indicates that we should take it another way. We certainly shouldn’t attempt to make a text mean something that it doesn’t actually say just so it fits our presupposed eschatological idea.

Otherwise we could end-up mistakenly looking for future fulfillments of a prophecy which may in fact have already been fulfilled. Could this be a core reason why, in recent generations, we are becoming all-too-familiar with the repeat cycle of failing end-times predictions? I wonder.

And as we have seen above, some modern mistranslations (such as the NIV) may actually be a contributing factor in such errors. Perhaps a return therefore to a more faithful rendering of the Scriptures (such as the KJV) could prove to be an aid towards a helpful avoidance of modern eschatological misprojections, and perhaps it could also result in a rediscovery of some worthwhile components of the historically standard end-times view which for centuries was espoused by many of the great reformers, revivalists, missionaries and evangelists of the Church. Just wondering!

In any case, as for the real meaning of the prophecy, time – if nothing else does – will tell. And in the meantime, the intention of the Scripture is always that believers draw strength from what is written by remembering that although hard times may come, it shall all be more than worth it in the end for those who overcome.

Jesus is coming soon!

Is Rev.5:6 a Prophetic Place/Time Indicator?

2010-05-13T20:37:00.000+10:00

The following is an example where a misrendering of certain Bible verses (in modern versions such as the NIV and the New Living Translation) could be mistaken as supporting a modern, popular eschatological view, whereas the more accurate rendering (such as that of the KJV) lends support more naturally to the more historically standard* eschatological viewpoint:

REVELATION 6:5,6
5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A MEASURE of wheat for A PENNY, three MEASURES of barley for A PENNY; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

The NIV misrenders "measure" as "quart" and the New Living Translation misrenders it as "loaf". "A penny" is misrendered in the NIV as "a day's wages" and in the New Living Translation it is misrendered as "a day's pay". Such misrenderings could easily be mistaken in a way which could affect one's eschatology.

Even though it's true that "a measure" may convert approximately to a quart (approximately an eighth of a US bushel; and even though it may be true that "a penny" was equal to a day's wages at the time when John was writing - such paraphrases could be mistaken to mean that the prophecy could be fulfilled just as easily in virtually any circumstance, in virtually any place and at any time, even where a different sytem of measurement may be in vogue besides the "measure"; where a different currency may be in use besides the "penny"; and where a day's wages may be a different amount to one penny, so long as the relative values are somewhat comparable.

For example, someone living in a member-country of the European Union, afer reading these verses in the NIV, in this year of AD2010, might assume that the prophecy is being fulfilled before his very eyes, if wheat prices ever fetch €49.53 per US bushel (based on a quart being equivalent to an eighth of a US bushel; and an eighth of a day's wages being equivalent to €49.35). And then, on that assumption, he might even feel emboldened to begin forecasting further predictions for the ensuing months and years - predictions of apocalyptic proportions.

But if instead of reading the NIV, the same person instead reads the same verses in a version which renders the text accurately (such as the KJV), he will notice that the text specifies a measure of wheat - not a quart, nor any other system of measurement; it specifies a penny - not the Euro nor any other currency; and it specifies a penny - not fewer nor more than a penny, but one penny.

He will be able to observe that the prophecy cannot apply so easily to a region and at a moment in history where the system of measurement in vogue is anything other than the "measure"; where the currency in use is anything other than the "penny"; and when the amount of "a [single] penny" is no longer regarded as a somewhat significant amount.

It will seem more natural to him then - especially if he reads the text in the literal sense - that the prophecy most likely had to have found its fulfillment in a region where the system of measurement in vogue was the measure; where the currency in use was the penny; and at a moment in history when the amount of one penny still had considerable significance.

He will be much less likely therefore to imagine that the prophecy is being fulfilled before his very eyes in his region which uses a different system of measurement; a different currency; and a different amount for the price of wheat than that which was deliberately specified by the text of the Bible; and at a time when a penny has different significance than what was intended by the Bible-verse in question.

He will also therefore be far less likely to feel emboldened to forecast predictions of apocalyptic proportions for the ensuing months and years. He will thus avoid repeating the now all-too-familiar cycle of failed apocalyptic predictions.

Instead, in all probability he will find that he concurs with the more historically standard view that there probably has been no better candidate for meeting the criteria required to fulfill these verses than regions within the Roman Empire shortly after John wrote the Book of Revelation.

* As John Wesley explained: "The word translated measure, was a Grecian measure, nearly equal to our quart. This was the daily allowance of a slave. The Roman penny, as much as a labourer then earned in a day, was about sevenpence halfpenny English. According to this, wheat would be near twenty shillings per bushel. This must have been fulfilled while the Grecian measure and the Roman money were still in use; as also where that measure was the common measure, and this money the current coin."

Could this go to the core of explaining why so many contemporary end-times predictions have a cycle of repeat-failure? It may be that Bible-readers are looking for a contemporary fulfillment of particular prophecies, in their own region and during their own moment in history, when in fact the particular prophecy may have already have found fulfillment in a region and at a moment in history which may have been specified or at least inferred by the text itself. And as we have seen, sometimes a contributing factor to such error is the inaccurate rendering of Bible-texts in some modern Bible-versions.

With a bit of poetic licence, perhaps the meaning of the above verses could legitimately be stretched to allow some room for the modern, popular eschatological view to be considered. However, doesn't the literal sense of the text seem to demand - or at least, more naturally support - the more historically standard eschatological viewpoint? (the more historically standard viewpoint being the explanation quoted above in the words of Wesley and favoured for centuries by other reformers, revivalists, missionaries and evangelists of the Church.)

The pertinent question then is, must the text be applied literally? Is it fair to say that if the Holy Spirit intended the prophecy to refer to a future time, He would have seen to it that the original text was worded in the way the NIV or the New Living Translation mistakenly renders it, instead of inspiring it to be written as it was, in a way which is deliberately specific as to the unit of measurement; the currrency of use; and the specific amount (specifically "a penny" rather than whether or not it was more generally just "a day's wages")?

An important consideration in answering that question is that good hermeneutics and exegesis require that we be loyal to that which is indicated by Bible texts themselves, rather than motivated by a need to allow a particular text to fit a presupposed, modern, eschatological viewpoint.

Time, if nothing else, will tell!

We Fulfill the Law Fully and Without Discrimination

2010-05-10T14:53:00.000+10:00

No particular sin - such as homosexuality - should be singled-out.

That's why Jesus said, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven".

And capitalist Christians aren't necessarily being inconsistent. I believe it's a midunderstanding of Jesus' statements about economics to think Jesus was introducing a new economic system that contradicted the ethics of Moses' Law.

Yes, Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his goods and follow Him. But Jesus didn't tell everyone to do the same. He told one would-be follower to instead go home and testify amongst his own family.

Yes many of the members of the early church in Jerusalem sold their possession and laid the money at the apostles' feet. But obviously not all of them did so, or else there wouldn't have been any houses left for them to meet in from day to day. Plus, this was not communism, because Peter told Ananias that what he owned was his own and that he was free to do with it what he wanted.

The apostles didn't expect this of anyone, they didn't teach it in their epistles, and neither did any of the other churches follow the same pattern. It was unique to Jerusalem, and necessary because of the unique circumstances there. And a few years later everyone was scattered from their possessions in Jerusalem anyway!

Jesus went to the cross as our substitute - but that doesn't mean every believer literally has to experience poverty to the extent of death upon a cross.

Moses' Law was clear about private property rights. Otherwise, "thou shalt not steal" could have no meaning. Jesus upheld the same ethic that the means of production should remain privately owned, or else He could not have taught people to be generous. You can't be "generous" with something that doesn't belong to you in the first place!

He didn't call everyone to give-up everything and follow Him as apostles. To those He did call, He promised them 100-fold in this life. To those who weren't called as apostles, Paul advised them to work and earn money so they can have enough to give to others.

Jesus' requirement of His disciples was not therefore different to the economic ethics of the Law. Jesus expemplified it.

Paul said that we fulfill the Law. That means we don't break any of the moral ethics that were beneath any point of Law.

It is the Spirit of God that empowers us to do this!

Hallelujah!

Jesus Explained the Law

2010-05-10T14:25:00.000+10:00

A proper understanding of the Law was meant to give people the key that would help them enter the Kingdom.

But the Pharisees, by twisting the Law so as to use it to justify their own murder, harshness, hypocrisy, extortion and sexual immorality, hindered people from acquiring the true understanding of the Law which might otherwise have prepared their hearts to enter the Kingdom.

The Law was meant to explain Kingdom-qualifying qualities such as love, mercy, patience, morality, justice, godliness and holiness.

But the Pharisees' misinterpretation of the Law robbed people of the benefit that a proper understanding of the Law could have given them, namely it could have explained righteousness and love and brought true heart repentance. But instead, the Pharisees' converts became twice the children of hell as themselves!

Entering the Kingdom required believing on Jesus, and repentance. A true understanding of Law - of God's righteousness and love - could have been the key that might have inspired that belief and repentance. But the Pharisees robbed people of the correct understanding which might have otherwise inspired that.

The Pharisees didn't only make the mistake of twisting the Scriptures to justify harshness. They also made the mistake of twisting the Scriptures to justify sexual immorality and other wrongs. Both mistakes could produce a lifestyle in our hearers that could hinder them from entering the Kingdom, in which case we would be responsible.

God's Grace Doesn't Diminish the Righteousness of the Law

2010-05-10T14:09:00.000+10:00

The way the text of the sermon on the mount reads means that Jesus was explaining, rather than improving on, the Law - by means of correcting the Jewish leaders' misapplication of the Law.

The Law was love in action. If we want to know what the Law meant, look at the life of Jesus - because He did what it says.

That's why Paul also said that Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Love is not an improvement on the Law - Love is the Law and the Law is love.

Jesus' comments were against the wrong way the rulers were using the Law - not against the Law itself.

I don't think we can find anything Jesus taught which actually broke the Law.

Jesus was able to make a case for everything He did and taught using the Old Testament Scriptures as His moral basis for doing so.

There were two ways in which the Jewish leaders were misapplying the Law. One, they were wrongly using it to justify their own immorality. Two, they were wrongly making it harsh on others.

But even if Jesus was improving on the Law, it certainly doesn't mean Jesus was now saying that adultery and sexual immorality is no longer a sin. If anything, He was upping the ante.

Even when Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery, He was not breaking the Law. The Law required that a woman could be stoned to death only at the testimony of two or three witnesses and that the witnesses had to be the first to cast a stone at her. But no witnesses remained to testify against her.

Therefore Jesus, being the only remaining man in the room, even if He had been an eye-witness (which He wasn't) would not have been required nor would He have been permitted by Law to condemn her. Jesus showed mercy without breaking or improving upon the Law! He demonstrated perfect compliance with the true spirit of the Law - which was both justice and mercy, not one at the expense of the other.

The leaders' hypocrisy was exposed. Where was the man who was found committing adultery with her?

As for the woman, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee...go and sin no more." He forgave her, but He never changed the fact that adultery is still a sin.

It's one thing to extend God's grace to sinners - it's another thing to say, as many are saying, that God no longer actually thinks there's anything wrong with sexual immorality.

I don't know firsthand how modernday "Pharisees" are treating homosexuals, but it sounds bad. As for me, over the years I have led female and male prostitutes in prayer to accept Jesus and seen them touched by the power of the Holy Spirit.

When sinners drew near to Jesus for to hear Him, I don't imagine He was saying things like, "Well you've heard that adultery and homosexuality are wrong, but I say to you it's okay." No - Jesus said He associated with sinners because they needed repentance. And because they were repenting, He said they would enter the Kingdom of God before the Pharisees!

One woman did not cease to weep and to wipe His feet with her tears. That was repentance. That's the effect that truth, combined with love, has.

But being harsh crushes people's spirit. And allowing immorality makes us equally guilty. But truth and grace is what Jesus was all about.

We should show God's love to all sinners. But many today are actually saying there's nothing wrong with continuing in sin. That only keeps sinners in the terrible bondages which they'd like to be free from.

Who are the New Pharisees?

2010-05-10T12:45:00.000+10:00

It wasn't the Pharisees who were demanding allegiance to the righteousness of the Law - it was Jesus who was doing that!

The Pharisees were twisting the Law in order to justify their own sexual immorality, covetousness and murder while hypocritically expecting more from others who weren't able to find the same false loop-holes.

Jesus, on the other hand, explained the true intent of the Law, and expected people to follow it with all their hearts.

For example, the Pharisees were twisting "eye for an eye" making it an excuse for harsh revenge.

But Jesus explained what "eye for an eye" really meant - and He expected people to comply with it. It was an expression that was intended to prevent the very thing the Pharisees were doing. It was intended to ensure that compensation at law must only be equal to the actual loss that was incurred, nothing more than that.

That remains an important principle in compensation law today. But the Pharisees twisted it to justify all kinds of harshness. In contrast to the Pharisees' harsh misuse of that Law, Jesus explained that that Law was actually designed to make people to become patient and fair.

Another example, the Pharisees were twisting the verse about writing a bill of divorce for finding uncleanness in your wife. They were allowing divorce for virtually any reason. They were actually using it to justify adultery.

But Jesus explained that the true intent of that Law was to allow divorce only for marital unfaithfulness. He even said it's wrong to fantisize over adultery. Jesus explained and demanded the true morality of the Law, unlike the Pharisees who used the Law to justify immorality.

So someone today who wants to live a godly life and who lovingly urges others to repent is not guilty of Phariseeism. Phariseeism is when someone uses the Scriptures and twists it in order to justify their own sexually immoral life, or extortion or murderer and yet hypocritically demands better of others. That's Phariseeism.

Humbly acknowledging God's standard of holiness is not Phariseeism.

"The grace of God," said Paul, "teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust".

Notice it is God's grace - and not Phariseeism - which teaches us to do that - to deny ungodliness and wordly lust.

Did you know that God's grace actually teaches? It instructs. It disciplines.

But not in a self-justifying, hypocritical, self-serving harsh way like the Pharisees were doing.

It teaches us to honestly live a godly life.

Also, the term "least in the Kingdom" may not mean that the person is admitted into the Kingdom but on a lower level. It probably means that in the estimation of the Kingdom, such people are considered the least and will therefore probably not enter the Kingdom. Just a thought.

End Times - What Has Been the Standard View?

2010-05-10T11:26:00.000+10:00

What am I saying about end-times? Nothing, it's the futurist, pre-tribulation, pre-millenial dispensationalists who are saying something - I only have questions about what they are so confidently saying!

Many think there's going to be a future 3½ Tribulation, yet concede the abomination of desolation may be past. But how can the 3½ years be in the future yet the abomination of desolation in the past seeing Daniel 12:11 seems to link the two themes together? Either they both must happen in the future, or they both already happened in the past.

If we take the view that they must both happen in the future, it presents a number of problems: the Temple doesn't exist anymore; the daily offerings already ceased nearly 2,000 years ago; and the city has already been desolated, just as Jesus prophesied.

Some people are confident both already happened in the past. The Jewish-Roman war lasted 3½ years; during that time Jewish leaders welcomed Roman idols to be set-up in the Temple area; and it ended with the Temple and city being made desolate.

If we accept that view, it also gives futurist pre-tribulationists a number of problems: it means they will have to find another basis for their belief in a future 3½ Tribulation! It would mean huge portions of Scripture which are popularly taken to be about a future Antichrist have actually already happened!

There are all kinds of excuses to get around this, one of which is the so-called "double-fulfillment" theory. It is claimed that the first fulfillment indeed was in AD67-70 and there will be a repeat fulfillment at the end of the age.

But I see a problem with the "double fulfillment" hermeneutic: it doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible.

Some people claim that Isaiah's prophecy about the sign of a virgin conceiving is one example: Isaiah's wife became pregnant soon after the prophecy and hundreds of years later Jesus was born of a virgin.

But how can that be a double fulfillment - Isaiah's wife wasn't a virgin! In all of history there has only ever been one virgin birth not two!

Some people claim that David's Psalm about "...you will not leave my soul in the grave, neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption..." is another example: they claim David was declaring his trust in God's protection of his own life and also prophesying about the future resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

But how can that be - Peter explained that David was not speaking about himself because David eventually died and his grave was still around in Peter's day. Rather, David, said Peter, being a prophet, had written exclusively about Jesus' resurrection. None of it was about David - all of it was about Jesus! It had only one fulfillment not two.

I can't find any example in the whole Bible where the apostles ever assigned more than one meaning to any prophecy. We may apply the lesson over and over again - but the actual historical fulfillment only happened once.

My feeling is that many believers today have just swallowed popular end-times ideas about these things - hook, line and sinker - without ever really examining what the Scriptures say.

Many believers also assume that the popular ideas about end-times today have always been the standard view - not realizing that the popular view is only a recent American invention and most men of God throughout church history had a very different understanding.

What Old Testament Laws Carry Through Into The New?

2010-05-09T23:00:00.000+10:00

Someone asked, What did Jesus mean by His statements in defense of the Law?

I think He literally meant exactly what He said. Keep in mind however that Jesus was speaking to those who were still under the Old Covenant. He wasn't speaking to Jews or Gentiles under the New Covenant because the New Covenant hadn't been ratified yet.

One example of this is when Jesus told the lepers to "go show yourselves to the priests," and as they went they were healed. Under the New Covenant, especially in Gentile nations, there was no Levitical priesthood, so Jesus' command to the lepers only had relevance to Jews who were still under the Old Covenant. There are several such instances in the Gospels.

Jesus never abolished the Law - rather, He demanded a more sincere obedience to the Law than the Pharisees. But, keep in mind that at that time Jesus' ministry was strictly to Jews who were under the Old Covenant. His statements need to be understood first of all in that light, and then after that, we shall see in what way they carry over into the New Covenant, for Gentile believers also.

2. I think many in the Church today have a wrong understanding of what Pharaseeism consisted of. Phariseeism consisted of twisting the Law in order to justify immorality - immorality such as adultery, extortion and murder. Jesus denounced that wrong use of the Law - but He never denounced law-keeping as it was intended by Moses. In fact, He demanded it. But remember again, Jesus was speaking to Jews who were still under the Law.

John the Baptist preached repentance. Jesus never rebuked John for legalism - because John had the true heart of the Law in mind and was himself trying to live a godly life.

The Pharisees on the other hand completely misrepresented what the Law itself meant, deliberately so. That's what Jesus was against. But He was never against the Law itself. Again, keep in mind this was for Old Covenant Jews.

There is no exact equivalent of Phariseeism today because we are no longer under the Law. However, if there was anything like it today, it would not be the person who is trying to live godly and who invites others to do so as well. That's not Phariseeism.

Something similar to Phariseeism today might be the sexually immoral theocratic leader who deliberately looks for dubious takes on Scripture so that he can practise all manner of sexual immorality, extortion and murder - and yet hypocritically demand better of his followers. And there have been incidences of this throughout Church history.

Just like the Pharisees demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, there have been Church leaders throughout church history who demanded the deaths of some of God's true servants in the Church.

That's more like the spirit of Phariseeism. It has nothing to do with someone who honestly believes that repentance is still a requirement for everyone who seeks to enter God's Kingdom. But keep in mind, Jesus was speaking to those who were still under the Old Law.

3. The two commandments of loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself weren't intended as a replacement of the remainder of the Law - rather, the rest of the Law hung on those two commandments.

In other words, all the other points of Law were really just case-studies, or extensions, of those two commandments. It didn't mean Jesus was saying, "Well as long as you do these two, it's okay to break the rest." No, He meant that obedience to all the other laws should bring a person to the place of obeying these two suprememe commandments - and vice versa. But keep in mind, He was speaking to people who were still required to keep the Law.

4. Someone asked about food laws and capital punishment for delinquent youth. Moses' Laws about delinquent youth were designed to prevent the very thing which many people mistakenly think they were designed to cause. In the cultures of Moses' world, honour killings by family members took place almost in epidemic proportions, and sometimes still do today in some cultures in that part of the world. This Law forbade that, because it required that the parents had to bring the person to the Elders. It prevented parents acting in a rage of wounded pride.

It was required that parents testify that their son had not responded to attempts at rehabilitation. This means a period of time had to have elapsed. Again, it prevented heated reactions.

It also meant that the family problem would become even more publicly known than before. So once again, family pride is eliminated as a cause of killing one's son.

Also, the types of problems mentioned included drunkenness, gluttony and rebellion. I don't get the impression it's talking about a mere thirteen or fourteen year old boy - do you?

In the whole of Bible history, there is not one recorded incident of any parent ever bringing their son to Law under this point of Law. So the Law worked - it prevented the very thing which many today mistakenly think it was encouraging. It actually caused families to work things out at home instead of doing honour killings.

The real intent of the food laws wasn't about certain types of meat being physically unclean or clean. The food laws were a requirement placed upon Old Covenant Jews in order to serve as a reminder that God distinguishes between profane and holy.

It was the same with circumcision. Circumcision wasn't about physical health primarily - the ritual served as a reminder of their covenant with God. That was the real point.

Same with the laws forbidding mixed fabrics. God didn't have anything against mixed fabrics per se - it was another illustration that God requires unblemished devotion and holiness. It was only for God's covenant people, the Jews, while under the Old Testament.

5. So what carries over into the New Covenant? EVERYTHING carries through without exception - but not the outward ritual - what carries through is the true, deeper intent and purpose of the points of law.

Things like circumcision, food-laws, sabbath-keeping, mixed fabrics, not cutting the corner of your beard, animal sacrifices, Levitical priesthood etc don't carry through - because those were outward expressions which only had relevance as vehicles of expressing certain morals and ethics, under the Old Covenant.

But the true moral, the ethic, the spiritual reality, the real point which all those things illustrated, carries through, and is fulfilled by our actions when we are led by the Spirit and walk in love. Without exception!

We now have the true holiness and the true spiritual blessing which every point of Moses' Law either illustrated or clearly taught, whichever the case may have been.

But this is not achieved by human effort - rather, it is achieved by the Spirit who is given to us. He poured God's nature of love into our born-again spirit. Therefore we have been made partakers of God's own nature. We can now walk in love, and love fulfills the true intent of every point of Law. Hallelujah! Receive it today.

Great Falling Away

2010-05-06T22:30:00.000+10:00

When Paul said there would come a great falling away, do you think it refers to an especially bad falling away immediately before the coming of Christ?

I think it was fulfilled within Paul's own lifetime. Everyone in Asia forsook him. Many of the Hebrew Christians were falling away. John was always battling wrong doctrine in the church. After the apostles died, wrong doctrine soon became entrenched and reached a peak during the Middle Ages. Buddhism started. Then Islam. Even amongst "Christians", eating meat and getting married was forbidden, just like Paul predicted. It took nearly 1,500 years before the true light of the Gospel could again be preached with any sort of freedom. Common people were forbidden from owning Bibles. Sexual immorality and murder were common amongst ecclesiastical leaders.

Are things really so much worse than that in the Church today, like some end-times preachers would have us believe?

The Book of Revelation does not say that we in the 21st century are the Laodicean church. The Laodicean church was a church that literally existed in the first century.

To say the Book of Revelation prophesies a global false religion in the last days is just a theory.

Certainly it is a serious concern that many churches nowadays are going downhill in their doctrines. But it's nothing new. It's happened before - and it wasn't the end of the world. God can send revival, just like He has in the past. It's not necessarily a sign that ours is the last generation.

Wrong doctrine is something that the church always battled, especially after the foundational apostles went to be with the Lord - and it's something the church will probably always have to contend with right up until when Jesus comes.

Whether or not the Bible prophesies a special falling away in the minutes immediately preceding the return of Christ I don't know.

Is Our Generation More Significant?

2010-05-06T13:19:00.000+10:00

I haven't necessarily missed the whole point of the End-Times, I don't think, which is faithfulness and soul-winning - it's just that the purpose of this post is not to discuss the importance of soul-winning.

In another Post I may discuss soul-winning, eternity and urgency. I may discuss the soon return of the Lord, because I believe in all those things.

What I am discussing here is whether or not current affairs indicate that ours must be the last generation.

I question whether today's technology, travel, deception, wars, rumours of wars, nation rising up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places are any more significant in our generation than what has already happened in previous generations over the past 2,000 years.

I'm not actually asserting that our generation is definitely not more signficant - I'm merely questioning whether it really is.

When challenged, it's typical of people who can't substantiate their position from the Bible to switch the topic, to switch the focus, to something like soul-winning and eternity - and those topics are important. But the result is the question never gets resolved: so the same erroneous end-times predictions get repeated over and over again.

(It's like pro-gay activists, when they realize they're unable to substantiate their own position from the Bible, they switch the topic and start discussing instead whether people are being judgmental. But being judgmental was never the topic - the topic was, "Does the Bible say homosexuality is okay?" Most people are afraid of being accused of being judgmental, so they back down, and the pro-rights activist goes away without having to resolve the question.

Or it's like pro-socialists, when they realize they can't substantiate their position from the Bible, they switch the topic and start discussing instead whether you lack compassion. But the question was never, "Should we show compassion?" The question was, "Does the Bible teach communism?" Most people are afraid of being accused of lacking compassion, so they back down, and the socialist goes away without having to resolve the question.)

Same with End-Times pundits. When they realize they can't substantiate their own assertions from the Bible, they quit trying to answer the specific question and instead switch the topic to the questioner's lack of focus on soul-winning or lack of focus on something more important. It happens every time. And because most many people are afraid of being accused of lacking focus on soul-winning or other important spiritual things, they back down, and the end-times enthusiast goes away without having to resolve the question. The result is that the same erroneous predictions get repeated over and over again.

Some of the repeat predictions are quite entertaining! Like this week someone told me the earth is going to be scorched by solar activity this year and governments all over the world including the USA are even now preparing underground cities for people to take shelter - Lol!

I've made a list of all the dates which people claimed was to be the return of the Lord, and their reasons. It's now eight pages long and keeps getting longer. May I use it as a party-joke? It makes me laugh out loud nowadays.

I don't happen to feel afraid of being accused of lacking focus on soul-winning or more important things. I'm not naive to such smoke-screens which people put-up instead of facing the inadequacy of their own assertions. Therefore I don't have any need to back down from the question, when someone's last line of defence is to try to shift the focus away from the question.

It doesn't intimidate me when someone tries to squirm their way out of answering the question by switching the focus to another topic or by turning it into an accusation against me, even if they're winning way more souls than me.

I've never questioned, "Should we focus on soul-winning?" or, "Is Jesus coming again? The answer to those questions of course is yes, and yes.

My question hasn't even been about the integrity of people who said things which didn't come true.

My question has always been and still is quite simple: do current affairs really mean our generation is way more significant than previous generations?

Is the earthquake that happened in Chile in February in which there were 486 confirmed fatalities really more significant than the Shaanxi earthquake in January 1556 in which there were 830,000 fatalities?

Is the Swine Flu of 2009 in which 10,000 people died really more Biblically significant than the Spanish Flu in 1918 which killed 20-100 million?

Is the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in April in which there were no casualties and no damage to property - even though flights were interrupted across Europe for a few days - is it really more eschatalogically significant than the Mt. Tambora eruption in 1816 which had a death toll of 92,000?

Is the September 11 attacks in the USA in which there were 2,973 victims really more prophetically significant than the Sunni Islamic Ottoman empire which spanned 7.2 million square kilometres of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, waging endless wars killing an innumerable number of people all the way from the year 1299 until the empire finally came to an end in 1923?

Is hurricane Katrina in which 1,836 people died in 2005 and lots of damage was done to property in the city of New Orleans really more significant than the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD70 in which 60,000-1,100,000 civilians died, the 1000yr old Temple was destroyed, after which the location remained desolate for nearly 2,000 years?

Are such calamaties really escalating in our generation at a rate and with a ferocity and casualties far worse than at any other time in history? Are men's hearts today failing them for fear, more than during any other event in history?

Remember Bankcard, barcoding, Y2k, Gulf War, 1980s planetary alignment, Fabian Society, Illuminati, Pine Gap, 1970s oil crisis, Cold War, WWII, WW1, Hitler, American Civil War, bubonic plague, Middle-Ages persecutions, numerous historical wars, worldwide empires and economic systems, historical volcanos, pestilences, famines, false Christs, and the destruction of Jerusalem - seeing those tragedies weren't signs of the last generation, upon what grounds are we thinking the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April in which 11 people died must be a more sure sign of the end?

It's just a question - I'm not even asserting an alternative view - I'm just asking a question. It's amazing how people report that I have an alternative view when really it's they who have a view - I'm just asking a question.

The onus of proof is on those who are making the assertions. Although I haven't said so before, I do think it's become an issue of integrity. If a person makes assertions knowing that he can't back it up without caring so long as it wins souls anyway - well it's still a lie.

I've made other types of mistakes in the past in my life, but I desire to become exemplary especially with my words, like Samuel of whom it is said that he "...grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground."

None of his words fell to the ground! President Bush said of Prime Minister Howard, "When he says something, you can take it to the bank". I want my words to be like that. In the Judgment we will give account of every idle word we have spoken.

I wouldn't want a single person to go to a lost eternity because my repeated carelessness about end-times predictions turned someone away from having faith in the integrity of the Scriptures.

It's not good enough to say, "Oh well, it makes us evangelize. It wakes people up to realize we're in the last hour". If what we are saying isn't true, it lacks integrity. Sooner or later, it's going to turn someone off from believing.

There is enough power in known truth without needing to concoct spectacular stories which may or may not be true. A person should at least say that it's only an opinion. He should tolerate questions.

If an end-times proponent repeats similar errors over and over again instead of learning from his past errors; and then when someone questions it, if instead of addressing the question with integrity he changes the topic or shifts the focus into an attack on the person asking the question meanwhile repeating the same errors without caring as long as it wins souls and sells books - what's up with that!

"Be ye perfect as I am perfect," says the Lord.

I'm not asserting an altnerative view. Who knows, maybe my questions will be answered and I will start believing exactly as others do. But for now, I have a question, not a view.

My question is not about the soon return of the Lord or about soul-winning - I have no questions about that. I only question what are the grounds for being so sure that the microchip really has any more to do with the mark of the beast than barcoding, Bankcard, tattooing, Catholic indulgences or Nero did.

Down through the centuries, Bible commentaries such as Wesley, Matthew Henry, Geneva Study Bible, and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown had a different take on end-times Scriptures. The view often repeated today is a more recent Americanized view popularized by Schofield and Hal Lyndsay - it isn't the traditional view that was held by many of the great revivalists, reformers, evangelists and missionaries of the Church.

Many people today now repeat the ideas which were popularized by the Americans Schofield and Lyndsay without checking first what other great men of God traditionally believed about the same Scriptures, and often without even checking to see if the Bible really said such things at all. Like:

Where does the Bible say there is going to be a seven-year Tribulation?

Where does the Bible say there is going to be a one-world Government?

Why isn't the Antichrist mentioned in the Book of Revelation?

Why isn't the term "The Great Tribulation" in the Bible (KJV)?

Why did Jesus say all those signs would be fulfilled within His generation? why did He say some people wouldn't even have died yet before it happens?

Wasn't part of Matthew 24 an answer to the question about the fall of Jerusalem which later happened in AD70? If all of Matthew 24 is about the end of the world and the second coming, why did Jesus tell them to flee from the city of Jerusalem, and to pray it doesn't happen in winter, and to wish not to be pregnant at the time? Why would it matter if Jesus was coming? and why the Jerusalem-focus if it applied universally to Gentile believers also?

Why did Jesus say the twelve apostles wouldn't even have had time to finish their tour of preaching throughout Judean cities before these things happen?

Why is everyone concerned about Gog and Magog attacking Israel later this year when according to the Book of Revelation the battle of Gog and Magog won't take place until after the 1,000 years?

Where does the Bible say a replica Jewish temple will be rebuilt? Do you believe it must be rebuilt, brother?

Why did John expect his first-century readers to be able to identify the beast based on the numerical value of his name, in the first century?

Why did John say that one of the kings associated with the beast was someone who "now is", that is, who was already alive and in office in the first century?

If a future Antichrist is going to deceive the Jews into thinking he is their Messiah, wouldn't he have to be a Jew? The Jews know Messiah comes from the Tribe of Judah - a direct descendant of David. So the Antichrist can't be the European Union, or President Obama, or Islam.

And if the Bible does say such things, why not see what other great men of God besides Schofield and Lyndsay believed about those Scriptures?

Those are some questions which, when I ask, instead of giving me an answer, people always change the topic and usually accuse me of something like not focusing on souls.

They accuse me of having an alternative view, when really it's Schofield and Lyndsay who invented an alternative view to what was historically the Orthodox view.

To me, if predictions based on a premise keep failing, then the premise needs to be questioned.

I really want to know the truth. I have no interest in being sensational about things if my words are going to fall to the ground.

I don't want to be the author of a book like, "Eighty-Eight Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Back in '88" - regardless of how many souls the book might win.

"Buy the truth, and sell it not" - Proverbs 23:23

I think I can honestly say that I seek to be a lover of truth:

"...they received not the love of the truth..."

At the end of the day, truth will inspire more evangelism, and truth will win more souls for eternity, than anything else.

Are the current affairs of our generation really more signficant than that of previous generations? That's all I'm asking.

I still believe the task of the hour is soul-winning.

I still believe Jesus is coming soon. When I say soon, I mean "soon" compared with eternity. I tend to believe Jesus can come at any hour, although I'm not 100% sure about that.

Do you believe Jesus can come at any hour? Most people say they do, but really don't. For example, most End-Times preachers believe a temple must first be rebuilt in Jerusalem. How many years would that take to construct?

Most End-Times preachers believe the calamities we are experiencing are only "the beginnings of sorrows, but the end is not yet". So how many more years could it take before things escalate?

So, they don't really believe He can come at any hour. But I tend to believe, although I'm not sure, that Jesus could come right now, if the Father wills. It's possible for me to consider this view because I'm not so convinced like End-Times preachers are that a temple needs to first be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

I'm not so convinced that there needs to first come a major escalation in natural calamities. Those signs and calamities preceded the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, just like Jesus said they would; those calamities have also been happening in every generation ever since. I question whether it's factual that they have escalated in our generation or even whether they need to before Jesus can come back.

I know a lot of believers say calamities have escalated - but does anyone else think so? do unbelievers think so? are unbelievers hearts failing them for fear?

Because I question what has become the popular view, it means I actually have a stronger sense that Jesus could come at any hour than people can who have the popular belief system. In the popular belief system, Jesus can't come unless there is an escalation of calamities first; or perhaps He can't even come unless there is a rebuilt Temple first. But because I question whether that's necessarily Scriptural, it means I'm open to the possibility that He could actually come right now today.

In other words, even though End-Times pundits often switch the topic into an accusation of not focusing on souls and eternity - it means I can actually have a stronger urgency about such things than people can who hold theirpopular view - because I can be open to the idea that maybe nothing more needs to happen first before He can come: maybe He can come today.

Do you see what I mean? The popular view says, "This, this and this is now happening worse than ever before [even if it isn't happening] - therefore this and this may happen soon - and after that, Jesus can come"; whereas because I question that, I'm more open to the idea that says, "Maybe Jesus can come right now today because all those signs have already been happening for nearly 2,000 years". Get it?

I question whether the signs of which Jesus spoke were ever meant to indicate the final generation before Jesus comes. There probably will be no indication of the final generation. That day will take everyone by surprise.

Rather, I think the purpose of the signs was to indicate when the destruction of the Temple was near so that the disciples could escape the city with their lives (AD70); and it was meant to describe the signs which would accompany every subsequent generation, showing the entire Church age in every generation beginning on the day of Pentecost and continuing to the present, that these are indeed the "last days", the "last hour".

I think the Holy Spirit has always told believers in every generation that they need to be prepared for Christ to come at an hour when they think not. Does that mean there didn't need to be an escalation of calamities or certain things happening before Jesus could have come?

By being open to the idea that Jesus can come today, am I being too urgent? am I missing it that things first must escalate and a Temple has first to be rebuilt?

I welcome any helful input you may have.

Genesis Chapter 1

2010-05-05T10:25:00.000+10:00

1-5 All the events of verses 1-5 appear to have taken place on the first day - because God wouldn't have created the earth nor would His Spirit have moved upon its formless void for a purposeless, timeless period. This calls into question the "Gap" theory and the "Pre-Adamic Race" theory.

When God gives us an opportunity, at first the circumstances may seem formless and void - but it is up to us by faith to speak light and form and thereby to give definition to the opportunity. We can exercize the faith of God. Even the Spirit of God awaits our faith-enactment through our spoken word followed by our action. And you have to know what to say, what to decree.

There is also a progression in development. One day builds upon the former. Achieving a divine purpose often requires building consistently over a period of days. You might not get far if you fulfill a divine purpose only for one day.

4 God assesses His work. When we assess our work, can we conclude that it is "good"?

God distinguishes between things: between light and darkness; between holy and profane; between soul and spirit.

5 A "day" begins at evening and concludes with daylight.

The days were 24hour periods - one period of darkness followed by one period of light. If a day was a thousand years or longer, plant-life which depends upon photosynthesis for growth, could not have survived.

God names and numbers things.

6 God speaks, pronounces, decrees, before doing. His Word is supreme. See note on verse 26

8 The "Heaven" of verse eight is probably the same "heaven" in which the birds fly (verse 20). This may help to identify the "firmament".

14-18 The sun, moon and stars were made for earth's benefit. There is no mention of them being made as a home for extra-terrestrial life.

When God made animals and trees, He evidently made them with the appearance of age - that is, He made them to instantly appear fully grown. In the same way, God caused light from distant stars to immediately begin appearing on the earth. Modern dating methods may give exaggerated results for the age of the earth or universe because they cannot take this instant appearance-of-age at creation into account.

Plants and animals were created after their kind and given the ability to reproduce after their kind. This is a denial of the theory of a common origin of all species.

26 There is a plurality of persons within the Godhead.

God - began every action with a spoken pronouncement, a decree. His Word was spoken in consultation with two or three witnesses. There was a first speaker within the Godhead, meaning that authority was recognized. Every action was later assessed and deemed to be not only good, but very good. That is godliness.

Both male and female are made in God's own image.

Jesus Never Repudiated the Ethics of the Law

2010-05-04T15:58:00.000+10:00

"Ye have heard that it hath been said...but I say unto you..."

Jesus was repudiating the Pharisee's misapplication of the Law - not Moses' Law itself.

For example, His comments about the "eye for an eye" line used by Jewish leaders was His explanation of the real intent of that portion of Law in contrast to the way the Pharisees were misapplying it - it wasn't a repudiation of the relevance of Moses' Law.

The Pharisees had been misusing that point of Law as an excuse for revenge and for harshness and inequality in punishment; whereas the real intent of the "eye for an eye" law as given by God through Moses was never meant to be a licence for revenge and was never meant to be taken literally - quite the opposite.

It never meant that if you knock my tooth out, I can literally knock your tooth out. It was only an expression that meant that the restitution demanded by Law had to equal the damage that was incurred - nothing more, nothing less.

It meant that the restitution demanded had to be the same for everyone regardless of the status of the person.

It meant a victim couldn't react in a rage of revenge and determine on his own what would be a fitting compensation for him to exact upon the person who disadvantaged him: the restitution could only be exactly according to the damage.

And it had to be determined at the hands of a magistrate, not a private revenge thing.

In the world of Moses' day, that would have been a new concept of mercy and fairness in law, considering the treatment the Jews had been accustomed to at the hands of their Egyptian slave-drivers!

"Eye for an eye" was actually meant to prevent the kinds of actions which the Pharisees were wrongly using it to justify.

So Jesus illustrated the true intent of the Law by teaching that His diciples would have to do better than the Pharisees - His disciples shouldn't immediately react to a mere slap on the cheek; they should have a certain amount of willingness to suffer a little bit of wrong instead of immediately taking matters into their own hands; they should tolerate others being a little bit demanding of them before drawing the line.

David as King understood the Law in that spirit. And Jesus was bringing His disciples back to what was truly required by God's Law - and in God's Kingdom - in contrast to what the Scribes, Pharisees, ancients and them of old time were wrongly perpetrating.

(This also seems to be the understanding expressed in Wesley's Notes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, People's New Testament, and Geneva Study Bible.)

Don't Do Anything In Haste, Fear or Panic

2010-05-04T10:11:00.000+10:00

A helpful post from Dr Rodney Howard-Browne:

"And having done all to stand, stand therefore having your lions girt about with truth - the truth that it is speaking about is the truth of the word of God. There are many things that come against us in our lives and the bible calls the attack the fiery darts of the wicked one - the thing that quenched those darts are the shield of faith - but what do you do when it's like a barrage - attack after attack - the word declares and having done all to stand - stand - stand your ground - don't do anything in haste, fear or panic - stand firm on the promises of God and the word of God declares stand still and see the salvation of God."

Daniel 12:4

2010-05-01T19:38:00.001+10:00

Personally I've never felt fully persuaded that Dan.12:4 is a direct prophecy about modern technology: it was probably primarily about an increase in the knowledge of God and of Daniel's prophecy (Wesley, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown & Geneva Study Bible seemed to have a similar take on it)

Daniel 12:4

2010-05-01T19:38:00.000+10:00

The "End" of the World

2010-04-20T14:29:00.000+10:00

Save that thought! I just had a thought that may have implications about eschatology. The word "end" in the Bible - it seems it doesn't always literally mean "end" but can also mean "future" or "outcome".

For example:

When God promised Israel through the prophet Jeremiah, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end", He wasn't only talking about Israel's final end - He was also talking about what the outcome would be for Israel, what Israel's future - spanning a considerable period of time - would be.

When James exhorted, "...ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy..." he wasn't referring to the literal end of Job's life - He was referring to the outcome of the whole saga of the Book of Job, which was the restoration of all things that lasted a considerable number of years thereafter in Job's life.

When Paul exhorted, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation", he wasn't meaning that they all died, although some of them may have died already - rather, he was meaning to consider the fruit, or outcome in their lives of the faith they were living by.

"End" doesn't necessarily mean the chronological demise of something - but it may refer to its "future outcome" - a state which, once started, may continue for quite a long time before its final "end" comes.

For futher research:

So, when the disciples asked Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple and the "end" of the world, could it be that part of Jesus' answer (in Matthew 24) was not exclusively about the literal "end" of the world but could some of it also have been about the "future outcome" of the world? After all, the disciples' questions seemed to be prompted by Jesus' initial predictions about the Temple, not about the whole world.

Three Points of Law and the Manner in Which We as New-Testament Believers Fulfill Them

2010-03-06T18:28:00.000+10:00

Just a further comment about the way in which we DO fulfill all of the particular points of Law singled-out in the above article. We don't, as the article says, accept only part of the Law as inspired and authoritative while shrugging off another part of it. That's not what God's grace taught us to do. As we walk in the Spirit - walk in love - we fulfill the ethics that formed the basis of every single point of the Law. We may express some of those ethics through a different vehicle now that we are under a New Covenant - but the underlying moral ethic is unchangeable, and by God's grace we as New Testament believers have been graciously enabled to fulfill all of those ethics to the full.

The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)

The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More

Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.

(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.

Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.

The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)

The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.

Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.

Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).

By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.

God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.

Natural Disasters - a Judgment of God?

2010-03-06T18:26:00.000+10:00

Are natural disasters a judgment of God? A friend of mine said, "If it looks like judgment, feels like judgment, and acts like judgment - then it is judgment". Something I'll keep in the back of my mind for future thought.

The Meaning of Grace

2010-03-04T12:42:00.000+10:00

I think it means that nothing Jesus ever said or did was intended to be construed as Him putting-aside the requirement of the Law. The religious leaders of the day deliberately misapplied the Law to suit their own lusts. But Jesus brought-out the true spirit of the Law and always fulfilled it perfectly on every point. And He expected no ... See Moreless of His disciples! Jesus didn't want anyone to think that He came to destroy the Law. He said He came to fulfill it. And the message of the Gospel is that through the indwelling Spirit of God, believers too are empowered to fulfill the righteousness of the Law. The Gospel didn't teach us to be licentious towards immorality. God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. The Prophets also foresaw the day when God would take out the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh and write His Laws in our hearts and cause us to walk according to the spirit of His precepts and His ordinances. That's the power of the new birth, without which no-one can see the Kingdom of heaven. The Gospel didn't lower the benchmark - it raised us up to the benchmark. Hallelujah! Every point of Moses' Law can be summed-up in one word: love. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law. Every point of Law taught Israel something about love. Now that we are under a New Covenant, we may not express all of the points of Law in the same manner that was appropriate under the Old Covenant. We will however express the principle that was illustrated by the Law, in its true meaning - on every point. The Law gave people only a shadow of what it means to walk in love. But the indwelling Spirit does more than that - He actually shed abroad God's love into our very own hearts, enabling us to now walk in love as He walked. Through His exceeding great and precious promises, we have actually been made partakers of the Divine nature. To truly be called His children therefore, we ought to walk as He walked. In the Book of Revelation, we read that Jesus was not happy with any church-member who practised or taught sexual immorality, or who condoned it in others. The message of the Gospel is not a licence to the flesh or a diminutive of the spirit of the Law on any point. In the Book of Revelation the believers were warned not to add to nor diminish anything that was written. Since we live in the Spirit, we can also walk in the Spirit - and the nine fruits of the Spirit will keep us from breaking any principle that was underneath any point of the Law. Grace isn't antinomian - it is Divine empowerment to fulfill the Law in its true, fulfilled spirit. And if we sin - if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. How wonderful, how pure, is God's message of love and holiness!

How We Fulfill the Law

2010-03-04T12:41:00.000+10:00

Christian Communism?

2010-03-02T17:07:00.000+10:00

There was certainly a large-scale redistribution of wealth that took place in early Church in Jerusalem.

We could certainly lift our game! What an exciting way to live.

But I don't see it as a mandate for the LEGISLATED redistribution of wealth, like what takes place under Communism and Socialism. Neither do I see it as a mandate for Christian communalism.

I see the giving in Jerusalem more as voluntary, generous, necessary, extraordinary, limited, and unique.

In my mind, Acts 5:4 eliminates that possibility:

"WHILES IT REMAINED, WAS IT NOT THINE OWN? AND AFTER IT WAS SOLD, WAS IT NOT IN THINE OWN POWER?"

It was voluntary. And the means of production remained privately owned.

It wasn't demanded. It wasn't taught. It wasn't repeated elsewhere in the Book of Acts.

But no doubt there are circumstances in which that kind of extravagent giving will again be temporarily called-for in response to some immediate emergency.

Not sure how much the topic interests you, but I might explain my reasoning a bit more...

Ananias and Sapphira were rebuked because they had agreed together to lie to the Holy Spirit - they were never under any compulsion to give. From start to finish, their giving was voluntary. The means of production always remained privately-owned.

The Apostles hadn't demanded it nor did they later make a doctrine out of it. It wasn't repeated by other Churches elsewhere. This didn't become the expected lifestyle for all believers of all times in all places in all circumstances. This wasn't the charter of a new economic system. And there was no taxation involved.

So I guess I don't mind anyone repeating that program of redistribution, so long as they also follow the same example of private ownership and free-will! (Anyone should be allowed to opt-out.) But that's not usually the case under Communism and Socialism is it.

Here is a quote from the People's New Testament Commentary:

"It does not describe a community of goods, but a miraculous benevolence: (1) the goods were not a common fund, but each one had goods that he possessed; (2) he did not say that his goods were his own; (3) they used all as if it belonged to all; (4) there were none that lacked, for (5) those that had houses and lands sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. It was a time when a great liberality was called for. Thousands of Jews from abroad had become Christians and must remain at Jerusalem until instructed in the gospel. It was a great emergency, and the church was equal to it, for they brought money, goods, and the proceeds of houses and lands to sustain those who lacked. This continued until God was ready to send them forth, and when the persecution arose about Stephen they went everywhere preaching the word (Ac 8:4)."

Another reason why I'm personally reluctant to take it as a basis for LEGISLATED redistributionism (as an economic strategy or model) is that I don't think DOCTRINE should be founded on historical and poetical books of the Bible alone: I think doctrines ought to be able to be substantiated by clear statements made in the teaching books of the Bible - especially for something as major as a new economic system!

This was an isolated incident in a historical, not doctrinal, book of the Bible, the Book of Acts. Furthermore, even the story itself tells us that this was not compulsory. It wasn't the introduction of a new set of economic rules. It was pure generosity.

The redistribution that took place in Jerusalem was never demanded, taught, repeated, nor mentioned again, not in practice nor in precept.

None of the Gentile churches were mentioned in the Book of Acts as having ever adopted the practice. The Apostles in Jerusalem hadn't demanded it - so neither was it taught in the Epistles to any of the Gentile churches.

Other activities which happened at Jerusalem (such as their habit of continuing in the apostles' teaching; and fellowship; and breaking of bread; and prayers) were later formalized into doctrine by the Episltes and were always repeated by the Churches universally.

But the level of liquidation and sharing of property that took place in Jerusalem did not find an ongoing place in Apostolic doctrine or practice.

This was an extraordinary response to a unique need. Jerusalem was a politically and economically disadvantaged outpost of the Roman Empire.

(It was so poor that even many years after when churches became established among the Gentiles, it was still necessary that the Gentile churches continued the practice of financially supporting the poor in Judaea.)

And to make the need even greater, thousand of visitors from all over the world had just been added to the Church. None of them owned anything in Jerusalem and all of them needed to be housed and fed.

And everyone could sense persecution was brewing. A short time later all the believers except the Apostles fled the city, leaving everything behind.

And then a few decades later, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. Jesus had forewarned them that this event would take place within their generation.

Liquidating, therefore, was a good strategy. In fact it was their only option.

I know of a time when this happend in Sri Lanka. Believers started feeling led to sell their houses and live in extended-family groups and share their resources. Two years later, the war intensified, people had to flee their lands - and everyone who hadn't sold their houses lost them anyway.

But not everyone in Jerusalem sold everything - or else none of them would have had houses in which to meet. It says they "met daily from house to house".

Phillip was one of those who was present in the early Church at Jerusalem, but later in the Book of Acts we are told that the apostles stayed in Phillip's house where he lived with his four daughters. Evidently then Phillip the Evangelist didn't think Peter had instituted Christian Communism!

Paul didn't instruct the Gentile churches to do as the Jerusalem Church had done. Instead he encouraged them to take advantage of their economic freedom, to "work" with their own hands (something the believers in Jerusalem had little opportunity to do) so they would "have" (i.e., own) so they could then "give" (i.e. voluntarily give) to others.

While he was in Rome he rented his own house. Notice he didn't instruct the church-members that they should be communally sharing all their accommodation with him. He rented his own place - for two full years.

Christian communes usually fizzle out. The Holy Spirit has historically led believers to form temporary communes during emergencies - but not as a blueprint forever.

Wherever Christians have tried to stay in communes beyond their use-by date, problems arose. I think it breaks with Biblical principle - except during emergencies.

For example, after an earthquake and a tsunami, it may be necessary for temporary tent-cities to be set-up and for wealth to be voluntarily redistributed. But that doesn't mean the victims should stay living together and dependant on others for the rest of their lives!

A good example of the problems that can arise was the Plymouth Colony in North America. They tried to base their new society on shared farming-land, on shared produce. That may have been okay during the first season of the colony. But eventually it caused all sorts of problems - including near starvation of the colony. Men lacked motivation to labour to produce food for other men's wives and children. After they reverted to a free-enterprise system, productivity soared - and human inter-relationships improved too. The colony was saved.

Here in Australia where we haven't felt earthquakes, where tsunamis are only 20cm high, where circumstances aren't as bad as those faced by the early Church in Jerusalem - it may be appropriate to use other strategies besides liquidating and redistributing wealth.

Give someone employment. Or train him. Or, help him deal with whatever issues prevent him from staying in a job.

It might require that we give something in the beginning. But eventually the goal should be to help the person become self-sufficient.

Meanwhile there will always be emergencies somewhere, especially overseas. In those circumstances. Acts 2 & 4 will serve as a great example to us.

Actually, the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 can filter through everything we do - even in circumstances when being that radical isn't called-for.

May that faith infiltrate everything we do.

Those are my thoughts so far. I'm open to learning more.

God's Grace Doesn't Remove the Goal-Posts

2010-02-26T16:28:00.000+10:00

The Lord Jesus and the Apostles said adultery, fornication and all uncleanness is wrong. If agreeing with the Bible is to be polarized, then I'll gladly remain polarized. As for having discussion where the tone is set by questions rather than by answers - there shouldn't be any questions - it's not our place to question God, just to obey and teach what He commands.

The Bible has a lot to say about Economics and economic systems. Almost all of the Old Testament promises about the coming Messiah were made in an economic/political context. None of it was rescinded by the New Testament.

When Theological Colleges train ministers, they needn't divorce the Messianic Scriptures from their social and political context. Christ's grace teaches us to fulfill the principles that undergirded Moses' Law - which provided blueprints for commerce as well as for worship and relationships. Therefore a well-trained minister needn't be the last person to talk on economics.

Grey areas? The Bible doesn't warn us not to eat polonium-nitrate either. But it ought to be self-evident based on commandments in the Bible whether something is good or evil. Besides, the article cited above isn't talking about what some might call grey areas: it condones evils such as abortion, sodomy and same-sex 'marriages'.

The Bible is like the Brussels Tariff in the sense that everything imaginable is classified by it even though it may not be listed there by name

Jesus was very compassionate towards women. He was also very merciful towards sinners. But when He showed mercy, it was never at the expense of failing to comply with God's Law. In the ministry of Jesus, mercy and truth met together; righteousness and peace kissed each other. For example, when He said to the woman taken in adultery... See More, "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more", it was His mercy and peace that said, "Neither do I condemn thee," but it was His truth and righteousness that said, "Go and sin no more". By showing mercy to the woman rather than condemning her, Jesus was complying with, rather than ignoring, the requirement of Moses' Law. Moses' Law required the testimony of two or more witnesses in order to convict a person; and the eyewitness was to be the first to cast a stone. As you know, in the case of this woman, it so happened that only Jesus remained in the room - no eyewitness remained. Therefore neither was Jesus required by Law to condemn her. Mercy triumphed over judgment. But true mercy never alters the definition of justice nor ever fails to meet its demands. To do otherwise would be unrighteousness, and there is no unrighteousness with God. God didn't set us free from our sins through ignoring our sins or through changing the definition of sin or through accepting us despite our sins. Rather, He set us free from our sins through meeting the demands of His own righteousness, on the cross. As the hymn said, "Heaven's peace and perfect justice kissed a guiilty world in love".

my aim has been to show that extending mercy towards sinners does not require us to say that sin is no longer sin. Sin is still sin, otherwise grace is no longer grace. E.g., Jesus didn't condone aultery - He forgave the adulterer and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't condone the crippled man's sins - He forgave his sins ... See Moreand told him to take up his stretcher and walk. So today, extending God's grace to sinners does not mean that we need to tell them that their sin is okay, or to say that it isn't actually sin after all. Instead, our message can be that despite the destructiveness of our sins, God has provided forgiveness for our sins through Jesus. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles preached that men should repent - therefore the necessity for reform can remain part of our message too. The message of God's grace needn't provide a license for indulging the baser nature of mankind - rather it is a message that actually empowers people to fulfill the righteousness of the law in their lives, and to go and sin no more! Receiving God's grace can be a life-changing experience, not merely a concept to hear about.

If you are using the word 'capitalism' as a synonym for 'greed', 'selfishness', 'covetousness' and 'extortion' then yes Jesus would be against it. The standard definition for 'capitalism' however is: 'the economic system where the means of ... See Moreproduction are privately owned' - and Jesus certainly upheld the ethic of private ownership of property. In that sense therefore, Jesus was a capitalist. So was Moses. And so were the Apostles. Each of them believed property can be privately owned. That equals capitalism. But of course, they were against the practise of disadvantaging others. But capitalism can be practised without disadvantaging one another. In fact, by definition capitalism works best when there is mutual benefit in economic activity. As for 'income redistribution on a large scale' through legislation - that isn't something which the Bible calls for. The Bible encourages 'giving' - but it doesn't recommend an economic system where the State assumes rights to individuals' money to redistribute as the State sees fit, especially not on a 'large scale'. If it did, "giving" could no more be called "giving" - because you can't "give" something if someone else has "rights" to it. You could "pay" it, but not "give" it. But that economic system wasn't Jesus' concept, nor Moses's. They spoke about "giving" - and you can only "give" something if it belongs to you and if you have exclusive rights to decide what you do with it - which equals capitalism. Jesus encouraged generosity - but He didn't deny the morality of the ethic of private-property-rights, as socialism and communism do. It's interesting that in the economic model which God gave to Israel through Moses, there was no legislation whereby anyone had rights to get anyone else's money or property for free: not the Levites, not the poor, not anyone. And no-one was required by Law to give or pay anything to anyone - whether it was to the Levites or to the poor - without being allowed the expectation of receiving some service or commodity in return, either. Moses' system of social welfare was a win-win situation for both parties - it certainly wasn't a free, one-way redistribution of one party's hard-earned money. It was a brilliant system, actually. And Jesus and the Apostles upheld it in principle. That still gives us the freedom to give though. But remember: Jesus didn't ask everybody to leave everything and literally follow him. And not everyone in the book of Acts sold everything and laid it at the Apostles' feet. But even those who did give away everything, did so because they were free to do so, not because it was imposed on them by an economic system. It's one thing to encourage generosity and mercy. The Bible does. But it's entirely a different thing if you start undermining freedoms and private property-rights - the Bible doesn't do that.

In this discussion about Biblical economics and sexuality, all I'm aiming to point-out is simply that in the process of reaching out with grace to sinners and in the process of reaching out with commercial help to the poor, it isn't necessary, effective nor right for us to alter the morals and values of the Word of God. Right and wrong are... See More still right and wrong; private property is still private and not public property. If we lose those values, we'll end-up contributing to the disintegration of the very society which we are seeking to help. And that wasn't the strategy by which Christ and the Apostles turned their world upside down. The grace and giving shown by Christ and by the early Church was so powerful NOT because they altered Biblical values, but precisely because they still had the concept of the sinfulness of sin and because they still had the concept of the individual's complete economic freedom despite living under a sexually immoral and economically totalitarian/socialist redistributionist regime - and they were able to bring something more powerful, more graceful, more righteous, into society. Yes, Jesus and the Apostles sought to achieve the salvation of sinners and the salvation of the poor - but they did not seek to achieve it by watering-down the concept of sin nor by instigating some system of legislated redistribution of wealth that contradicted the Scripture's values of private property rights and freedom. Instead, they brought the tools of grace, giving and work - which they implemented without altering the definition of the sinfulness of sin and without altering the freedom of the individual to give to the poor as he sees fit. And the economic freedom which we all enjoy today, and the dignity which women feel today, are all part of the result of their work!

If sin isn't sinful, grace isn't amazing. If property isn't private, giving isn't generous.

Isn't there considerable support for the view that the Global Financial Crisis was caused in great part as a result of the Clinton Administration's push for sub-prime lending? While many banks thought better of sub-prime lending, it was the Clinton Administration which interfered in the free market by legislating in favour of sub-... See Moreprime lending. The policy may have been designed to help the poor but ended-up causing more poverty than the world has seen since the Great Depression! It wasn't possible to help the poor using a strategy that didn't make sound economic sense. Large-scale redistribution of other people's property against their will is not a sustainable way of helping the poor. Giving aid is important during emergencies - but it can't be a successful at alleviating poverty long-term. Abuses don't have to be part of the free market economy where there is a rule of law. We need a rule of law. But those laws don't need to include a large-scale redistribution of wealth. Moses' Law is a good illustration of the types of ethics which need to be built into a legal system in order for it to prevent abuses without interfering in the free market. Anything else is a loss of freedoms, and will negatively impact on an economy's ability to lift its poor into the abundance that God desires for them.

I don't doubt that greed may have been a motivator why some financial institutions became involved with sub-prime lending. But if it was, notice, it backfired on them, more than on the borrowers. Very often it wasn't the borrowers who became bankrupt - they were able to hand the house-keys back and walk away, leaving no other recourse for the ... See Morelenders. In Australia the banking laws are different. Here, the lender can also come after the borrower's other assets, unlike in America where the lender can do no more other than recover the house itself. Therefore in America it was the lenders who suffered most. So, the problem wasn't the bankers' freedom to engage the market - the problem was not the free market - the problem was that the lenders did not engage the market in a sustainable way. It was their own lack of judgment. And it was the leftist Democrats who opened-up the way, in fact they insisted, through Legislation, to encourage this type of unsustainable lending. So if the problem was greed and poor judgment by the lenders (and by the Clinton Administration) then the answer is not to restrict the free market. The answer is to correct their judgment! If greed was a factor, then the solution is not to legislate against freedom, but to legislate against greed itself. There is a way to legislate against greed without introducing Socialism - without legislating against the free market. Moses did so effectively. He never restricted private property rights. He never introduced any sort of Socialist redistribution of wealth. But He did legislate against usury to fellow-citizens. He did legislate against the mistreatment of employees. He did lay down certain minimum benefits which an employer was required to pay to an employee. He did stipulate that rural land could be purchased only from within one's own Tribe, only urban property could be purchased unrestrictedly. But none of those points of legislation were Socialist in nature. Each of them upheld the ideology that "the means of production are privately owned". Moses did write a system for looking-after the poor and other segments of society - but his system never required any involuntary redistribution of wealth from one segment of society to another where it wasn't mutually profitable. That's Bible! And it works. The reason I point all this out, is because I think there is a trend nowadays of misunderstanding the Grace and power of God. It's all very well that we want to extend grace to the poor and to sinners. But let's not lose sight that God's grace is powerful enough to fix the problem without any need for us to alter the definition of the problem.

Perhaps we should drop the use of the label "Capitalism" in this discussion, in case we differ in our definitions of it. The main point I have been seeking to make in this discussion is that the grace of Jesus which we are constrained to show to sinners and to the economically poor, does not teach us to water-down the ... See Moreseriousness of sin nor does it recommend the expropriation of privately-earned funds on a large scale to benefit the poor. The grace of God is plenty effective without us needing to change the rules of play. If a footballer is too tired to run the full-length of the field to score a goal, it's against the rules to move the goal-posts mid-game. Instead, you rest the player, give him a needed boost, such as an energy drink, maybe a quick massage, then send him back onto the field-of-play with renewed strength to run the full length of the field and score the goals. That's how God's grace works. It doesn't change the moral requirement of God's Law. It doesn't change the moral ethics of economics. God's grace changes the player so he can win the game! Anyone who tries to change the rules of the game, is disqualified. God's grace isn't so weak that it needs us to change the goal-posts for sinners, by altering the righteous requirement of God's Law, in order to somehow make sinners more acceptable despite their sin. No, God's grace changes the very heart of the sinner, sets him or her free from sin, and enables them to kick those goals, to walk in accordance with the unchangeable righteous standard of God's holy Law. God's grace is not so weak that, in order to lift the economically poor, it needs a humanist government to change the ethical boundaries of private property and personal responsibility, as is done by Socialism. God's grace doesn't steal from the rich to help the poor. God's grace is able to lift the poor without changing the ethical goal-posts for the poor, without changing the ethical goal-posts in a manner which disadvantage the honest owners of capital. That is how powerful our Gospel is. We can expect to see lives changed and helped to that degree. But watering-down sin, personal responsibility, and private-property rights, isn't going to change anyone or anything long-term.

Moses said, "Thou shalt not steal". Straightaway, private-property rights are implied. In Socialism and Communism, nobody can "steal" from you because the State has given everybody rights to everything you own. Moses never implemented a system of expropriating property from one segment of society and freely giving it to another segment. Not ... See Moreonce! Tithing was not an example of socialist-style wealth-redistribution. Tithes were paid to the tribe of Levi as remuneration for services rendered - the service of the Priesthood which the Levites performed for the benefit of all Israel. In other words, it was a salary. It wasn't welfare. Part of the tithes were to be eaten and enjoyed by one's own family at the House of God. Part of the tithes were also given to feed the poor. But failure to do so was not an offence punishable by the civil Judges of the day, unlike other points of Law contained in Moses' writings which were punishable. In the case of giving to the poor, it was a matter of personal conscience. It was not a legislated expropriation of wealth. It was not a communal sharing of the ownership of the means of production. There were other ways Moses recommended helping the poor too. One of them was lending. Another was gleaning. And a third was indentured service. In the first of those three methods, the owner of capital wasn't allowed to make a gain (interest) from the transaction, but neither did he incur a cost. In the next two of the above methods, the owners of capital as well as the poor benefited alike from the arrangement. It was a win-win situation. Gleaning was hard work, it didn't cost the owner of capital anything, he would have made a small profit from it, although he might have been able to make more profit if not for the provision of gleaning, and the gleaner was paid usually just enough to feed himself and his family for a day, or maybe just a little bit extra. But not enough for "gleaning" to be seen as a precedent for "large scale redistribution of wealth". It was not a case of free money for no work. And it DIDN'T come at a cost to the land owner. The third method, indentured service (aka slavery, although it was NOT the same as pre-civil war slavery) provided a tremendous short-term opportunity for the poor to work their way out of debt. They were to be provided with accommodation, food, clothing, training, a suitable wage, and a good severance package when they left. It was to be for a strictly limited term (seven years only, the slave was not permanently owned as in pre-civil war slavery). Mistreatment of the indentured servant by the employer was punishable by law. The purpose of the provision of indentured service was to help the poor by giving them an alternative to homelessness, unemployment and debt. At no cost to the public. The voluntary employer also benefited from the agreement. Unlike pre-civil war slavery, it was a win-win situation. The equivalent today might be to take the poor into your house, or into your business, to look after them extremely well, to train them, pay them, and at the same time to benefit financially from their services while they are with you, and then send them on their way free from debt and able to set themselves up in life. That was Moses' social welfare system. There was no expropriation of wealth. Private property, the work ethic, and humane treatment were each upheld all the way through. There was no shared ownership of the means of production. Wealthy owners of capital were forbidden from taking advantage of the poor; but neither was any system ever implemented which forced the redistribution of their wealth into the hands of the poor except where it was voluntary and where there was a reasonable expectation of at least a certain amount of profit, and where the poor also worked for you directly - certainly, there was no loss involved. As for the Jubilee, it was far from being an example of an equal distribution of wealth. Far from it! To whom did the ownership of all property revert? To the original owners. Not to the poor! Not equally to the whole population! It reverted exclusively to the original owners, irrespective of who was poor. As for the cancellation of debts - that was a point of Law which actually would have restricted the extent to which wealthy people would have been willing to enter into transactions with the poor, not the opposite. It is far from being an example of large-scale redistribution of wealth. It's the exact opposite. For starters, the types of debts that would have been cancelled would have been very small. Remember, interest was not allowed to be charged to fellow-citizens. Therefore lending was not profitable for lenders. So they wouldn't have been lending huge amounts. Therefore loans would have been small, and would have been an emergency measure only, to cover the bare necessities of life. Plus, if a wealthy person knew the Jubilee year was just around the corner, he would have been even more careful to make sure that he only lent an amount which he felt confident would be recovered before the Jubilee year. The amounts of money Moses had in mind would not compare with Australia's annual Social Welfare expenditure. It certainly wasn't an example of legislated, large-scale, wealth redistribution! The Jubilee wasn't something that gave poor people the opportunity to make a living off the wealthy for free. No way. All of this is important because nowadays it's popular to call it "social justice" to syphon huge amounts of money from one bracket of society and give it freely to people who earn less. Moses implemented no such system. In fact, to do so, is really an injustice against the segment of society which it disadvantages. Let the wealthy help the poor in a manner that is a win-win sitation, and legislate against taking advantage of the poor in a way that doesn't benefit them at least to some extent. That's Biblical. That's walking in love, to both the poor and to the hard-working, rightful owners of wealth. Anything else doesn't teach the poor anything.

Capitalism v Socialism

2010-02-23T10:00:00.000+10:00

Before I can discuss this with a leftist Christian, I usually find I first have to make sure he and I are actually arguing about the same thing. Most of the young, leftist Christians here in Australia seem to define their terms differently to me. It seems many of them think the word 'capitalism' literally means 'greed' , 'covetousness', 'extortion' or 'selfishness'. If that's what capitalism means, then I'm against it too!

So I usually need to tell them the standard definition for capitalism: 'the economic system where the means of production are privately owned'. Once we settle that, some of those outspoken leftists we have here in the Australian Assemblies of God realize they actually agree with capitalism. But unfortunately some of them get entirely lost at that point: they don't seem to know what it means.

There is a lot of emphasis in Australian churches today about 'social justice'. They complain that right-wing fundamentalism isn't necessarily a true representation of Christian ideals; they call it "unchristian" and "unjust" that Australia spends so little money on foreign aid; they are always advocating increased spending on social welfare; they think our unemployed and single-mothers are suffering social injustice.

I wrote to one leading Pastor and told him that while I'm in favour of showing mercy and giving, I think we need to be careful about using the word 'unjust'. To use the word 'unjust' implies that some other nation, or some other person, somehow has rights to our money; and if someone else has rights to our money, it makes us 'thiefs' if we don't give; in fact, even if we do give, it can't really be called 'giving', because it isn't truly ours if someone else also has rights to it - it is merely an act of redistributing public property, not giving.

The same Pastor claims it is "unjust" if a country such as Indonesia didn't show mercy to convicted terrorists facing the death penalty. I wrote to him and again said that I think we need to be careful about our use of the word 'unjust'. Certainly, the Balinese terrorists were not shown "mercy" - but we shouldn't define Indonesia's judicial system as "unjust" for carrying out justice! We need to be cafreful in the process of showing mercy that we don't change the definition of justice.

The same Pastor thinks it's an injustice that the Church speaks-out against homosexuality, even though he agrees homosexuality is wrong. I know what he means - he's pointing-out that it might not be a good strategy if the Church is perceived to be always protesting against things instead of showing it has the power to change lives for good. But I still consider it an unwise use of the word 'injustice'. Showing God's grace shouldn't require changing our concept of "justice". Grace is no longer grace unless justice is still justice.

I think this is important - because Rome didn't fall in a day. Socialist thought needs to be corrected the second it raises its head. It takes hundreds of years for a country's freedoms to be eroded - and the erosion starts today, in small things. The Church can be 100% in favour of showing mercy to criminals and of giving to the poor when it's appropriate - but we ought to call it what it is - it is "mercy" or "compassion" - and it's not necessarily an "injustice" when we don't. Otherwise giving is no longer giving.

So, many of our "social justice" programs really ought to instead be called social "compassion" or "mercy ministries", in my opinion. Maybe they could be called "social justice" programs if the programs sought to free people from inappropriately severe sentencing; or to free people from a socialist regime which is extorting their private property; or to free people from a company which is cruelly disadvantaging the poor - because each of those would be genuine justice issues.

The Bible is really clear in its support of the means of production being privately owned. "Thou shalt not steal" implies private property rights. Everywhere in the Bible where private property is mentioned, we are seeing capitalism.

Nowhere does the Bible impose a tax to support the poor, as if the poor had equal rights to another's property - rather, it says we can "lend to the poor" or "give", which implies that the gift is first of all the private property of the giver. That's capitalism.

Moses' social-welfare system was entirely capitalistic. The provisions he legislated for the poor:

1) Showing mercy and lending was usually done in a way which also advantaged the giver or lender. There was usually mutual economic benefit. It was a win-win situation. It certainly wasn't labeled "unjust" if someone felt they couldn't do it

2) Moses legislated gleaning. Gleaning was not a free handout. It was hot, hard work which a poor person was allowed the opportunity to do - and it still economically advantaged the landowner to a certain extent. In return, the poor person usually took home just enough food for himself and his family for one day. It was compassionate - but it still wasn't a cost to the landowner - and it still required work by the poor

3) Moses legislated how loans should be treated. The lender could take a person's coat as a pledge - but he must return it to the poor person at night, because it was all he had to sleep in, and then he may collect the pledge again in the morning. Thus the poor person was kept in a daily relationship with his lender which reminded him daily of his financial obligation to his lender. It wasn't a freebie. It wasn't his "right" to receive some ongoing, free welfare system. Notice that the poor person to whom the loan was compassionately given, was so poor that he was right down to the last coat to sleep in. Even in a situation so destitute, Moses didn't outlaw the taking of someone's last coat in pledge - but upheld private property rights and individual responsibility through it all!

4) Moses allowed indentured service. If a poor person couldn't pay his way in life, he could sign himself up to an employer. Moses required that the employer couldn't avail himself of the services of a poor person in this predicament for longer than seven years. The business-owner would never own the person (as was the case with 19th century slavery). Moses required that the business-owner provide the indentured employee with accommodation, wages, food, training, and enough severance-pay to enable him to be set-up in future work and in life. There were strict rules against mistreating indentured employees. This was really compassionate - but at the same time, it came at no cost to the business-owner because the business-owner also benefited economically from the poor person's labour. It was a win-win situation. And it was voluntary. Everybody gained, and nobody got anything for free

5) Interest was not allowed to be charged to fellow-citizens

6) The Jubilee - the whole economy was refreshed every 50 years.

Not only Moses' social welfare system, but also his judicial system was entirely capitalistic. No-one was ever sentenced to prison. The public didn't fund a prison system. Instead, criminals were required to pay restitution, plus an extra percentage for damages. If the criminal was unable to pay restitution, he was allowed to indenture his services until he could pay it off in-kind. But at no stage was public money spent in the treatment of crime. Again, it was a win-win situation: the victim was restored, and the perpetrator was able to put his misdemeanour behind him and move-on without a criminal record, without having been removed from the work-force at any stage. If mercy was shown to a convicted criminal, it was called that - mercy (and not some altered definition of "justice").

In Moses' economic model, the redistribution of wealth was never legislated except as payment for services rendered or commodities purchased.

The morals undergirding Moses' models are supported by the New Testament.

That's why I say the best way to provide foreign aid to a developing country is to start big business. It must be voluntary. And there must be mutual benefit. Locals are offered employment, training and perhaps profit-sharing. And it's sustainable, because the business-owners also profit.

Global Warming?

2010-02-19T07:41:00.000+10:00

My mother, brother and I were talking about alleged global warming last night. Peter pointed-out that the processes involved in manufacturing hybrid cars and insulation materials might actually release more CO2 into the atmosphere than they prevent!

For a long time Peter has said that either nuclear cold fusion (which he said generates no heat and no radiation), or some new frontier of solar power, could be the way of electricity-generation in the future.

Peter also reckons a better response by the Government might have been to simply plant more trees. I discovered NASA estimated the number of trees on earth in 2005 to be 400,246,300,201. The world's population at the time was estimated to be 6,456,789,877. So that was approximately 61 trees per person on earth. Would doubling that number make a difference to carbon levels? If our Government planted 61 new trees per resident, it would amount to 1.2 billion new trees on the continent of Australia. This could be achieved if each of Australia's approximately 3.3 million fulltime students are organized to help plant 370 trees each. I've planted nearly my quota of 61 trees this year. Have you? And imagine if many of the trees are fruit-bearing varieties!

Another strategy suggested by Peter was the construction of a dam in far north Queensland. The surface area covered by the water could help cool the atmosphere and also precipitate further rainfall in an area that already has one of Australia's highest. Enough water could be piped south to service the whole of Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

What Homeless People are Rejecting and What they are Looking For

2010-02-17T11:39:00.000+10:00

In heaven, God's dwelling place, part of the city at least has pavers made of gold, gates made of pearls, floor-tiles made of sapphire, and the city is set in the midst of the Paradise of God. God also placed gold In Eden - the botanical garden which God planted to become man's original home: and the gold, we are told, was "good". In process of time, had it not been for the fall, man might have turned parts of Eden into a replica of God's dwelling place in heaven. Adam might have eventually desired to build this for God, so that God's daily visits to him in the garden might be as pleasant as His own dwelling-place in heaven.

After the fall, God sought to restore again to man a picture of how life was meant to be. He showed Moses a vision of His dwelling-place in heaven, and instructed him to build a tabernacle modelled exactly after what he'd seen. Mankind was meant to have a God who lived with him. So Moses built the tabernacle - paved with gold inside and out and draped in ornate tapestry.

God also gave Israel, through Moses, a societal system that could have elevated His people above all nations round about. It was a system rich in its work ethic, in its recognition of private-property rights, in its condoning of profit - while at the same time restricting usury. It included no prison-sytem and no social-welfare payments. Viable alternatives for both were provided, which required no redistribution of wealth. The family-unit and all human relationships were protected. The means of obtaining righteousness was central to the whole system. God was included in every area of society. The whole system could be summumed-up in one word: love, love for God and love for one's fellow-man.

That's what the homeless man on the street is looking for: he's looking for the whole package-deal, not just part of it. Certainly, he no longer feels satisfied by profiting from hard work alone if he remains devoid of loving-relationships. But neither does his immediate need of loving-relationships mean that he has forever lost his innate God-given appreciation for the type of profit that comes from honest work: he was, after all, made for both. And it is a relationship with God, through Jesus Christ, that restores the promise of all of those things, especially at His coming.

When a homeless person joins our church's Transformation program, they find God, righteousness, and meaningful relationships. But they also get to live in a well-apportioned house complete with detached self-contained units, swimming-pool, wide-screen TVs, jet-skii, gym, top-class meals, all within walking-distance to the beach, they get to drive around in a variety of comfortable vehicles while participating in various work-experience programs, they have reserved seating in a 6-million dollar building in the heart of Surfers Paradise every Sunday. The opportunity is even being developed right now for graduating residents to participate in profit-sharing businesses. It takes only a short time before the once-homeless person is seen standing in the front row of church, praising God with all of his heart, wearing his suit and tie or his favorite clothes, enjoying every aspect of his improved life. Hallelujah! A lot of his opportunity came because other people believed it is moral to go out there and engage in profit-making businesses which enable them to make the donations which make Transformation Ministries possible. It's a package deal - God and capitalism.

Is Right Right and Left Wrong?

2010-02-12T23:50:00.000+10:00

We ought to be able to give honour where honour is due, even if it's not on our side of politics.

But it should also be possible for the Christian Church to publicly advocate the need for repentance without being unmerciful about it.

And it should be possible for the Church to exemplify generosity without labelling it a "social injustice" if a citizen wants to retain the freedom to decide where and how much of his own resources he gives.

Being merciful shouldn't require us to be in virtual public denial about the word "sin".

Neither should being socially generous require us to advocate some socialist, redistributionist policy that weakens the universal value of private property rights.

The Church's unmerciful past needn't be overcompensated for by now becoming licentious.

Jesus was more gracious than ever anyone was - but neither did He avoid terms like "repent" and "go and sin no more".

He's our example!

Disasters - Natural Phenomenon or Judgment?

2010-02-12T23:21:00.000+10:00

How should preachers respond to natural disasters?

Perhaps we can learn something by observing the type of comment that Jesus made in response to the natural disaster that occurred when a tower in Siloam collapsed, killing eighteen.

Jesus' comment was: "Do you think that they were worse sinners than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem? I tell you, No: but unless you all repent, you shall all likewise perish".

So, Jesus certainly wasn't quick to say the victims must have been worse sinners than everyone else. But neither was He silent, during such occassions, about the reality of sin as a factor in ultimate human destiny.

To be quick to describe victims as worse sinners than everyone else, or to whitewash over the reality of sin, in the face of disaster - are both extreme responses.

We needn't overcorrect one extreme only to end-up in the opposite extreme.

Jesus' response, rather, was to bring the public's focus back to themselves: they will all similarly die if they don't repent.

That's a brilliant way to respond!

Mercy Shouldn't Change the Meaning of 'Justice'

2010-02-12T21:25:00.000+10:00

Someone said it is selfish, unjust and unchristian that the Australian Government allocates so little money to foreign aid.

I think we need to be careful about the use of the word "unjust" these days.

If someone refuses to help others, by all means we might call it "selfishness" or "unchristian". We might even call it "ungracious" or "unmerciful". But calling it "unjust" might put us at risk of subtly implying that other nations somehow have a right to an Australian citizen's money.

That would be similar to if you had graciously chosen to give someone a Christmas gift, yet they happened to think you hadn't spent enough on them. They could call you "selfish" and "unchristian" if they want to - but they wouldn't have the right to call you "unjust" - because that would imply that your gift never truly belonged to you in the first place; it would also mean that your giving was never truly a "gift", but was merely an administrative redistribution of public property; and it would imply that you had actually become a thief, because you had witheld for yourself something which someone else actually had rights to.

If someone witholds some of his own personal property from a needy person, the Bible might call that person "ungracious" or "unmerciful". It's only if a person retains someone else's own rightful personal property that the Bible would call him "unjust".

Any morality of redistributionism which subtly confuses "ungraciousness" for "injustice" becomes the seedbed of various levels of socialism and communism.

By all means let's go all-out for selflessness and generosity. But what is unjust, is a morality which teaches that someone else has rights to your personal property. And it's a mentality that perpetuates rather than alleviates poverty.

Neither Do I Condemn Thee - Go and Sin No More

2010-02-12T21:21:00.000+10:00

My understanding is that Jesus found a way to show mercy to the woman taken in adultery whilst at the same time upholding the Law.

Everything Jesus did EXPLAINED the true intent of the Law, rather than contradicting it.

So He was acting within the requirement of the Law when He said, "Neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more" - because the Law required eyewitnesses; and the eyewitness was to be the first to cast a stone at her. Not a single person remained to condemn her. So due to the absence of witnesses, Jesus was not required by the Law to condemn her.

It's a mistake to interpret the text to mean that Jesus rode rough-shod over the righteousness of the Law in the name of grace. Jesus found a way to allow mercy to triumph over judgment without actually changing the meaning of justice.

Jesus was not one of those whose acts of mercy inadvertantly promoted licensciousness. In fact, instead of diluting the meaning of justice, it so happened that as a result of the way Jesus handled the situation that day, all those men went home with a far stronger personal conviction about the righteousness of the Law than they'd ever felt before - and yet it was mercy, not judgment, that achieved this.

Man's wisdom errs either on the side of lacking mercy, or on the side of lawlessness. But God's heart finds a way to let mercy triumph over judgment without diluting righteousness. That's the Gospel!

Notes on the Book of Revelation

2010-02-11T11:02:00.000+10:00

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;

The events were to happen shortly. That could mean that the events were to happen within the generation of the original first-century readers - or it could mean "shortly" in the same sense in which Jesus has been said to be coming "quickly" for the past 2,000 years or thereabouts. Or, both types of events may be spoken about in the Book of Revelation; that is, some of the events may have had a first-century fulfilment while others may have been future.

and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The coming events were "signified" by an angel to John; i.e., the coming events weren't discussed with him plainly and literally, but were shown to him in representative, symbolic picture-form. Much of the imagery in the Book of Revelation is symbolic, not a literal description.

1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

The authenticity of the Book of Revelation is attested to.

1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

The time is "at hand". The term "at hand" may mean that some of John's visions may have shed light on events which may already have been unfolding in John's generation. And, it may mean that others of his visions may describe events which would be future to John's generation. And indeed, some of the visions may describe events which are still future even to our generation. There is a sense in which Christ's coming has been and is always "at hand" - for no-one knows the day nor the hour. In comparison with eternity, Christ's coming is definitely soon.
1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia:

The book is addressed to seven churches in seven specific regions, in the first century. A good place to start therefore, in order to correctly understand the Book of Revelation, might be to imagine what the contents may have meant to the originally intended readers in the first century AD - ahead of anything it might mean to subsequent generations.

Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,

Jesus was the first person in history who physically and permanently rose from physical death. Others had been physically raised from death (such as the widow's son), but they eventually died again. Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven, without experiencing physical death. Jesus, however, was the first person who experienced physical death, followed by a physical and permanent resurrection - never to die again.

But He was only the first of many. We who are faithful in Christ, shall also rise from death after the same manner in which Jesus rose from death, at His coming. We shall rise from death physically and permanently.

and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,

"Tribulation" was considered by John to be a present-day reality, in the first century AD.

and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,

John was not "in the Spirit" all day everyday - or else he wouldn't have bothered to point out to us that he was in the Spirit specifically "on the Lord's day". The term "in the Spirit" evidently then refers to that special state where the gift of the discerning of spirits (I Cor.12) occassionally comes upon a person as the Spirit wills.

"The Lord's Day" refers to the first day of the week, the day of the week in which Jesus rose from the dead. The early Church had a habit of meeting together on the first day of the week; and it seems that John, who would have been in that habit while he was free, continued the habit of setting-aside time for special prayer on the Lord's day, even while he was exiled to the isle of Patmos. The Holy Spirit then took occassion of John's devotion, and gave him this revelation. Visions are most often experienced while a person is praying.

and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Notice again that there was a specific readership to whom the Book of Revelation was originally addressed. To understand the Book of Revelation correctly, it helps to keep in mind what the content may have meant to the intended original readers.

But although the book was addressed to those seven specific local churches, it's possible that John's expectation may have been that the message of the book would find its way to other churches elsewhere, and perhaps even to future generations.

Nevertheless, it may still be important to think of what the content of the book may have meant to the original recipients in the original location at the original time.

1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,

The term "the Son of man" refers to the Lord Jesus Christ.

clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Here we find another description of Christ's resurrection - it was physical and permanent. Therefore, seeing He is "the firstfruits of them that slept", our resurrection also shall be both physical and permanent, at His coming.

1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

There were two categories of events shown to John in the visions: there were "things which are", that is, events which were present-day realities at the time of writing; and "things which shall be hereafter", that is, events which, at the time at least, were, and perhaps today still are, yet to come in the future. But not all of the events shown to John were future - some had already happened or were currently happening at the time of writing. And the text itself tells us which is which. It wasn't left up to his readers to try to work out what was past and what was future - the text itself differentiates it deliberately.

1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Throughout the whole Book of Revelation, as they are here, the symbols used are always interpreted for us. None of the meanings of any of the symbols in the Book of Revelation require speculation or private interpretation - all of the meanings are interpreted for us, like they are here, in this verse.

2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;

The term "the angel of the church" apparently refers to the human minister of the church. If it referred instead to a heavenly angel, there would be no need for the medium of a book to be used, nor would the book need to be sent by John, and nor would Christ need to use John at all - because there is no precedent in the Bible where God ever used a man to relay His message to His heavenly angel. God gives charge to His heavenly angels directly, without human medium.

The fact that John was told to address his letter to "the [singular] angel [or, minister] of the church of Ephesus" also seems to imply that there was a single leader who was recognized as being responsible for the church at Ephesus, rather than a plurality of leaders each with equal responsibility.

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

"Tribulation" was a present-day reality for the first-century church at Smyrna.

2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

An intense ten-day period of "tribulation" was coming for the first century church at Smyra.

2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is:

Satan was still present in the world.

and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

The first-century church at Thyatira was warned of coming "great tribulation" for its members which would not repent.

2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 3:2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. 4:7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. 6:3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. 6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. 6:7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 7:6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour. 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. 8:6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.

8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. 9:12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. 9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. 9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, 10:3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. 10:5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly. 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 14:16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. 14:17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. 15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: 15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. 15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever. 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.

16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea. 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 19:3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 21:20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Go and Serve the Lord!

2010-02-10T16:43:00.000+10:00

Go and Serve the Lord!
by John Edwards

"All things are possible to him which believeth" (Mark 9:23).

I was driving to work one day, just like any ordinary day.

I'd just had the motor reconditioned, the mag wheels polished, the air-conditioner restored and a sound-system with a five-band graphic equalizer installed – so I was feeling quite good about my car.

Then unexpectedly the words came to me, “...give it away...”

I tried ignoring it and kept driving.

But the words came again: “Give it away.”

So I said, “Ok Lord, I'll give it away – on the weekend”.

“No, after work today will be fine,” He said.

And I knew who I had to give it to.

Then after I got to work, God started speaking to me again:

“It’s time you gave notice in your job.”

“What do you want me to do?” I asked.

Straightaway He showed me a vision of Australia with pathways criss-crossed all over it.

“Just go wherever I tell you to go, and preach the Gospel,” He said.

“How am I going to live without an income?” I said, “I'm not going to chuck-in a perfectly good job and go on the dole!”

“You won't need to. Just trust me - I'll provide everything,” He said.

So I gave notice in my job, agreeing with my boss to work just two more days. Then after work I drove over to my friend's house who I felt led to give my car to.

I knocked on the front door. But no-one was home!

“Well there you go – this wasn’t God after all,” I thought to myself, “Pity about the job – but at least you've still got the car.”

I sat back in my car, wondering what to do. I still felt sure it was God who had been leading me. So, surely I shouldn’t go home now and just forget the whole thing? It made me wonder what was going to happen next.

And would you believe - the car wouldn't start!

So I got out and lifted the bonnet, and phoned for breakdown service.

The mechanic arrived, and pretty soon got the motor running again. And just as he was leaving - just as we were closing the bonnet again - my friend arrived home.

“Oh John, what are you doing here?” he asked.

“Wouldn’t you like to know,” I thought to myself. (I didn’t quite know how to tell him that I was there to give him my car, so I didn’t mention a thing about it yet.)

My friend invited me in, and the very first thing he said to me was:

“John, my wife and I have been praying - we're really asking God to give us a car.”

That was so good to hear! A confirmation.

So I threw him the car keys and said, “She's all yours then”.

He smiled and threw the keys back.

“You've prayed for a car – so it's yours,” I explained, and I threw the keys back to him again.

“Very funny,” he said, handing the keys back to me.

There we were, handing the keys backwards and forwards – yet I couldn't convince him I was serious.

So I said, “Look, come out, sit in the car – there’s a few things I'll need to show you.”

Sitting in the driver's seat, he looked up at me and said one last time, “You are joking – aren’t you?”

So while my friend was praising God for the answer to he and his wife’s prayer, I caught a bus and a train home, feeling full of joy at the way God was leading me.

I knew it wasn’t going to be easy telling my parents what I’d done.

After I arrived home, I asked my mother if she would drop me down the road the next morning.

“I’m getting picked-up for work in the morning by a friend,” I explained.

“Why - where’s your car?” she asked.

“I’ve given it away – and I’ve quit my job,” I said.

It wasn't any easier telling my father - it took me a couple of days. One afternoon dad was lying on his bed watching sports on TV. I finally walked into his room, and began nervously:

“Dad, there's something I need to tell you. I’ve quit my job and given my car away – I’m going to go and do something for God.” (I was glad he was already lying down.)

Then he said, “That's nice son - it'll be good for you to do something different”.

And he didn’t even take his eyes off the TV the whole time.

So I had nothing to worry about after all!

I had a sense in my heart that I was to go to four towns, on my first trip - and that I was to take five weeks to do it.

The only problem was – I didn’t know anyone in any of the towns, except for the last town.

So I had no idea where I would stay, how I would eat, whether or not I’d be given any opportunities to preach anywhere, or how I’d even be able to travel from town to town.

I would simply have to step out in faith, trusting God alone for everything.

So I decided to really go out on the edge – and I started giving all my cash savings away. I was on a real roll!

I even thought about selling my house and paying out the loan, then giving away whatever was left. But on the inside, God seemed to say, “Stop – keep the house.”

At first I felt relieved. But then it dawned on me what this would mean. Somehow, somewhere, I would need to find the money each and every week for the loan repayments. I realized it was going to take more faith to keep the house than it would to give it away.

“But if I ever miss one repayment on my house, I’m going back to work,” I resolved.

Rather than step-out straightaway, I spent the next few weeks preparing my heart. I remembered Jesus’ words:

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish…So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:28-30,33).

I knew I would encounter various challenges along the way on this new journey of faith – so I decided to prepare my heart by deciding ahead of time what my response should be to any imaginable challenge that might come.

I also came across some biographies of men and women who started great things for God from similar, small beginnings. I noticed that each of them heard directly from God, then stepped-out in faith – often without any visible means of support.

While I was packing my tent into a backpack, it was suggested that I would need a new pair of shoes before too long.

But on the inside of me I felt, “It will be provided.”

I also wanted to take a guitar – but again on the inside I felt, “No – it will be provided.”

I also decided that I would never ask anyone for somewhere to preach; nor ever ask anyone for money for my personal needs. This new lifestyle of faith was entirely God's agenda – not my own – so I decided I could leave those needs with God also.

The day came where I bought a one-way bus ticket, and with the moral support of my family, my pastor and friends – I said goodbye, and left.

I was really looking forward to literally proving the Scripture:

“Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matthew 10:9-10).

And I felt like Abraham, where it says:

“By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles [tents]…” (Hebrews 11:8,9).

It was nighttime when I arrived, and I didn't know a single soul in town. I found the local caravan park, and put up my tent.

As I lay back in the tent that night, I started thinking about everything I'd just done. I'd left my job, my car, my savings, my family, my friends, and a promising ministry, I still had a mortgage to pay-off - and I've come out here where nothing's organized, just because I believe the Lord sent me.

"If this wasn't God, I'm an....." I thought to myself.

Inside, however, I felt completely at peace. I was soon to find-out that God had everything organized.

Seeing I had no regular source of income, I was trusting the Lord to provide someone who might welcome me to put-up my tent on their property - rather than pay caravan-park fees every night.

So in the morning, I decided to look for someone to tell about Jesus. And the very first person I met - a young man who happened to have just got out of jail - thought his mother might like to meet me. So I went with him to their house, and after talking about the Lord, they invited me to put-up my tent in a vacant block just beyond their backyard, where I wouldn't have to pay caravan-park fees. God so quickly provided for my first need!

One day they took me to visit a friend of theirs, and I noticed a guitar leaning up against the wall. I picked it up, and began to sing the song:

To get a touch from the Lord is so real!
To get a touch from the Lord is so real!
If you draw nigh to Him,
He will draw nigh to you.
To get a touch from the Lord is so real!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Jesus is passing, is passing your way.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Jesus is passing your way.

Their friend felt so touched, she began to weep. With tears in her eyes she said, “I want you to have that guitar. And wherever you go, sing for the Lord, and remember me.”

God provided my second desire - a perfect-size guitar for travelling! But even better than that, the lady also received Jesus into her heart for the first time.

A few days later, the people near whose house I had put-up my tent, began to feel that it was no longer a suitable place for me. So I needed to find another arrangement. On the inside, I felt the Lord leading me to go and stay with the woman who gave me the guitar, the lady who had just received the Lord.

I might have felt a little hesitant to ask, had I not remembered the story where Jesus said to the tax collector:

"Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down, for today I must abide at thy house" (Luke 19:5).

So I went to the woman to ask if I could stay at her house. She answered that she had already desired to ask me, but she thought a “man of the cloth” would refuse to stay in her house. She and her adult son were more than happy to have me move-in and stay with them at their house.

God quickly moved me from the tent to a house - and I never again needed to stay in the tent.

Another person also asked me to move to her house - but I felt no peace about it. Even though it may have seemed like it could have given me the opportunity to avoid imposing on one household for too long, I remembered the Scriptures where the Lord instructed His apostles:

"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence" (Matt 10:11);

"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house" (Luke 10:7).

So I stayed with the lady and her adult son, whose heart the Lord had opened to receive Him, and who had given me her guitar - for the remainder of my time in town.

The other person became irritated when I decided to remain in the house where I was. And there was also another reason why I ended-up feeling that I'd made a good choice.

News began to spread quickly that this hardened old lady - who apparently had a bit of a reputation around town - had not only given away a gift (her guitar), but had also received a preacher into her house. Quite a few of her acquaintances became interested to come to the house and see what had gotten into her. I had the opportunity to share the love of God with each one who came.

Pretty soon we ended-up with enough people to hold a home-meeting. So I found the number of a local Pastor in the phonebook, and invited him to come and look after them all. When he came, he rejoiced to see how many people were gathered.

The Pastor had a youth-meeting the following Saturday, so he invited me to speak. The youth were really rejoicing when they got filled with the Holy Spirit.

So the Pastor invited me to preach in his church on Sunday morning. And then he took me to speak at a mid-week meeting in a hired-hall in a neighbouring town.

All these doors to preach started opening up. There was a lot of joy as the Holy Spirit gave me a prophetic word for the church, and as the Holy Spirit manifested with other gifts in every meeting, and as people came to the Lord and were saved.

After two weeks in town, I felt the time had come to move-on to my next destination. It felt hard to leave the many new friendships I'd made. The day before I planned to leave, the young man who just got out of jail came to say goodbye. He and his mother gave me a box full of groceries - and a pair of shoes, which fitted me well.

So God provided my shoes, just as He said he would.

I got up early the next morning, and went outside for a short prayer time before leaving on my journey. The next town that I felt led to go was more than 25km away, and I thought I would have to travel the distance by foot. So after praying for about an hour, I thought I better start going.

But immediately I felt an inner resistance, which seemed to say, "No, pray another hour."

So I prayed a second hour, and then I said, "Well, Lord - I better go now."

But again I felt the same inner resistance, "No, pray another hour."

So I prayed a third hour, and then I said, "Okay, Lord - I really better get going now." I didn't want it to be dark when I arrived in the next town.

But still I felt that firm, inner resistance, as if He was saying, "No, pray another hour."

So I prayed a fourth hour - and by the end of it, I knew there wasn't enough time left in the day to travel. So I went back inside the house, not knowing why the Lord had seemed to interrupt my plans.

But that night, at the house where I was staying, the lady and her adult son received a visitor. It was the youth leader from the church - and he happened to mention that he would be working the next day in the very town where I felt led to go to next.

So I said, "Oh, I'm going there tomorrow."

"How are you getting there?" he asked.

So he offered to give me a lift.

Then I realized why it seemed like God had been holding me back from walking there - He had a better idea all along.

The Lord was teaching me that the quickest way to get to where the Holy Spirit is leading me to go, often requires laying down my own understanding and plans.

The next morning, while I was packing my things to go, I thought to myself, “I’d really like a pair of brown, leather, lace-up shoes to go with these jeans.”

The brother and I travelled to the next town, and as we were arriving, he said, "So where would you like me to drop you?"

This little town was even smaller than the one I'd just left. It had only one traffic intersection - with a post office on one corner, a shop on another corner, and a pub and a phone booth on the other.

“Well I'm working at a house just up the road - why don't you just come with me first..." he offered.

We arrived at his work-site, and just as we were stepping out of the car, the lady of the house, with her daughter, said to me, "Hi! It's so good to see you! We've been waiting for you.”

I wasn't quite sure if I'd met them before or not.

So she said, “Don’t worry - you don't know us. But we know you! We are Christians, and we were praying, and the Lord showed us your face in a vision, and He told us you'd be wearing a red shirt and that you'd be coming soon, and that we are to look after you. Where are you staying?"

I was wearing a bright, red shirt that day.

While I was wondering whether this was the Lord's provision, she asked, "By the way, what size shoe do you wear?”

What a strange question, coming from a stranger, I thought.

“Size eight. Why?”

When I said size eight, the woman and her daughter both burst out laughing. The lady sent her daughter upstairs, and when she returned, she said, “Here, try these on”. And she handed me a pair of brown, leather lace-up shoes, which fitted me perfectly. It was exactly what I'd desired, before leaving town.

The lady explained that when she was shopping a few weeks earlier, she saw these shoes in the shop, and the Lord said to her, "Buy them".

But she said, "What for Lord? No-one in my family can wear that size."

And the Lord answered, "Because someone's coming soon, and when he does, you're to give them to him - and you're to look after him when he arrives."

That was three weeks before I even got there. Before I asked, the Lord answered me.

After some good times ministering around that area, God again provided my way to the next town. I didn't know anyone when I arrived, but less than two hours later, I was standing behind the pulpit of the local Uniting Church in their Sunday night service. The presence of the Holy Spirit touched the congregation. And the elders arranged a place for me to stay.

A number of people were saved, filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues, including an elder in the church. I was also given the opportunity to speak in mid-week meetings and in a High School, and word started to get around about the healings that occurred.

I noticed a feeling of deep satisfaction in my soul. Before starting this trip, I had always thought I was serving God. But now that I was hearing more specifically from God and obeying His voice, the feeling of fulfillment and joy was deeper than anything I'd felt for some time. It felt as if now I was really serving God, the way I was meant to. .

The Lord again provided someone who was driving to the last town – this time the only town where I already knew someone. We hired a hall for revival meetings and advertised in the local newspaper.

The Lord provided all my food, clothes, shelter, shoes, money, the guitar, transport, and opened more doors for me to preach than I could ever have imagined - and I met many wonderful people. And guess how much of my own money I needed to spend during the whole five-week trip? Not one cent.

Now Jesus has sent me to many places and countries, each trip lasting either a few days, a month, or over a year. In every place people said to me, “God sent you to us.” I experienced fulfillment in ministry. And I never missed one repayment on my house.

God has a wonderful tailor-made plan specifically for your life too. If you ask for it, and if you are willing, you will find it. Accept that He has a unique plan for you. Often we need to lay aside our own plan and ask, before He reveals His plans for us.

Ask God today, “What do you want me to do?”

And expect an answer within two weeks!

Four steps towards you destiny:

1. Hear directly from God

2. Maintain right relationships

3. Get the timing right

4. Step out in faith

To Colonize or Not to Colonize

2010-02-08T08:49:00.000+10:00

Early Australian pioneers believed what they were doing was right and honourable. In fact, they believed they had a moral mandate to do it.

Someone once described the 1800s as the century that spawned great men. So I sometimes wonder whether our generation could benefit by rediscovering the values of the men of that era who helped shape such a humane Commonwealth of nations.

Considering the values of the New Testament Gospel, and also the values of the Old Testament Law and Prophets, I think we can say:

* It was Scriptural that 18-19th Century English evangelical missionaries came to teach the Gospel to Australian Aboriginal nations. (Matthew 28:19)

* It was Scriptural, whilst preaching and teaching the Gospel, that they lived here amongst indigenous nations, so long as they were still welcome. (Matthew 10:11-15)

* But they couldn't swim here - they needed to sail on ships. So it was Scriptural, in order to arrive here and preach the Gospel, that they traveled on secularly-owned shipping routes even though they may have been operating purely for commercial purposes. (Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey; St Paul sailed on Gentile-owned commercial ships). I find it interesting that they couldn't have fulfilled Christ's great commission if not for the existence of ships which had been built with commercial motive.

* Therefore it was Scriptural and honourable that believers were interested not only in preaching the Gospel to native lands, but also in trading with them and living amongst them for that purpose - so long as it was welcome, and was good, and was profitable for both parties. (Prov.14:23, Eph.4:28)

* Of course, not everyone always had such good scruples. But very often, when an unscrupulous man mistreated another, it was evangelical believers were the advocates for social reform - through speaking about righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come. (Acts 24:25)

* When convicts were deported to Australia perhaps unjustly, God was working in the circumstances to use it for the furtherance of the Gospel, i.e., for the overall good of future society. (Acts 25:12, Gen.50:20, Rom.8:28)

* Despite any undesirable circumstances which may have come about in history as a result of men's sins, God was working in the nations to bring about the overall good of future society. (Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound).

* And where should non-indigenous Australians live? It seems to me to be Scriptural, and just, despite the rights or wrongs of Australia's colonial past, that all present-day Australian citizens, whether indigenous or not, should have the right to remain living in Australia - since that seems to me to be the most peaceful, least disruptive, and most mutually beneficial option for everyone in society. It is the option that best upholds Christ's new commandment of "love" - to "love thy neighbour as thyself" (I Cor.7:15,17,20).

It all comes down to love. Anything that we do in love, with respect to person's and private property, with honour, with humility - whether the activity is missionary, commercial, educational, civil, governmental, or corrective - if it's done in love, then it's Gospel, it's Lawful, it's expedient.

A Summary of the Sequence of Revelations Shown to John on the Isle of Patmos

2010-02-04T17:39:00.000+10:00

Very often I think our concepts about the Book of Revelation come as much from what we have heard about the book as from what we are actually reading.

Therefore a good place to start in order to properly understand the meaning of the Book of Revelation, might be to take another look at what the text itself actually says (or doesn't say)!

So I decided to read the Book of Revelation in reverse order - starting at the last chapter, and working my way back towards the first chapter - carefully noting the events of each chapter and the sequences in which they are said to occur. I conducted this experiment in order to minimize the preconceptions with which I might approach the text.

Some unexpected and interesting observations came to light! The following is a summary of the main events of the Book of Revelation as I saw them unfold in their stated sequences - written in my own words, together with some observations (which are included in bold in the parentheses).

John was on the island of Patmos, and he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and he heard a great voice behind him like a trumpet. The voice instructed him to write what he saw on a scroll, and post it to a very specific group of readers - to seven specific churches which existed in seven specific locations during the first century AD.

[NB: It is important to remember that the Book of Revelation was written with an original audience in mind. When interpreting the book, it is therefore important to consider what the content might have meant to the original intended readers - ahead of anything it might have meant to subsequent generations.]

John was shown both "things which are" as well as "things which shall be hereafter".

[NB: There appear to have been two categories of events which were revealed to John: firstly, events which "are", i.e., events which had already taken place or which were currently taking place at the time of writing; and secondly, events which "shall be hereafter", i.e., events which were "at hand" or which would come to pass "shortly". So apparently, not everything that was written is still to come in the future - some of the events shown to John may have already happened or may have already been unfolding at the time of writing. Therefore any interpretation of the Book of Revelation which does not take account of the past-fulfilment of some of the details, may mistakenly forecast certain events to happen in the future which may in fact have already happened.]

[Also note: John wasn't sent to give the churches an exact sequence or timeline of future events. Not even Jesus Himself was willing to give that to the Apostles when they asked Him, before His ascension, "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" And He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times nor the seasons which the Father has placed in His own hands". It seems many people are seeking to find in the Book of Revelation an exact sequence of future events - but why would the Book show us something that Jesus had already said was not for us to know? The main purpose, it seems, of the Book of Revelation, was to strengthen believers by helping them make sense of their present sufferings. The Book gave just enough explanation of current and then-future events to be able to provide that encouragement. It provided just enough information to console first-century believers whose imminent tribulations might otherwise have caused them to wonder what on earth had happened to the promised Kingdom. The Revelation showed them how all was well with the promised Kingdom. But the Book wasn't designed to answer every question we may have in regard to sequences of events. Its purpose was to provide just enough explanation to be able to help us make sense of present sufferings, and to confirm what had already been spoken by our Lord in the Four Gospels, and taught elsewhere by the Epistles. So make sure you don't lost the main purpose of the Book by looking for answers which it probably wasn't designed to give.]

John explained that an angel was sent to him for the purpose of signifying these events.

[NB: The angel didn't speak plainly - but used signs, i.e., he used imagery which was largely representative rather than intended to be taken literally. We may risk formulating mistaken applications of some of John's topics, if we fail to understand that some of his imagery was intended as "signs" rather than as literal descriptions.]

[Also note: the Book of Revelation consists of a series of visions. Some of the visions appear to be connected to each other in a definite sequence, citing definite time-frames, while some of the visions appear to go back in time to describe events which were already past, or to describe events which were currently unfolding even in John's day in the first century AD. Some of the visions may touch on some of the same information as a way of givinig further clarification to events described in a previous vision. Not every vision appears to describe a completely separate event in chronological order. In order to know whether a vision describes a subsequent event in chronological order after the previous vision, or otherwise, the text itself needs to be consulted. Time-indicating texts need to be noted.]

John begins by describing himself as a "companion in tribulation" to his readers.

[NB: "Tribulation" was regarded by John as a present reality in the first century AD. "Tribulation" was something which John and his first-century readers were already experiencing. One of the churches was about to undergo a ten-day period of "great tribulation"; another church was warned about being thrown into "great tribulation"; others of the churches were already experiencing tribulations to varying degree. The term "The Great Tribulation" appears to be missing from the Book of Revelation, in the King James Version at least. We find mention of "...great tribulation" but never of "The Great Tribulation".]

John describes any individual who reads, hears and keeps the things that are written, as "blessed".

It is declared that Jesus is coming with clouds, and that every eye will see Him, and that those who had pierced Him [some of whom may have been still alive at the time of writing] would wail because of Him.

Then John begins to address the seven churches individually, on Jesus' behalf.

Severe warnings were given to any church-attendee who didn't recover his first love; who didn't do the first works; who didn't remember from where he had fallen; who didn't remember the original values of the Gospel which he had learned when he first came to the Lord; who had become lukewarm; whose reputation was better than his true state; who thought he was doing okay when actually he was deceived as to his true, wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked spiritual state; who was tolerant of false teachers, prophets and church-members who practised, taught or allowed immoral and idolatrous practices; and who didn't repent of any of the above.

John passed-on the Lord's warning that any such unrepentant church-attendee risked having his candlestick removed out of its place; he risked having Jesus come and fight against him with the sword of His mouth; he risked being thrown into "great tribulation", or being killed with death, or risked experiencing Jesus coming to him like a thief.

Equally clear were the promises given to any church-member who would be zealous and repent, who would keep working, serving and labouring even more patiently, lovingly and abundantly than he did when he first got saved; who endured all things without fainting; who discerned and refused to tolerate false apostles; who hated the compromising deeds of certain sects; who feared none of the things which he was about to suffer; who held fast His Name and did not deny Jesus' faith despite the martyrdoms that were occurring; who was spiritually cautious and whose doings were perfect - someone who was an overcomer.

To such a repentant overcomer it was promised that he will be given to eat of the tree of life in Paradise; he will be given a crown of life; he will not be hurt by the second death; he will be given power over the nations, to rule them with a rod of iron and to break them to shivers like the pots of a potter; he will be given the morning star; given to eat of the hidden manna; given a white stone engraved with a new, personal, privately known name; he will be clothed in white and will walk with Jesus; his name will not be blotted out of the scroll of life, but his name will be confessed by Jesus before the Father and before the angels; he will be made a pillar in the Temple of God, and will no longer exit the Temple; the name of God will be written on him, and the name of God's city - new Jerusalem - which shall come down out of heaven from God; Jesus' new Name will be written on him; and he will be given to sit with Jesus in His throne, just as Jesus overcame and sat with His Father in His throne.

After writing specific messages to individual churches, John then sees an open door in heaven, and he hears a voice inviting him to come up and see things which were to happen afterwards. Many of the visions are intermitted with heavenly praise and worship.

He sees a Throne in heaven, four animals, 24 elders, and seats. He sees a seven-sealed scroll in God's right hand. He sees a Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes - which are said to represent the seven Spirits of God. He sees 100 million people before the throne worshipping the Lamb.

The Lamb opens the first seal: John sees a white horse going out to conquer.

[NB: The Book of Revelation mentions many conflicts, such as the wars which broke-out as a consequence of the actions of this white horse; the wars which broke-out as a consequence of the actions of the black horse; the war after which the blood flowed as deep as a horse's bridle for a distance of 322km; the battle at Armageddon; and the battle of Gog and Magog. Perhaps we've thought that each of these battles describe the one last great battle in the Middle East at the end of "The Great Tribulation" immediately prior to the Second Coming. However, each of these battles are listed separately, and at least two of them are said to be separated by at least one thousand years.]

Then the Lamb opens the second seal: a red horse takes peace from the earth, and brings the sword.

The third seal is opened: a black horse goes forth affecting the price of wheat and barley but not hurting the oil and wine.

[NB: The system of measurement mentioned was the Grecian measure, approximately equal to one quart; the currency mentioned was the Roman penny; and the price mentioned was exactly one penny. The literal meaning of the text therefore necessitates that this must have been fulfilled while the Grecian measure and the Roman money were still in use; as also where that measure was the common measure, and this money the current coin"; i.e., probably soon after the time of writing, and somewhere in the Roman Empire.]

The Lamb opens the fourth seal: a pale horse named "death and hell" goes forth, resulting in one-quarter of the earth's [or, the land's] population being killed by the sword, by hunger, by animals and by death.

The fifth seal is opened: John sees the souls of martyred saints under an altar in heaven, clamouring for their blood to be avenged on those who still live on the earth. They are told to rest until their fellow-servants are killed as they were.

The Lamb opens the sixth seal: there is a great earthquake, the sun becomes black, the moon becomes red, the stars fall to the earth, the heaven departs like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island is moved out of its place - to the extent that everyone wishes to be hidden from the face of Him who sits upon the Throne. The great day of His wrath is come.

[NB: The above event is often understood as describing the Second Coming of Christ - however, at this point in the Revelation, there still follows a number of events which according to the text of the Book of Revelation would take up to four more years to be fulfilled.]

John then sees four angels who intend to withold the four winds from blowing on the earth, on the sea, and on any tree.

But another angel comes from the Temple in heaven and cries with a loud voice to the four angels, urging them not to hurt the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, until the 144,000 servants of God - twelve thousand from each of the tribes of Israel - have been sealed. So the 144,000 servants of God get sealed.

John then sees great multitudes in heaven who have come from great tribulation.

[NB: These great multitudes were said to have already come from "great tribulation" - even though many of the events traditionally associated with the "Great Tribulation" (events such as the rising of the beast; 666; the plagues; the wars; and the fall of Babylon, etc - have not even been mentioned yet. What the Bible calls "great tribulation" appeared to be already happening before many of the events traditionally associated with "The Great Tribulation" had even been granted a mention yet.]

The Lamb then opens the seventh seal: John sees seven angels and seven trumpets, and the prayers of all the saints ascending before God.

The first angel sounds the first trumpet: one-third of all vegetation is destroyed by hail, by fire and by blood.

The second angel sounds the second trumpet: a burning mountain is thrown into the sea, resulting in one-third of the sea becoming blood. One-third of all marine-life dies, and one-third of all ships are destroyed.

The third angel sounds the third trumpet: a falling-star named 'Wormwood' causes one-third of all rivers, fountains and waters to become bitter - resulting in many deaths.

The fourth angel sounds the fourth trumpet: the sun, moon and stars emit one-third less light than normal, during both day and night.

[NB: The above event occurs to the sun, moon and stars even though the sun and moon were already said to have turned black and red and the stars of heaven were already said to have fallen to the earth and the heavens were already said to have departed like a scroll being rolled-up, back when the Lamb opened the sixth seal. It wouldn't be possible for this to be happening again to the sun and stars if the cosmos had already departed in a literal manner.]

Three more woes are then announced, i.e., the three remaining trumpets.

The first woe - the fifth angel sounds the fifth trumpet: stars fall.

[NB: Stars again fall, even though the stars were twice already said to have fallen or to have lost a third of their light-emitting ability, during the sounding of earlier trumpets].

A bottomless pit is opened, releasing locusts which are ruled by the angel of the bottomless pit, and which torment men for five months.

The second woe - the sixth angel sounds the sixth trumpet: four angels are loosed from the river Euphrates; and through an army of 200 million, one-third of men are killed.

An angel holding a little scroll then descends to the earth and stands with one foot in the sea and one foot on the earth [that is, on the land] - and he cries with a loud voice, prompting seven claps of thunder. But John is instructed not to write what was uttered by the seven thunder-claps.

Instead John eats the scroll, which tastes sweet as honey in his mouth but bitter in his stomach - and he is told that he must yet prophesy before many nations.

It is announced that there should be time no longer, and that "the Mystery" should be finished during the days when the seventh angel sounds his trumpet. .

Then John is told to measure the Temple. He is told that the Holy City shall be trodden under feet for 42 months. Two witnesses (who are identified as the "two olive trees", the "two candlesticks") prophesy for 1,260 days. Then an animal from the bottomless pit kills them. Their bodies lie dead for three-and-half days in "the great city" - the city which is spiritually named "Sodom and Egypt" - the same city where our Lord was crucified [i.e., in Jerusalem]. After three-and-half days the two witnesses are resurrected, then ascend to heaven. 7,000 people are killed, and 10% of the city [of Jerusalem] is destroyed by an earthquake.

The third woe quickly follows the second - the seventh angel sounds the seventh trumpet: it is announced that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of Christ; and that His wrath is come; and that it is now time for the dead to be judged and for His servants to be rewarded; and for those who destroyed the land to be destroyed.

[After this, John sees a sign in heaven which doesn't appear to be intended as a revelation of further events only - but also, as further explanation, in picture-form, of some of the same events which had already been revealed so far, some of which appear to have been already unfolding in the first century AD, as the subject-matter will make clear.]

He sees a heavily pregnant woman in heaven - clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and crowned with twelve stars - and she travails with birth pangs.

A great red dragon with seven heads, ten horns and seven crowns on its heads, draws one-third of the stars of heaven with a sweep of its tail and throws them to the earth. Then the dragon waits to devour the woman's baby as soon as it is born.

She gives birth to a baby-boy who is destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron. The baby gets caught up to God and to His throne. The woman flees into a wilderness, to a place prepared for her by God, where God sustains her for 1,260 days.

Meanwhile there is war in heaven: Michael and his angels fight against the dragon and his angels. The dragon is defeated, and loses his place in heaven. The result is that the dragon (that old snake, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world) and his angels, are thrown down to the earth.

Those in heaven are told to rejoice that the devil, which accused them day and night, has been thrown out of heaven. But for those who still live on the earth, things were to become extremely difficult.

The devil, ferociously angry and full of rage, knowing that he has but a short time left, targets the woman who had given birth to the baby-boy. She is given two wings with which she can fly into the wilderness to the place prepared for her by God, where she is nourished for three-and-a-half times [or, for three-and-a-half years].

The dragon tries everything to get the woman. He even tries to flood her out of the land - but the earth [or, the land] helps the woman by opening her mouth to absorb the water which the dragon spewed out of his mouth.

The dragon sets about to make war with the remnant of her descendants, i.e., with the Christians. But they, the saints, overcome him through the blood of the Lamb and through the Word of their testimony - and they loved not their lives even unto death.

As part of the dragon's continuing campaign against the remnant of the woman's seed - i.e., against the Christians - the dragon grants governmental authority to an animal which rises out of the sea, who then holds office for a term of 42 months [i.e., for the duration of the woman's sojourn in the wilderness]. During his 42-month term in public office, it is granted to this animal to succeed at persecuting the Christians.

The animal looks like a leopard, with feet like a bear's, and has seven heads and a mouth which looks like a lion's, and has ten horns. John notices that one of the animal's heads appears to have sustained a fatal wound by a sword - then John observes that the apparently fatal wound is healed, which causes all the world to be in awe at the animal. Everyone begins to think that there must be no-one else in all the world who could successfully wage war against the animal.

The result is that everyone in the world, except for the Christians, begins worshipping the dragon and the animal to whom the dragon had given this opportunity to be in government.

Then John sees another animal, which has two horns like a lamb's but a mouth like the dragon's. He performs miracles in order to deceive everyone. He commissions the sculpting of a statue of the animal, and demands that everyone worships it. He is even able to cause the statue to come to life, so that the whole world [or, everyone in the land], except for the Christians, worships the idol and the animal.

Then the two-horned animal demands that everyone receive the mark, or name or number of the animal, and to worship him - or else be killed. The alpha-numerical value of the animal's name [perhaps, using the Hebrew gamatron] amounts to six-hundred-and-sixty-six.

[NB: John apparently wrote this in order to enable his first-century readers to be able to discover the identity of the animal].

Then John sees a Lamb standing on Mt Zion - with 144,00 people who, in contrast to those who had received the animal's mark, have the Name of the Lamb's Father written on their foreheads.

[NB: These may be the same 144,000 who had been sealed immediately before the four angels hurt the earth, the sea, and the trees].

These 144,000 are singing a song which is not known to anyone else except exclusively to themselves.

[NB: This implies that this group of 144,000 cannot be taken as a symbol of the entire worldwide body of believers at that particular point in history, regardless of what eschatological system one adheres to - or else their song should have been one that was known by all of the redeemed - not exclusively by the 144,000].

John then sees another angel fly, having the Gospel to preach to every nationality of people on the earth, and to prepare people for the hour of God's judgment which is now said to have come.

[NB: So at this point, we are still at a phase in history where the Gospel is still being preached].

A second angel then follows, announcing that Babylon has fallen.

A third angel then follows, warning of eternal torment for all those who worship the animal, or his idolatrous statue, or who receive his mark.

At this time the saints are urged to endure patiently in their faith.

[NB: This indicates that the saints are still present in the world during the animal's term in public office. Jesus also implied, in His parable about the wheat and tares, that the children of the Kingdom (the wheat) would exist alongside the children of the wicked one (the tares) right up until the time of harvest which is the end of the world].

It is also announced at this time that any believer who died from that point onwards was in a sense better-off - because they can rest from their hard work.

John then sees the Son of Man wearing a golden crown, sitting on a white cloud, holding a sharp sickle in His hand.

A fourth angel comes out of the Temple and tells the Son of Man in a loud voice that He should now thrust His sickle into the harvest and begin reaping - because the harvest was now ready and ripe. So the Son of Man thrusts in His sickle, and the earth is reaped. Judgment is executed.

A fifth angel then follows from the Temple in heaven, also holding a sharp sickle in his hand.

And a sixth angel (who is described as the angel having jurisdiction over fire) comes out of the altar and yells at the fifth angel, telling him to thrust in his sickle.

So the fifth angel thrusts in his sickle - then throws the grapes into an enormous winepress - which represents the wrath of God. The quantity of blood which flows out of the winepress reaches as high as a horse's bridle for a distance of 1,600 furlongs [almost 322km].

John then sees one of the four [good] animals in front of the Throne, handing seven small medicine-glasses full of the wrath of God (the seven last plagues) to seven angels.

John sees the Christians who overcame the animal standing on a sea of glass mixed with fire, singing the song of Moses. He sees the Temple filling with smoke - which lasts until after the seven last plagues are over. He hears a booming voice from inside the Temple commissioning the seven angels to go and pour out their small medicine-glasses of God's wrath onto the earth.

The first angel goes and pours out his small medicine-glass onto the earth [i.e., onto the land]: a terrible sore falls on everyone who has the mark of the animal and who worships his statue.

The second angel pours out his small medicine-glass onto the ocean: the ocean turns into congealed blood, resulting in the death of every living soul in the sea.

The third angel pours out his medicine-glass onto the rivers and fountains of water: which promptly turn into blood. This is said to be a judgment on those who had shed the blood of saints and prophets. They had shed the blood of the saints - now they were being given nothing but blood to drink!

Then the fourth angel pours out his small medicine-glass onto the sun: men become scorched with fire and great heat - but still they don't repent.

The fifth angel pours out his little medicine-glass onto the animal's seat [of Government]: darkness, pain and sores spread all over his kingdom. Men blaspheme, and still do not repent.

The sixth angel pours out his small medicine-glass onto the large river Euphrates: it dries up, to make a passage-way for the kings of the East.

Here is how the kings of the East become involved: three unclean spirits, looking like frogs, hop out of the mouths of the dragon, the animal, and the false prophet. [NB: the false prophet may be that two-horned animal who spoke with a mouth like a dragon]. These frogs are said to represent the spirits of demons which perform miracles, and go to incite the kings of the whole earth to come and participate in what is called, "the battle of that great day of God Almighty".

At this time the Lord Jesus Christ points-out that He comes like a thief. He promises great blessings for everyone who keeps guard and who stays dressed-and-ready. He warns of dire consequences for those who fail to do as He commands.

The kings of the whole earth are then gathered together to a place which in the Hebrew language was called, "Armageddon".

The seventh angel pours out his little medicine-glass onto the air: John hears a great voice out of the Temple saying, "It is done". The world's worst-ever earthquake strikes, resulting in the city which is called "the great city" being divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fall. Every island flees away and the mountains are no longer seen. A ferocious hail-storm falls on men - each hailstone weighing a full talent [as heavy as 58.9kg]. "Great Babylon" receives full and ferocious retribution for all the blood she has shed.

Meanwhile one of the seven angels which had the seven small medicine-glasses, offers to show John a picture of "the great prostitute" who was said to be sitting on many oceans, with whom the kings of the earth were said to have committed so much fornication as to have become drunk with it.

John is carried away in the spirit to a wilderness where he sees a drunk woman - drunk with the blood of the martyred saints of Jesus.

She wears purple and red and is decked with gold and precious stones and pearls - and she holds a cup full of her disgusting, filthy fornication.

She has a title written on her forehead, which identifies her with Babylon. She sits on many oceans (which represents all of the nations of the world), sitting atop a red animal which is full of blasphemous titles and which has seven heads and ten horns.

John is told that the animal on which she is sitting had previously existed and then ceased to exist, and then came into existence again. The animal originated from the bottomless pit, and will ultimately go into ruin and damnation.

John then gives a hint about the identity of this hideous animal. Its seven heads are said to represent seven mountains on which the woman sits. And it is explained to John that there are seven kings - five of whom were said to have already fallen; the sixth was said to be currently in office or currently alive at the time of writing; and the seventh king had not yet risen to power - but he was to come, and would hold public office for a short term.

This animal (which was said to have existed previously, but had died) is then described as being an eighth king which will emanate from the previous seven kings - and he also shall ultimately go into ruin and damnation.

The ten horns which John saw are also said to represent ten kings. John was told that none of these ten kings had come into office yet, at the time of writing. But their time would come, and they were to be in the public arena for an hour.

Their term in public office would be done in cohorts with the animal - in fact, they will offer their governments to him. God puts it into their hearts to give their governments to the animal for as long as it takes for God's words to be fulfilled. These ten kings will make a futile attempt to fight the Lamb, only to be soundly defeated.

The ten horns on the animal (those ten kings) end-up hating the "prostitute" and rob her of everything she has, they strip her naked, cannibalise her body then burn her remains with fire. This woman [the prostitute] is identified for us: she is "that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth".

[NB: The ten kings do not remain permanently loyal to "that great city".]

After this John sees another angel coming down from heaven, announcing that Babylon the great is fallen.

Immediately he hears another voice urging God's people to come out of Babylon so they don't partake of her sins nor of her plagues.

[NB: This seems to imply that God's people were still present in the earth at the time of Babylon's judgment].

We are told that Babylon's plagues came in one day. Other kings of the earth apparently don't receive the full brunt of her plagues at this moment. They survive Babylon's judgment and stand afar off like shocked eyewitnesses.

Heaven and the holy apostles and prophets are told to rejoice that God has finally avenged them on her. Babylon, who was guilty of the blood of prophets and of saints and of all that had been murdered in the earth, was now punished.

After the judgment of Babylon, the wedding of the Lamb is announced.

[NB: the wedding of the Lamb is announced after the destruction of Babylon, not during nor before].

The Lamb's fiance has made herself ready. Those who are invited to the wedding-reception are described as blessed indeed.

John sees a white horse, and the rider on the horse is named, "Faithful and True". He judges and wages war righteously. His eyes are like a flame of fire and on His head are many crowns [far more than the number of crowns worn by the animals and elders or by any other entity mentioned in the scroll]. He is clothed in a vest dipped in blood, with a name written on his vest and also on His thigh called, "King of kings and Lord of lords" - and His Name is called "The Word of God".

The armies in heaven follow Him on white horses, clothed in fine, white, clean linen. Out of His mouth goes a sharp sword with which He smites the nations, then rules them with a rod of iron.

It is now time for the kings who survived Babylon's judgment to be judged. John hears another angel bidding all the scavenger-birds of the earth to come to the supper which the great God was preparing. The kings of the earth and the evil animal wage war against the Lord and against his heavenly army. The result is that the animal and the false prophet are captured, and both of them are thrown alive into a lake of fire. All other surviving kings and the masses of wicked men are killed by the sword of the Lord. All the scavenger-birds of the earth then have a satisfying feast of human flesh!

Then an angel comes down out of heaven and lays hold on the dragon - that old snake, called the Devil, and Satan - and the angel chains the dragon up, unlocks the bottomless pit and throws him in - and locks him in, never to deceive the nations again for a thousand years.

The souls of martyred witnesses for Jesus, live and sit on thrones, reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Other dead people don't experience their resurrection until after the one thousand years - it is only those who had been beheaded for their Christian faith and who had not worshipped the animal nor his idolatrous statue who will take part in this first resurrection. They are blessed and holy. The "second death" will have no jurisdiction over them.

[NB: Perhaps those faithful Christians who died a natural death without having been martyred by the animal may be included in this resurrection also.]

When the thousand years are expired, Satan is freed from his prison. He promptly goes out to deceive the nations of the world - Gog and Magog - and gathers them together for a final war. The number of troops that amasses around the camp of the saints is as innumerable as the sand of the sea - they lay siege against the beloved city. But fire comes down from God out of heaven and obliterates them.

The devil who deceived them is thrown into the lake of fire (where the animal and the false prophet had already been thrown). The devil will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Next, John sees a large, white throne, and he sees Him who sits on it - He from whose face the earth and heaven flee away - they cannot endure His presence. Every single dead person, without exception, stands in front of God at this moment. The sea yields-up the dead who are in it; even death and hell itself yield-up the dead who are in them.

The scrolls will be opened - scrolls in which every individual's deeds have been written. Every individual is judged in terms of what is written in the scrolls concerning their deeds. And whoever was not found included in the scroll of Life, was thrown into the lake of fire. This is called the "second death".

Finally, John sees a new heaven and a new earth, because by this juncture in history, the old heaven and old earth had passed away.

He sees the holy city - new Jerusalem - coming down from God out of heaven, like a bride adorned for her husband.

He hears a loud voice from heaven announcing that God is now living with mankind. God shall wipe away all tears; there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain - all these things have now passed away forever.

Sitting on His throne, God says to John, "Behold, I make all things new."

John is then given some concluding remarks: Eternal life is available to everyone who desires it. It is promised that any individual who overcomes will inherit absolutely everything. But those who are fearful, unbelieving, disgusting, murderers, who visit prostitutes, who practise witchcraft, who worship idols, and all liars, shall have their place in the lake of fire - which is the second death.

One of the seven angels which had the seven small medicine-glasses offers to show John a picture of the bride, the Lamb's wife. She has the glory of God, and is splendid. She is the new Jerusalem. Her gates are inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel; her foundations are inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Only they which are included in the Lamb's scroll of life can enter into it. Everyone else is described as dogs.

John was also shown a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. The Lamb's servants shall reign with Him forever and ever. The qualification for inheriting eternal life is to do Christ's commandments.

Jesus then tells John that all these things will happen very soon.

It is the role of the Spirit and the bride to invite all who are thirsty to come.

A warning is given that any individual who either adds to or takes away from the words of the prophecy contained in this scroll, will have all of the plagues mentioned in this scroll added to him, and his name taken out of the scroll of Life.

Finally, Jesus says, "Surely I come quickly." And the bride responds, "Even so, come Lord Jesus!"

The reader is offered the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colonization and Australia's Social Conscience

2010-02-04T11:56:00.000+10:00

Many of Australia's early explorers, pioneers, first schools, and institutions were Christian. That's worth knowing and celebrating.

But even knowing that history, I wonder whether there is still an unaddressed problem within the social conscience of many of us Aussies - especially the younger generation.

It's all very well that many of our first white pioneers happened to be Christians. That's a fact of history that shouldn't be understated and which is definitely worth preserving and celebrating.

However, in our public education system our school children and University students are continually being confronted with a more fundamental question:

What gave our forebears the right to come here and start imposing British sovereignty here in the first place (irrespective of whether they were Christians or not)?

Unless we equip our children with a clearly articulated, moral, ethical, and Scriptural (theological) answer to that question - I feel sending them to school is like sending them into battle without anticipating what armour they might need.

History curriculums in our schools do not merely inform our children about the facts of our history - the curriculum is actually encouraging our children to question the morality of British colonization in the first place.

So I feel it's up to us - as parents, educators, or ministers - to provide our children with a clear, moral, ethical, Scriptural answer to that issue - or else, if we don't, their worldview will be informed from somewhere else.

Furthermore, it isn't only school children and University students who are being confronted with that type of thinking. All of us occassionally hear Australia Day being called "Invasion Day" by the Media.

Even though we may celebrate Australia's Christian heritage - still, somewhere in the consciousness of many Australians, is the awareness that it was not to "Terra Nullius" (Land Belonging to No-one) that our forebears sailed, but it was truly to a land already occupied by some 400 highly-organized indigenous nations, each with its own established social system, laws, property rights and language.

Everytime we hear an indigenous person expressing hurt and pain over the issue, our conscience seems to beg for a clearly articulated, moral, ethical and Scriptural answer.

Kevin Rudd apologized for the 'stolen generation' - but what about the aborigines' 'stolen' sovereignty? To ignore that - isn't that a bit like apologizing for stealing somebody's mobile phone yet not apologize for stealing his house?

So on one hand the apology dealt with part of Australia's public consciousness, but on the other hand it didn't address the more obvious question.

The question still exists in many minds despite knowing our nation's Christian heritage.

Until we are able to articulate an ethical answer, our conscience won't allow us to fully celebrate Australia's history - irrespective of how Christian it was. We will only be able to celebrate our Christian heritage in part.

When we are seen to be celebrating our Christian heritage yet not addressing the more foundational question, it can be seen as ignorance, bigotry, or insensitivity.

But if we demonstrate a willingness to address the question head-on - to face all the issues of our nation's colonial history - both the good and the bad - and provide a responsible, ethical, Scriptura (theological) compass - it will give our children boldness to celebrate our Christian heritage without intimidation. Then we may even encounter less resistance (say, from indigenous people or from secular academics) whenever we celebrate our Christian heritage.

I imagine it might be the same in Canada, and the US. They also celebrate their Christian history, but like we do here in Australia, their children are being taught to question the morality of colonial America.

What made it right for 500 native American nations to be 'forced' off their traditional lands then rounded up and placed into Reserves? they are encouraged to question.

It's one thing for American parents and Churches to teach their children about the Christianity of their nation's founding fathers - but it is a more foundational question that their children are being confronted with at school.

Perhaps the grandparents' generation was not confronted with that type of commentary on history like their grandchildren are nowadays.

And further back, during the 16-19th centuries, it seems the Church, government and society in general felt they had a moral mandate - based in ethics and in Scripture - for founding colonies around the world.

Whether the basis for their perceived mandate was flawed or not, at least they felt they were able to give an answer if challenged.

But what about us - now that our children are being encouraged to question the values that founded the colony in Australia, do we equip our children with answers, or are we going to leave them with a vacuum in their social consciousness?

Certainly, the answer is not as general as black or white.

But if our colonizing forebears were guilty of misapplying the values contained in the Scriptures especially in the New Testament - then lets identify the errors and teach our children the right values.

Or, if our forebears got it right by founding colonies in Australia, then let's explain to our children why it was right - so they also enjoy the same foundation in their social consciousness. Let's recover the mandate and keep blessing other nations.

But let's not leave our chiildren to flounder for an answer themselves, when their education system challenges why they should celebrate Australia's Christian heritage.

We all need a moral compass to govern our worldview.

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

The answer ought to be found in the Scriptures, especially in the New Testament.

We and our children can only benefit from being armed with an ethical and Scriptural assessment of Australia's colonial and aboriginal history. Rightly assessing histor in the light of Gospel truth will give us an accurate moral compass.

Physical, Bodily Resurrection from the Dead

2010-02-02T22:51:00.000+10:00

Paul talks about rising with a different body. I think he means that it is our physical body which shall literally be changed. I believe in a physical resurrection from the dead.

Jesus rose physically. It was His same physical body which rose from the dead. And Christ is the firstfruits from the dead. He is our forerunner. Our resurrection shall be after the same pattern as His. A physical resurrection from the dead.

Jesus said all who are in the graves will hear his voice. It's our body which is in the grave - not our spirit. It is our body which shall come forth.

If the spiritual body to which Paul refers is something which the dead in Christ already have in heaven, then why would the dead in Christ rise first, at His coming? They would already be risen, if the spiritual body is something they already have. But no, the dead in Christ shall indeed rise first, because it is their body which shall rise. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds. We shall all - both the dead and the living - be changed. Yes we shall all get our spiritual body. But it is our physical body which shall be changed. Therefore the dead in Christ need to rise first - so they can recover their physical body - so it can be changed like our body shall be who are still alive and remain.

Even the unrighteous shall experience a bodily resurrection. Only for them it shall be the resurrection unto damnation. But for us - it is a resurrection unto life.

Wealth - an Alternative View

2010-01-29T10:45:00.000+10:00

God put gold in the ground for Adam. And the gold was good! Heaven has streets paved with gold. Had Adam not sinned, he may eventually have made Eden into a replica of Paradise in heaven complete with streets paved with gold. Perhaps Adam may even have decided to make a golden house which God could come to during His daily afternoon walks and talks with Adam, like the Temple which John saw in heaven.

Later God gave land to the twelve tribes of Israel. The land was to be a perpetual inheritance, never sold outside of the tribe. Moses also instructed the nation not to charge interest except to non-citizens.

At that time God also promised extra fertility to His people. The numbers of offspring produced by His people was to be considered a measure of how blessed they were and of how influential they could become.

All of this was a shadow of the restored Paradise which is now reserved for us in heaven and which shall be revealed at His coming and Kingdom, thanks to the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

In the meantime, even though the Kingdom is within us, and not outward, nevertheless some of heaven's value-system with regard to material wealth may be able to shine out from within us into our families and community in this present world, even though the extent to which this may happen may be limited on this side of the Resurrection due to persecutions and physical death.

Let's consider how that may happen. Imagine acquiring land without having any intention of ever selling it. You wouldn't care about rising or falling real estate prices. Your purpose would be to bequeath the land to perpetual generations. Your future descendants would never need to purchase the land on which they build their family home.

Imagine acquiring gold, and other precious metals and gemstones - not to sell them again - but to own them perpetually and to use them to keep improving the value and beauty of your family property. You wouldn't hope for rising prices nor care about falling prices. Your purpose would be to keep and enjoy for generations.

Imagine an economy that didn't charge interest within itself. The boom/bust or inflation/recession economic cycle wouldn't exist. Foreign debt would forever be replaced by a trade surplus.

A key difference between that and other wealth-creation strategies is that it neither depends on nor can be affected by price changes.

With that view of wealth, imagine then hoping to produce as many children as possible. If each generation has five children, in the 100th year you will have multiplied into 4,678 people; or approximately 45,000 if each generation has eight children; or half a million people if each generation is blessed with twelve children. Imagine the influence on society this makes possible.

And imagine if all Christian families in the nation adopted the same value system. Imagine if each Christian family purchased acreage, not to hope for price rises so they can sell, but with the intention of keeping the land as a family inheritance for perpetual generations.

And imagine if each Christian family acquires gold and precious metals and gemstones, not to hope for price rises so they can sell, but with the intention that each house that gets built on their properties undergoes continuous and lavish improvement and beautification and remains in the family forever.

Imagine if each Christian family multiplies in 100 years to become thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

And imagine if each family never charges interest to a fellow family member.

In 100yrs, each Christian family could almost become a village, community or city of its own, let alone the influence that they would have in their existing communities.

Whilst the fertility rate amongst the rest of the nation's population remains below 2.0, in the second generation more than one half of all the children born in the nation will have come from those Christian families. And by the 100th year, tens or hundreds of millions of people will belong to the Christian church in the nation.

All of this could be achieved in just 100yrs, simply by adopting the heavenly/Edenic/Mosaic/Gospel paradigm of wealth: that is, adopt a view of wealth-creation that neither depends upon price rises as a stretegy nor can be negatively affected by falling prices.

It's amazing how many common wealth-creation strategies actually depend on price rises in order to succeed. For example, nowadays if people by real estate or gold, they do so hoping that instability in the economy will force prices up, so they can sell.

But God didn't put gold in the ground so Adam could hope that other people's economic misfortune would force the price of his gold up so he could finally get some advantage. No, God put the gold there so Adam could keep it and enjoy it. Same with the real estate.

True wealth is not created when instability in the economy unrealistically inflates the on-paper value of your asset. You've really created wealth only when the value of your asset has been improved in real terms: for example, if you've improved the land by building a house on it; or by decorating it with pure gold; or if you have produced something such as crops, animals. And especially if you've multiplied by having children.

Then it can be said that you have increased your wealth.

But if your wealth has increased on-paper only, then you are merely reflecting the instability and misfortune in the economy without having truly increased your wealth in real, Biblical terms. You can still be affected by a downturn in the economy. You are still depending on instability in the system.

When all along God gave us a blue-print for a wealth that promotes stability in the economy and that lasts forever.

But better still is the eternal wealth that awaits us at the coming of Jesus Christ!

Intimacy With Christ is the Key to Fruitfulness

2010-01-18T23:19:00.000+10:00

Are you looking for breakthroughs in your church? family? personal life? community?

Our Pastor told us yesterday that God said to him, "Break through to Me - and you'll automatically receive those other breakthroughs you are looking for".

So, instead of prancing the floor, praying for breakthroughs, in our prayer meetings, we've been still - allowing God Himself to melt us and bring us into closer intimacy with Him.

And almost immediately, in our church, we've started seeing every one of the breakthroughs our Pastor has been desiring.

Souls came to the Lord - seven last Sunday morning. Broken hearts were mended. The Holy Spirit manifested His gifts in the meeting.

If you faithfully glean in Jesus' field - cling to Him in intimacy - He will notice you, and He'll act to guarantee your desired destiny!

Our Pastor shared the analogy: like a wife who says to her husband, "Just hold me"; and like a husband who asks after a minute, "For how long? I'm getting tired." Similarly, sometimes our flesh doesn't like to just wait in intimacy upon the Lord - so often our flesh wants to DO something. Yet that intimacy with God is exactly what we need.

Breakthrough to God; and He'll take care of those breakthroughs you need: in your personal life; family; church; ministry/business and community.

Since our thrice-daily prayer meetings this week have been more about drawing near to God than about storming heaven with our petitions, it started me thinking about the style of modern church services.

Imagine if Sunday morning services all around the world existed primarily for ministering unto the Lord, rather than to the congregation - although that's important too. I'm sure we'd see God break through and minister to the people!

Turn the Other Cheek

2010-01-12T13:12:00.000+10:00

Turn the Other Cheek

Jesus taught His disciples to turn the other cheek IF SOMEONE SMITES THEM ON THE CHEEK.

That is talking about a non life-threatening situation. Being slapped on the cheek is basically harmless.

If Jesus also had life-threatening situations in mind, then a nation should have no police force, no judiciary system, no military, no insurance policies, and anytime someone wants to harm our children we should welcome it.

But Paul taught that law-enforcement is ordained by God. The New Testament also teaches that if a man doesn't care for his own family, he is worse than an infidel.

When Paul was being tried before the courts, he didn't remain silent like Jesus did before Pilate. Paul spoke at length in his own defence.

When someone smote Paul, he didn't turn the other cheek. He said, "God will smite you, thou whited wall".

Paul taught that the church ought to be able to resolve internal disputes and judge matters. If everyone was always meant to turn the other cheek, no-one should ever desire to resolve any matters. But Paul told them they ought to be able to resolve matters.

What about when Paul demanded proper treatment according to his rights as a Roman citizen in jail in Philippi? Shouldn't he have turned the other cheek, instead of embarrassing the jail-wardens by demanding his rights?

And why did Paul appeal to Ceasar when he felt he wasn't getting justice?

Paul said, "Be a follower of me, as I also am of Christ". So we know Paul wasn't contradicting anything that Jesus said.

So, what did Jesus mean?

Well, He was talking about how to respond if someone smites you on the cheek. A slap on the cheek isn't exactly attempted murder. He wasn't talking about how to respond if someone tries to kill your children.

And He didn't say you couldn't defend yourself if someone is trying to kill you.

He didn't say you can't defend yourself in a court of law. In fact, He said the Holy Spirit will give you words to speak in such moments.

And he didn't say anything about what to do after you've turned the other cheek. He didn't say you can't confront them for their wrongdoing. In fact, He said, if your brother sins against you, rebuke him.

If the person keeps hitting you on the cheek, and actually draws a weapon and tries to kill you - Jesus didn't say you can't defend yourself. He merely mentioned a slap on the cheek.

If you react violently to a mere slap on the cheek, that doesn't show any special character. It shows character to be willing to suffer a little bit of mistreatment before deciding how you are going to respond.

But the Pharisees were finding license for all sorts of cruel behaviours, by twisting things that Moses had said. So Jesus sought to tell them what was really meant by various points of Law in the writings of Moses.

For example, on the "bill of divorce" point of Law, where Moses allowed divorce if a man found "uncleanness" in his wife, the Pharisees interpreted "uncleanness" as virtually anything and they allowed divorce for any trivial cause. So when Jesus said it's wrong to get divorced except for cases of infidelity, He was explaining what Moses really meant by "uncleanness". Jesus sought to bring them back to the heart of the matter, instead of allowing them to misuse the Law to justify all sorts of sensual behaviours including adultery and murder.

When someone slaps you on the cheek, it's not going to do you any real physical harm. If they slap you twice on the other cheek, it still won't do you any real harm. You can still choose to ignore it and walk away, and then discuss it with the person later when he has calmed down. That shows character.

But if someone is persistantly trying to harm you physically, or kill you, or treat you unjustly in law - well none of that comes under the category of a slap on the cheek does it. Otherwise Christ would have been contradicting Himself when He told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would give them words to speak when they get hauled before synagogues. And Paul would have been disobeying Christ by his defensiveness before the courts.

The point is, "eye for an eye" wasn't meant to be a license for reactions, revenge, and retaliations. We ought to be slow to react, when it isn't a life-threatening situation.

And God has ordained military and law enforcement. And a father ought to defend and provide for his household.

But to retaliate immediately when someone slaps you on the cheek, just because Moses said, "An eye for an eye", is the complete opposite of what Moses was trying to say. He was trying to teach fairness and restitution, he wasn't giving us a license for irrational responses.

And Moses also taught that matters needed to be resolved properly before elders and judges - not by taking matters into your own hands.

We ought not to be too quick to react. We ought to be willing to suffer a bit of mistreatment. We ought to be patient and measured in our responses to things. It ought to be fair and just. It was fair of Paul to place his persecutors in an embarrassing position in Philippi after they'd whipped him without a fair trial.

Turn the other cheek means don't allow yourself to be provoked. It means, don't excuse bad behaviour.

The term "turn the other cheek" is not about situations where you life might be threatened.

Turn the other cheek was not a case of Jesus putting aside the Law - it was a case of Him explaining the Law, particularly, the meaning of "an eye for an eye".

When the person came to Jesus asking Him to speak to his brother that he divide the inheritance with him, and Jesus said, "Man, who made me a judge over you". And then He taught His disciples to beware of covetousness - Jesus wasn't saying it's wrong to have judges, or to use them.

And it isn't "covetousness" when you desire what is yours, or when you desire something new. Covetousness is when you desire something which specifically belongs to someone else. It's okay for me to desire a wife, but it's wrong for me to desire your wife. That's covetousness. It's okay for me to desire to own a block of land, but it's wrong for me to extort your block of land from you if you don't want to sell it. That's covetousness.

Jesus probably would have been quite okay with that person confronting his brother if his brother was transgressing against him.

Just because Jesus' disciples didn't defend him when He was arrested, doesn't mean that there is no longer any place for a military, under the New Covenant. In the book of Romans it says they are appointed by God.

So Jesus' statements need to be understood in the context.

Leave a comment or mail me, if I'm not seeing the full picture.

"An Eye for an Eye"

2010-01-11T12:27:00.000+10:00

"An eye for an eye"

It was probably only an expression, something which Moses didn't intend them to enact literally. It wasn't about retaliation and revenge - it's meaning was that criminal law should focus on restitution befitting the crime.

I have friends from overseas countries who often saw people walking around without hands - because of a system of law that literally did such things. That is the exact opposite of what Moses actually meant.

For example, Moses didn't mean if a criminal damaged someone's foot that his foot should be damaged. It simply meant that the criminal could be expected to pay the expenses of restoring his victim's foot back to health. It was an expression. It was about fair restitution.

It actually restricted the severity with which crime could be punished. It meant that a criminal could simply be expected to restore his victim - no worse punishment was allowed.

The "eye for an eye" statement was designed to teach, for example, that a criminal shouldn't be bound in chains and sent as a convict to the other side of the world simply for stealing a loaf of bread. He should simply be required to restore the loaf of bread!

It had nothing to do with literally amputating eyes, hands, and feet. It was about ensuring restoration to the victim without being unfairly severe against the criminal. It was about giving everyone a chance to put it behind them and move on.

It also guaranteed equality. It meant that a criminal couldn't be expected to pay more for his crime just because it had been perpetrated against some "upper class" person instead of a poor person. The punishment could only be as befitting the crime - regardless of anyone's class or rank. It was always a "hand for a hand", never a hand for a finger just because the person he hurt happened to be a ruler or rich!

The "eye for an eye" principle (it was only an expression) was a system of civil law which was designed to protect both the victim of crime and also the perpetrator of crime from further injustice.

It protected the victim from injustice by focusing on restitution. The criminal had to pay the victim for his losses.

It protected the criminal by ensuring fair treatment. The criminal couldn't be expected to pay more than make restitution.

The mercy, compassion and justice contained in the "eye for an eye" principle was a breath of fresh air compared to the injustices the Israelites had grown accustomed to in Egypt! It was a new system of civil law which came straight out of God's heart!

In our modern system of criminal and civil law, we have rejected the balanced "eye for an eye" principle and replaced it with a prison system. But did you ever notice there was no prison system in God's Law? That's because a prison system disadvantages both the victims and the perpetrators of crime.

It disadvantages the victim because it doesn't focus on restoring the damages done to him. Plus it inflicts a double-damage on the victim because it's his money (through taxation) which pays to feed the criminal in prison.

A prison system disadvantages the criminal also because when he finally gets released from prison, he carries a criminal record with him, which makes it hard to get a job, so he has to go on Centrelink, which keeps him poor, so he re-offends.

This inflicts another cost on the victims of crime because it's their taxes which fund not only the prisons but also Centrelink!

A series of injustices and costs keeps getting perpetrated all around, and nobody is advantaged except the Government and its employees. Sometimes a criminal is even expected to pay a fine to the Government, instead of restoring his victim. This does nothing to teach the criminal how his actions hurt others. Instead, the criminal almost feels it's his right to steal because of the disadvantages inflicted on him through the "system".

The "eye for an eye" statement in Moses' Law, when understood propertly, is actually a beautiful principle that addressed all of these issues in a merciful, compassionate, fair and just way.

"Eye for an eye" (when not taken literally, but as a principle of equality and restitution) is a system of law which results in total restoration of the victim and total release for the criminal.

As David said, "Oh how I love thy Law!" It's beautiful for everyone concerned.

I think Jesus made Moses' intention real clear. You know how Jesus said, "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also".

Well, Jesus was explaining the real principle behind the Law, rather than disagreeing with it. He was pointing-out that Moses' statement was intended to be understood as dealing with the over-severe treatment of criminal justice.

It's like when He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Jesus wasn't disagreeing with the original statement, "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Rather, He explained the real heart of it.

Or it's like when He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill...but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment". Again, Jesus didn't disagree with "thou shalt not kill", rather, He explained the real heart of it.

It was in that context that Jesus said, "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off..." He didn't mean it literally - it is the heart of it that matters.

So when Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek", He was actually explaining the heart that was behind Moses statement, "An eye for an eye". The Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees were totally misrepresenting God's heart as expressed in Moses' Law, to their own advantage. It was they who were inflicting cruel punishments on people which Moses never intended.

So Jesus brought his disciples back to the true heart, the true meaning of the Law, which God was looking for when He gave Israel that Law through Moses. Jesus said, "Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees you will by no means enter the Kingdom of God".

So, Jesus wasn't annulling the Law - He was showing the real heart of it.

So, we need not be against the "eye for an eye" principle, when we really understand what was intended by it. It was about restricting severity. It was about focusing on restoration.

I think we make a mistake by taking things literally when they were only meant to be expressions that illustrated a principle.

Like when Jesus said to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. Or when He said to "turn the other cheek". They were principles, not meant to be taken literally. Same with "eye for an eye".

And society still needs to have some system of criminal and civil law. Even the New Testament says there is a place for law enforcement in civil society (in the book of Romans). But not all of us are called to be law enforcers. Most of us are ordinary civilians, and we ought to leave law enforcement to those who are called by God to represent Him in that role.

A modern way of saying "an eye for an eye" might be to say, "Restitution and Equality". It's really saying the same thing. "Eye for an eye" is meant to be understood in a good way.

Jesus didn't come to do away with the Law. He said no-one who ignores the smallest principle in the Law can enter the Kingdom of God. He actually said that! But not as the Pharisees taught it. Jesus went to the heart.

The heart behind "an eye for an eye" is: that civil law should focus on restoration rather than on severe pushment. Ordinary civilians should leave it up to God's appointed law-enforcement officers rather than take justice into their own hands; and we should have a heart that would rather suffer wrong than treat others overly severely. That's what "eye for an eye" meant. It takes cruelty away.

Incidentally, Moses also gave a better system of social welfare than our Centrelink system. If we adopted his system, it would help the poor much more effectively, plus it wouldn't cost society any money in taxes. But that's another topic!

Leave a comment or mail me if you see any indadequacy in my understanding of God's heart.

Physical Creation Awaits the Second Coming

2010-01-08T14:30:00.000+10:00

I'm not sure how Satan used a snake to speak to Eve. Animals were placed under Adam's dominion; and since angels are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation, perhaps different animals came under the jurisdiction of different ministering spirits, responding to Adam's dominion over the animals, under God. And since the snake was more subtle than any other creature, perhaps it was the more likely candidate to be used by Satan on this occassion.

But Adam could have rebuked it. God questioned Eve and Adam before explaining the curse which they would henceforward suffer because of their disobedience, but God never questioned the snake - and yet He pronounced to the snake the curse which it too would henceforward come under. Animals don't have moral responsibility - and yet the snake species still incurred a curse.

All of creation suffered in the fall. Plant and animal life became subject to death; even the very characteristics of some fauna and flora may have changed.

Perhaps the act of tempting Eve was part-and-parcel of Satan's fall - rather than his fall being something that had already taken place in previous aeons. And perhaps when a third of the angels fell with Satan that day, those animals which may have been under their jurisdiction may have at that time incurred the character changes that seem to reflect the fallen characteristics of those spirits.

As early as pre-flood times, some animals were already being called unclean while others were clean. Compare your feelings about a sheep and a pig, or a dove and a vulture. Satan is called Beelzebub, the lord of the flies. The Bible does talk about angelic creatures in heaven, so perhaps some demons even look like the animals which may once have been their jurisdiction before the fall. Jesus said, "Behold I give unto you power over snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy".

Even some plant life changed its characteristics after the fall: thorns and thistles and perhaps strangling vines and poisons may have come into existence at that time.

All of physical creation groans, waiting for the redemption, the manifestation of the sons of God, when corruption shall be swallowed up in victorious resurrection. Perhaps the planet itself and the heavens shall be made anew.

We are waiting for the Day when our own bodies, and flora, and fauna, and the earth and heavens itself, shall be made new at the coming of our Lord and Savior.

In the meantime, we can exercize our Christ-given authority over snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy. Jesus bound the strongman, and spoiled his goods - and anyone who believes in Jesus will do as He did and greater works shall he do because He returned to the Father.

Responding to Supernatural Phenomena With Opennness and Integrity

2010-01-06T22:33:00.000+10:00

It ought to be our aim to build a culture of integrity, as well as a culture that embraces whatever God is doing, in our churches. The two ought to be able to exist side-by-side.

The Apostles never expected anyone to believe anything which they couldn't verify - yet that attitude of integrity didn't dilute the level of the power of God which they saw manifested in their midst. It helped.

Embracing the move of God with childlike faith does not mean that we should be intolerant of people who like to check something out before they embrace it.

In fact, when we are sure of our facts, we ought to wish for people to ask us for the evidence - we ought to welcome critical investigation of any miracles we have experienced - so God gets the glory after the infallible proofs have been presented.

Paul said, "...provide things honest in the sight of all men..."

Luke mentioned "...many infallible proofs..." which formed the basis of his Gospel.

When Peter and John heard a rumour that Jesus was risen from the dead, they ran to the tomb, and saw, and believed, and thereby qualified as Apostles of the Lamb - because they became eyewitnesses of His resurrection.

Our faith is based on the reliable witness of faithful men who saw, heard, handled, they ran to the tomb, they believed, their proofs were infallible. Even hundreds of non-disciples were able to verify the supernatural nature of the very same events that were being reported by the disciples in the four gospels.

Even the Pharisees said of Jesus, "...this man has done many miracles..."; and they said of the Apostles, "...it cannot be denied that a notable miracle has occurred..."

The Gospels were written as apologetics - to provide intelligent proofs for their testimony. So when somebody today asks for that type of evidence for an alleged miracle, it doesn't automatically mean he is cynical - it can show a willingness to embrace, to believe. If anyone is sure of a miracle, instead of criticizing such people, why not just present them with the evidence! That's what the Apostles did - otherwise we wouldn't have the four gospels.

In a court of law, someone does not qualify to give testimony about things concerning which he is not an eyewitness. The Apostles' testimony is reliable not only because they believed the women, but because they SAW for themselves. Seeing for themselves was a prerequisite for inclusion as one of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. The Twelve Apostles were unique from modern-day apostles in that they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection. Jesus admonished Thomas for his doubts, yet He knew it was necessary that Thomas also should see Him after His resurrection so that he also could qualify as one of the uniquely chosen Twelve who should become eyewitnesses of His resurrection.

It's a matter of crossing our t's and dotting our i's - integrity is necessary in a faithful witness. Paul said, "I will not dare to speak about the things which God has not wrought by me".

Biblical manifestations such as healings and tongues are relatively easy to verify.

If someone was born blind, it's easy to find people who can testify to the truth that he was once blind. And it's as obvious as the nose on the faces of all his relatives and friends that he can now see - whether they are believers or not.

And it's relatively easy for people to admit something unexplainable is occurring when they hear someone speaking their language even though they know the person had never learned their language. That kind of thing is pretty easy to verify.

When it comes to phenomena such as feathers, oil, gold, gemstones and oil, the same criteria for authenticity that can be applied to healings, or to the reliability of the Four Gospels, ought to be tolerated, and more than tolerated - it ought to be sought and employed.

Certainly there is a danger that modern churches can fail to embrace the Holy Spirit. But one way we can help them is to provide credible evidence for phenomena that we are asking them to embrace.

That's what the Apostles did for us: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They manifested the power of God - and they didn't shy away from presenting credible evidence for the stories and miracles they were claiming.

It's not hard, when you know it's real.

'Appearance of Age' at Time of Creation

2010-01-05T23:29:00.000+10:00

When God created man on the sixth day, fruit was already available on trees (Genesis 1:16) even though the trees had only been created three days previous (verses 12,13). That means, God created the trees with the 'appearance of age'.

When God created the stars, moon and sun - evidently their light immediately appeared on earth on that same day - even though the light from the closest star currently takes eight years to arrive on earth. That means, God caused the light to begin arriving immediately, giving an 'appearance of age' for the universe.

Modern dating methods used by scientists cannot take into consideration that God caused things to happen in a day which currently take years.

Grace vs. Legalism or Licentiousness

2010-01-05T18:34:00.000+10:00

Today I had an online chat with a friend about the subject of legalism vs. licentiousness especially as regards to our evangelism style.

It was centred around the statement in the Epistle of Jude, "Faith without works is dead". I make it my aim that my view on "legalism vs grace" always comes across as "pure, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy" (James 3:17). James talks about the importance of expressing our knowledge and wisdom with "meekness" of wisdom (verse 13) rather than with "strife" (verse 16).

Our chat went something like this - and, leave a comment if you sense anything lacking in my appreciation of God's heart:

John
Hi
been preaching lately?

Friend
not for a few weeks been very busy wid uni
what about you?

John
Yes

Friend
thats great were do you preach?

John
One-on-one

Friend
hows that going?
yeah I prob will have to do one on ones for a while

John
So I guess it's not really called Preaching when it's one-on-one is it

Friend
whats your thought on james concerning works as evidence of salvation?

John
I agree with James

Friend
na not really
yeah it is hard for people to understand we are not pushing a works salvation isnt it?

John
James was talking to people who were adulterers
People can't be continuing in that lifestyle and expect to be saved

Friend
can you show me where it talks about adulteres?
I thought he was talking about abraham and rahab as well

John
4:4

Friend
do you think 4:1-2 can be included in this idea?

John
Yes because the whole letter was written to the same people. James was also addressing people who were cursing others (3:10)

Friend
and I noticed boasting in chapter 3

John
He was addressing people who were saying that it is God Himself who was tempting them to sin, as if that justified sinning (1:13)
He was writing to people who were warring amongst themselves (4:1)

Friend
now looking at it that way it seems it encompasses almost everything, what about the beggining where he adresses the 12 tribes dispersed?

Friend
yeah it is an interesting book, how would you adress someone who said to you "NO you are preaching a works salvation"

John
It was mainly Jewish people whom James was addressing
He called them "sinners"

Friend
yes well they were the first convert

John
Paul never addressed true believers as "sinners" even the Corinthians who had a lot of stuff still to fix up!
But James was addressing "sinners"
He was addressing the types of people who employ destitute people as labourers and then refuse to pay them even when they cry out

Friend
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Jas 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
if these people were not saved whats the faith trying about?

John
Yes his letter addresses a variety of people at various sections of his Epistle. So when we interpret each section, it helps if we understand exactly who he was addressing in each section, and what those people were up to

John
I think it's highly appropriate to tell an adulterous man who is cursing people and waging war, completely ignoring the poor, and refusing to pay wages, that it's not enough just to say, "I'm a Christian".

Friend
could adultery also include adultery with the world?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

John
I suppose it would depend on how 'adultery with the world' is being expressed in the individual's life. If he's continuing in adultery, cursing, and deliberately ripping disadvantaged people off, then yes, he is committing adultery with the world
It's also important to remember what type of situations Moses was addressing when he gave them the Law.
Moses was addressing a world which was so warped that they needed to be told that it's not a good idea to have sex with animals.
He was addressing a world which needed someone to tell them that it's not a good idea to have sex with your mother

John
He was addressing a world which needed to be told that it isn't right to own a slave against his will for the rest of his life and mistreat him or her

Friend
Do you think that the people of that day did not think it was wrong to murder?

John
I think many of them were so entrenched in these things and their conscience was so dulled and they delighted in one another doing such things. God was sending the Israelites into a land of people who thought it was okay to cause their children to walk through fire in sacrifice to their gods

Friend
Im not sure I agree at this point
Im not sure might take some time to think about it though it is interesting concept the last few paragrapghs

John
Yes so it was this same type of blindness and self-deception that James was probably addressing - Jews who had been scattered amongst the Gentiles and who had picked up their lawless ways of living.
And who adopted a 'belief' in Christ but whose lifestyles hadn't changed one little bit and they thought that was okay!

Friend
I dont know I would have to read the book more indepth with those thoughts in mind
And who adopted a 'belief' in Christ but whose lifestyles hadn't changed one little bit and they thought that was okay!

John
okay

Friend
Isnt this a lot of whats going on now?

John
Yes it sure is

Friend
And who adopted a 'belief' in Christ but whose lifestyles hadn't changed one little bit and they thought that was

Friend
So can we apply those scriptures to people who are acting like that? How would you approach it if they were screaming legalist?

John
I heard the other day about a Pastor who had invited a guest speaker to his church, and the pastor sent two girls to the guest-speaker's hotel room. It's just wrong!

Friend
which church was this in the USA or Australia?

John
USA. And I heard about a Pastor in Pakistan who was lying about his ministry to attract money, and when a fellow-Pakistani exposed him, he had him beaten up. It's just wrong!

Friend
just a passing thought were you named after johnathon edwards?
oh that happens all the time not so much the beating up but the lying about a ministry we had a few come here and they were arrested

John
I don't think any sensible person with a good heart, would argue with us and call us 'legalistic' if we warn someone who thinks it's okay to keep committing adultery, lying, extortion etc.
And you are right - these things are all too common

Friend
haha what type of "christians" have you been exspoused too?

John
I've met Christians who think it's okay to commit fornication

Friend
I meet them all the time in the clubbing district when witnessing, friends from many different churches, the see nothing wrong with it

John
There is a big difference in my opinion between someone who falls into sin and feels really bad about it and confesses it and wishes they won't do it again - and someone who actually teaches that it's not a sin or that it's okay to keep doing it and who doesn't really wish to change or feel bad at all.

Friend
you tell them its wrong to get drunk and sleep around they either mention legalism or christian liberty
i agree with you on the difference I myself have fallen into sin several times
grevious sin
Have felt really convicted about it and had to put it right

John
Yes these people even try to quote the Bible. They are getting close to the type of situation which James was warning about. And that's why Paul said,"Be not deceived, God is not mocked..." We do reap what we sow - eternally. But there is a big difference between someone who sins a hundred times and confesses it with grief everytime, and someone who doesn't feel bad and even thinks God is okay with it. I would approach these two types of people in a similar yet slightly different way.

John
We all have sinned brother. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to... It's those who don't confess it as sin who are in trouble. And these are the one's James was addressing with statements like "faith without works is dead" and "weep and howl ye sinners"

Friend
yes, so you would agree we are to test oursleves to see if we are truely in the faith?

John
Well, on the one hand, we can be too introspective, we can feel held-back by our sins even though we've confessed them. But on the other hand, if we are utterly disregarding others, and making a lifestyle of it, then yes - we urgently need to examine ourself.
Remember that when Paul wrote to "examine yourselves" he was addressing people who were getting drunk at church and completely despising the poor.

Friend
What do you think caused all this problem concerning people that live in continuous sin with no repentance?

Friend
And call themselves christians?

John
...Paul was not only addressing people who were getting drunk AT CHURCH but who also thought it was okay to have a member who was sleeping with his stepmother, doing things which even the unbelievers wouldn't do!
But if somone feels bad about what they've done, Paul told them how to treat him. He said, "Confirm your love to him, welcome him, lest Satan take advantage of his sorrow"

John
See the difference? If we apply James and Pauls statements to the same type of situations, then we are correctly applying the Word.
But if not, we might not be conveying God's heart exactly

Friend
ummm what about a serial rapist they are often sorry, can a serial rapist be a christian?

John
Not if he teaches that it's okay

Friend
what id he is sorry everytime and knows its wrong?

John
If he can scarcely look up to heaven for shame, and cries out to God and says, "How could I have done that?!!! God, forgive me!" Then he is forgiven, 70X7. But if he comes to church with a brazen attitude and when confronted, says it's okay, then someone needs to tell him that faith without works is dead.
Someone needs to tell him, "Examine yourself, see whether ye be in the faith".

Friend
I not sure I agree, the fact that someone is raping all the time is evidence of being lost and had never been made a new creature

John
Yes I suppose it all depends on whether the person is coming looking for help, or whether they don't feel they need help. James was addressing people who obviously didn't believe they needed help. They even justified themselves.
I would address a person differently if he came admitting his need for help, than I would if it was someone who was actually teaching that fornication is Biblical

Friend
I have to get back to my studies, I am doing a unit that hates God they teach that God is dead in a post christian world so its pretty fullon. Was good talking to you about this you have given me something to think about. keep up the witnessing and pray for us as we will pray for you

John
Thank you. I pray for a soul-winning year for you! You're an inspiration.
I'm inspired by your example and zeal

Friend
Thanks for the encouragement we need it, we just done a video with mormons and are are doing one with 7th day adventists this week, we actually go and talk to them and discuss the scriptures with them
so pray for that
so pray for that

John
Remember, it's not he who just talks to souls, but he that "winneth" souls, that is wise.
Good on you. You are labouring abundantly for the Lord. A good example of hard work.
Love and blessings brother.

Friend
thanks

John
:):)

Friend
cya mate and God bless

God's Integrity

2010-01-04T23:52:00.000+10:00

During the work of creation, God began every action with His Word - with a spoken pronouncement of intention and will, in consultation with the other members of the Godhead, that is, with two or three witnesses. And He later assessed each of His own works, and deemed it to be not just "good" but "very good".

The Six Days of Creation Lasted 24hrs Each

2010-01-04T23:46:00.000+10:00

Each of the six days of creation probably lasted for 24hrs each - not for a thousand years. The Biblical day starts at night, followed by day. And each of the six days of creation consisted of one period of darkness followed by one period of light. If the darkness lasted 500 years, followed by 500 years of light, photosynthesizing plants could not have survived. It also would have necessitated that God later sped-up the speed of the earth's rotation on its axis - but the Bible doesn't mention that any such speeding-up of the earth's rotation ever occurred.

Genesis 1:1 and the Age of the Universe

2010-01-04T23:19:00.000+10:00

Even though Genesis 1:1,2 doesn't begin with the usual "And God said..." like the rest of the events of creation, I think it's probable that no part of the earth nor of the universe existed before the first of the six days of creation which are described for us in Genesis chapter one.

Each of the events described in Genesis 1:1-5 probably took place on the first day of creation.

Probably nothing was created at any time prior to the first day.

It says, "In the beginning..." not "In a beginning...". There was only one beginning.

Genesis 2:1 summarized the creation-week like this: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." If the previous chapter was not meant to describe the creation of all things in six days - but a mere refurbishment of the existing heavens and earth - then it would have instead summarized the creation-week by saying something like, "So tat's how God's long-awaited refurbishment of the ancient heavens and earth were done". But instead chapter one was not described as being a mere improvement or refurbishment of the heavens and the earth - it is summarized as being the story of creation from the "beginning" right up to the time when they were "finished". The whole thing appears to have taken place within those six days.

But even if the heavens and the formless earth were indeed created before the first day of creation, that was before light existed, and before the sun and stars existed, before there was day and night or seasons and years. Conditions would have been so different that even if that period left remaining visible marks on the universe or on the present-day earth, it would be impossible for those marks to indicate the age of the earth based on dating methods that may be possible under present conditions.

Who Wrote Genesis?

2009-12-27T12:20:00.000+10:00

Jesus said that Moses wrote Genesis.

But how did Moses get the information? By revelation?

It seems that much of the information may have been available to Moses in written form.

Mention is made in Genesis 5:1 of "the book of the generations of Adam". This document included genealogies and perhaps some pertinent accompanying narrative.

Mention is also made in the book of Genesis of "the generations of the heavens and the earth". It was the story of creation and subsequent events.

These documents might have been available to Moses, handed-down through Jacob, Issac, Abraham, Noah and Enoch. The name Enoch means 'scribe' in some languages.

Some of the information might also have been handed-down orally. And this information would have been entirely reliable, when you consider that Adam lived long enough to make it possible that Enoch could have known Adam personally. In fact, all of Adam's descendants before Enoch outlived Enoch, for Enoch was taken. So Enoch may have met them all!

Noah was Enoch's grandson, and Noah could have known all of Adam's descendants in that family line - because they all lived so long.

Then after the flood, Noah was still alive up until the time when Abraham reached the age of 60. In fact, Noah's son Shem outlived Abraham! So Abraham could have met Noah or at least Shem. Even if he didn't meet them, the fact they were still alive meant that they could have denied it if the stories being told about them were not true.

Then Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac Jacob, and Jacob Levi, and Levi's great-grandson was Moses.

So you can see how few hands and mouths the written and oral information had to pass through before reaching from Adam to Moses. Not too many at all!

Moses' role, therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was simply to compile the written documents and oral information into a single book, the book of Genesis.

Much of the information which Moses put into the book of Genesis would have been information which was already widely known by all Israelites and not just Israelites but by many of the inhabitants of the whole world.

Balanced View of Prosperity

2009-12-27T08:42:00.000+10:00

I read an article against prosperity.

The Son of Man truly had nowhere to lay His head, as the article said.

But does that mean it was Jesus' will that everyone become homeless?

Imagine: at first the Israelites had nice houses to live in. Then Jesus comes, teaching. Next thing, the whole nation of Jews is living outside in the rain and elements, leaving their suitable homes empty.

The Romans would be thinking, "What idiots!"

Even their goats would have had enough sense to come in out of the rain!

But that's precisely what should have happened - if it was God's will for everyone to become homeless just because Jesus was.

And what about Ministries?

Someone once criticized Billy Graham for his ministry's big budget.

"Jesus rode a donkey," they said.

Billy Graham replied, "If you find a donkey that can fly me across the oceans of the world, I'll be happy to ride it."

It costs money to print Bibles, to broadcast via satellite into closed countries, to travel and to preach the Gospel. If every believer is penniless like the preacher, no-one would be able to pay for it.

I like the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Often when trying to correct an extreme view, we can err to an opposite extreme, if we're not careful.

In my view, it would be an extreme view of prosperity if we taught that all believers everywhere will always prosper if only they have enough faith - because believers in some countries are experiencing imprisonment and martyrdom as a result of their faith.

But on the other hand, I think it's also extreme - and a bit blind - if a Christian in a free, democratic, Western country criticizes prosperity completely - when they wouldn't even be alive today to worship the Lord as a Christian, if it wasn't for the prosperity under their own two feet. I’ll explain.

It is mainly countries like UK, USA, Canada, Australia & NZ that saved the world during World Wars I & II. The Allied countries were able to win the Wars partly due to their prosperity.

And where did their prosperity come from? It came as a result of being free societies. And the freedom in their society only came as a result of generations of Gospel effort.

In other words, the freedom that we enjoy today to live as Christians (in Western countries) came about because somewhere back along the line, the Gospel produced prosperity.

And yet some prosperity-loathing person opens his mouth, standing on the very free soil which a previous generation sacrificed for, and blabs out some tirade about the Gospel having nothing to do with prosperity. That's either ingratitude or ignorance - or both.

If someone's prosperity message claims that persecuted believers in some countries didn't have enough faith - that's extreme. But it's also extreme if we refuse to see that God is delighted when a country becomes so infiltrated with the Gospel that its citizens start to experience freedom, prosperity, peace, health and longevity as a direct consequence.

"He taketh pleasure in the prosperity of His servants".

Take Uganda as an example. During Idi Amin's regime in the late 70s, a true believer, through no fault of his own, may have suffered confiscation of his goods or imprisonment. But today believers in Uganda have the opportunity for a normal, prosperous life. The President's wife was among those who attended Benny Hinn's Uganda Crusade this year.

Ask any believer in Uganda, "Has the Gospel improved Uganda's prosperity?" and hardly a person would deny it. It is the Gospel that improved Uganda's conditions, nothing else.

For a Christian in America or Australia who enjoys peace, to deny that prosperity has any place in the Gospel, is like a finger or an eye saying, "I don't believe the rest of the body exists" even though it's attached; or like the tip of an ice-berg saying, "I don't believe any other part of the ice-berg exists" even though the tip somehow sits suspended outside the water; or like the peak of Mt Everest saying, "I don't believe the Himalayan mountain system exists" although that very system of mountains is what is forcing the peak to rise so high; or like a sceptic looking for the Loch Ness monster saying, "I don't believe in it! Where is she?" while he and his boat are being lifted out of the water on top of the monster's head.

The best place to drive a car is on the road – not off in a drain to the left or right. Rather than holding an extreme view to the left or right, it's better to have a balanced view of prosperity's place in the Gospel.

The same could be said regarding any Christian doctrine: stay in the middle of our lane, not off in a drain on either side.

The Book of Enoch

2009-12-27T08:16:00.000+10:00

I love thinking about Enoch! The depth of wisdom that God gave him is fascinating. I suppose the depth of revelation in his subject matter should be no surprise to us – seeing he walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

And to think – that same level of intimacy with God is available to you and I – if we choose to walk with God, like Enoch did.

Enoch was a great prophet, yet Jesus said, “There has never been a greater prophet than John. Nevertheless, he who is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” That means you and I are greater than Enoch as well.

Greater in what sense? I suppose John was the greatest of the prophets at least in the sense that he had a greater, or more direct role, or a more closely-linked role, to the subject matter of prophesy than the other prophets, which was the Son Himself.

All the other prophets knew about the Son only in visions or by revelation. But John did more than know about Him or talk about Him – he actually physically introduced Him.

John was the friend of the bridegroom.

The other prophets talked about the Son. John said, "This is He".

Being Jesus' first cousin after the flesh, and because of his election, and due to the time in which he lived, John was privileged to go one step further than the preceding prophets by saying to Israel, "I've told you about Him, but now I will actually introduce Him to you - here He is. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I told you..."

Nevertheless he who is least in the Kingdom has even a greater role – even a more privileged relationship to the Son (the subject of all prophecy) than to have physically introduced Him to Israel.

We are every bit as privileged as John or Enoch – so far as wisdom, revelation, righteousness and redemption goes - because of Christ.

I love it that God likes to reveal Himself like that to anyone who chooses to draw close to Him.

Jeremiah said, “Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.”

Sometimes I’ve said to God, “Tell me something great and mighty – about anything – something which I don’t know”. It could be something about politics, or the future, or about nations, or something personal and intimate, or about some plan that God has, or about Christ, or it may be some spiritual truth. But I just like it that God likes to talk to us.

God said, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do, seeing he also shall become a great nation?”

In fact, in the prophets it says, “God does nothing unless He first reveals it to His servants the prophets”.

God referred to, "Abraham my friend”.

Jesus said, “From now on I don’t call you servants but friends – because I have told you everything.”

Perhaps a good definition of “friend” would be: someone to whom you tell things. To a servant, you only give commands. To a friend, you tell your plans – not just give orders.

Yet even the servants (the prophets) get told everything God is going to do – so how much more now that He calls us friends, more than servants!

He invited Jeremiah to ask Him concerning things.

With God’s most intimate friends, He talks about things beyond their own generation, because God dwells in eternity.

God names us not just according to our destiny in this life, but in accordance with the full extent of our fruitfulness in history and in eternity. For example, God named Abram “father of many nations” and until this day, many sons in every nation are still being born to Abraham in Christ Jesus – and the counting hasn’t finished yet - it's still going!

So the dream God gave you concerning your destiny was placed in your spirit by God, speaking from the viewpoint of future history and eternity. When He speaks of our destiny, He isn't merely speaking of what we will see with our eyes during our lifetime.

People say, “Don’t die with the music in you”. In other words, don’t die with unfulfilled dreams in your heart. But I say, “Don’t die without unfulfilled dreams”. How limited if we haven't dreamt beyond what we can accomplish only in our own lifetime!

When you think about Abraham’s accomplishments during the term of his natural life, it doesn’t seem very much in comparison with Moses, Joshua or David. All he did was roam around in tents and have one son of promise. When he fought the kings he wouldn't take any spoil. All Abraham really did was that he believed God. And yet because of that, God has given him a great name.

It's not about achieving. It's about believing.

Activity that hasn't come from faith isn't valuable. It is faith that counts for something.

All God is asking us to do is to believe Him – and to act on our faith.

Faith is an act. It expresses itself through love. Hallelujah!

I feel an anointing on some parts of the book of Enoch. I also feel a caution about some parts. Nevertheless I find the book of Enoch one of the most fascinating documents in the world.

Years ago I asked the Lord whether it should be included in our canon of Scripture. Immediately, I sensed that God had already seen to it to preserve in our bibles the portions of the book of Enoch that are valuable to us.

For example:

* The book of Genesis retells some of the same incidences as the book of Enoch, preserving all the details we need to know and leaving out the details we don’t need to know

* The Epistle of Jude quotes from it

* The Epistles of Peter use some of the same language and themes

Therefore we don’t miss out, even though it is not in our Bibles!

I like it that Enoch is referred to as a “scribe of righteousness”. I like it that “scribe” is seen as a calling. To write things down is an important role of many prophets, even for prophets today.

When I was a new Christian, before I learned about the book of Enoch, I used to wonder how Jude knew what Enoch prophesied about, since it isn't recorded in our Bible.

I also used to wonder where Moses got the information from in the book of Genesis – was it oral tradition, or by revelation? So I was fascinated when I realized that the book of Genesis is actually a compilation of several books, and that each of subsection has its own subtitle. For example, the book of Genesis mentions “the book of the generations of Adam” as one subheading. Then “The generations of the heavens and the earth” is mentioned. And another sections begins, “The book of the generations of Cain” etc. It seems genealogies were written down, along with salient commentary about individuals and events, and then handed down the family line.

So all Moses had to do was link these documents with a minimal amount of narrative.

But how accurate would the writings have been by the time Moses compiled the Pentateuch?

Well according to some quick calculations I did once (which could be wrong, because Maths wasn’t my best subject!) even though Jude says Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam, I think that Adam would still have been alive during the first 200 to 300 years of Enoch’s life. So they may have met personally.

Not only could Enoch have personally met Adam, but Enoch would have had the opportunity to meet all of his fathers – Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel and Jared – because it seems Enoch was the next to go after Adam – it seems he preceded all his fathers in returning to God besides Adam only. So Enoch could have known them all personally. And Enoch would have told his son Methuselah, who told Noah.

Noah was Enoch’s grandson. And I think Noah was still alive until Abraham was already about 60 years old. And Jacob, Abraham's grandson, would have been already about 15 years old before Abraham died. Jacob arrived to sojourn in Egypt, where Moses was later brought-up by Pharaoh.

So this means that by the time Israel came to sojourn in Egypt, they were still only about three or four personal links removed beyond the generation which could have personally known Adam!

That being the case, even a mere oral record would have been reliable enough! How much more the written record. Apparently, the patriarchs were scribes.

I don’t recall any Jewish Scriptures using the word “scribe” until the return from Captivity. So the use of the word “scribe” in the book of Enoch could be an indication of later manipulation of the text.

The book of Enoch mentions Noah by name. Years ago I wrote a note in the margin of my copy of the Book of Enoch next to where it mentions "Noah" that:

“Enoch was taken 69 years before Noah was born”.

If my calculation at the time was correct, this means either that Enoch received his future grandson’s name by revelation; or that his name was already decided before he was born; or that the text was manipulated in a later period after Noah.

Is the Book of Genesis Parable or Literal?

2009-12-27T07:55:00.000+10:00

My rule of literary interpretation is that in the context of prose, language of prose is to be taken as prose unless otherwise stated.

In poetic literature, poetry wouldn’t necessarily be suddenly taken as prose in the context of poetry.

Every parable that I can think of in the Bible, the context itself states that it is a parable or a song. But nothing in Genesis suggests that the creation story isn’t prose. None of the other Scriptures take the creation story as being parabolic either. In the absence of literary evidence, the onus of proof that the story is not to be taken literally is with those who claim so.

Genesis and Fables

Some have suggested that the book of Genesis was corrupted by being mingled with a collection of fables, during the Babylonian Captivity.

My initial thoughts on that hypothesis are that it is almost impossible that such a significant corruption of Scriptures could have occurred during the Babylonian captivity.

The Captivity lasted only 70 years. In fact, when the temple began to be rebuilt, some of the old men still remembered the old temple. The Law was read daily to the people who returned to Jerusalem in the first wave of returnees. Daniel also had access to the Scriptures in Babylon. So we know that multiple copies of the original Scriptures were available during that time period, both in Jerusalem and in Babylon.

The Scriptures were to the Jews the most valued national treasure. The sense of value that they placed upon their Jewish Scriptures and genealogies would have been heightened even more during their years in foreign captivity – especially since the temple was robbed of its material treasures.

So this doesn’t leave very much time or opportunity for the most sacred document of the nation to become corrupted beyond recognition and without dispute and without trace.

Even if some individual at the time wrote a corrupted version of the Scriptures in Babylon, he would not have been able to destroy all the copies of the true Scriptures in such a short time because multiple copies of the true Scriptures already existed both in Jerusalem and in Babylon at the time.

Jewish people didn’t stop reading the Scriptures during the Captivity. Daniel is an example of that.

When the first wave of Jews returned (under Cyrus’ orders) to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, the Law was read aloud to all the people daily.

Since many of the old men still remembered the original temple, these men would also have been on high alert if they noticed that the Scriptures being read to them had suddenly been changed from what they remembered. They wept when they saw that the new temple wasn’t as grand as the old one – they also would have surely reacted if they noticed that Babylonian fantasies were now intermingled with the pure story that was passed down to them by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

If such a major corruption occurred so quickly and so thoroughly, one would think there would be a historical record of conflict arising over which version ought to have been accepted as legitimate. But to my knowledge there is no historical record that any controversy existed at the time regarding the canonicity of the Scriptures.

If a new version suddenly appeared during the Captivity, how is it that the original version suddenly became lost, never to be discovered – and that the new version was never disputed by the Jews?

It might have been possible if the Captivity endured for a millennium - but it lasted only 70 years. It might have been possible if only one copy of the Scripture existed and if it was in the hands of the elite - but many copies existed and all the people were familiar with their content. It might have been possible if only few people remembered the days before the Captivity – but many still lived to remember.

Therefore it seems to me that the version of the Scriptures that survived the Captivity is more than likely the same version that existed in Israel before the Captivity.

So if the Captivity didn’t afford enough opportunity for the creation story to be turned into fable, when else could such a corruption have occurred?

Not before the Captivity either.

Not during the Patriarchal period. It can be derived by studying the genealogies, that there were as few as only three to four personal links from Adam all the way up to the time when Israel came to sojourn in Egypt. So the story would have been reliable even if it was only passed-on orally, let alone in writing.

Not during the sojourn in Egypt. During the 430 years in Egypt, it is clear that the Jews continued the patriarchal practice of recording genealogies. So they would have guarded the writings of their forbears too.

In fact, when I looked at the genealogies today, I was staggered to notice how few generations existed between the time when Israel came to sojourn in Egypt and the emergence of Moses. Hardly any!

Once again, the generations involved are so close that the record would have been reliable even if it was only transmitted orally, let alone in writing – especially considering how closely-knit the Israeli identity became during their years in virtual solitary confinement in an Egyptian suburb! All the sons of Jacob and their descendants lived together in such close proximity and their national identity and heritage was forged.

The opportunity for some individual Jewish person to add Egyptian folklore into their treasured genealogical records hardly existed. The surge of family ancestral knowledge and heritage would have snuffed out his weak ideas real quick!

And then came the mighty signs and wonders against Egypt; the Red Sea parted; the mighty Egyptian army was destroyed; Israel was delivered; all the surrounding nations feared the God of Israel; Mount Horeb smoked and shook and the Pentateuch was written.

Not during the period of the Judges. A very short time afterwards came Samuel and all the prophets, who also wrote. Scriptures were preserved by prophets, priests, kings and by the hearts of the people.

This leaves the 400-year inter-testament period as the only other time period in which the creation story may have been turned into fable. But once again, as I will show, I can’t see how it was reasonably possible then either.

After the return from Captivity when Ezra taught the people the Law, we saw the emergence of the synagogue in which teaching priests read the Law every Sabbath all across the land.

Anna the prophetess was already “of great age” when Christ was born. She would have learned to read many years before this, let’s say 60BC. By the time she was reading, the alleged changes must have already been made and accepted beyond controversy and all original manuscripts lost. That’s a small window of opportunity for such a sweeping change to have already been accepted and become entrenched in Jewish thought and literature. Even if the Dead Sea scrolls hadn’t been discovered, that would still be unlikely.

The book of Genesis was found 24 times amongst the Dead Sea scrolls. No major changes there. Written about 150BC (if you accept current dating methods), that narrows down the window of opportunity even less for a corruption to have occurred after Ezra.

It narrows it down to – what, about 250 years? This means that at the time when the oldest Dead Sea scrolls were written, there would still have been people alive all over Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, who still personally knew people who personally had met priests who had been taught by Ezra’s disciples. And yet we would be saying that the corrupted version had already become canon in that short period. Not only is it unlikely – it’s impossible.

Even if all the original Scriptures were destroyed, the oral and family traditions would have been so strong that a new version of the Scriptures could not have been accepted so quickly, so thoroughly, without controversy, without trace.

By this time synagogues were everywhere. Copies of the Scriptures were everywhere, even in Greek. Jewish patriotism was at a peak. Everyone was looking for the Kingdom of God to come. Never were the Scriptures so prolific.

In the absence of literary, archaeological and historical evidence; in the absence of likelihood; in the absence of motive, weapon or opportunity – the onus of proof that the creation story was corrupted and mingled with fable sometime during any of these periods is with those who claim that it was.

As for me, with my current (limited) knowledge, I don’t see a better-informed option than to take the creation story literally.

I believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures in their original language.

My faith is based not on my intellectual ability to explain the Scripture, but on the power of God.

If there is some rule of common sense by which the creation story can’t be taken literally, or by which it can be proved that the story has been corrupted at some later stage, then the integrity of the patriarchs and the whole of Scripture would, by the same rule, also be suspect.

Our faith would be in vain. And we would yet be in our sins – without hope and without God in the world. We would be suffering needlessly. We Christians would be the most unfortunate people in the world.

But even so, my faith is not based on any of the above logic alone – but on the power of God.

More on Noah's Flood

2009-12-27T07:52:00.000+10:00

Noah's flood must have been BIG - no matter whether it was regional or global.

Some argue that there isn't enough water on earth for it to be possible.

However, 70% of the earth's surface is already covered by ocean, to an average depth of nearly 4km.

And who knows how much water exists beneath the earth's crust. There could be a lot of water down there. 80% of what comes out of volcanos is water vapor. Scientists also have reason to believe that earth's outer core is liquid.

But could there be enough subterranean water to submerge Mt Everest by 15 cubits? Well keep in mind that if this amount of subterranean water exists, it would occupy a mere 0.0029044% of the earth's volume. So, relatively speaking, we are still not talking about an impossible volume of water. And since the deepest that mankind has drilled beneath the sea-bed so far is only 2,111m, I guess it can't be ruled-out.

But in all likelihood, the earth's mountains were not as high before the flood. Instead, we could say that the aftermath of the flood may have caused mountains such as Mt Ararat and the Himalayas to become as high as they are today.

According to a NASA website (NB:- this was a NASA website, not a Creation-Science website!) there are lots of marine fossils on top of Mt Everest and the terrain was once a seabed. And the Rocky's is the world's largest site for fossils. Apparently these marine animals were covered in sediment and then the seabed was forced upwards to form the Himalayas and the Rockys. What better explanation for this than the flood and its tectonic aftermath?

Notice the Bible says that the earth was divided in the fifth generation after Noah - possibly as a result of continental drift or rising sea levels. Apparently there were a lot of major changes that occurred on earth's surface for quite some time after the flood! These changes could have included shifting tectonic plates, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanos, rising mountain peaks and rising sea levels, and the cutting-off of land masses that were once connected.

So it's quite possible that before the flood, the mountains may have been much lower (Mt Everest and the Rocky's may not have even existed before the flood - they may have been seabeds!). And it's also possible that the world had only one large, connected land mass, one connected continent, before the earth was divided after the flood. The world's oceans contain enough water to completely submerge the earth to a depth of 2.7km if all the land was flat. If we allow for lower mountains and shallower oceans before the flood, we wouldn't have to find too much subterranean water at all, and all the world including all its mountains could have easily been submerged to a depth of 15 cubits.